Quiz Entry - updated: 2026.11.05
How are police actions that use force or restrict freedom justified in utilitarian terms?
Targeted, individual harm prevents greater general harm: limited force prevents general violence, limited loss of freedom protects general freedom, limited restriction of rights protects everyone's rights.
Utilitarianism judges an action by its consequences for the total good. The police may do something harmful to one person if it prevents greater harm to many:
| Targeted intervention | protects | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Individual use of force | general freedom from violence (the state's monopoly on force, Gewaltmonopol) | use of firearms |
| Individual deprivation of liberty | general freedoms | bans from places, exclusions, arrests |
| Individual restriction of rights | everyone's rights | undercover investigation, surveillance (observation, wiretapping) |
The monopoly on force means that only the state may legitimately use physical force. Citizens give up self-help, and the state in return uses force on their behalf, but only under the law.
Go deeper:
Wikipedia: Monopoly on violence — the state as the only legitimate user of force (Weber, Hobbes).- Wikipedia (DE): Gewaltmonopol des Staates — the same concept, with its exceptions such as self-defence (German).