<![CDATA[Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory, has been influential in shaping legal policies by emphasizing the maximization of overall happiness. However, its compatibility with individual rights, which are often considered fundamental and inviolable, remains a contentious issue. This paper delves into the complex relationship between individual rights and utilitarian ethics in legal policy making, exploring the potential for conflict and reconciliation. The study employs a qualitative research methodology, combining conceptual analysis and case studies. It analyzes key philosophical texts on utilitarianism and individual rights, examining the arguments for and against their compatibility. Additionally, it investigates real-world legal policies, such as those related to public health, national security, and criminal justice, to assess the practical implications of integrating utilitarian and rights-based approaches. The analysis reveals that while utilitarianism and individual rights can sometimes clash, there are also avenues for harmonizing them. The 'Greatest Happiness Principle,' which underpins utilitarianism, can be interpreted in ways that accommodate and even support individual rights. For instance, the recognition of certain basic rights can be seen as essential for maximizing long-term societal well-being. In conclusion, the compatibility of individual rights and utilitarian ethics in legal policy making is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It requires careful consideration of the specific context, balancing the potential benefits of maximizing overall happiness with the imperative of protecting fundamental rights. By acknowledging the complexities and nuances of this relationship, legal policymakers can strive for a more just and equitable society.]]>
