Is Security Utilitarian?

Abstract

This paper questions the utilitarian hypothesis that, if everybody ensured her/his own security, then the whole community would become ipso facto more secure. This hypothesis, which is mainly derived from a number of crime prevention theories, seems based upon two main assumptions: a) that security is a bona fide activity; and b) that the sum of individual security activities makes sense. This paper tests these assumptions and demonstrates that they are not generally valid, thus challenging the robustness of the hypothesis. It argues that, whilst security activities are plausibly driven by considerations of self-interest and utility, their purpose is not necessarily for the good. One's own security does not necessarily accord, and frequently conflicts, with others' (private and public) security. The need for negotiating amongst different interests calls for the limitation of private freedoms and public powers, and for better understanding of how the concept and features of security are interrelated with current crime prevention theories.