Does John Stuart Mill succeed in reconciling the concept of justice with utilitarianism - Essay Example

?John Stuart Mill’s Concept of Justice with Utilitarianism Introduction: According to John Rawls justice “is the first virtue of social s,as truth is of systems of thought” (Rawls, 1999, p.3) The theory of justice refutes to the fact that the loss of liberty for some is adjusted by superior good happening to others. It does not accept that the “sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many” (Rawls, 1999, p.3). Thus a society that supports justice claims for equal liberty for all its citizens. As the concept of utilitarianism explains, the “Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle” believes that actions should be considered as correct when they result in happiness, while they are stated as wrong when “reverse” of happiness occurs (Mill, 1863, p.9). However the view of Mill has not been supported by many others like Rawls who calls his “formulation of justice” as a significant counteractive to the concept of utilitarianism. According to Rawls it is not possible to justify societal activities on the basis that “hardship of some are offset by a greater good” of others (Okereke, 2008, pp.39-40). The theory of justice and utilitarianism has been studied by many authors and has different views and opinions that would be reflected in this essay with special emphasis on John Stuart Miller’s views. Modern Theories of Justice: Justice that is balanced essentially relies on the properties and forms of freedom. Such properties are the associated “natures” of the theory of liberty, the driving forces, the spheres of influence, the limitations and the causes that make one either to give value to freedom or to find it objectionable. Dependence and independence reflect two different acts of any human being (Chardin, 2003, p.29). However protective measures are required for existence of too much of independence such that a solution to “a condition for justice” may be obtained. The provision for human resources reflects two different principles; one that is “process-freedom” and explains the freedom of benefiting from one’s activities requiring “self ownership”, while the other principle presents the case of “shared equally” the benefits obtained. According to the modern theories of justice, utilitarianism as well as some other solutions, provided by Gauthier and Nash, necessitates the perception of a “cardinal utility” such that differences in the levels of utilities may be explained or compared (Kolm, 2002, pp.10-13). Justice has been known to be a virtue that assists the feeble against attacks from the stronger society of people (Aristotle, 2007, p.75). Initiation of states, laws and religions were particularly for the purpose of establishing justice in a society. Justice intends to aid the weaker section of people by protecting them and helps to strengthen those who are strong. Justice can be described as an accomplishment that is “in accordance with the laws”. It aims to benefit both the weaker and the stronger sections of people in a society by means of “just laws” with which the strong may rule (Barr & Club, 1932, pp.19-20). Justice is considered as reverential when “it values a justiciable’s situation because the justiciable values it” (Kolm, 2002, p.31). The ethical evaluation of justice and its judgment depends on a set of variables that include social and ethical values for justice (Kolm, 2002, pp.31-32). Study on Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism has been conventionally understood as “most good should be done”. Although this view is in support of few philosophers like John Stuart Mill, there are several other opinions that charges to state that this principle is not attuned with what justice or fairness demands in distributing benefits to all sections of people in a society. Laws that necessitate impartiality in profits distribution “are best in the long run” and thus should be thought of without initiating maximization of benefits in certain circumstances for particular sections of people at the cost of others (Hearn, 1971, pp.10-12). According to the principle of Greatest Happiness, the eventual ending for all that is expected and desired is an excuse to avoid all kinds of pains both qualitatively and quantitatively. The utilitarian theory thus clearly believes that morality standards are reflected by human actions that may define a human being’s rules of conduct, his perceptions and observations and the way he accepts and values his receiving from life (Mill, 1863, p.17). However, there are other objectionable views against this utilitarianism theory (Pyle, 1998, p.162). According to some professors, happiness “cannot be the rational purpose of human life and action.” (Mill, 1863, p.17) They believe that ultimate happiness cannot be attained and thus people do not have the rights to ask for happiness. According to the other schools of thoughts, men can “do without happiness” and that renunciation is the way out for men not to depend on attaining happiness for them. Thus these theories would represent that if happiness is not desirable then it “cannot be the end of morality”. However in this respect the utilitarian theory may not prove to be wrong as the theory does not believe in attaining happiness; rather it focuses on lessening the influences of unhappiness (Mill, 1863, pp.17-18). Thus views on utilitarianism are found to vary to great extents (Kuper, 2005, p.537). John Stuart Mill on his Concept of Justice and Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill was a moral philosopher and was leading in his philosophy of utilitarianism (Magee, 2001, p.126). A close relationship existed between his utilitarianism and his liberalism. As was viewed by Bentham, utilitarianism promised to remove anything that concerned “muddle and mystification”. However Mill realized that thoughts similar to that of Bentham’s were too simple to make any kind of justice. Mill continued to build up “version of utilitarianism” that could be harmonized with complexities prevailing in the real lives. The utilitarian description of inspiration tends to take people “as they are and not as they could (or should) be”. This is particularly because the utility theory tends to reconcile the miscellaneous inconsistent and differing desires of individuals. Having a look at both the liberalism and utilitarianism beliefs of John, confusion could be found to arise. The liberalism view of Mill positions people as “they could be rather than taking them as they are”; on the other hand, the utilitarianism view would take people as they are and not as they could be (Haworth, 2004, p.182). These different positions are required to be reconciled as the world is a place where people are forced to do many things that they might not wish to, but at the same time the principle of utility could be expected to reconcile the “conflicting wants” and generate the greatest happiness (Haworth, 2004, pp.182-190). According to Mill, justice apprehends certain laws and authorities that are considered crucially important for the welfare of human being. Mill’s view of justice may be summed up as: “Justice is a name for certain classes of moral rules which concern the essentials of human well-being more nearly, and are therefore of more absolute obligation, than any other rules for the guidance of life; and the notion which we have found to be of the essence of the idea of justice- that of a right of residing in an individual- implies and testifies to this more binding obligations”. According to his opinions, the moral values that are capable of preventing hurting of people are more important to human welfare than any other factor. For utilitarians, the “just and unjust” issues are determined by the attainment of happiness. The utilitarian theory also binds the factor of economic distribution to effective welfare of human beings looking for a system that would provide with greater excellence for the society (Shaw, 2010, pp.98-100). Mill believed that a utilitarian have to assert that happiness is “the one and only thing desirable in itself”. His claims represent that desire can be the only evidence of desirability and that happiness can be the only object that may be desired. According to him the desire that arises within a human being is specifically for his own individual sake. However questions have also been arisen on the comprehensive nature of the utilitarian “conception of impartiality”. Benefits and harms are mentioned to be balanced in utilitarianism both internal and external to one’s life to gain the best results. Harmonization of “goods and harms” seemed to ignore the fact that individuals are separate and different from one another. Rawls and Nozick believed that individual rights are obtained through the “separateness of persons” that are expected to be capable of overcoming the considerations of communal good. They had both claimed that rights cannot be considered as ordinary goods to be “factored into routine cost benefit analysis” (Brink, 2005, pp.4-6). Other Theories on Humanitarian Law and Justice: Mill in his study on utilitarianism had reflected a “search for the supreme good”. Aristotle through his views had shown parallel views in this respect yet the two philosophers presented great differences. Aristotle was not a utilitarian (Groarke, 2009, p.152). According to Aristotle’s views, two different persons may act similarly and yet have two different “states of character”. He believed that the individual who presented a “virtuous” state of character expressed through his actions should be harmonized with the greatest acclamation. Mill on the other hand did not find the “state of character” relevant in determination of a person’s value of any activity. “Aristotle thinks that the value of actions depends on the value of the states of character from which they flow; Mill thinks the value of dispositions of character depends on the value of the actions they tend to produce”. Although Mill’s studies created distinctions between higher and lower happiness, yet Aristotle would not accept the overall view presented by Mill. According to Aristotle, happiness cannot be considered as “valuable” by its own; the value of an action determines the value of happiness (Warne, 2006, pp.141-142). Studies conducted by John Rawls also reflect disagreements with Mill’s opinions. Rawls presented opposing views in regard to the utilitarians on the manner in which the “happiness of mankind” had been expressed. According to Rawls, one cannot avoid the fact that the evaluation of the effect that can be reflected on the happiness factor cannot be done without considering the “bad effects” on a certain section of people. “Rawls’ objection to Utilitarianism is that it puts no restrictions upon the subordination of some people’s interests to those of others, except that the net outcome should be good”. Rawls did not believe that equality is necessary for justice. According to him, inequalities could be justified as “incentives”. His beliefs also revealed that even if an inequality did not create a worse situation for the weaker section of people, it would also not be justified if it did not make anything better of the circumstances (Kilcullen, 1996). One of the criticisms against Mill’s views on utilitarianism presented that utilitarianism clashed with one of the beliefs stated by Mill himself. Mill always opposed “theological voluntarism” and asserted on “naturalism”. At the same time he discarded the fact that certain ethical principles needed to be preserved keeping in view the implications that they may have on utility. Ward had argued against Mill’s opinions by explaining that “Mill’s rejection of the intuitive outlook conflicts with his opposition to voluntarism” (Irwin, 2009, p.422). He had put across certain doubts in relation to Mill’s presenting a “utilitarian account” of justice and appropriateness. He had also criticized Mill for having similar opinions with Bentham on utilitarianism’s providing a description of the significance of ethical issues. According to Ward, there was uncertainty on whether Mill could reliably sustain a utilitarian version of moral principles (Irwin, 2009, pp.422-423). As per some other studies made on the topic of concern, Mill’s observations on the principles of common sense have not been found to be clearly explained in his conception of Utilitarianism. His comments on the subject were also not found to be steady with his opinions. Major sections of the theories of utilitarianism have been obtained to defend the thoughts “against misguided accusations” that have been generated amongst the general masses of people. However it seemed to be crucial for the opinions and arguments provided by Mills to step forward further than the limitations of his claims (Miller & Williams, 1982, p.87). Utilitarianism has always been found to attract criticisms from several critics like Bradley, Green, Moore, Rawls, Hobbes, and many others. Philosophers have been involved to return to the opinions provided by Mill and criticize them by exposing the “feebleness of Mill’s arguments” and to clear all misunderstandings that other philosophers might have on the arguments presented by Mill. Accepted thinking about utilitarianism mainly was concerned with three major problems that were focused on by the “opposition of a secular utilitarianism to the traditional Christian creed”( Ryan, 1974, p.96). According to utilitarian theorists human beings are motivated by the quest of happiness and evasion of pain. However doubts to this view arose since such a view would mean that people would not have means and reasons to do their duty if they found pleasure available everywhere. Utilitarianism had been found to be attacked by several Christian as well as non Christian philosophers. Although Mill’s oppositions in with respect to “theological and intuitive accounts of ethics” remained uncomplicated all through his life of philosophy, yet the philosopher had to face a lot of criticisms for his views and opinions on his theory of justice reflecting utilitarianism (Ryan, 1974, pp.95-97). Conclusion: As the research study reveals, a lot of studies and researches have been conducted on the topic of justice and the theories relating to utilitarianism. Several theorists had and presented different opinions. The main concern of this study has been to study the theories and views of John Stuart Mill on Utilitarianism and find whether he had been able to reconcile his thoughts on theory of justice with utilitarianism. Mill gave opinions on the justice that reflected his belief in happiness being the ultimate end that any human being could desire and focus on. Accordingly he believed that the actions of people should be considered with respect to obtaining the positive results or pleasures. However, the views of Mill had to face several criticisms from different philosophers that included Rawls, Ward and others who could not accept the fact that happiness could be the only thing human beings could desire for. Rawls and others represented justice as virtue and that actions of humans towards attaining happiness could mean a section of people suffering as the happiness might come at their expenses. These philosophers believed that ultimate happiness cannot be attained. Not only were there contradictions of these philosophers’ opinions with that of Mill’s, some philosophers like Ward had also expressed doubts on the principles being supportively reliable by Mill. In some points of view, Mill is found to be contradictory in his own views, particularly with respect to his views on utilitarianism and liberalism. Thus the utilitarian study conducted by John Stuart Mill encountered a quite a large number of criticisms and such critics had been desperate in exposing the misleading and doubtful arguments presented by Mill. Although Mill had made some revealing points relating to the theory of justice, yet his theory of utilitarianism is yet to be reconciled with the theories of justice. References 1) Aristotle (2007), Nicomachean Ethics, South Dakota: NuVision Publications, LLC 2) Barr, M.B. & Q. Club (1932), Studies in social and legal theories: an historical account of the social, ethical, political, and legal doctrines of the foremost ancient and medieval philosophers, New York: Wm. S. Hein Publishing 3) Brink, D.O. (2005). Contemporary Political Philosophy, Philosophyfaculty, available at: http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/dbrink/courses/167-05/Handout-3%20Mill%20on%20Utility,%20Liberty,%20and%20Rights.pdf (accessed on August 11, 2011) 4) Chardin, P.T. (2003), The Human Phenomenon, Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press 5) Groake, L. (2009), An Aristotelian account of induction: creating something from nothing, Canada: McGill-Queen's Press 6) Hearn, T.K. (1971), Studies in Utilitarianism, New York: Ardent Media 7) Haworth, A. (2004), Understanding the political philosophers: from ancient to modern times, London: Routledge 8) Irwin, T. (2009), The Development of Ethics: From Kant to Rawls, Oxford: Oxford University Press 9) Kilcullen, J. (1996). Rawls: The Original Position, Humanities, available at: http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l13.html (accessed on August 11, 2011) 10) Kolm, S.C. (2002), Modern Theories of Justice, MIT Press 11) Kuper, A. (2005), The Social Science Encyclopedia, New York: Taylor & Francis 12) Magee, B. (2001), Talking philosophy: dialogues with fifteen leading philosophers, Oxford: Oxford University Press 13) Mill, J.S. (1863), Utilitarianism, London: Parker, Son and Bourn 14) Miller, H.B. & W.H. Williams (1982), The Limits of utilitarianism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press 15) Okereke, C. (2008), Global justice and neoliberal environmental governance: ethics, sustainable development and international co-operation, London: Routledge 16) Pyle, A. (1998), Utilitarianism, London: Routledge 17) Rawls, J. (1999), A theory of justice, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 18) Ryan, A. (1974), J.S. Mill, New York: Taylor & Francis 19) Shaw, W.H. (2010), Business Ethics: A Textbook with Cases, Starnford: Cengage Learning 20) Warne, C. (2006), Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics: reader's guide, London: Continuum International Publishing Group Read More