A Critical Analysis of Js Mills Attempt to Ground Justice in Utility

- Pages: 6
- Word count: 1356
- Category: Criminal Justice System Justice
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteed
Order NowMill sets out to explain the concept of justice in terms of Utility. Utility is a measure of the rightness of a particular action in terms of its tendency to produce happiness. Utilitarianism is, thus, a moral theory which rates the happiness of each individual as equally important and the aggregate happiness of all individuals involved as the basis of morality.
Outline of Millâs Argument
Initially, Mill establishes that it is often argued what is useful and leads to the greatest happiness may also lead to injustice. In this way it is often thought that the idea of utility can conflict with ideas of justice. Justice is taken as a more powerful binding force than usefulness because, as Mill concludes, it carries with it the feeling that punishment should occur if an injustice is done. Expediency, on the other hand, carries no such sanction.
The feeling that injustice warrants punishment is common to all forms of morality. Therefore, Mill distinguishes these other forms of morality from justice through the idea of perfect duty. Justice involves peopleâs rights, whereas the rest of morality involves no rights. Therefore, if someone does not have a right to something then violation cannot be unjust, though it can be immoral.
Individuals hold rights as very important and something society should defend, because they tie in with our need for security. It is the strength of this need for security that makes us rate justice above utility. As noted by Mill, âthe feelings concerned are so powerfulĂââŠthat right and should grow into mustâ . Justice is itself ultimately grounded in utility. Happiness and utility rely on the rights of each individual being protected, thus, justice protects each individualâs happiness.
Justice and the ĂâAmbiguous Internal Oracleâ
In endeavouring to ground justice in utility Mill puts forward two essential arguments. Firstly, he sets out that all moral components to the idea of justice depend upon utility. Secondly, Mill sets out that if justice were indeed independent of utility and able to be ascertained âby simple introspection of itselfâ then this âinternal oracleâ would not be âso ambiguousâ . Essentially, Mill contends that if the âdictates of justiceâ are so âimmutable, ineffaceable and unmistakableâ then âon questions of justice there could be no controversyâ . Mill then goes on to exemplify the extreme âdifference of opinionâ on what is just in relation to theories of punishment, taxation methods and distribution of income.
Given that justice is so âambiguousâ when left to âsimple introspectionâ and all opinions, from each individuals âinternal oracleâ , are âextremely plausibleĂââŠso long as the question is argued as on of justice simplyâ even when opinions oppose each other, Mill concludes that âfrom these confessions there is no other mode of extrication than the utilitarianâ . Mill contends that utility offers the best resolution for these conflicts in rights claims.
Here Mill establishes justice as an alternative âindependent standardâ to utility to show that utility is not opposed to justice and conflicting moral reasoning but, in fact, utility provides a means of procedure for resolving such conflicts. In fact, Mill sets out that Utilitarianism is the only rational procedure where such moral conflicts arise.
Through example Mill sets out varying situations in which justice is at pains to give accurate guidance and is capable of supporting all sides, where each side âbuilds upon rules of justice confessedly trueâ . However, there may be situations where justice, as an âinternal oracleâ , is unambiguous or the utilitarian approach will lead to a wholly unjust and unpalatable resolution for all âreasonersâ involved.
It is noted that âmany devices have been invented to turn rather than to overcomeâ these conflicts, such as âthe freedom of willâ and âthe fiction of a contractâ . Here Mill is completely discounting such methods for decision making where rules conflict, even though they provide perfectly rational alternative bases for decision making procedure.
Justice and Security
Millâs argument centres on the important question of why justice is of more importance than other moral obligations. What is it that distinguishes justice âfrom moral obligations in generalâ ? The fact that we are obligated to do what justice requires is important, but fails to separate it from other forms of morality.
It is concluded that what is special about justice, distinguishing it from other forms of morality, is the existence of an assignable âdefinitive individual or individuals to who harm has been doneâ . Justice is, therefore, contingent upon âsome individual personâ who can âclaim from usĂââŠhis moral rightâ .
Mill comes to this conclusion, distinguishing justice from other morality, by first exemplifying what can be classified as unjust behaviour, such as âdepriving a person of a possession, or in breaking faith with himâ . Then, he draws the conclusion that the distinguishing feature is an assignable individual.
Mill follows on from explaining the special nature of justice through an assignable individual to explain âthe extraordinarily importantĂââŠkind of utility which is concernedâ in terms of security. For Mill, security is the âmost vital of all interestsâ and the âmost indispensable of all necessariesâ , for if utility cannot âconvey a sufficient feeling of the strength of the obligationâ , then this is because of security, which lies at the heart of the special kind of utility concerned.
Here Mill takes âthe route from assignable individuals and their interests to the explanation of justice in terms of securityâ . Such a path is tenuous. This is because the idea of justice involves âcomparative issuesâ that security does not. Individual security, for example, is important, but violation of such security does not necessarily equate to injustice, although certain moral rights will be violated. The security of a single individual cannot necessarily be âwholly squaredâ with maximising aggregate utility.
Equality and Impartiality
Mill sets out that the âhighest abstract standardĂââŠof justiceâ requires âreturning good for goodâ and treating âequally wellĂâ⊠(All) who have deserved equally wellâ. Each individualâs interest must be given equal weighting in the determinations of society. Mill then goes on to state that this is âa direct emanation from the first principle of moralsâ. However, utilitarianism requires equal consideration but âdoes not imply equality in any other senseâ . Maximising aggregate utility may require extreme inequality in societal policy. Such inequality is by no means against the first principle of morals, as the utility principle âdoes not itself directly require equalityâ . However, the âsecondary principles of moralityĂââŠmayĂââŠrequire equal sharesâ .
Impartiality is an important element of Millâs attempt to ground justice in utility. It is set out that impartiality is an âobligation of justiceâ involving being âexclusively influencedâ by relevant considerations, in a given case, and resisting other motives. For Mill, impartiality is âallied to the ideaâ of equality, and involves treating like cases equally except where there is a conflict with some higher moral duty.
In order to be maximised, utility relies upon individual impartiality to be maintained. Millâs utility functions best when objectivity is maintained and people avoid showing âfavour or preference to one person over anotherâ in their efforts to maximise aggregate utility. Given the importance of impartiality and equality to Millâs argument, he must establish an adequate basis for individuals acting in such a manner.
Mill contends, and his theory of utilitarianism is contingent upon, each individual is good natured and steadfastly ethical in their behaviour. Such good nature is motivated by a fear of other peoples judgements, inner conscience and the dissatisfaction said conscience feels when one fails to commit to utility. In arriving at such a point, Mill makes assumptions about individualâs morality, inner conscience and instincts that are not necessarily true and difficult to verify.
The utilitarian theory Mill is seeking to ground justice in does not rate any one individualâs happiness over any other. The distribution of utility is, therefore, most efficient if done evenly. If one was to go about distributing utility, or happiness, unevenly to certain groups of individuals then this would go against the basis of utility, which rates all happiness equally. The laws of utility, therefore, make it intrinsically impartial.
Conclusion
Mill sets out that utilitarianism and justice have long been thought incompatible. Mill sets about grounding justice in utility through the advancement of overall wellbeing and happiness.