The Contrast of Accounts of Justice in Relation to John Rawls And John Mill - Essay Example

Mill and Rawls When John Rawls published A Theory of Justice in 1971, not only did he help in reviving normative political theory but also rekindled discussions on matters relating to liberalism. According to Reynolds (1), Rawls’ book targeted the present moral and political doctrines, which is utilitarianism. Before Rawls published his theory, John Mill’s On Liberty stood out as the cornerstone on matters related to liberalism. Ever since Rawls book came to the scene, Mill’s theories have greatly been set aside and its place filled by Kantianism upon which liberalism discussions take place. The essay will compare and contrast accounts of justice in relation to John Rawls and John Mill. Rawls’s book attracted much attention than any other book published in the 20th century. Although the basic model used in constructing the theory seems simple, limitations associated with its scope in addition to the supporting arguments are complex. For instance, Rawls talks about an ideal theory for an orderly society though it has strict compliance. According to Rawls, this is of great help to the society since it helps criticize injustice in the society (Rawls 8). Due to this, Rawls goes ahead to provide principles that help criticize societal injustices. Rawls states that his main objective is coming up with a theory of justice, which will act as an alternative of utilitarian thoughts (Rawls 22). Due to this, not only does he present an alternative theory but also but also criticism that come along with utilitarianism. The utilitarian theory presented by Rawls comprises of two principles; each person ought to have equal rights irrespective of their gender or race when it comes to matters of liberty. Second, both economic and social inequalities ought to be arranged in a manner that they are of benefit to everyone in addition to them being accessible to all (Rawls 60). Later on Rawls further restates the second principle by claiming that inequalities ought to be the greatest benefits especially to least advantaged persons. The basic liberties Rawls addresses in this theory are that citizens should not only have equal liberties but also political in addition to freedom of speech and owning property. Conversely, Mill believed in these liberties, this is because he also argued about them in his book, On Liberty. In my opinion, Mill’s account of justice is better than Rawls’. This is because although there are varying differences in social conditions, Mill discusses theories of justice while Rawls only compares his theories with utilitarianism. Although Rawls is aware of the existing societies, he presents a rather ideal case compared to Mill. This is because he gives an ideal system of justice that is both measurable and critic to a society. In his analysis, Mill talks of a theory that would apply not only for penal but also distributive justice, neither does he limit his analysis to a society well ordered (Mill 160). In his book, Mill portrays differing conceptions on the matter of justice by arguing that through utility comes a way of adjudicating differences (Mill 142). The other difference that emanates from Mill and Rawls theories is their scope. That is, whereas Rawls only considers the society’s basic structure in addition to rights and duties of citizens, Mill’s theory tends to be more general since he generally analyses concepts of justice in addition to arguing the essential elements and duties in relation to the principle of utility. Unlike Mill, Rawls’s way of arguing on matters related to principles of justice is unique. According to Kahn (123), choosing the principles of justice normally depends on hypothetical social contract that occurs between persons that are not only rational but also equal in terms of fairness such that the conditions do not give any advantage to individuals having underserved superiority. For these conditions to be achievable, Rawls states that selecting principles of justice normally occurs behind veils of ignorance (Rawls 118). Utilitarianism is another contrast between the two philosophers; this is because they have different ways in which the matter of utilitarianism has been addressed. For instance, Rawls claims that there is a limit on the principles of right and justice since interests that require violation of justice lack values. He further states that since they lack merit,”…they cannot override its claims…(Rawls 31)” According to Rawls (32), utilitarianism relies on not only the natural facts but also contingencies of human life when it comes to determination of moral character. He further states that his theory takes in to consideration the society by treating it as a scheme of cooperation. Rawls characterization of utilitarianism tends to be different compared to Mill’s. This is because unlike Rawls whose conception is on satisfaction of certain desires, Mill’s conception on the matter of utility relies more on both happiness and unhappiness (Mill 155). According to Mill, satisfaction of desires does not guarantee one’s happiness. The main objective for education and legislation is to ensure modification of desires in a move to ensure that people obtain pleasure that emanates from activities socially beneficial. According to Mill, pleasures can be high or low depending on their quality; whereby, the greatest happiness is attainable only for individuals that are intellects in addition to “…the moral sentiments they profess… (Mill 51).” He further states that higher pleasure is achievable only by individuals that have developed interest in each other that result in benevolent social feelings. Unlike Rawls, Mill tend to concentrate more on the type of person that one ought to become since it is conflicting for persons to become not only selfish but also insensitive to other needs. Similarly, Mill does not rely on contingencies and natural facts of human life when it comes to determining moral characters worth encouraging in the society. On the matter of utilitarianism, whereas Rawls attempted to ignore envy through ruling it outside court during principles of justice determination, Mill recognized it as a philosophic phenomenon to the extent that he attempted to abolish it through realistic social policies. Therefore, unlike Rawls, Mill promoted cooperative economic structure thus helping workers feel more associated rather than competing with each other. According to Kahn (128), whenever two principles become satisfied, everyone benefits since their liberties are secure. The case tends to be different in the matter of utility principles, this is because unlike the former, there tends to be no assurance of anyone benefiting from it since the social system may demand that some forgo advantages in a move to achieve the greater good (Rawls 155). Rawls’ principles require much greater sacrifice since according to his theories, although everyone benefits from social cooperation, this is not the case when compared to alternative cooperation forms. Conversely, Mill claims that penal sanctions generate notions of justice but do not distinguish moral obligation from justice. He further states that this is a correspondence in relation to the difference between perfect and imperfect roles whereby whereas perfect roles are easy to fulfill while imperfect duties tend to be complex. Although John Rawls and John Mill are prominent philosophers, they have a number of differences in relation to their theories that are On Liberty and A Theory of Justice respectively. Although Mill had his book published first, Rawls’s book attracted more attention since its publication during the 20th century. Apart from varying social conditions, other differences between the two philosophers are on matters regarding utilitarianism and justice. For instance, on the matter of utilitarianism, whereas Rawls ignores envy by ruling it out of court during determination of principles of justice, Mill recognizes it as a philosophic phenomenon in which he attempts to abolish through realistic social policies. In my opinion, Mill’s account of justice is better than Rawls’. This is because whereas Mill discusses theories of justice, Rawls only compares his theories with utilitarianism. Work Cited Kahn, Leonard. Mill on Justice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print. Mill, John, S. On Liberty. Cambridge: University Press. 1863. Print. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard Cambridge: University Press. 1971. Print. Reynolds, Alan. Reconsidering the Connection between John Stuart Mill and John Rawls. 2013. Web. 19 May 2014. < http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact =8&ved=0CD0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minerva.mic.ul.ie%2FVol17%2FMi llRawls.pdf&ei=XK15U-roKojD7Abc3YC4DQ&usg=AFQjCNF- fSO8pKn3jtvlQOnKwiEpWBBoMg&sig2=dDaq1AXMJIaafY7Wsr7N9Q&bvm=bv.669 17471,d.ZGU > Read More