The Role of Political Philosophy by Rawls and Mill - Research Paper Example

Mill and Rawls’s principles on justice have a lot to compare and contrast where the ideological differences are expressed outwardly. Mill saw an idea of justice as an obstacle to the simple test of utility in assessing right and wrong and the notion of justice had to be either irrational or reflection of the operation of a perhaps concealed principle of utility (Reynolds 1-5). On the other hand, Rawls assert that justice is the overriding, preeminent part of the morality of institutions and it is apparent that Rawls proposes a conception of justice as fairness, a premise that cannot be accepted lightly. Rawls is engaged in dispute over the definitions provided by other scholars and he does not directly prefer liberty, and generally, Mill does not seem to agree because Rawls argue that alternative solutions to conflicts of principles are incorrect. Mill puts all questions of justice under the rule of utility and this seems unsatisfactory but Rawls argues that it would be an intolerable burden on liberty if the liability to penalties that was unlimited to actions. Rawls’ opinion on justice is selective although it is based on very careful reading and reflection and has greatly contributed to the study of justice. Mill’s notion about liberty and justice are similar to Rawls’ interpretation of justice as fairness including adequacy of equal liberties, something that Rawls sees very close. Contents and arguments of both Mill and Rawls comprise of issues that are almost similar although the difference between Mill’s principles of justice and Rawls’s Difference principle are quite clear. Mill’s perception about justice is principally based on his moral and political writings showing how impassionate he was about issues of injustice. Philosophical attention of Mill however opposite his moral arguments on injustice and is seen as a social minimum principle that qualifies the needs of human well-being (Reynolds 3-10). It is apparent that Mill believes that social and economic equalities and can be deemed justified if they can help the under-privileged in the society thus leaving the open the question of what and how inequalities can be justified (Reynolds 7-12). In fact, there was no political actualities that could realize the sameness of the arguments provided by both Mill and Rawls and the notion of a guaranteed social minimum serves as part of real-life democratic politics. Mill believes that society but the Difference Principle that was portrayed by the common moral sense should guarantee social minimum but the society rejected it. On the other hand, the idea of social minimum is an indication of a publicly accepted principle of democratic politics and Rawls thinks that there are interventions including the fact that disallows are widely treated with suspicion. However, Mill’s principles of justice as explained by Rawls may be justified on utilitarian grounds and they have considerable acceptability in the current democracies. Public acceptance is vital for Rawls due to the weight it puts on overlapping consensus and he considers his principles of justice can be validated from various reasonable ethical positions that entail utilitarianism (Reynolds 13-18). Rawls is convinced that utilitarianism is an important and reasonable ethical position that even though he does not support he feels that utilitarianism may be an overlapping accord on Mill’s arguments although it does not show that Mill’s perception could be part of an overlapping consensus (Reynolds 16-22). Rawls’s believes that social minimum principle need to be considered as constitutional essential in a democratic state because some form of social minimum has a greater chance of widespread acceptance. Rawls holds that a philosophical case for the Difference Principle remains and that overlapping consensus and public acceptance are not similar. Mill’s principle of justice and liberty with that of Rawls’s differs in a democratic state and is the core of the difference between the two authors. Both authors have extensive and sophisticated issues about their arguments and Rawls tends to try to bring ideas about liberty and justice. Rawls deeply feels affinity with Mill and believes that he is a belonging to his own kind of liberal tradition something that is evident in Rawls’s lecturers on the history of moral philosophy (Reynolds 21-26). Rawls talks of liberalism of freedom where he groups it as a view that civic and political freedoms act as end in themselves and does not imply something else but Mill thinks that the institutions of freedom are good for their own sake. Rawls attributes to him a strategy of working out principles of justice and liberty deemed to be in line with utilitarianism that further leads to secure general consent but the situation is somewhat complicated by a distinction on Mill on utilitarianism between means and part of happiness. Mill’s perception for democracy is that it is impossible when human beings when human beings can be improved by free and equal discussion and believes that the claim is founded on very deep facts about human nature. However, these facts are empirical about human nature and Mill’s claim is liberalism of happiness but not of freedom. Mill’s distinction tends to deny that virtue and individuality are means to happiness and for a developed human being they become ends in themselves although as parts of happiness something that is crucial to his liberal politics. Rawls attributes the idea of Aristotelian principle to Mill, many forms of happiness are got through development of one’s potentialities, and the difference is deemed significant as far as the two authors’ principles are concerned. By approaching, what Rawls terms liberalism of freedom, Mill could have argued that being in a society has the institutions of freedom is itself part of happiness although it does not seem a plausible thing. He argues that such kind of institutions helps to cultivate characters that lead to the higher forms of happiness and that it is a contingent matter they are the best means. Most of Rawls’s background thinking is packed with ideas that se liberalism as a political doctrine about justice and something to be understood and evaluated ab initio as far as democracy is concerned. However, this is a different notion compared to Benjamin Constant who was committed to the value of personal liberty and is strongly convinced that it is the main value by which democracy it should be evaluated. Rawls’s goal did not lighten the priorities of such liberals and their liberals were those of freedom even though this kind of freedom differs from that of Rousseau even though it fits Mill better. Mill, on the other hand adheres to the Liberty Principle, which he sees as a vital safeguard for utility in the largest sense and believes that his aim is in the best sense political but not philosophical (Reynolds 19-23). Rawls and Mill are regarded as historicist liberalism and are further read as enlightenment liberals in search of a timeless foundation for their liberal conceptions of justice. By comparing Mill and Rawls, it is evident that they show a strand of liberal thought but Rawls is the best amongst the claims as much as there is a strong procedural resonance between them. Rawls identifies two passages in utilitarianism but Mill echoes his concern for this form of political bargaining and he (Mill) believes that persons should be socialized and educated to understand their own interest (Reynolds 24-26). Nevertheless, Mill’s claim to reciprocity and concern of personal rights and liberties excludes him from Rawls’ vital critique of utilitarianism as much as they believe that justice is not something to be articulated for the last time. Overlap between Mill and Rawls’ claims are huge, for instance, Mill does not foreground egalitarian issues in the same manner Rawls does in his quest to theorize liberty and equality and succeeds in identifying the role of political philosophy. Works Cited Reynolds, Alan. Reconsidering the Connection between John Stuart Mill and John Rawls. Minerva - An Internet Journal of Philosophy 17 (2013):1-30. Read More