Is Utility Consistent with Justice - Essay Example

Is Utility consistent with ‘Justice’? Is Utility consistent with ‘Justice’? To adequately answer the question “Is Utility consistentwith ‘Justice?” it would be necessary first to define what John Stuart Mill meant and how he defined utility and justice to competently qualify whether utility is consistent with justice. We may have a working understanding about what utility and justice meant but it has various meanings from philosophical and social perspective as defined by various philosophers and various social thinkers which is not necessarily aligned with Mills perspective on utility and justice. It would then be necessary to differentiate Mill’s definition and perspective of utility and justice from other definition and perspective of the word to make the answer of the question “Is Utility consistent with ‘Justice’?” to be consistent as intended by John Stuart Mill and understand that indeed utility is consistent with justice. Utility or utilitarianism and justice is a philosophical and social construct defined by many philosophers and social thinkers. Utility or utilitarianism itself was not an exclusive idea of Mill but was also shared by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham first gave the idea of utilitarianism in his introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation in 1789. In his introduction, he proposed the “principle of utility” which later evolved and popularized as “the greatest happiness principle” as also adopted by Mills as the ideal guidelines in making decisions involving individual and society as a whole quoting “By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question1”. The “principle of utility is [also] open to the objection that it may well sacrifice the rights of the minority for the sake of the happiness of the majority2”. It follows then that Mill entertains the idea of expedience in his idea about utility for the sake of the happiness of the majority. John Stuart Mill did not only subscribed to this idea of Bentham but expanded its meaning as a collective nomenclature for society’s social utility which is necessary in fostering and protecting human liberty3 . Mill recognizes that there exists a possible conflict between utility and justice and that it has always been “one of the strongest obstacles4” for utilitarianism to become totally acceptable. To reconcile this conflict, Mill proposes to approach the problem through a conceptual analysis which entails understanding what utility and justice are all about that we may be able to see that there is really no genuine conflict between the two5. The concept of utilitarianism now being defined above, it would now be necessary to define and understand justice from Mill’s perspective to complete the conceptual analysis which would lead to the understanding that there is really no real conflict between utility and justice but in fact, utility is consistent with justice. To properly understand justice, John Stuart Mill provided five criteria to define the term. They were “(1) respecting others’ “legal rights” is considered just, while violating them is unjust; (2) respecting the “moral right” someone has to something is just, while violating it is unjust; (3) it is considered just to give a person what “he deserves” and unjust to deny it; (4) it is thought unjust to “break faith” with another, while keeping faith with others is just; and (5) in some circumstances, it is deemed unjust “to be partial” in one’s judgments and just to be impartial6”.  It is important to note here that in Mill’s concept of justice, he does not subscribe to the idea of equality as an important component of justice but is rather more predisposed to equity. Having defined the meaning of justice, Mill then proceeded to reconcile utility to be consistent with Justice. In chapter 5 of John Stuart Mill treatise on Utilitarianism, he discussed whether justice is something distinct and apart from utility and that it itself has an independent existence apart from utility or whether it is a derivative of our feelings and being such a combination of emotional make-up. He then defined justice in various ways from legalistic point of view, moral right, sense of just and unjust, social contract and favoritism and preferential treatment. Mill begun his assertion that justice is not in conflict with utility by defining the meaning of rights. Unlike his predecessors who ascribe rights as emanating from God or nature, Mills posited that right is a function of utility as the foundation of people’s right to pursue their greatest happiness is founded on security. And that if this right is impinge or violated upon, it brings about a set of sentiment of justice that is founded on retribution or revenge. This sentiment of justice seeks to take revenge or as Mill put it in words, “an animal desire” that desires revenge. This “animal desire” to take revenge may seem dangerous and irrational but in fact becomes useful especially when it becomes collective that benefits the individual and the society as a whole. According to Mill’s, humans are capable of empathy and that they tend to empathize with another when they see one to be hurt seeing the pain inflicted to be of theirs as well. Such the vindictiveness to those who offend the people they have sympathy becomes a natural extension of such impulse. Eventually, this sympathy becomes inclusive and would later realize that it is more advantageous for people to cooperate with one another or as Mills would put it the “human capacity of enlarged sympathy” follows suit (Robertson 1991:248). This vindictiveness then evolve to become a moral code and enforced with consequence. It is then later refined and corrected to reinforce the correct ideas of intrinsic good until it progress to become utilitarian of which justice is assessed of its use to create happiness. This idea of justice was articulated by Mills as the “animal desire to repel or retaliate a hurt or damage to oneself”, and its morality from the “human capacity of enlarged sympathy” and intelligent self-interest”. Thus we now see injustice as something that harms the moral right of a person and this right that is violated breed perfect obligations to protect such right. Mill then proceeded in addressing the conflict earlier stated that there exists a possible conflict between utility and justice and that it has always been “one of the strongest obstacles”7. He argued that if justice is separate or different from utility that could be understood by introspection, then questions about justice should no longer be asked. The fact however is that debate exists whether what constitutes justice and what are its benefits to society. These conflicting ideas and claims about justice and its benefit to society compels us to go back to the source of its authority which is social utility. This brings about the idea that justice is in fact grounded on social utility as important part of morality as justice from its origin of being a sentiment evolve to become an enforcer of the intrinsic good that promotes happiness. It also promotes security which is a requisite for the members of society to build pursue their happiness as it preserves and protects them from harm making justice a function of utility. Justice therefore for John Stuart Mills is an important utility in preserving and protecting societies. Modern interpretation of justice according to Mills is actually hinged on utility. It is because society treats people’s pursuit of happiness equally that everyone is entitled to its claim. Justice in fact places high on the totem pole of utility and that it allows some forms of exception such as expediency (i.e. allowing theft to save a human life which is not necessarily just but its expediency saves a human life) to promote the happiness of the many. Thus, the previous discussion that one of “the biggest barriers to the acceptance of utility has been that it does not allow for a theory of justice”8 has been resolved as justice has been clearly defined to be not only consistent with utility but is in fact grounded on it. The nature of Justice as a name of man’s collective emotion that includes vindictiveness is in fact a positive retribution that has social a social good as it protects its members from harm and enforces the intrinsic good. Its end is to promote the general happiness as the sentiment invokes empathy to another cementing society to be cohesive and making the good as the norm through the enforcement of consequences of those who deviate (the concept of “animal impulse” to be vindictive). And justice is not separate and apart from nor distinct from utility for justice provides the atmosphere or the requisite for an individual and society to pursue happiness which is a function of utility. The two therefore does not conflict with each other. Thus, to answer the question whether “Is Utility consistent with ‘Justice’?”, utility is indeed consistent with justice as utility is a byproduct and result of justice from its primitive state of being a mere sentiment and vindictiveness to its more refined form as a ground or foundation of utility. In fact, justice is a requisite of utility for people and society must first have security of which justice affords and provide before they can pursue happiness. Utility which seeks to promote the general happiness of a people is also consistent with the five dimensions of justice as enumerated by Mills. It does not violate any of the stated parameters of “(1) respecting others’ “legal rights” is considered just, while violating them is unjust; (2) respecting the “moral right” someone has to something is just, while violating it is unjust; (3) it is considered just to give a person what “he deserves” and unjust to deny it; (4) it is thought unjust to “break faith” with another, while keeping faith with others is just; and (5) in some circumstances, it is deemed unjust “to be partial” in one’s judgments and just to be impartial9”).  Utility in fact reinforces the parameters of justice and is its product and result. There is therefore no truism that “the biggest barriers to the acceptance of utility has been that it does not allow for a theory of justice” because utility does allow for a theory of justice it being its foundation and being such, utility is not distinct, separate nor apart from justice but is rather consistent to it. Bibliography Mill, John Stuart, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Gen. Ed. John M. Robson. 33 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963-91. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism and Other Writings, ed. Mary Warnock (called “Utilitarianism”).  Cleveland:  World Publishing Company, 1962. Pomerleau, Wayne. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed January 6, 2015. http://www.iep.utm.edu/justwest/#SH4b. Sandel, Michael. "J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)." Justice with Michael Sandel. Accessed January 6, 2015. http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/j-s-mill-utilitarianism-1863/. Schefczyk, Michael. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed January 6, 2015. http://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/#H9. Read More