In John Stuart Mill’s digestion of the relationship between justice and utility, it is evident that the main point he is trying to make is that the notion of justice is not something that is not and never will be universalized. Mill states that the reason for this impossibility is that justice varies in different persons because we all have different notions of utility (Utilitarianism, 46). In other words, what we think is wrong or right, depends on what we each find to be pleasurable to us. Mill uses a very good example to illustrate this idea. His example of how the payment of taxes should be distributed amongst society members is actually an issue that is present even in today’s society. While some people think that it is unjust to tax the poor as much as the rich, others believe that it is only just to equally tax everybody. Which one, therefore, is really just? Mill purposely leaves this question unanswered because the answer purely depends on that person’s utility.
While Mill ultimately believes that social utility is the deciding factor of what is just, he highlights a few common grounds that must hold for everyone’s notion of justice at the beginning of the chapter. He names 5 “general rules” that universally hold when analyzing what is just/unjust: (1) “It is unjust to deprive anyone of his personal liberty, his property, or any other thing which belongs to him by law” (44), (2) Law is not the deciding factor for what justice is because there may exist “bad laws” (44), (3) “Each person should obtain that which he deserves” (45), (4) “It is unjust to break faith with anyone” (45), (5) “It is unjust to show favor or preference to one person over another in matters to which favor and preference do not properly apply” (45).
I found that the point Mill is trying to make is that we can determine if people are wrong or right depending on what we think they ought to be doing (49). However, it seems to me that Mill is contradicting himself when he says this because he previously outlines 5 universal guidelines that hold for justice. If we call people wrong based on what we think they ought to be doing, there is a possibility that others will not think the same way. It seems as though Mill transitions from talking about justice in a universal light to ending the chapter clearly denoting that justice is incapable of being universal because “justice bends to every person’s ideas of social expediency” (63).
5 comments:
I agree with you in your explanation of Mill's views on justice and its incapability of being universalized. Mill seems to present a confusing argument with minor contradictions which he tries rationalize. In Mill's defense he does refer to his general rules as "universal or widely spread opinion" however this statement even appears to be contradictory itself (43). When Mill presents his first rule he states that it is an instance 'of the application of the terms 'just' and 'unjust' in a perfectly definite sense" (44). This is to say that it is universal, he then, however, goes on to say that there are several exceptions to the rule. There can be no universality when certain exceptions must be applied. In this way, as you pointed out, there seems to be a contradiction in what Mill is arguing.
I agree with both of your assessments of Mill’s ideas in this section. Mill poses an argument that I do find somewhat confusing. As previously stated, Mill acknowledges that justice cannot be universalized because “cases of justice are also cases of expediency” (64). But he says that the “difference is in the peculiar sentiment which attaches to the former, as contradistinguished from the latter” (64). At the end, he makes the conclusion that: “Justice remains the appropriate name for certain social utilities which are vastly more important, and therefore more absolute and imperative, than any others are as a class (though not more so than others may be in particular cases); and which, therefore, ought to be […] guarded by sentiment, not only different in degree, but also in kind” (64). Correct me if I’m wrong, but he basically seems to acknowledge certain ideas that may be applied universally more often than not, but at the same time gives precedence to the particular.
I agree with what has been said regarding Mill’s ideas of universal justice in this section. I believe that Mill’s statement that, “justice bends to every person’s ideas of social expediency” (63), is the best way to describe his opinion about the impossibility of universal justice. After reading this section, I concluded that Mill believed that universal justice was impossible simply due to the wide array of differing opinions. This explanation makes perfect sense to me. As explained in the payment of taxes example, there is no answer as to what is really “just” because the idea of what is just differs on a case by case basis depending on what causes individuals pleasure and their notion of utility.
I think that there are many different ways one can interpret Mill's reasoning on Utilitarianism. The quote "justice bends to every person's ideas of social expediency" effectively shows why each country's laws are different from other countries of the world. Illegal drugs in the United States are legal in other countries. This clearly shows that different societies have different expectations. Laws weren't created the moment society came about. They were created as events that demanded attention and laws occurred. That's why I think internal and external sanctions are also very important ideas. We discussed in class how external sanctions shaped our internal sanctions. For example, the moment society comes about, there is no murder. But once there is, society finds that to be wrong and makes a law that makes murder illegal and that becomes the expectations of every member of the society. Anybody born after that law is created will be shaped with that same expectation in mind.
Great post, but I have an objection to Mill's assertion that there such a thing as "bad laws". Granted, there are certainly laws that do not grant a fair punishment or repercussion for an action, yet does that make the law bad? If the law is universal and widely known to everybody, how is it an injustice if the person goes against it? Wouldn't it be an injustice if there was an exception for someone who disobeyed a universal bad law?
Post a Comment