Mill believes that utilitarianism to become a real way of life it is necessary to define justice within this main idea. Therefore, Mill begins to define justice first through defining what is unjust. He defines the unjust actions through five different main ideas, it is unjust to: deprive someone of their legal rights, depriving someone of something they have a moral right to possess, obtaining something that they do not morally deserve, violating an agreement with someone else, and showing favoritism to someone under inappropriate circumstances (Mill 44-45). Mill defines injustice to allow us to understand justice better.
After explaining what is unjust, Mill follows the idea of justice through history. By speaking of how each of the different ancient cultures understood justice, Mill believes that he will eventually reach what the definition of justice is. The groups most examined by Mill are the Greeks and Romans. These ancient peoples eventually recognized that although their idea of justice was simply following the law that because, “their laws had been made originally, and continued to be made, by men,” it was entirely possible that there were bad laws that had been made (47). Because of these bad laws it may become necessary to break them in certain situations. This idea of justice was also followed by Mill through Christianity; one of Christian’s main sources of law comes from the Ten Commandments which explicitly states that one should not lie. However, going back to a situation Kant used, if a life is endanger through the utilitarian idea of finding the greatest good for the whole community one should at least mislead the person because it is important to keep the good of all people in mind, because to keep a life will most likely help a community more than losing a life.
Through his examination of past cultures, Mill comes to the conclusion that the justice in its lowest form is following the law and being punished for breaking those laws. However, as he continues to write, Mill decides that justice is different for each and every person because the definition of utility for each person changes. In the end, justice seemingly coincides with the idea that every person being an individual must simply hope that they can work for the same ultimate goal of a communal happiness which would allow for justice to be found within the entire community.
Mill’s understanding of justice is so drastically different from both Kant and Aristotle, is it possible that each person must find their own, individual definition of justice, but that this definition must be in harmony with others in the community? Or do Kant and Aristotle’s definitions work better because they allow for a more rigid understanding thereby allowing everyone to have the same definition? In the end, I believe that each individual should find his or her own definition but still have a clear idea of justice in society also.
5 comments:
It is very true that one must understand what justice is to understand what unjust means. Although I realize that since we are supposed to follow the laws that have been created for us, it may not necessarily be necessary to break them, but it is possible. For one to know that breaking the law is unacceptable, they should have to pay the consequences, which will only make them and the community stronger. If people see others receiving the consequences, it will then become a choice in knowing what is just and unjust. Following utilitarianism will benefit everyone and promote living a moral and happy life. AS stated by Ryan it is true that everyone can have a different view on what is justice, but in the end right and wrong should be clear and everyone should be fighting to live a happy life.
First, let me start by saying I agree with you and Michele when both of you reiterate on Mills belief that knowing the definition of justice is essential in order to grasp a better understanding of injustice. I also agree when Mills says that it is difficult to procure a set egalitarian definition of justice as each society has it's own beliefs in what constitutes as a just and/or unjust law. Law first and foremost is a social construction. I do believe it is difficult to have a set definition of justice just because the varying degrees with which societies view law are entirely subjective, making it difficult for all societies to see eye to eye. I believe it would be simpler just to except that each society, as a people, have constituted their own moral foundation and will build upon as they see fit. Who are we, as Americans, to judge.
Stephanie, I think you hit the nail on the head when you conclude “Who are we, as Americans, to judge.” Laws derive from society which can vary extremely from one society to another. Therefore it may not be right for us to truly evaluate the meaning of justice in each society. What is right in this country may not be the same in a rural African society. The great thing about Mill’s theory is he describes five principles of what is unjust rather than saying what justice is. These can be applied to all societies to form the basis of what is actually just without conflict.
However, even though Mill points out it is acceptable to break a law in certain instances it must be made clear that laws are still the underlying foundation for the application of justice. I agree with Michelle when she says it is necessary to have laws so one can pay the consequences for acting in an unjust manner.
I think an interesting aspect not yet mentioned in regard to justice and law is the ever-increasing level of complexity involved. In Aristotle’s era urban populations consisted of orders of magnitude in the tens of thousands, in Kant’s and later Mill’s era total world populations were measured in the hundreds of millions, and today cities are measured in the millions and the world population in billions. The more people there are, the more interactions there are; the more interactions there are, the more laws are needed; and the more laws are needed, the more justice is required.
In connection with the large number of increasing interactions, Mill makes several points about the role of expediency in laws and justice (Mill 44). As an inefficient bureaucracy can slow down an organization, school or business, so too can an inefficient legal system slow down those large numbers of everyday interactions within all levels of society. Mill remarks that unjust laws need not only impinge upon one of his five main ideas of unjust actions in order to be considered unjust; instead, a law’s inexpediency itself may be unjust and therefore as such render the entire law unjust.
I am finding it hard to figure out my own individual definition of justice, especially after reading Mill, Kant and Aristotle. I know it is necessary and that there are many philosophical definitions of justice but an individual definition of justice is primarily influenced by our modern conception of justice. We learn this through our experiences and the punishments received from an early age. In order to have your own definition of justice we would have to throw away our experiences because it is the only way it can be individual. It would make more sense to 'live in harmony' with other in our society but instead of doing so from having individual conceptions of justice, we should follow what has been set before and set our own definitions ethics before us to guide our actions.
Post a Comment