Utility & Justice For All

Mill begins this final chapter in “Utilitarianism” by pointing out one of the biggest problems people seem to have when discussing utilitarianism- the belief that it does not allow for the existence of justice. He sets out to prove that this is not true, and tries to explain the connection between justice and utility. He begins by attempting to find a common link in things that are considered just and unjust in order to better define justice, but with much difficulty. Mill decides to then take another route in his quest to define justice, and looks to the words origins. He explains that justice has always been used in terms of the law. Even today we like to describe even the smallest of events - events we would not even think to involve a court of law in - as just or unjust. 

This makes sense though, Mill explains. “The idea of penal sanction, which is the essence of law, enters not only into the conception of injustice, but into that of any kind of wrong doing”. We only consider something wrong when we consider it punishable, whether that is by law or simply by our own opinions. With this in mind, MIll introduces the idea of perfect and imperfect obligations. A perfect obligation is a duty of virtue that a person has a right to have and can demand of each other, while imperfect obligations are duties of virtue that aren’t required , such as charity. Understanding this concept of perfect obligation makes defining justice much easier. When a person’s perfect obligations are imposed upon by another, injustice is occurring, and in this case it is moral for the one at fault to be penalized in some way. 

Finally. So now that we know what justice is, how is it related to utility? Mill states that there are two parts of justice, which are the want to punish the person who is wrong, and the knowledge that the wronged person has had their rights taken away. The desire for punishment springs from our natural urge to defend ourselves, but our defense is instead for society itself. The fact that a person has had their rights taken away, and that society must do something to defend this right, is once again a utilitarian mindset. We seek to protect our rights because we know that if we do not, we are not keeping our society safe. Security is necessary in society in order for happiness to exist. 

Not only does Mill think that there is a place in utilitarian thought for justice, but also that laws which include both justice and utility are the most important laws, and are vital to morality. Laws that prevent murder are much more important than laws about management, for example. Justice and utility seem to work together. Mill states that people are obligated to act justly as it exists high upon the “scale of social utility”. However, if a case arises where one of these rules must be broken in order to satisfy something higher on the scale of utility, this is understandable and moral. He states for example, that if it is necessary to steal in order to save a life, stealing would not be considered unjust.

I guess I can agree with pretty much all of the arguments Mill makes, but I don’t know how comfortable this agreement makes me. I still get the feeling that the good of society is coming before my own, which is a little difficult for me to accept. That being said, I suppose it’s a lot easier to swallow than the chaos that is Kant’s philosophy on ethics, and so utilitarianism seems like a big sigh of relief.