Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to address the social justice issue in society known as economic justice. This will be examined by deconstructing Mill’s utilitarian/consequentialist theory as well as debunking Immanuel Kant’s non-consequentialist theory. These two theorists opinions of the rightness or wrongness of an act will help understand the two extremities of how people in a society view acts. Furthermore, the paper will discuss economic justice through consequentialist and non-consequentialists arguments arguing the for and against sides. Lastly, the paper will express its opinions on economic justice. It will prove that economic justice is important to obtain in a society by following certain rules.
The Ethical Issue
…show more content…
Its primary focus is to provide equal opportunities in wealth to everyone in a society regardless of their social status. This means that everyone gets an opportunity at wealth (MacKinnon 368-369). According to John Rawls, he states that “justice is fairness” (372). Therefore, the redistribution of wealth among the people in society should be conducted fairly. This would entail that everyone from poor to rich backgrounds would get an even redistribution of the wealth. In other words, the rich would distribute some of their wealth the to poorer people in society (368-369). This relates to the commerce program as it demonstrates economic activity. By providing wealth to everyone, it not only shows that there is activity taking place in the economy, but it is also regulating and improving poverty while potentially increasing unemployment rates. The issues of unemployment and poverty are all discussed in the commerce …show more content…
There are other things such as knowledge, aesthetics, experiences, etc. How are other’s supposed to know what makes everyone happy? There are things that makes a few people happy, but the rest unhappy. There is no way in knowing what everyone wants (Class Notes). Mill would respond to this by stating that “all value has a utilitarian basis. We would not want justice if it did not produce more good than bad” (Class notes). Additionally, utilitarianism demonstrates the appeal to consequences is wrong. Rules remind us of the consequences for the long-term. This way of thinking was theorized by Immanuel Kant addressing the moral theory of non-consequentialism (Class Notes).
Immanuel Kant defines non-consequentialism through goodwill and his categorical imperatives. Kant was a non-consequentialist who believed that morality was a constant in which the reasoning for performing an action decides whether someone is obliged to act. He theorizes that every human has the capability of having good will. This means that humans are self-legislating (rational) and self-determined (free) to make the decisions of the rightness or wrongness of an act. Kant uses what he called categorical imperatives to justify his moral theories of goodwill (Class
Mill grew up under the influences from his father and Bentham. In his twenties, an indication of the cerebral approach of the early Utilitarians led to Mill’s nervous breakdown. He was influential in the growth of the moral theory of Utilitarianism whose goal was to maximize the personal freedom and happiness of every individual. Mill's principle of utility is that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Utilitarianism is the concept that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote happiness for the greatest number of individual. He believes that Utilitarianism must show how the conversion can be made from an interest in one’s own particular bliss to that of others. John Stuart Mill also states that moral action should not be judged on the individual case but more along the lines of “rule of thumb” and says that individuals ought to measure the outcomes and settle on their choices in view of the consequence and result that advantages the most people. Mill believes that pleasure is the only wanted consequence. Mill supposes that people are gifted with the capacity for conscious thought, and they are not happy with physical delights, but rather endeavor to accomplish the joy of the psyche too. He asserts that individuals want pleasure and reject
In “What Do We Deserve?”, Arora takes a look at political philosophies and asks an important question, “How much of my good life do I really deserve?.” He brings up that argument that the contest of life is “rigged from the start” (Arora). How do one fix the contest so it's fair for everyone? Society can start by leveling the playing field to give everyone an equal chance, eliminating the idea of winner vs. loser, and encouraging and rewarding hard work and natural talents. Once the system is repaired, then we will see that those who make the effort and take advantage of their own gifts will succeed and be truly deserving of their earnings.
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Between Utilitarianism and Social contract, current people wonder which one has more concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. For this essay I am going to introduce and explain the utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill and the social contract by Thomas Hobbes. And then I am going to compare each other, and which one is a better moral theory.
Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own.
Economic Injustice in America "Class is for European democracies or something else--it isn't for the United States of America. We are not going to be divided by class." -George Bush, the forty-first President of the United States (Kalra 1) The United States of America was founded on the basis of a "classless society of equals," committed to eliminating the past injustices imposed on them by Great Britain.
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.
Humor can be used in storytelling as a device to magnify something that is truly funny, or to make something that is sad bearable. David Sedaris is an American humorist known for his use of satire and sarcasm in his writing, which is often autobiographical or based on personal experience. Sedaris’ essay “The Youth in Asia” is a comical and exaggerated portrayal of the importance the family pets play in the household. The family’s Great Dane, named Melina, is described with human qualities and affection equal to a child.
In this paper I will present and critically assess the concept of the principle of utility as given by John Stuart Mill. In the essay “What Utilitarianism Is” #, Mill presents the theory of Utilitarianism, which he summarizes in his “utility” or “greatest happiness principle” # (Mill 89). Mill’s focus is based on an action’s resulting “happiness,” # pleasure and absences of pain, or “unhappiness,” # discomfort and the nonexistence of contentment, rather than the intentions involved (Mill 89). After evaluating Mill’s principle, I will then end this essay by discussing my personal opinion about the doctrine and how I believe it can be altered to better suit real-life situations.
Liberal philosopher, John Rawls, has been credited as being one of the largest contributors to the field of social justice of the twentieth century. In his book `Justice as Fairness', Rawls describes his views on the issue of justice in a social sense and outlines the major features of his theory of justice. From his discussions on this topic, one could derive a legitimate assumption of how Rawls' would apply his views on justice to the question of how we should respond to poverty, this I have done in the final segment of my essay.
...attainment of happiness is oftentimes difficult, so we are morally justified in searching to essentially reduce the amount of unhappiness and pain experienced by the human beings impacted by some of our actions. According to Mill, the absence of pleasure is only acceptable when it is for the greater good of humanity.
According to Mill, there are several elements to the principle of utility. First, it allows people to choose the action that promotes the most happiness. As stated, Mill believes that an action is right if it promotes happiness and an action is wrong if it promotes pain. Second, the principle of utility does not focus on an individual’s happiness but it focuses on the overall happiness. As stated, “first laws of social arrangement should place the happiness or the interest of every individual as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole” (Utilitarianism, 17). The principle takes into consideration the happiness of others and does not allow you to only think of yourself, this incorporates the idea of equal treatment to the principle. Another element to the utility principle is consequentialism, which is defined, as what makes an...