Utilitarianism And Retributive Justice

807 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Restorative justice theory

Utilitarianism was long thought to violate the Principle of Retributive Justice, the concept of being punished for crimes committed. Under closer examination, it is revealed that Utilitarianism and Retributive Justice do not clash. According to Mill, the concept of justice is actually derived from utility. When an individual's moral rights are violated, it is a natural tendency to want to retaliate against the violator. The retaliation ensures that such an act would not happen again. By protecting individuals from the violation of rights, punishment contributes to an overall increase of utility in society. In Utilitarianism, Mill writes that "a person may possibly not need the benefits of others, but he always needs that they should not do him hurt" (Mill 89). This protection allows individuals to follow their own pursuits more effectively, without fear, and ultimately with more utility. At the same time, Mill also argues that certain cases exist where an individual has a moral duty to do an action that would be considered unjust under normal circumstances; however, due to the action drastically increasing utility, the action is allowed to be done and does not violate the Principle of Retributive Justice. An act that would be considered "wrong" in a normal situation can be "right" in other situations. One such example is the case of Robin Hood. Robin Hood is a fictional character who steals material goods and money from very rich individuals and redistributes those items to the very poor. He is not punished for his crimes, and is hailed as a hero for his deeds. While the case of Robin Hood might seem to violate the Principle of Retributive Justice because he receives no retribution for his actions, under closer consideration, this...

... middle of paper ...

...itarianism applies to acts that are determined to be morally right based on an individual's internal motivations rather than based on the actual act itself as the opponents previously argued. Acts that are morally right are do not violate the Principle of Retributive Justice and therefore, do not deserve punishment. For instance, Robin Hood is not motivated by greed or corruption but is instead motivated by compassion. Wishing a more equal distribution of wealth, Robin Hood helps the most vulnerable people in society. He does not keep the wealth himself, but rather, gives it away. It is his internal goodness and unselfishness that prevents him from violating the Principle of Retributive Justice. He does not deserve punishment, as his motivations were not immoral. Utilitarianism inspires Robin Hood as he strives to create a better world and a more prosperous society.

Show More
Related

  • Mills Mill Mills Utilitarianism

    897 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...g on someone’s or some group’s rights. So if a few must suffer in order for the needs of the many it can prove very bad because of the moral obligation involving rights in this case are severe. Finally in my reason of finding this theory unattractive, is the fact that utilitarianism seems to view people as vessels of pleasure and pain rather than as people.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill And Utilitarianism

    1183 Words  | 3 Pages

    In utilitarianism priority of justice is possible in view of the priority of its bases. Justice is more than just one of the values, because its principles are derived independently of the other values. Unlike other practical principles, the moral law is not intended to advance any random interests and goals. Justice in utilitarianism does not include any ideas about welfare. Since the idea of justice precedes all purely empirical purposes, justice has a position in relation to the welfare and sets its limits.

    Read More

  • Restorative Justice Vs Retributive Justice

    665 Words  | 2 Pages

    The purpose of this paper is to examine the processes of both Restorative and Retributive justice through the case of Sara Kruzan vs. The State of California. First we will establish the principle philosophers associated with each type of justice and those system's theoretical applications in our criminal justice system. Then we will apply both systems to Sara Kruzan's trail and determine the publishable outcomes. Finally we will review Sara's Life after her trial and speculate on what system would have produced a more just outcome.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill

    1161 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism in Crime and Punishment

    1878 Words  | 4 Pages

    would reject even the notion of deliberating about the act of murder in such a

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism And Moralism

    1492 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to Mill’s, utilitarianism is a consequence-based theory. Whether an action is morally right or wrong depends entirely on its consequences. In fact by taking into account the right or the wrong consequences of our actions, we do not take into account only our own interest but the interest of everybody as whole. We must not forget that Mill defines utilitarian principle as the" greatest happiness principles" which holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (mill, 7). From this definition, it becomes pretty simple to apply the utilitarian principle as an every day rule. In fact, to judge of a morality of an action, you just have to evaluate the good and bad consequences of this action. According to me, it is important at this point to understand what mill defines as good and bad. For Mill, the good is ...

    Read More

  • Philosophy: John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism

    1314 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism

    1254 Words  | 3 Pages

    Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Utilitarian Theory

    806 Words  | 2 Pages

    Another example of this, is the story of Robin Hood. Robin Hood tells the tale of a man that steals from the rich and gives on to the poor. In this case, utilitarians would find nothing wrong with this man stealing money from people, because we don’t give actions their own morality, only thing that makes an action good or bad is the consequences that proceed them. So, this is morally acceptable based on that standard because the consequences are relatively good because the greatest amount of happiness is being promoted to the greatest number of people. Stealing from one person to feed a whole village or maybe even two is the right thing to do morally, no matter the means in which he achieved

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham : Father of Utilitarianism

    1451 Words  | 3 Pages

    Utilitarianism is a reality, not just a theory like many other philosophies; it is practiced every day, for instance the vote system. This ongoing practice of utilitarianism in society has show that it is flawed. Just because the masses vote for something, doesn’t make it right. The masses can be fooled, as in Nazi Germany for example, thousands of people were behind Hitler even though his actions were undeniably evil. Utilitarianism is a logical system, but it requires some sort of basic, firm rules to prevent such gross injustices, violations of human rights, and just obviously wrong thing ever being allowed. This could be the ‘harm principle’ which Mill devised.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant And George's Theory Of Ethics And The Utilitarian Theory

    915 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to Drolet, Marie-Josée, and Anne Hudon (p.51), two main theories attempt to explain in depth and justify moral laws and principles; utilitarianism and deontological theories. Jeremy Bentham and John Mill developed the theory of utilitarianism while Immanuel Kant developed the deontological theory. These two theories are based on how the consequences of a given act impact on an individual. The deontological theory is based on the one’s moral judgment rather than the set rules and regulations. On the other hand, the utilitarianism theory focuses on the consequences of a given deed. This paper primarily focuses on how a strict utilitarian and a strict deontologist would respond to George’s scenario. The arguments will be based on the

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism

    1702 Words  | 4 Pages

    Utilitarianism is a movement in ethics which began in the late eighteenth centaury and is primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and was later adapted and fully developed by John Stuart Mill in the ninetieth century. . The theory states that we should try to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is defined as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of it consequences: specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible

    Read More

  • Mill's utilitarianism

    1159 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of the theories in normative ethics, utilitarianism holds that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility. Ethics is usually defined as maximizing total benefits and suffering or the negatives. John Stuart Mill in his book Utilitarianism, stated, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”(Mill, 19) According to both Bentham and Mill, utilitarianism is only considered to be a hedonis...

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham And John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

    1022 Words  | 3 Pages

    Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Restorative Justice

    1095 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Restorative justice is an approach to crime and other wrongdoings that focuses on repairing harm and encouraging responsibility and involvement of the parties impacted by the wrong.” This quote comes from a leading restorative justice scholar named Howard Zehr. The process of restorative justice necessitates a shift in responsibility for addressing crime. In a restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take an active role in addressing that crime. Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. Restorative justice is a very broad subject and has many other topics inside of it. The main goal of the restorative justice system is to focus on the needs of the victims, the offenders, and the community, and focus

    Read More

More about Utilitarianism And Retributive Justice

Open Document