John Stuart Mill's Principle Of Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill attempts to defend the principle of utility is relation to the principle of justice in Utilitarianism; this defense seeks to explain how utility and justice coincide and not conflict. I find the principles of Utilitarianism conflicting with some principles of justice due to the tensions between utility and justice, but overall agree that justice cannot function without utility. I agree that the principle of utility can be applied in the social sphere and justice but I see the tensions that justice can have with utility. These tensions are developed through the accepted belief of rights, which often are seen as inviolable. The principle of utility, also known as the greatest happiness principle can potentially overrule individual

I find his explanations of justice to be true yet find them contradicting to the principle of utility. Mill begins by explaining how our need for justice part of our instinct. He discusses the accepted principles of justice, beginning with the injustice of depriving someone of his personal liberty, property, or anything that belongs to him by law. I see the principle of utility to have tension with this statement. For utilitarianism and the greatest good, it could be argued that it would be the greatest good to take away property or possessions of someone who has more than they need and give it to others who have nothing. Although it would make the person losing his possessions upset, resulting in negative utility, more people would have pleasure than one person being experiencing pain. This principle of utility is actively implemented in the welfare system. Those who earn more are taxed at a higher rate, which is used to fund the system. The way this injustice can be manipulated is by turning the imperfect obligation of giving to the less fortunate into a perfect obligation of paying taxes. Mill would accept the welfare system because it benefits more people than it harms, yet those it harms see it as an injustice. Although this would not be seen as wrong, this principle of welfare can be seen as

These occasional delineations between principles of justice based on utility lead me to believe that our sentiments of justice are what cause these tensions. Our claim to justice often rooted in our claim to rights, which begs the question of where our rights come from, and whether the rights themselves are inviolable. Mill presents that these rights must be based on utility, stating that without the standard of utility justice would be left to introspection and various interpretations. Rights also arise from our innate desire to punish and have sympathy. These desires are what upset us at injustices not only done to ourselves, but to society as a whole. I agree with this position of punishment because injustices to others can cause up rises due to the sympathies we feel. When you see a victim of something injust, we innately believe that justice should be brought to the perpetrator. This could be seen in multiple areas around the United States with police brutality scenarios, specifically the Ferguson killing of a black teenager. People across the nation began to appeal to their own rights as black individuals and rallied to bring the police force to justice due to the sympathies they felt for Michael Brown. Mill states that it is justice grounded on utility that forbids people to harm each other, therefore it combats the common objections of being able to strip