Utilitarianism

In Utilitarianism’s final chapter, Mill discusses “the idea of Justice” (155) in order to investigate whether justice represents “an ultimate criterion of conduct” (155) separate from happiness. For Mill, justice is primarily a “feeling” by which individuals judge experiences; to insist that justice represents something different from a desire for happiness is only possible when the fact that justice involves stronger feelings is acknowledged. These stronger feelings are all that provide justice with a “superior binding force” (156).

Mill examines the various meanings of justice to provide a definition of a just or unjust action. Mill argues that justice is often concerned with an individual’s “legal rights.” Actions are typically perceived as unjust whenever they “deprive any one of his personal liberty, his property, or any other thing which belongs to him by law” (156). Laws can also be considered unjust, which suggests that justice is less concerned with a violation of legal rights than it is with actions which “withhold from any person that to which he has a moral right” (157).

Mill also describes a number of situation which are connected to the notion of justice: for example, someone receiving “that (whether good or evil) which he deserves” (158-159); someone being partial, or “show[ing] favor or preference to one person over another” (158-159); and situations that involve the maintenance of equality between individuals. Mill states that justice must be understood in connection to the law, and he describes how the word origins of “justice” are linked with ideas of legality and rights. Mill argues, however, that justice is not simply about existing laws, but also about “laws as ought to exist” (161). Mill contends that the absence of certain laws is due to the fact that humans would prefer to maintain their personal liberties and freedoms, rather than give the government complete power to punish all unjust actions.

Mill closes the chapter by investigating the “feeling” of justice and whether the origin of such feeling marks it as separate from the ideal of happiness. Mill argues that at the core of justice is “the desire to punish a person who has done harm” (164) to another person. For Mill, such a desire is connected to the “impulse of self-defense” (164) which humans share with all other animals. Humans are different from other animals, however, due to their ability to sympathize as well as their “more developed intelligence” (164) which allows them to feel a communion with all other members of their society. As such, when individuals feel compelled to punish an individual, due to a desire for justice, their feelings are based upon “the animal desire to repel or retaliate a hurt” (166) and “widened” to include all of society. Mill argues that justice is thus concerned with the happiness and well-being of society as a whole, just as the principle of utility asserts.

Mill believes that the strong and powerful feelings associated with justice originate from the human instinct for self-preservation. Mill describes a number of instances that concern whether a particular action is just or unjust, and he argues that it is only through a consideration of the principle of utility that the morality of such actions can be determined.