The Mill Would Disagree With Rawls Interpretation...

Mill would disagree with Rawls interpretation utilitarianism. Mill states that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the opposite of happiness. (Mill 23-24) Mill states the principle of utility should not be used to create justice but to reserve or increase the happiness of the population. Mills states that the principle of utility should solely be used as mediation, such as moral quandary. Mill states on to say that we should solely abide by the principle of utility when faced with a moral dilemma. For example, if I were to be in the presence of a fellow peer being robbed it would my duty, in the name of the principle of utility, to stop and apprehend that robber in order to protect my neighbors’ utility and bring justice to the assailant. Mill would agree to this example, he would state that my actions were permissible because my desires were filled with virtues. Mill would maintain his argument by stating, we would choose without question to protect by deception or from witnessing an unjust act. For one to strictly understand Mill, one must take into account the many characteristics of happiness that are presented by Mill. In the first part of the second principle of justice proposed by Rawls, he states that the inequalities faced in society are to be organized so they are to the advantage of everyone; in accordance to the difference principal. The difference principle is comprised of two standards. First, thatShow MoreRelatedJohn Rawls and Utilitarianism2033 Words   |  9 PagesJohn Rawls and Utilitarianism Heath C. Hoculock The social contract theory of John Rawls challenges utilitarianism by pointing out the impracticality of the theory. Mainly, in a society of utilitarians, a citizens rights could be completely ignored if injustice to this one citizen would benefit the rest of society. Rawls believes that a social contract theory, similar those proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, would be a more logical solution to the question of fairness in any governmentRead MoreEthics and Moral Theory3716 Words   |  15 Pagesaccordance with what they think or feel is right).à  This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism -- probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples actions.à  That is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues.   à  (2) Cultural Relativism Right and wrong is determined by the particular set of principles or rules the relevant culture just happens to hold at the time. Cultural Relativism is closely linked to Moral Subjectivism.à  It impliesRead MoreThe Universal Declaration Of Human Rights3323 Words   |  14 Pagesinjustice and oppression, in contemporary politics they are used to create power relations, and implicitly, inequality. This will provide a good basis for the second part in which I will look at the incompatibilities within the theory- religion versus Rawls consensus based theory. Analysing the multitude of frameworks with their different ways of approaching and grounding rights underlines and reinforces the fact that there can t be a universal foundation for human rights. The third part will dealRead More2074 Final Notes Essay6510 Words   |  27 Pagesmakes exchange works, if we do not trust others, nothing would ever het done. We may be self interested, but we should also advocate trust because thatâ €™s what it takes to make money. / In butcher-brewer-baker case, if trust cannot be established, neither party will feel good about producing products for others unless they can trust them to pay. / Prisons Dilemma - Two men have the option of ratting each other or remaining silent. Prisoners would naturally want to improve their own condition, the bestRead MoreJurisprudential Theories on IPR13115 Words   |  53 Pagesby his/her body. Appropriating these products is viewed as unjust. Although Locke had never explicitly stated that natural right applied to products of the mind,[34]  it is possible to apply his argument to intellectual property rights, in which it would be unjust for people to misuse anothers ideas.[35]  Lokeans argument for intellectual property is based upon the idea that laborers have the right to control that which they create. They argue that we own our bodies which are the laborers, this right