Mill's Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism derives itself from a combination of hedonism and consequentialism. Hedonism suggests that consequences are good as long as they lead to pleasure, which is the ultimate good in the case of utilitarianism. On the other hand, consequentialism argues that the right action is the one that produces the best consequences, and maximizes utility. Mill argues that the only factor relevant to actions is the amount of pleasure or pain produced, not the motives that propel action. Utilitarianism seems to be based off of a calculation aiming to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. While justice can initially be seen as an objection to this school of ethics, it can be argued that justice complements, and does not challenge the principles …show more content…
Justice, in terms of Mill, can be explained by not being unjust to others by violating their legal rights, treating people unequally, or other actions. Justice is enforced on the basis of law and not morality, and some people view this to be morally superior and authoritative rather than the concept of utilitarianism. Sometimes laws that are created are founded on poor judgment. Even with this, laws should not be disobeyed because by violation you have acted unjustly, even if the law is not derived from any moral obligation. Some also argue that any law that is considered to be bad can be violated if it does not promote the overall well-being of mankind, even if the law says it is unjust to …show more content…
Both justice and utility have an argument for results that lead to fairness. Fairness in terms of justice can be seen as what doesn’t violate individual rights, and fairness in terms of utility does not place emphasis on the individual but society at large. Ideas such as impartiality, which justice should result from, can also be directly related and derived from utility. When acting to maximize utility, it is important to consider equally the interests of others, without being partial to your own interests. Justice demands the same criteria. By being partial we do not act just, and by being partial to ourselves we do not act to satisfy the greater good. Utilitarians must value what is most pleasurable for all, not just themselves, and agents of justice must value what respects the rights of others the most and sits well with the majority of society. By having moral rights, Mill sees this as something that we have a duty to protect for the greater good and to impose the most happiness, similar to what justice argues. It is desirable to act from utility. Some moral obligations to act in accordance with maximizing pleasure supersede acting to be just. Justice works to uphold the points in utility that receive greater weight on the scale, and serves as a platform to argue for utility, rather