Utilitarianism and Justice: Totally incompatible?

[derek]

I've studied the notion of justice a fair bit in the past and have always found Mill's utilitarianist account of justice fairly interesting.

I'm not convinced that utilitarianism is totally incompatible with the idea of justice (and after coming across my 6yr old class text) am wondering if you folks have any views on it.

cheers,

Deek

 

[Lord SteveO]

I think in theory it's not a bad idea. To make the world best for the majority even if a minority must suffer.
Of course in the present world this would never be seen as acceptable though.

I think maybe the two are compatible. Surely justice can be used to ensure a society is utilitarian? By using justice on those who deserve it we would keep the vast majority safe and happy.

 

[derek]

Yeah, the problem i see is that in following the utilitarian moral code it can become an immoral code, which must, surely, be a pretty fundamental problem.

 

[Lord SteveO]

I also see this problem.

But it would never be impossible to get round it. Just follow a said code to a certain degree, if you find it has problems them make alterations. The main idea should be to make it a moral code for the majority. I'm not saying ignore the morals for dealing out punishments, but i believe you could merge the two together.

 

[derek]

Yeah, that rule utilitarianism, where you follow the general happines principle except in certain cases where it would be irrational and or possibly immoral. Theres still some debate as to whether Mill is a rule utilitarian or not.

What about justice as a part of any moral structure, is it compatible? any ideas?

 

[Lord SteveO]

It can be part of a moral structure. Is it not part of one today?
The majority of people know it to be moraly acceptable to keep a society just and fair. I'd say that kind of counts. But i'm no expert on this area.
I just think the two ideas are not wholely uncompatible.

Doesn't anyone else have any ideas?

 

[speed]

It can be part of a moral structure. Is it not part of one today?
The majority of people know it to be moraly acceptable to keep a society just and fair. I'd say that kind of counts. But i'm no expert on this area.
I just think the two ideas are not wholely uncompatible.

Doesn't anyone else have any ideas?

I've tried posting twice, but each time my posts have been swallowed by UM. Same thing with other threads.

 

[speed]

Finally, I'm through.

I am going to take a extreme position on Utilitarian justice because I think it is rather obvious that such a scheme is impossible; and if it is possible, it is a horrific idea. The problem is obviously whether one wishes to believe a majority is always right and thus just. I dont think I need to write a essay on the problems of such an idea.

Utilitarian thought is quite common in the American system: economics, engineering, urban planning, environmental impacts. For example, say a new highway is to be built right through a thriving residential area, that will greatly benefit the whole of the region. From a utilitarian standpoint, those whose houses will be destroyed do not matter as supposedly the whole or majority of the community benefitted more than those who lived in said houses. Now this actually happened and is still happening. Whole communities were destroyed for highways that were supposed to benefit the whole of the community. ANd in many cases, the highways caused more problems than they solved. SO do you see the problem of utlitarian justice? Even if the majority thinks they are right, who is to say maybe they are not right at all? There is a reason why the American electoral system was set up explicitly to take power away from the common man: the founders didnt trust the rabble and the majority, and for good reason.

 

[Lord SteveO]

True there would be problems in certain instances, but in other places it could be very useful.
For example, in the current situation we have with bird flu etc, what would we do if there was a way to save millions of lives, but to do so a few 100 in a minority in an infected area would die or become ill whilst we used them as an experiment for a vaccine? Would helping the vast majority of people not be the best thing to do in spite of the wrong it does to the minority.

And your point about the US electoral system just shows part of the reason why the US is the way it currently is. Surely you could never have a true democratic system if from the off you don't trust your own people?

 

[Ravenous Enemy]

Quoting Lord SteveO:
I think in theory it's not a bad idea. To make the world best for the majority even if a minority must suffer.
Of course in the present world this would never be seen as acceptable though.
_____________________________________________________
But in the present world doesn't the majority suffer for the 'happiness' of the minority?

I think utilitarianism and 'justice' are compatible, but the idea should/can only be applied to certain situations.

Also yes 'people know it to morally acceptable to keep a society just and fair' (Lord SteveO), but that's not the same as justice being part of a moral structure, is it?

Does Bentham's account differ?

 

[derek]

Well Bentham's form of utilitarianism was much more crude. He basically said that, according to the cardinal system, whatever action(s) create the most happiness is the course of action that should be followed. In that situation the notion of justice almost becomes arbitrary. For example if imprisoning an innocent person just to make the public feel happier that a criminal had been caught then that is the action that must be followed through. So Bentham's form of the theory is, essentially, totally in-compatible with the idea of justice.

It's generally held that Mill is a rule utilitarianist, which means we follow the general happines principle except in certain occasions where it is immoral to do so, for example the above example. But my question is: where does that leave us? I can imagine a huge number of similar scenarios where the general happiness principle would need to be ignored, so does that make Mill's theory a lame duck?

 

[Lord SteveO]

I think Mill's theory could be used for the most part. But like you say if an exception is encountered we must work around it to avoid our actions being immoral.
This sort of thing happens all the time in the world. A situation occurs where following a typical path to keep the majority safe/happy etc would be wrong, by our own moral standards. I'd give some examples but i'm stuck for time here.

 

[Demiurge]

Yeah, that rule utilitarianism, where you follow the general happines principle except in certain cases where it would be irrational and or possibly immoral. Theres still some debate as to whether Mill is a rule utilitarian or not.

I must raise a complaint. The rule utilitarian still is concerned only with utility, not whether the act is immoral independent of this, which would defeat the whole idea behind the system. The rule utilitarian considers what will happen if a rule is made. So, the RU will disagree with the AU because utility can be maximized in a particular circumstance by doing one thing, but if we make taking this action a rule, utility will not be maximized. In other words, the AU is concerned with a specific circumstance only, whereas the RU takes into account what happens if the action in similar circumstances is made a rule. Sorry for the repetition.

For example if imprisoning an innocent person just to make the public feel happier that a criminal had been caught then that is the action that must be followed through. So Bentham's form of the theory is, essentially, totally in-compatible with the idea of justice.

In this case, the rule utilitarian will ask if making a rule of imprisoning innocent people to please the public will, in the longterm, maximize utility.

 

[speed]

Ive been so inundated with indirect Utilitarian thought through economics, that I have forgotten what the exact notion of Justice was. Final Product, can you please explain what Mill stated about his crude Bourgeois utilitarianism and Justice-- I read Mill six or seven years ago, and am making assumptions that I probably shouldnt.

 

[infoterror]

I've studied the notion of justice a fair bit in the past and have always found Mill's utilitarianist account of justice fairly interesting.

The concept of "justice" IS utilitarianism!

 

[Lord Chimp]

Utilitarianism is a hollow doctrine. Because utility is not something that can be measured cardinally, there is no way to perform the utility arithmetic between different individuals and therefore derive justified propositions for moral conduct.

 

[derek]

^a bit dismissive? I like the idea of utility, but its implications can be dangerous.