Conclusion: Rights are expedient and the preservation
of individual rights is a utilitarian interest.
Premises:
1:
The preservation of justice is expedient.
o There are two parts of justice: expected rule of conduct, and the beliefs which authorize the rule of conduct (53).
§
A
rule of conduct is intended for humanity’s good therefore an expedient
ingredient (53).
The beliefs involve the wish to punish those who have done wrong and knowing that there is somebody who has been harmed (51).
The beliefs involve the wish to punish those who have done wrong and knowing that there is somebody who has been harmed (51).
·
Neither
of these ingredients have anything moral in it.
o Justice naturally would cause people to aimlessly hate whoever does anything wrong to them (52).
Justice comes from the human desire for retribution, which is not moral (51).
Justice comes from the human desire for retribution, which is not moral (51).
·
What
makes justice moral is the fact that it is a social feeling and it only acts for the general good. Therefore, what makes
justice moral is its expediency (52).
o Justice becomes moral
because it retaliates when society not solely an individual has been harmed.
o Utility has uncertain standards, and people interpret it differently. This is the same with justice. That is why we have judges and courts, and so many disagreements on what is just. This is
another reason why justice cannot be independent of utility (55).
2.
Most applications of justice are ways to maintain the notion of moral rights.
· Justice is interpreted differently by different people, and changes in their notion of utility (46).
· The major concern of justice is to protect human rights. This is because the purpose to protect justice is to protect the harmony of humanity. Protecting the harmony of humanity means protecting human’s individual rights. Thus, rights become a utilitarian interest.
· Justice suggests not only what is right and wrong, but what the individual calls his moral rights (50).
3.
Rights are defended by society.
·
The meaning of a person's rights is that he may demand from society to protect his ownership of that right. That protection can be provided with the law, education, or social opinion (53).
· Utilitarianism's Greatest Happiness Principle makes each person's happiness valued equally in comparison to others.
-If there are any inequalities (such as slavery, women having less rights than men), the society is unjust.
· Rights therefore are things which society should defend (54).
-If there are any inequalities (such as slavery, women having less rights than men), the society is unjust.
· Rights therefore are things which society should defend (54).
4.
Human rights are fundamental utilities for society.
o Security is so essential for human
happiness, therefore protection of human rights is necessary for human
happiness.
§
The most important interest of society is to have protection of all individuals (54).
o Society, then, cannot succeed if it does
not protect human rights, because happiness/peace does not grow when its rights
are not protected.
o Injustice does not harm only an individual but it harms the entire society.
§ Society depends on its ability to defend against evil and the entire value of each individual (54).
o Injustice does not harm only an individual but it harms the entire society.
§ Society depends on its ability to defend against evil and the entire value of each individual (54).
o Because rights are fundamental for
society to grow, they are utilities for society.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought this argument outline was extremely detailed, well organized, and helpful. At first I did not understand how expediency tied into this argument because it sounded contradictory for the rights of people to be convenient because it is usually considered immoral, but then it made sense because, as you said, "rights are fundamental for society to grow they are utilities for society. Therefore, rights are expedient to society." That helped me understand the main premise Mill was trying to convey and so I thought you did a great job.
ReplyDeleteSo my only concern with this (not necessarily with your outline, rather with utilitarianism) is that it doesn't account for the discrepancies between a person who perceives or feels injustice and the society which determines and adjudicates whether or not an injustice has in fact been committed. What if a person applies a notion of expediency and social justice further than the society is willing to do? Does that make the society unjust? Or does it make the request of the individual invalid and ungrounded? There seems to me a larger whole in this question for determining moral law than Kant's categorical imperative.
ReplyDeleteI liked this argument outline a lot; it was very well done. I thought your last premise was great because I noticed that while I was reading. I highlighted a line while I was reading that would fit great in your last premise. It reads, "on it we depend for all our immunity from evil and for the whole value of all and every good" referring to security (54). It could follow your first or second bullet point in your last premise. I thought it was a quote that could work well in your argument. All in all great outline though, good job.
ReplyDeleteI thought your argument outline was well-done also. I think it flowed quite well and the explanation of what justice was for Mill was a crucial part of understanding your argument, and you made a good case for it in your outline. Two parts of justice-- very well done and clearly explained. One thing I would ask, though, is what is a human right for Mill? It was discussed in premise 4 of your outline. The interest involved (page 54) was additionally discussed, and why it is important to protect and value these rights. But, I think the outline could have defined what you think Mill's idea of a human right means. Other than that, this outline was very useful and well written.
ReplyDeleteValerie - This argument outline was extremely helpful. I have a similar issue with utilitarianism to that of Dan's. I'm confused in the sense that there are many people who feel that their rights are not being defended by society. For example, in this past election, women's reproductive rights were put on the main-stage of both Obama and Romney's campaigns. Some women felt as though their rights could have been taken away from certain legislatures that were suggested by Romney. How does utilitarianism account for this? How do people who feel as though their rights are being violated and/or not protected by society fit into the equation?
ReplyDeleteI thought this argument was very detailed and covered the important aspects of the reading well. Reading your outline was helpful when I looked over my own notes. One thing you could include, perhaps, is utilitarianism's greatest happiness principle. Each person's happiness is equal and valued as much as someone else's. This is an imperative aspect in utilitarianism. If there are any social inequalities, it means that society is unjust--maybe you could connect this to premise 3, where you talk about the connection between rights and society.
ReplyDeleteGreat outline! Personally, I thought Mill was a bit confusing and your work was extremely helpful. The only thing I can think would make it even better would be examples. Such as how someone who disagrees with society's views, in terms of believing in more justice. Who would be injust in that case? Besides that suggestion, this was a well structured outline.
ReplyDeleteThank you Mika and Thomas! I took your advice and added what you mentioned onto my premise. Colleen, your point is interesting. So, I mentioned it vaguely in my premise. As you can see in premise 3, if a society does not treat people fairly, they are unjust. So, I suppose America is unjust. But after listening to Obama's speech on Monday, that can't come as quite a surprise. Even he admits our country has a lot of work to do in order to be on the right path.
ReplyDelete