• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Why are justice and integrity problematic for utilitarianism?

Extracts from this document...


Week Three: Justice and Integrity Why are justice and integrity problematic for utilitarianism? Mill outlines utilitarianism as a principle by which one can make a choice, which will be considered as the correct or moral thing to do. He asserts that by choosing the outcome which would, under foreseeable circumstances, give maximum general happiness, you will be undertaking the most moral choice. Mill moves to this argument in Utilitarianism by considering first that all humans naturally desire their own happiness, and that by desiring such happiness we show that it must be good. He continues the argument by stating that the best society would be one in which all people work to maximise the happiness of the greatest number of people and with such creation of maximum happiness, there is the creation of maximum good. It is, however, this aggregation of desires in which Mill's argument faces its difficulties. I shall consider the cases of integrity and justice, of which neither seems to fit resolutely with Mill's utilitarian argument. Although Mill could, indeed, argue that the problems of integrity and justice such as emotional attachment and personal conviction, which I hope to show are problematical to the argument, are not a consideration of the utilitarian argument which looks solely at maximum happiness and not at motive, I shall endeavour to demonstrate the dilemma they pose for utilitarianism. ...read more.


The problem which I believe that integrity poses for utilitarianism is that it requires a lack of emotional attachment and personal moral constraints. Mill states that it is possible for the calculation of utilitarianism to be undertaken: "People talk as if the commencement of this course of experience had hitherto been put off, and as if, at the moment when some man feels tempted to meddle with the property or life of another, he had to begin considering for the first time whether murder and theft are injurious to human happiness." Although this is true Mill does not make allowance for the inclusion, and priority, of factors besides the maximum general happiness, such as the lower-order priorities discussed earlier. Can it be that a person can truly side-step their past experience and commitments and experience in any one circumstance? And indeed, is this a preferred situation? If we ask people to alienate themselves in each circumstance, and to consider only the maximum general happiness which would result from that particular circumstance, it seems that there would be no use in having any particular moral convictions, or rules to live by in general, when each circumstance must be interpreted individually. However, we must appeal to our inner sense of right and wrong, which has been created through social learning, to calculate that which would provide the greatest happiness. ...read more.


It seems, therefore, that under the laws of utilitarianism, there can be no justification for justice as a distributive practice. Ryan describes this conclusion as: "show(ing) justice is a principle independent of, and in some ways opposed to, that of a maximizing general happiness. To desire an equal, or fair, distribution of goods is not the same thing as desiring maximizing goods." Smart does, however, approach the above view in a positive way. Although it seems that justice does not equate with utilitarianism, it does not necessarily mean that utilitarianism itself can be condemned. Although it is unjust if the innocent man were to be put into prison, it must be accepted that greater happiness would be achieved. Thus it is that Smart agues the possibility that to be both just and happy is impossible and that, in reality, there can be no one ethical system which appeals to all natures and moods, for even each individual person has internal conflicts and would calculate utils on scales very different on different days, as well as with other people. I conclude, therefore, that due to the complexity of human nature and the way that humans build their moral and decision making processes from experience and social learning, integrity poses a problem to a utilitarian theory which relies upon a society which does not consider emotional attachments in their decision making process. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Compare, contrast and evaluate Plato and Mill on the relationship between individual and society

    Mill would argue that this analogy is incomplete, for the crew are able to be taught the skill of navigation themselves and do not need to rely solely on the "star-gazer", wouldn't a crew of capable navigators be better than just one?

  2. Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an unfair system of ethics which could not work in the ...

    In each case, the rule takes priority over my immediate situation. Although rule utilitarianism seems to overcome some of the difficulties encountered in act utilitarianism, as leisure activities wouldn't be prevented as a rule that allows people leisure time would be acceptable.

  1. Nietzsche and Mill on Conventional Morality

    Mill writes, "Actions should be judged according to their probable consequences regardless of any religious codes or binding principles." The implication of which is that a person should be judged on their intentions in committing an action in exactly the same way as they would be in a conventional moral system.

  2. What is the most telling objection to Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle?

    It was inconceivable to Mill that an intelligent Victorian gentleman would prefer lower pleasures to those of intellect. The fact, therefore, that according to utilitarianism pleasure is our main objective is a central source of criticism. Utilitarianism in its purest form is incredibly demanding.

  1. Introduction to Philosophy.

    We depend on our reason to come into contact with the truth of an idea. Thought is beyond our senses. > According to Plato our soul re-existed & it was in the world of forms before it came in this world & was trapped inside a body --> "ANAMNESIS".

  2. Assess Utilitarianism

    Mill also introduced the idea of 'secondary principles' which were to guide our decisions and aid the greatest happiness principle. These principles are rules of sorts, fixing many of the vague gaps left by Bentham's theory. These rules tend to, from experience, produce the greatest happiness.

  1. Compare and Contrast the Philisophical Contributions of Nietzsche and Mill to our understanding of ...

    can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." -So Mill is referring to not just any harm, but specifically physical harm.

  2. Fathers and Sons - The Quarrel – Chapter 10 .

    Although he may look down on them and not think much of them he still treats them like people and so they will obviously support him on this one so Pavel made bad move by challenging how Russian Bazarov is as he has more to show for it than Pavel.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work