Feeling dead after putting the connection of justice and utility into a whole other perspective with using the version of Mill’s “Act Utilitarianism.” Some Marilyn Manson- mOBSCENE helped out with writting it out. Believe it or not, but I concentrate a hell of a lot better while listening to MM. Especially when it comes to Philosophy homework. Now, I understand I may not have actually captured the whole idea behind the connection between justice and utility and the roles of: happiness, security, and desire, but with it being done with no more than three paragraphs, I think I had done a pretty fair job of interpreting it into my perspective as how the assignment called for. So here is my perspective. Let me know of anything I may missed out on for this perspective.
When reading Principle #3, in chapter two, on the discussion of utilitarianism and the connection between justice and utility according to Mill; as a reader/student who is slowly beginning to bring the whole concept of it into a whole other perspective, one begins to see exactly how tedious it becomes. Especially when including and explaining the roles of happiness, security, and desires within the new perspective being made. But once unterstood it becomes quite clear, infact incredibly clear as to how Mill creates, explains, or defines this connection between justice and utility. Hence, creating quite an interesting topic/conversation to be discussed about.
The connection between justice and utility is not through their definitions and the perspectives of others (at least not entirely), but through the understanding, when reading this version made by Mill through a philisophical point of view. Justice, is a behavior or treatment that is right and fair. Utility, is the state of being useful or profitable. Now, when combining the terms to see the connections among the two as how it is shown through an example within the book, you see that Mill makes “act utilitarianism” or in this case, utility, seem as the one (i.e act) that brings greater happiness to one, rather than the “rule utilitarianism” (i.e justice). But keep in mind, this is NOT the full explanation of the two, this is but the contrast. Now with that clear, Mills description is simple as well as the connection between the two terms. If one is to do the charitable act, which is thought to be ethically correct by Mill, it is thought that, this action will bring you more or actual happiness rather than the non-charitable action, i.e justice. But justice means a behavior/treatment that is fair and right, well, then when that action is committed, both utility and justice have that connection of it supposedly bringing happiness and being something right, fair, or useful. In all, it plays together in a combination of a multitude of examples and detailed explanations, but that is what it mostly boils down to. But not always is doing the chraitable act going to bring one all that happiness, nor the non-charitable act as well. So, it’s almost like a catch 22.
As for how this includes the roles of: happiness, security, and desires. One desires happiness throughout life. Mostly either through a secure act or manner driven with a desire to attain it. Which is how this is included with the connection of justice and utility. Justice and utility are pretty much okay with an action being right and fair and useful or profitable, now if it is done so in a way that it does bring a being happiness without disrupting the balance of a right or fair action that is useful or profitable, well then you are pretty much in the okay zone. It isn’t in a “vialation” or “interference” of the connection between the two. It just revolves around its self in a circle of actions that has an affect with the other. Without doing so, it just becomes a destructive act of utilitarianism that has no understanding or connection.
Tons of Love Bites,
Time for this Goth girl to get some sleep. -,.,-…..ZzZzzZz Night!