Chapter-4 :Of what sort Of proof the principle Of utility susceptible.

So far mill has presented, explained and defended the utilitarian moral theory. Now mill
continues to consider what evidence is there that utilitarianism is an option as plausible as any
competing moral theory . Mill describes that foundation assumption of a theory can not be
proven rationally but can only be discovered through experience.so, it is hard to see why
utilitarianism should be believed . why should people believe that happiness is the only thing
intrinsically desirable ?

Happiness is not an abstract idea, but an aim of behaviour and state of being the proof that it is
desirable for happiness and pleasure, mill claims ,is the fact that people desire it. Its only
necessary to note that people are perusing what they want to draw this conclusion.it is “one of
the ends of conduct “, that is one of the goals that people want to achieve. Certain ends like
morality, safety and art are also attractive . mill claims that both are means of happiness, and
that they are also part of happiness. Since one still desire that which is part of happiness, or a
path to it happiness is the ultimate end of human life and the criteria of morality. Desire itself
is not fundamentally different from the will, things Mill. Both are psychological states; passive
desire and active will .Another way to put it is that will is desire , activated. A desire to be good
generates the moral will in relation virtue. Contrary to Kant’s conception of the true or virtuous
will which is believe in itself , Mill argues that virtuous will is a means to good . while
happiness is good, the virtuous will does not refute happiness as the end of human behaviour.

EMPERICAL EVIDANCE OF HAPPINESS AS A GOOD

Mill believes that empirical analysis through psychological examination supports

utilitarianism. The only evidence available of anything that is inherently good is people search
for happiness .This evidence is provides through sensation and awareness or in other words
human experience provide this evidence it is therefore clear that Mill continues an empirical
approach to prove the principle of utility . The proof of utilitarianism’s -that happiness is a
good that should be persuade by people – is that people desire there own happiness that they
consider good. It is reasonable to argue or to claim that no one wants what they believe is bad
for them no one wants or desires any unpleasant, negative harmful or painful. Mill assumes to
a man an important dignity that is praise worthy and may have accepted his experience within
his social circle, but he fails to account for all humanity, particularly that potion living in
straitened circumstances. Mills state that happiness is a morality criteria . But is that the only
criteria ? The answer given by Mill is Yes. Since it’s the only thing people need , it’s the only
morality criteria .

HAPPINESS AND VIRTUE

While some of Mill’s discourse is complex, it is bound up with the statement that whatever one
desires is either a source of fulfilment or happiness itself .Therefore, a part of happiness is
goodness or means to happiness. They can also be happy if they are the end of the action . They
can also become equivalent to happiness, if they are the end of action. Part of the point here is
that Mill wants to challenge the common view of the time, namely that virtue is distinct from
happiness. It is worth remembering that morality in Victorian England was associated with
austerity. Mill's conception of happiness is robust enough to challenge the morality of his day,
and any similar moralities today. He has argued that the greatest happiness principle is broad
enough to include individual and social good, and to encompass a distinction between higher
and lower pleasures. Finally, happiness is not simply an abstract idea or ideal, but instead is an
integral component, and ultimate goal, of action.

Individual and "Aggregate" Happiness

It should be remembered that the statement of Mill concerning the desire of happiness of a
person applies to a desire for happiness for all , In other words Mill can be read as arguing that
one desires the happiness of everyone in desiring ones one happiness. Foe the Claim that each
individual desires their own happiness, Mill conclude that happiness is an essential element of
the good pf all:” the happiness of each person is good for that person , and therefore the general
happiness is good for the aggregate of all people”.

In summary, Mills argument for utilitarianism as the morality criteria runs as follows:

“The only evidence that anything is desirable can be produce is that people actually want it”.
Everyone wants happiness for themselves . So, happiness is a good to each individual . In fact,
no one desires what is not part of one’s own fulfilment or a path to there happiness. Therefore
, to each individual only happiness is good, and to all person in aggregate.

One final consideration in this chapter is whether or not Mill is arguing for a descriptive account
of morality, or a prescription for morality—is he laying out what is, or what should be? Perhaps
it is both. Mill is apparently arguing more for the claim that his account of happiness is
descriptively correct, that is, that it accurately describes what we see around us. It's also likely
the case, however, that he intends to establish utilitarianism as a competitive moral alternative
to the current (Victorian) custom. It's clear that he thinks utilitarianism is superior to other
moralities, specifically that the utilitarian viewpoint is more humane than the alternatives.

Chapter-5 : Connection between justice and utility

Just as happiness was has been perceived to be separated from morality, its also been viewed
as distinct from truth. When justice is considered ordinary , it is divorced from necessity or
“expediency”. Therefore, this thinking has laid to the adoption of utilitarianism by one of the
most daunting obstacles . Mill’s analysis f the characteristic of justice is intended to show that
, in fact, it is not mutually exclusive to use and justice.

Mill’s wonders if justice is our experience’s thinking, feeling or sentiment. To explore what
they have in common, he outlines the characteristics of justice and thus determine how they
are derived. The following 6 characteristic’s outline by Mill’s are as follows:

 It is unjust to deprive people of that to which they have a legal right, such as liberty
or property.
 It is unjust to force people to obey bad laws.
 It is just for people to receive what they deserve.
 It is unjust to break faith with another person.
 It is just to be impartial with all people.
 Equality is just.

Mill’s study of justice involves an exploration of the history of the word itself , who’s
“primitive aspect…was compliance with law.” since then, the definition of justice has been
expanded some actions which are not governed by law. Analysis of justice requires assessing
conduct in terms of both what is necessary and what is punishable . Infringement of liberty or
a legal right is unjust when a person should have the right is in question . on the other hand, a
bad law may award an erroneous right . Because laws can be unjust, thus , they can not be the
sole and final definition of justice . It is unjust to deprive one of a moral right , just as one does
not deserve to gain it . people generally agree that underserved rewards violate a normal order
of things in some way , just as it is unethical to be refused what you want or have a moral right
to.
JUSTICE AND RIGHT

A Right is defined as a legitimate or valid claim one has on society . moral rights are restricted
to those one can legitimately claim. And “justice implies something which is not only right to
do , and wrong not to do , but which some individual person can claim from us as his moral
right .” Justice is different from other aspects of morality because it includes a specific
“misconduct (wrong done) , and some assignable person who is wrong.” Rather than a duty
which we are compelled to uphold , but not against some particular person, nor at some
prescribe time . therefore, wherever there is right the case is one of justice , but not all questions
of morality are not question of justice. Mill’s analysis of justice shows specifically how it is
bound up with morality, which he has already demonstrated is integral to utility.

ORIGIN OF SENTIMENT OF JUSTICE

The idea of justice is accompanied by a feeling . Mill’s claim that the feeling emerges in
sympathetic name of one who is the victim of injustice as a desire for vengeance . This primal
impulse is basically a mixture of self defence and a sense of sympathy for the one who has ben
wronged. Mill’s claim that this feeling is natural , not moral as such . Harm is a pain that must
be avoided and prevented . Of reality, all animals have such feelings, but people vary of there
ability to extent this feeling to others , not just themselves . It is therefore feeling that can
become moral , properly cultivated ; it can serve the good and ultimate happiness to the whole.

JUSTICE AND PUNISHMENT

Mill thinks the expediency or utility of justice is found in the fundamental human need for
"security." Nevertheless, he points out, disagreements over what justice is are as common as
disagreements over what benefits society. Nations disagree, for example, over what justice is,
and even for individuals, "justice is not some one rule, principle, or maxim, but many, which
do not always coincide in their dictates, and in choosing between which, he is guided either by
some extraneous standard, or by his own personal predilections."

“Implementing the idea of justice in the form of punishment is also a source of disagreement.
Mill points out that people disagree over whether or not punishment should be used as a
deterrent or exclusively "when intended for the good of the sufferer himself." Still others think
any punishment is unjust. These disagreements, Mill thinks, show that justice is not
independent of utility, and also that it's not "a standard per se." In other words, the competing
positions on justice and punishment are "extremely plausible." "Without going down to the
principles which lie under justice and are the source of its authority," Mill writes, refuting any
one of them is impossible.”

JUSTICE AND UTILITY

Disagreements about the idea of justice and its application revel something important about the
relationship between utility and justice. Its is commonly accepted that injustice occurs when
someone’s right has been violated . Mill’s has expressed someone who has the right a right to
valid claim “on society to protect him in the possession of it , either by force of law ,or by that
by education and opinion. ”The challenge is to decide who has the “valid claim” of individuals
on opposite site are involved who claim to have the right to be protected . According to mill ,
only utility can decide the issue . The valid claim is the one that preserves the general happiness
and encourages it. Justice and utility are not separate from each other . Alternatively, Mill’s
things that “justice is the term for certain categories of moral rules that apply more closely to
the basic element of human wellbeing and are therefore more often absolute responsibility then
any other rules for life guidance.” Justice demand , on behalf of utility, that people refrain from
harming each other or refrain with each other’s liberty without grounds .Punishment is reserved
for those who violate the social norms that promote the general happiness.

Mill’s main aim on the connection between the justice and utility is to show that justice and
utility are not , in fact, incompatible. Critics of utilitarianism often claim that, at its core, the
doctrine allows for people to be treated unfairly. More specifically, critics claim utilitarianism
does not protect people's rights. The main argument is that individual rights can be violated as
a means to promoting general happiness. In the utilitarian view, the critic holds, achieving the
greater good may demand the sacrifice of individual happiness and even individual justice.

This conflict between justice and utility is based on the feelings associated with each. The
feeling associated with justice—desire for vengeance—is thought to be more morally
authoritative than the feeling that attaches to utility—benevolence. Moreover, the idea of
justice is more restrictive than is utility. In other words, the demand of justice is obligatory in
a way that the demand of utility is not. A right against harm is thought to be absolute, whereas
there are multiple ways in which one can fulfil the obligation to promote others' happiness.

“Mill walks the reader through the six characteristics of justice to demonstrate that none of the
characteristics in and of itself is derived from a feeling, a moral right, or a natural law. Instead,
each of the six characteristics has the good of an individual, and ultimately society, at its root.
As he traces the etymology of justice, he distills its definition into a manmade law with penal
sanctions, further associating justice with expediency rather than intuition. Ultimately, he
defines justice as the desire to identify people who have been harmed and punish the people
who harmed them.”