Have you ever ask yourself how much being unjust impacts your everyday life and decisions, and how your life would change when you are just? Plato wrote in this book’s expect about how Glaucon perceives the basic idea of justice and how we humans perceive justice as. People created own laws and are deciding whether or no to follow them. One of Glaucon’s argument is that we follow justice to get things or because of its consequences. He also argues that we should preserve justice as a way to gain things not to value it for its own sake. The first of Glaucon’s two claims is the descriptive claim which talks about and explains that humans instrumentally value justice instead of intrinsically valuing it.
According to Drolet, Marie-Josée, and Anne Hudon (p.51), two main theories attempt to explain in depth and justify moral laws and principles; utilitarianism and deontological theories. Jeremy Bentham and John Mill developed the theory of utilitarianism while Immanuel Kant developed the deontological theory. These two theories are based on how the consequences of a given act impact on an individual. The deontological theory is based on the one’s moral judgment rather than the set rules and regulations. On the other hand, the utilitarianism theory focuses on the consequences of a given deed. This paper primarily focuses on how a strict utilitarian and a strict deontologist would respond to George’s scenario. The arguments will be based on the
Glaucon’s continuation of Thrasyamachus’s argument against “justice” is broken down into three parts in which he described that his argument will make an attack on different points. First, he began by asking the questions of “what sort of thing people claim justice is” and “where they say it comes from”. Second, he went on to note that “everyone who pursues it pursues it unwillingly as something necessary but not good”. Finally, he articulated that “people do it fittingly since the life of someone who’s unjust is much better than that of someone who’s just as they say”.
 Krause, Sharon. 2004. “Hume and the (False) Luster of Justice”: Political Theory 32, no. 5: 628-655. Philosopher's Index, EBSCOhost (accessed March 29, 2012), 641.
In each of these cases, whether they entail a utopia or a dystopia, Hume argues that justice is valuable only when useful. This merits some consideration as well: it would appear that Hume believes justice to be that which enhances social utility, that is, what makes life better for the most people. I do n...
Justice is perhaps the most formidable instrument that could be used in the pursuit of peace. It allows for people to rise above the state of mere nature and war with one another. However the fool believes that justice is a mere tool to be used to acquire power and rule at his own discretion. Can it be possible for anyone to be that virtuous? Or does power acquired in that manner actually come from somewhere else? Through justice it’s possible to produce a sovereign that is in harmony with the very people that constitute its power. The argument against the fool and for justice will proceed from this foundation.
In utilitarianism priority of justice is possible in view of the priority of its bases. Justice is more than just one of the values, because its principles are derived independently of the other values. Unlike other practical principles, the moral law is not intended to advance any random interests and goals. Justice in utilitarianism does not include any ideas about welfare. Since the idea of justice precedes all purely empirical purposes, justice has a position in relation to the welfare and sets its limits.
Firstly, rules generate exceptionally more utility as they avert more disunity than they create. Having moral rules enhances utility by restricting people’s discretionary decisions which may lead to the suffering (disunity) of society and themselves. However, rules do sometimes allow discretion if having a rule in such circumstances results in a lack of maximisation of utility. Secondly, rule utilitarians do not dismiss concepts like justice, desert and rights; in fact, they accept such concepts but merely construe them from the standpoint of maximising utility. Pivotal is justice, desert and rights as they promote overall utility and well-being. Yet, people who acknowledge these concepts need to bear in mind that in certain circumstances, there is a need to abandon these concepts for individuals and prioritise the overall happiness of society in general.
‘’Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the focus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action and or policy over others (Cavalier, 1996)’’. It is a morally demanding position and asks one to do the
... believe that if the intent of the agent's actions is to try to maximize the greater good or to create the greatest net utility possible, then it does not matter whether or not one is successful in carrying out his/her chosen act. Lastly, questions of morality and whether what one is doing in upholding the utilitarian concepts is "right" hold no ground. This is because utilitarianism clearly states that if the act in question maximizes the net utility, without causing harm or pain to all considered, the real moral question becomes, "Wouldn't you be morally wrong in not carrying out said act?"