Comparing John Stuart Mill And John Rawls To Gaining Justice

How do we ensure justice?

Throughout this essay, the concept of justice, and methods in which it can be achieved will be explored. Moreover, reference to both John Rawls and John Stuart Mill, two philosophers with opposing ideals, will be implemented, in order to determine which strategy, if any, would formulate the most successful structure for achieving justice.
First, to achieve justice we must define it. In its most simplistic form, it is the practice of fairness. When thinking of fairness, consider equity, and the purpose equitable solutions serve. Unlike equality, equity provides each individual an opportunity for fairness. Meaning, every citizen obtains access to the same platforms or sectors in a society. Ultimately, preventing “peculiar

Rawls’s ultimate objective was to rid society of injustice. His motives stemmed from exposure to wrongful occurrences such as Second World War and devastating poverty. Rawls argued that instead of evaluating individuals based off their own moral compass there must be a “social contract”, which all citizens of a community are expected to abide by. Essentially, this contract would contain a ‘set of rules’ or shared a ideal that every individual must agree upon. Furthermore, every involved participant must agree upon the same definition of injustice. As mentioned earlier, for his philosophy to be successful, there must be no ‘peculiar advantage’, therefore, no society can function with hierarchical structure, there must be equal opportunity and equal power. Moreover, justice and an ethical mindset must govern institutional decision-making. To ensure his philosophy could be applicable to reality, Rawls develop two essential principles of justice. The first factor is that any citizen in a position of political power is not entitled to more freedoms than someone else apart or affected by a social institution. The second element is that the inequality or disadvantage that one receives is equal to everyone else. Moreover, if a person in a position of political power is more advantaged than an average citizen, then each

Mill’s beliefs, although not entirely equal, would be easier to achieve, whereas, Rawls’s philosophy would require ubiquitous participation and agreement of all citizens. However, there is a stronger argument that Rawls’s Justice as Fairness is more just than Mill’s utilitarianism. By measuring behaviour as who benefits most, Mill prioritizes the happinesses of certain individuals. But, what shall happen when rebellion occurs due lack of equitable treatment? This philosophical structure ensures success for micro levels of self-sacrifice such as dinner preferences or car-playlists. However, existing in a society where only one group can be advantaged is not a sustainable philosophy, realistically it would be immediately rejected by humanity. Utilitarianism unsuccessful nature can be displayed through initiatives such as Black Lives Matter. Mill’s philosophy can be applied to concepts such as white privilege. There is ongoing discourse surrounding the problematic nature of the racism, which is embedded within multiple facets of society. Mosts systems have been designed, consciously and subconsciously, to benefit what is considered (although untrue) the ‘majority of society, white people. However, despite this advantageous aspect, there is still oppression and disadvantage, which has continued to be confronted by years of protest. Thus begging the question, how can a philosophy be