Justice in itself exists in many different forms and upholds various interpretations. Due to its multifaceted nature, justice needs to be analyzed from several perspectives; utilitarian, subjective, and ultimate viewpoint. Utilitarian Justice examines the issue in the broadest sense. It is attainted when maximum utility is with oneself and its community; hence, reconciliation between an individual and the community is of utmost significance. For this goal to be reached, free speech, information, and discussion must be upheld to the most extensive degree in order to arrived at the most just outcome. In Liberty of Thoughts and Discussion John Stuart Mill explicitly promotes these principles. Establishing his argument on Utilitarianism, Mill vigorously upheld the liberty of speech absolutely, except during coercion. These ideas correlate directly with the circumstances in Billy Budd by Herman Melville. In order to defend the actions of Claggart, Billy Budd, and Captain Vere, we must examine the situation in the three viewpoints stated and further justify it in the proximate and ultimate outcome. Only then will justice become apparent.
The ultimate cause of justice when it comes to speech is to have unlimited freedom in expression. According to Mill, Liberty and Discussion should never be suppressed unless under coercion. "Suppose that government is entirely at one with the people and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exe...
... middle of paper ...
... events, he ultimately respected Captain Vere (knowing the circumstances and pressure on the captain) by blessing Captain Vere. Because the story was presented in a broader perspective, we understand that although Claggart wasn't justify in coercion, and Billy would have been better in defending his fallibility, therefore promoting free speech. Given the circumstances, it was just that captain veer executed Billy Budd to exterminate coercion of opinion and harmful thoughts. Had the Captain known more information given the circumstances, the outcome would have been different. But either way, we would learn the moral of the story. Billy Budd is a loyal sailor. His purpose was to promote this freedom. Purpose of freedom is to find our purpose in life: to find a way to help others. His story does teach us a lesson, the meaning of free speech and the omnipotence of it.
Mill begins “On Liberty” by asserting the principle that we should never regulate the actions of others, except if those actions harm others. He goes on to suggest that we should not restrict speech, even when we find it false. What seems odd about this is that Mill is a utilitarian, which means that the rightness or wrongness of a policy or action depends on its consequences. Clearly, some speech does an awful lot of harm and not much good, so how can Mill hold the view that we should never censor? (Your answer should include Mill’s discussion of why censorship “robs the human race” and you should cover both cases in which the minority view is false and when it’s
One of the more severe charges against Mill's conception of liberty involves socio-cultural background of the author's politics. Mill advocates paternalism on moral grounds in several instances that suggest an intellectual bias and a level of intellectual superiority, embedded in the nineteenth century culture and the Western world. Under Mill's paradigm, freedom is limited to those who are capable of rationality, allowing despotism as a sufficient alternative to 'educating' in all other instances (Goldberg, 2000). Thus, one's incompetence allows for a coercive force and social control (Conly, 2013).
In Robert K. Martin’s essay “Is Vere a Hero?” he points out many faults in Vere’s actions involving the accusations against Billy. When Billy killed Claggart Vere immediately decided Billy’s fate. Martin points out that Vere fails to take into account Billy’s motives and intentions. Although motives and intentions do not change the fact that Billy killed Claggart it could’ve been the difference between life and death. Martin also argues that Vere made no attempt to prove whether a mutiny was really going to happen or not. When Billy was brought to trial Vere was the accuser, the witness, the judge, and even the defense council at times. He used his power to manipulate the court’s decision. Vere did not listen to Billy’s motives and intentions for killing Claggart but yet when Vere violated legal procedure his intentions mattered because he said th...
In relation to social obligations and advancement of society, Mill writes advocating the expression of one’s opinion as the main driving force. Mill states, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in sile...
For Mill, the freedom that enables each individual to explore his or her own particular way of life is essential for a generous and diverse development of humanity. The only source of potential within society to further continue human development is the spontaneity or creativity that lies within each individual. Mill has a utilitarian view on freedom. He was especially keen on individual liberty because it allowed the greatest measure of happiness. His concern is not to declare liberty as a natural right but to rather set out the appropriate constraints within ‘Civil or Social liberty’. Civil liberty is defined as the limit society can exert its legitimate power over each individual and social liberty has much to do with a political principle
Mill described the maximum point to which a government is obligated to interfere with their own citizens. He believed that a government should only use their power towards individuals who are influenced to “[do] a hurtful act to others”1. In his book, Mill says, “The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.”1 On this kind of situations, Mill illustrated that the government should stand up and assist his people from a danger. Furthermore, Mill believes that to deal with the criminal in a fairly approach and perform “court of justice”1 to prove his “fair share in the common defense”1.
The goal of life is the development of your abilities in accordance to your personality, which require freedom. The four benefits of freedom of speech include, the majority opinion may be incorrect and without freedom of speech there may never be a reform, we may learn new truths by arguing false views, uncontested beliefs do not equal knowledge, and uncontested beliefs lose all meaning and positive effects on your behavior. Mill’s argument defending why it is important for people to have freedom states that every person is different from one another, and people need to be able to find out what makes them happy through experimental action and not by being coerced by society or the government. What works best for some people, may not be the best option for
In On Liberty by John Stuart Mills, he presents four arguments regarding freedom of expression. According to Mills, we should encourage free speech and discussion, even though it may oppose a belief you deem to be true. Essentially, when you open up to other opinions, Mills believes you will end up closer to the truth. Instead of just accepting something as true because you are told, Mills argues that accepting both sides will make you understand why your side is true or false. Mills is persuasive in all four of his claims because as history would show, accepting both sides of an argument is how society improves.
The Republic by Plato examines many aspects of the human condition. In this piece of writing Plato reveals the sentiments of Socrates as they define how humans function and interact with one another. He even more closely Socrates looks at morality and the values individuals hold most important. One value looked at by Socrates and his colleagues is the principle of justice. Multiple definitions of justice are given and Socrates analyzes the merit of each. As the group defines justice they show how self-interest shapes the progression of their arguments and contributes to the definition of justice.
Some have misinterpreted Melville's Billy Budd as a story about the distinction between divine justice, on the one hand, and human justice, on the other. Here's a summary of the "incorrect" reading that leads to this conclusion: When John Claggart falsely accuses Billy Budd of inciting mutiny, Captain Vere (whose name suggests "truth") arranges a confrontation between the accuser and the accused. When Claggart shamelessly repeats the lie to Budd's face and when Captain Vere insists that Budd defend himself and when Budd is struck speechless (if you like) and, therefore, STRIKES Claggart who falls down dead, Captain Vere suddenly has a problem on his hands, a problem he did not bargain for. You see, he feels that Budd is innocent but he also knows that he has killed a superior officer, an offense punishable by death. Here's how Melville presents Captain Vere's argument at the drumhead court:
Fitzpatrick, J. R. (2006). John Stuart Mill's political philosophy: Balancing freedom and the collective good. London [u.a.: Continuum.
Mill stated the ‘classic liberal view of the relationship between law and morality’, introducing the Harm Principle: ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others’.
Chapter two of Mill’s On Liberty discusses the freedom of speech. Mill ultimately declares that a person is free to express his/her opinion as long as it does not cause physical harm to an individual’s person or possessions. This opinion can be “correct” or “wrong” and/or it can cause emotional harm; as long as Mill’s former harm principle is not violated, a person can have unlimited free speech. Mill explains that there is no possible way for one to know for certain that an opinion is true or false, only that one can work towards a more reasonable and logical opinion. Certainty means little if many people are certain that their differing opinions are true, and many opinions thought to be true have later been proven to be false such as slavery being accepted to it being inhumane. His strongest argument for this claim is that to suppress an opinion, one must be certain that it is incorrect and that the suppressor is infallible.
Can there be justice for all? To answer this question I must first define what justice is. Justice is ?the quality of being just, impartial or fair? in your dealings with others according to Merriam Webster?s Collegiate Dictionary. Keeping that definition in mind, I now must turn to the Voices of Wisdom in order to find an example of a situation in which all parties feel that they are being treated justly. After examining examples such as: Euthanasia, discrimination based on sexual orientation, and equal opportunity offered within the book, it becomes clear to me that there is in fact no possible way for there to be justice for all because everyone?s judgement is in some way or another clouded by their own self interests.
The Importance of Justice in Society One component of the definition of justice is the final outcome of the process of the law, whereby justice is distributed by the State. According to this definition, justice is the mechanical process of the structure of law – set in place and agreed to by the people of the State. Another definition is concerned with the value inherent in ‘just’ behavior. One distinction between these two definitions is the difference between an individual viewpoint and the larger view of the society. Either view incorporates the concept of moral judgment; ‘good’ as opposed to ‘bad’.