John Mill’s approach to justice is a qualitative approach based on the foundation of utilitarianism, which is what creates the greatest happiness or the most good for people is the right thing to do. This approach is teleological in so the ends or happiness justify the means or actions are in proportion. Mill is focused on rule-utilitarianism, which does not test each individual action directly by the first principle of utility, but instead, the individual act is just if it conforms to a secondary principle that has shown to have utility over-all. Historically speaking certain actions have been shown to have greater utility and can therefore become principles by which we can act upon. Justice and equality depend on the foundation and demands
…show more content…
In the 1980s the Reagan administration made major tax cuts for the top 1%, which in turn redistributed the wealth upwards. The rationale was that through trickle down economics is if the income is at the top it will be redistributed, and companies could use this income to develop and create more jobs. Creating more jobs would create more happiness and utility for people, but companies ended up merging and creating unemployment instead of jobs. At this point, Mill’s approach is problematic because the rules of thumb can always be overridden and follow-up by using act-utilitarianism and the immediate principle of utility. Companies did not define rules in a way that would benefit the greater good and happiness over-all, instead companies defined their rule of thumb through basic economics – greatest profit. In addition, the Bush administration conducted another round of tax cuts, which continued the trend of benefiting the wealthiest Americans. However, in this case Mill’s approach could have been used beneficially. Historically speaking, the first tax cuts during the Reagan administration did not bring about prosperity or the greatest utility. Therefore, by using Mill’s approach the Bush administration would have noted the historic secondary principle that had shown the fault of tax cuts in terms of
In the 1980s the Reagan administration made major tax cuts for the top 1%, which in turn redistributed the wealth upwards. The rationale was that through trickle down economics is if the income is at the top it will be redistributed, and companies could use this income to develop and create more jobs. Creating more jobs would create more happiness and utility for people, but companies ended up merging and creating unemployment instead of jobs. At this point, Mill’s approach is problematic because the rules of thumb can always be overridden and follow-up by using act-utilitarianism and the immediate principle of utility. Companies did not define rules in a way that would benefit the greater good and happiness over-all, instead companies defined their rule of thumb through basic economics – greatest profit. In addition, the Bush administration conducted another round of tax cuts, which continued the trend of benefiting the wealthiest Americans. However, in this case Mill’s approach could have been used beneficially. Historically speaking, the first tax cuts during the Reagan administration did not bring about prosperity or the greatest utility. Therefore, by using Mill’s approach the Bush administration would have noted the historic secondary principle that had shown the fault of tax cuts in terms of