Comparing Aristotle And Mill's View Of Justice

When determining if torture is permissible within the views of both Aristotle and Mill we must first identify the meaning of justice. Understanding the difference between justice and injustice from both philosophers’ ideologies includes: “What sorts of actions are they concerned with? What sort of mean is justice? What are the extremes between which justice is intermediate?” (V.1, p. 67). Any kind of torture that could be expressed upon another person would be in relation to the concept of justice by both Aristotle and Mill. One must understand each philosopher’s point of view on justice, what is considered to be “just”, what is considered to be “unjust”, and then properly analyzing whether or not it would be accepted by or not by either of …show more content…
Utilitarianism is clearly stated to be strictly focused on the principle of happiness of all. Mill writes, “By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure” (II, p. 7). He also writes that one’s general happiness cannot be taken president over the happiness of others surrounding them. Up until this idea of the Utilitarian theory, Mill and Aristotle would be in agreement. Aristotle believes in the justice that is of political functioning in a society through one’s virtue of character, which will in turn benefit the community. Along with Aristotle’s view, Mill also accepts the concept of the end justifies the means. Meaning that, the outcome of an action will justify the moral decision as to the means of why in order to obtain that end, therefore the end results of those previous actions overshadow other actions. However, this is not Aristotle’s view of injury to another person results in a mean to the end, if the act of punishment by torture to a criminal or terrorist will protect the overall wellbeing of the entire population. Mill argues that to those whom have caused pain must be punished in the basis of justice and that we must also recognize those who have been harmed in the process. He writes, “We have seen that the two essential ingredients in the sentiment of justice are the desire to …show more content…
He states, “The primitive element, in the formation of the notion of justice was conformity to law” (V, p. 47). With that conformity to the law, those who do not conform will in turn show less moral decision making skills. When Mill explains his thoughts on just and unjust he states, that it is unjust to deny someone of his or her moral rights regarding the law, and that in return it is just to those who may have done wrong will receive what they deserve (V, p. 44-45). If a person were denied the legal and moral right resulting in an unjust act, then the utilitarian theory would show inconsistency within what it means when it comes to justice. Understanding the act of torture can be accepted in order to promote security within the general happiness of others, in which I question, how can it be unjust to deny a person of a legal and moral right? Mill answers this question by implementing the general happiness principle. “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the ‘greatest happiness principle’ holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (II, p. 7). Being legally and morally right shows the justification of the greatest happiness principle, which means that being unjust, denies you of that