In Mill's work he states that law is
not necessarily the direct criterion of justice. He believes in a far
more natural reasoning of justice which can be defined by his belief
of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is used to describe justice that is
far more moral based than law based. This is because what is lawful
is not always just. Mill states that law is not the ultimate
criterion of justice, but may give to one person a benefit, or impose
on another an evil, which justice condemns. In his work of “On the
Connexion between Justice and Utility” Mill brings up the scenario
of a slave and its master. The idea that the rights of the slave
should be sacred as those of the master is discussed heavily in the
fact that if a master were to give the slave very few rights, they
would not be considered impractical. However, the belief of that
slavery is just can be used in a case such as the trolley problem and
the question of is slavery just considering it makes a greater amount
of the population happy or is it more just to abolish slavery in
order to save the rights of the few people enslaved and cause greater
unhappiness amongst the population. This situation brings up Act
Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Many act utilitarians view
slavery more for how it could benefit society cost wise rather than a
rule utilitarian contemplating whether slavery causes a greater good
in society and eventually resulting in better consequences.
While this situation is considered
completely unjust in our society, there are some societies who do, in
fact, view slavery as a beneficial act. I, personally, believe that
based upon the belief of moral rights over lawfulness, slavery could
in no way be considered a justifiable act considering it revokes the
natural rights of people. However, in the case of the trolley
problem, could is be seen as more cost effective to revoke the rights
of few in order to gain the benefits of their labor?
Gaius, a Roman jurist of the 2nd century AD, wrote that "Slavery is a human invention and not found in nature. Indeed, it was that other human invention, war, which provided the bulk of slaves, but they were also the bounty of piracy ... or the product of breeding."
ReplyDeleteI like that quote because he draws a comparison between slavery and war; both are equally condemnable. A utilitarian might view slavery as morally "cost effective" like you said, but I doubt many modern utilitarians would. For a utilitarian, would the happiness produced by slave labor be greater than the miserableness of the enslaved? Even using utilitarian logic, I find it hard to agree with that (though that might be due to my personal morality impeding a fully utilitarian viewpoint).
The slavery example makes me think of sweatshops (not the same things obviously, but relatively close), people working in horrible conditions getting paid almost nothing. Obviously we all know that there are a lot of sweatshops across the world but I think it is something that many people care not to acknowledge. The people working in these factories make it possible for goods to cost much less, posing a problem: are low cost goods worth knowing the conditions and lives of the people who made them? Awhile ago, it came out that the Apple factories in China were awful and that many of their workers committed suicide, in this case, people acknowledged that it wasn’t good or “right” but took no action. It would seem as if people are in favor of being moral when it doesn’t affect them (this is obviously a very cynical view of people) but is this case? Should people take more action against sweatshops and boycott their products? But if the prices of goods go up it would also negatively affect the poorer populations, this further complicates the situation. What would the right thing to do be, if there is one?
ReplyDelete*Sigh* This is difficult. And Hallie bringing up sweatshops further complicates this question. I agree with Matt in that there is no logically moral way to enslave people and justify their enslavement through their market production benefit. However, as Hallie's thrown sweatshops into the mix, this question seems more real. I guess it's not enslavement since the folks working there are getting paid, but at what costs? Their quality of life can't be much better, and aren't if the high rate of suicide she notes is true. And the question is would their quality of life be even worse if the prices of the goods increase? I don't think so. Perhaps I'm the anomaly that doesn't think in capitalist terms, but here's what I think. If the folks in the sweatshops were paid decently, they'd be better off. The argument is that consumers wouldn't buy the product as it is now more costly to make up for the company's loss of capital since they'e paying workers more. Honestly, if it takes $100 to make one ipod and $50 to import it and ship it out to individual stores, don't sell the damned thing for $250 (these numbers are completely arbitrary, but my point stands). If the cost of producing one ipod is $100, included in that a DESCENT wage for workers, there's no need to up the prices. Especially since this is not a product that we HAVE to have to survive nor is it a fluctuating commodity like beef, milk, etc. But nah, the companies aren't going to take the financial hit to pay workers decently... business ethics, anyone?? I wish I could remember where I read this, but there was an article that essentially proved healthier, happier workers were all-round more productive. Guess apple and the like just assume these folks are expendable, as their shops are located in very poor areas in which people will work whatever job they can get.
ReplyDeleteI find this question extremely hard to answer, because I want to try to argue for the opposite of what most people would say: "I don't see any possible way thet slavery could be considered moral justice." Whereas I can't see myself argueing this in a well enough manner to convince people of the opposite, there have been people to do such, most likely much smarter people than myself! Maybe in taking the high road I am still applying Mill's theory of Utilitarinism? By not putting forth the pro-slavery argument than I am causing greater happiness within our class. But, if i was to will the action of closing my mouth everytime i have something unsavory to say for the happiness of a crowd, i don't think that would work as a universal law. Hmm... ponder ponder.
ReplyDelete