John Stuart Mill Just And Unjust
When you look at torture and the idea of torture you also have to look at what both a just and unjust act is. Both Aristotle and Mill discuss justice and injustice along with just and unjust acts. So in order to determine if it is ever permissible to torture another person according to Mill and Aristotle, you have to first look at both of their definitions of justice and if the act is just or unjust.
In Aristotle’s Book II of Nicomachean Ethics, he explains that virtue of character is the mean to the ultimate end, which is happiness. Aristotle states that, without a goal or ultimate end (happiness), life does not have a purpose. Therefore every action in a person’s life has to be made with true virtue of character in mind in order to achieve …show more content…
With this general happiness for everyone’s well-being, a persons priority or rights can’t take a lead or be more important over the general happiness of everybody (chapter II, p.17). This agrees with Aristotle’s, that the political functioning in a society through virtuous character are to benefit the community. Mill argues against Aristotle by claiming that because having security is the definitive right that is deserved by all people through law, certain actions, such as torture, are just in order to ensure that a person has security (Chapter 5, p.54). With this being said Utilitarianism follows a concept that is focused on the general happiness of everyone in the community, but also the happiness that comes to them through security. Mill states that there are certain qualities that show justice and injustice, and some of these qualities are that it is unjust for a person to be deprived of their legal and moral rights, but it is just that everybody should get what they deserve. According to this, torture of a person, can be justified because it will overall give people assurance of security and happiness. But, it is also unjust because it violates a person’s moral and legal rights. This is where the General Happiness Principle comes into play. The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness, which is pain (Chapter 2, p. 7). Happiness is the absence of pain or freedom of pain, which is the only thing that should be desirable as an end and people will always choose the end that is overall more desirable in pleasure (Chapter 2, p. 8). Mill clearly states, “…laws and social arrangements should place the happiness or the interest of
In Aristotle’s Book II of Nicomachean Ethics, he explains that virtue of character is the mean to the ultimate end, which is happiness. Aristotle states that, without a goal or ultimate end (happiness), life does not have a purpose. Therefore every action in a person’s life has to be made with true virtue of character in mind in order to achieve …show more content…
With this general happiness for everyone’s well-being, a persons priority or rights can’t take a lead or be more important over the general happiness of everybody (chapter II, p.17). This agrees with Aristotle’s, that the political functioning in a society through virtuous character are to benefit the community. Mill argues against Aristotle by claiming that because having security is the definitive right that is deserved by all people through law, certain actions, such as torture, are just in order to ensure that a person has security (Chapter 5, p.54). With this being said Utilitarianism follows a concept that is focused on the general happiness of everyone in the community, but also the happiness that comes to them through security. Mill states that there are certain qualities that show justice and injustice, and some of these qualities are that it is unjust for a person to be deprived of their legal and moral rights, but it is just that everybody should get what they deserve. According to this, torture of a person, can be justified because it will overall give people assurance of security and happiness. But, it is also unjust because it violates a person’s moral and legal rights. This is where the General Happiness Principle comes into play. The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness, which is pain (Chapter 2, p. 7). Happiness is the absence of pain or freedom of pain, which is the only thing that should be desirable as an end and people will always choose the end that is overall more desirable in pleasure (Chapter 2, p. 8). Mill clearly states, “…laws and social arrangements should place the happiness or the interest of