The Objection from Justice and the Conceptual/Substantive Distinction
In Leonard Kahn (ed.), Mill on Justice (2012)
| Abstract | I begin this chapter by outlining Mill's thinking about why justice is a problem for utilitarians. Next, I turn to Mill's own account of justice and explain its connection with rights, perfect duties, and harms. I then examine David Lyons' answer to the question of how Mill's account is meant to answer the Weak Objection from Justice. Lyons maintains that Mill's account of justice has both a conceptual side and a substantive side. The former provides an analysis of such concepts as 'justice' and 'rights'. The latter, based on the Principle of Utility, provides an explanation of when these concepts apply. As a result, utilitarians can allow for circumstances in which actions are wrong because they are unjust, while also claiming that the standards of right and wrong (as well as justice and injustice) are determined by the Principle of Utility. However, the main thesis of this paper is that Lyons' interpretation is flawed. The distinction between the conceptual and the substantive levels of Mill's thinking does not hold up to scrutiny, and even if it did, it would not support Lyon's reading of Mill. It would instead support a debunking interpretation of justice, an interpretation recently explored by Roger Crisp. Such a debunking interpretation suggests a very different response to the Weak Objection from Justice, one that many, but not all, utilitarians will find unwelcome. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesWojciech Sadurski (1984). Social Justice and Legal Justice. Law and Philosophy 3 (3):329 - 354.
David Lyons (1994). Rights, Welfare, and Mill's Moral Theory. Oxford University Press.
Joshua Kassner (2009). Completing the Incomplete: A Defense of Positive Obligations to Distant Others. Journal of Global Ethics 5 (3):181 – 193.
Emanuela Ceva (2009). Just Procedures with Controversial Outcomes: On the Grounds for Substantive Disputation Within a Procedural Theory of Justice. Res Publica 15 (3):219-235.
Leonard Kahn (ed.) (2012). Mill on Justice. Palgrave Macmillan.
H. Sheinman (2003). Tort Law and Corrective Justice. Law and Philosophy 22 (1):21-73.
Ted Honderich (1967). Mill on Liberty. Inquiry 10 (1-4):292 – 297.
Jonathan Riley (2008). What Are Millian Qualitative Superiorities? Prolegomena 7 (1):61-79.
Terence Ball (1985). The Incoherence of Intergenerational Justice. Inquiry 28 (1-4):321 – 337.
Stan van Hooft (2011). Humanity or Justice? Journal of Global Ethics 7 (3):291-302.
Lucinda Vandervort (1987). Social Justice in the Modern Regulatory State: Duress, Necessity and the Consensual Model in Law. Law and Philosophy 6 (2):205 - 225.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-10-01Total downloads31 ( #39,400 of 549,753 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,753 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
