J.S. Mills: Morality

In his work "On the Connexion Between Justice and Utility", John Stuart Mills begins by discussing the inherent feeling of justice that people have. He says that humans have both intellectual instincts and animal instincts, and that is it possible that the former judgements be wrong as well as the latter actions. Relating to the natural feeling of justice, Mills says, "Mankind are always predisposed to believe that any subjective feeling, not otherwise accounted for, is a revelation of some objective reality." In other words, just because we have an inherent or natural feeling or belief towards justice, or anything for that matter, does not mean it should not be "controlled or enlightened by a higher reason."

Mills used his higher reason to discuss justice. An interesting relationship he developed was between justice and moral right. According to Mills, there are five universal actions that are just or unjust. Within these five he defines the "moral right". Therefore the relationship between justice and moral right, according to Mills, is contained within his explanation of the universal aspects of justice and is linked by the concept of expediency.

The first of the universal "modes of action" and "arrangements of human affairs" that are just or unjust is: it is unjust to violate the legal rights of people. This includes personal liberty, property, and anything guaranteed by the law. The second is: it is unjust to withhold any person that to which he has a moral right. This concept of moral right will be referred to later. The third is: it is just to obtain what he deserves and unjust to take what he does not deserve. The fourth: it is unjust to break faith with anyone. In other words, to break a commitment "expressed or implied". Finally: it unjust to be partial, or to favour one over another.

Within these five universal forms of justice, Mill's explains the moral right. An unjust law is one that infringes on somebody's legal right. However, there are at times when laws are themselves unjust. Because the right being infringed can no longer be called a legal right, it is called a moral right. Mill's explains how this concept stems from the debate over the following of unjust laws. Some argue that when a law is inexpedient it is unjust, since all laws impose some restriction on the natural liberty of mankind, and thus may be "blamelessly