Comparison of John Stuart Mill and John Rawls

John Stuart Mill and John Rawls both have different ideas of what justice means and how it should be applied in society.  Mill in his book Utilitarianism does not present his own theory about the definition of justice but instead writes about what other people define and believe justice is.  He does this because he believes justice is not an abstract concept but a sentiment of morality that most people share. Rawls in his book  A Theory of Justice defines justice into two different principles that both relate to equality. Mill in his writings is a utilitarian but differs from other utilitarians’ because of his belief in rights and the relationship between justice and utility. He believes that justice is rooted in utility and the human desire for retribution. Rawls on the other hand is not a utilitarian at all because his theories on justice and equality in society completely contradict with the definition of utilitarianism.

John Rawls in his writing defines two principles of justice. The first one he states is “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others (page 933.)” Rawls means that for a society to be called just the basic liberties of citizens are never to be violated. These rights to Rawls include political liberty meaning every citizen has right to vote or right to run for office, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, liberty of conscience and right to personal property. The second principle of justice deals with social and economic inequalities. In this principle Rawls says that inequalities can be just if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. For example if the rich receive tax cuts while the lesser advantaged have higher taxes this is unjust but if the rich are given higher taxes and the lesser advantaged keep normal taxes or receive tax cuts than that is just. Another part of his second theory of justice is that in a just society morally arbitrary factors should not determine ones opportunity to succeed in life or limit their life chances. For example, the economic or social class of the family you are born into shouldn’t affect your opportunities in life. This also means that offices and positions in government or society in general should be decided based on merit in a just society. Rawls though he argues for inequalities to only benefit the less advantaged, he is not opposed against inequalities for instance in the salary of a doctor versus a custodian. Mill in defining justice in Utilitarianism begins by listing things that are commonly classified as just or unjust in society. For example he states that it is considered unjust to deprive one of their rights. An exception to that though is that if a person is given rights he should not have as a result of a bad law. Another thing he lists is that it is unjust to show favoritism. In opposition of this people believe it is not necessary to be impartial in all situations for example in choosing companions or friends. These concepts of justice Mill says, even though containing so many different applications, in which are universally believed. Mill states that justice is about moral obligations. Although Mill writes about the origins of justice and what people belief it is, he himself does not offer his own definition of justice. To him, justice is not an abstract concept but a sentiment about morality that most people share. Justice only exists because people believe that it does and it means what people believe it means. This belief on the definition of justice is much different than Rawls. That is because Rawls believes in a set system of justice defined by basic rights and a complex belief in inequality. Mill on the other hand does not have his own definition of justice.