Comparing ‘Real Justice’ with Utilitarianism

Both utilitarianism and real justice represent attempts to get ethics — rules governing the conduct of human beings in our relations with one another — out of the ‘ether’ and down to earth. Real justice is called that by its originator (this author) because it is wholly contained within material existence: the ‘real world’.

For those not up on all the historical details, ‘classical’ utilitarianism is credited to Jeremy Bentham (late 1800’s). As is common with an idea, there were antecedents and contemporaries with very similar ideas, but Bentham is the person most generally associated with ‘utilitarianism’. When John Mill learned about utilitarianism he immediately endorsed it and soon became its most avid advocate and intellectual contributor other than Bentham. Mill’s son, John Stuart Mill, also became an important figure in utilitarianism.

Mostly, it was a reaction to the esoteric philosophies such as those of Immanuel Kant and G.W.F. Hegel. Both of those were informed by what Kant called “noumena,” the immaterial equivalent of the phenomena of material existence. Beliefs, revelations, epiphanies, ideas, ‘feelings’, creative impulses, etc. — and of crucial importance for Kant’s ethics, willing) are all, for Kant, the products of noumenal realm — which cannot be perceived but are known by their impacts on people’s consciousnesses. Kant referred to them as a group as “intuitions.”

Bentham sought an ethic that all people could understand and put to, well, good practical use. Most importantly, he recognized that it had to be based on something that was common to all people — which no Kantian intuition can be. To that end, Bentham’s intent was to get all beliefs out of ethics. That included sacral beliefs, such as basing ethics on the ‘word of God’, as well as secular beliefs, such as basing ethics on a belief in ‘human equality’ or a belief in a priori ‘Rights’, such as so-called ‘Natural Rights’, which are believed to have been discovered, not created — perceived, not conceived — by people.

As many people are aware, utilitarianism is thought of most succinctly as ‘do whatever generates the most good (most happiness, best consequences, etc.) for the greatest number of people’. It does contain more subtlety than that, but that is a fair basic statement of it. There is a differentiation between ‘act’ and ‘rule’ utilitarianism, but that need not detain us. It is worth noting that all people are to be included in the ethical calculus merely because they are human beings, without any reference to ‘equality’ or any a priori ‘Right(s)’. (Later, John Stuart Mill would attempt to reconcile utilitarianism with liberty as a Right in On Liberty.)

A lot of good has been accomplished through utilitarianism. It became the dominant ethic in determining governmental policies and programs, particularly in England but also elsewhere. Therein lies, however, in philosophical terms, the biggest problem with utilitarianism: the definition of ‘the good’ (etc.). Any attempt to calculate the greatest good (etc.) for the greatest number of people can itself become a conceptual quagmire, but in terms that are purely philosophical, defining ‘the good’ (etc.), is the most problematic part of utilitarianism. In short, there is no single, universal definition of any of those terms as they are used in utilitarianism. All are part and parcel of what Kant called the “noumenal realm.”

Real justice follows from an observation that is universal for human beings within material existence: we humans have no choice but to effect choices (i.e., choose among perceived alternatives and take action to bring that choice to fruition). That makes choosing integral to being human. To recognize one another as fellow human beings we must respect one another’s capacity to choose, beginning with allowing all others to choose whether/how/to what extent to be involved in any way whenever any choice is being effected. That is to say, at a minimum we must refrain from co-opting or otherwise pre-empting the capacity of anyone else to choose in effecting any choice. That does boil down to a handful of absolute prohibitions: no killing, harming, coercing, stealing, or manipulating in our relations with other people when effecting any choice. Anyone who is refraining from any such actions in getting what they want is being just enough.

Here’s the thing: to act otherwise is to assert by one’s actions that the other being(s) involved are not (fully) human. The only way to justify any such assertion is to appeal to some ‘truth’ that lies outside or beyond material existence — belief, etc. Since the determinant of this ethic (that observation) and its referents (actions taken within material existence — which can include ‘speech acts’) are contained within material existence, going outside or beyond it to justify violating the absolute prohibitions contained in this ethic in effecting any choice is legitimately de-legitimated.

Simply put, we humans have no choice but to accept being governed by this ethic within its domain: actions involving other human beings in any way in the process of effecting any and all choices. Outside that domain personal morality is the only source of governance. Since the political process is the process of effecting choices for the community as a whole and the economy (the process of producing/acquiring goods/services) is nothing but choices being effected, the structure and functioning of both of those societal processes must be governed by the ethic of real justice: the requirement to respect the capacity of other people to choose in effecting any choice (which can be fairly summarized as ‘mutual respect in effecting choices’. The former must be democratic. The latter must allow markets to determine outcomes to the greatest possible extent that is consistent with the absolute prohibitions in mutual respect in effecting choices (acting on behalf of a business — or government — or any other entity — is no excuse for violating any of them). It must also have a democratically distributed income (one available to any adult citizen) in an amount that is sufficient for a materially sufficient life. A society governed by real justice would have the maximum liberty that coexisting human beings can share simultaneously.

It can be beyond us to ascertain our affects on all other people when we are effecting a choice so as to know whether we have violated the absolute prohibition on refraining from harming others. On the other hand, we can know full well when we are violating any of those other prohibitions. Identifying “harm” is — or should be — the focus in making laws; ascertaining and adjudicating ‘harm’ is the only legitimate purpose for a system of criminal and civil justice.

While understanding the derivation and the implications of real justice can take some effort (more for some than others), it is not at all esoteric. It is in fact the opposite of that: it is mundane. Its absolute prohibitions turn out to be nothing but commonplace ideas as to how people should act regarding other people. It accomplishes in actuality what utilitarianism set out to accomplish but did not: locate in the ‘real world’ an ethic that people can employ in ‘real life’. It requires no calculations. It requires no conception of ‘the good’ or any other noumenal ‘artifact’. It is, really and truly, real justice.

______________

For more on governance governed by mutual respect in effecting choices: “Alright, Already” (here in Medium but not behind the paywall)