I

ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT

I, Mohd Asif acknowledges the contribution my teacher prof. MOHAMMAD

AHMAD sir who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on
the topic “UTILITARIAN JUSTICE” which also helped me in doing a lot of
research and I came to know so many new things. I am highly indebted to him
for his guidance and constant supervision as well as for providing me necessary
information regarding the project and also for his support in completing the
project.

Lastly I would like to thank my colleagues in developing the project within the
limited time frame without which I would not have been able to complete my
project file.

Thank You
Mohd asif
LL.M (2024 ~2026)
Semester – 2nd
 II

UTILITARIAN JUSTICE
Introduction:

Justice determines the just conduct of individuals through moral principles. According to John
Rawls, theories of justice emerged from political philosophy and ethics. There are several
theories of justice that include utilitarianism theory, justice as fairness theory and libertarianism
theory. People who supported utilitarian theory were called utilitarian’s (Rawls 85).

Utilitarian justice, rooted in the ethical theory of utilitarianism, offers a distinctive approach to
understanding and implementing justice. Utilitarianism, popularized by philosophers like
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is a consequentialist theory that seeks to maximize
overall happiness or utility in society. Utilitarian justice focuses on the outcomes or
consequences of actions, rather than fixed principles or individual rights. By aiming to
maximize overall well-being for the greatest number of people, utilitarian justice often
necessitates making choices that may prioritize the interests of the majority over the rights or
needs of a minority.

Utilitarianism, a tradition which has stemmed from the late 18th and 19th-century. English
philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The principle states that
an action is right only if it tends to promote the happiness of everyone affected by the act. This
theory is in opposition to egoism, which concentrates that a person should pursue his self-
interest, even at the expense of others, as well as any ethical theory that regards some acts
independent of the consequences. According to the utilitarian, the right thing may be done from
a bad motive. The theory believes that man is social by nature and is motivated by the desire
to obtain happiness and avoid pain. Through individual’s happiness involves relationships with
other individuals which, by legislation, requires state regulation of men’s mutual relationships.
Therefore, the utilitarian theory is closely related to practical ethics and practical politics. The
state’s legislation aims to promote and secure the greatest number of happiness.

Nature of the utilitarianism principle:

Utilitarianism is one of the ethical theories which addresses the “goodness” of any state of
affairs. In the history of ideas, the most distinguished proponents and defenders of
utilitarianism have been the great English thinkers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
Utilitarianism attempts to provide an answer to the practical question “What ought a person to
do?” The act must produce the best consequences possible.

Key Principles of Utilitarian Justice

 III

Basic concepts of the principle:

Utilitarianism includes good and bad consequences produced by the performance of the act. If
the difference in the consequences of alternative acts is not significant, some utilitarians do not
find the choice between them as a moral issue. According to Mill, acts should only be classified
as morally correct or wrong if the implications are of such importance that a person would wish
to see the agent compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in a preferred manner.
Utilitarianism depends on a principle of intrinsic value when determining the consequences of
actions: everything is considered good in itself, aside from further consequences, and all other
qualities are assumed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means
to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure
over pain and believed that these feelings alone were of intrinsic value and disability.

The utilitarians often believe that the intrinsic values generated by two alternative acts can be
compared and calculated which would have better consequences. Bentham assumed that,
theoretically, a hedonic calculus was possible. A moralistic, he maintained, should sum up the
units of enjoyment and pain for anyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the future, and
could use the balance as a measure of an action’s overall good or bad tendency. Such precise
calculation as envisaged by Bentham may not be sufficient, but it is still important for the
utilitarian to make certain interpersonal comparisons of the results values of alternative courses
of action.

Evolution of the principle:

 IV

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory to which Jeremy Bentham is generally credited. Bentham

and John Stuart Mill are regarded as the theory’s two principal exponents. Utilitarianism is a
consequentialist philosophy, based purely on the conditions brought on by the practice. It does
not enforce set guideline rules on the behaviour to be followed in each case. This philosophy
addresses issues with philosophies of absolutism such as moral law or Kantian ethics.

Many individuals who adhere to a utilitarian form of morality are inclined to fulfil their basic
needs and are ‘animals,’ according to Carlyle. As humans have reason and intelligence,
according to Carlyle they might prefer ethical theory over Utilitarianism. Bentham’s humanity
concept revolved around two things- “everyone wants pleasure and nobody wants pain”.
Bentham developed felicific calculus to judge each situation on seven criteria for evaluating
pain and pleasure: Intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty of the pain or pleasure,
propinquity, fecundity, and the extent of the pleasure.

Bentham was anti-elitist as he considered everyone’s pleasure to be the same under the title
‘pleasure’. Carlyle criticized Bentham’s notion, he saw utilitarianism to be a means of
promoting a lifestyle that was very unattractive as it catered only to basic needs and desires.
However, utilitarianism can also be seen as a very compassionate theory, in the case of
euthanasia where the desires of an individual upon weighing of pain and pleasure might deduce
a compassionate conclusion. Nevertheless, Carlyle’s criticism was a strong one and in its reply,
J.S. Mill’s theory promulgated.

Mill’s utilitarian theory of justice

Utilitarians tend to be among those who see no major divide between justice and morality.
Utilitarians see justice as part of morality and don’t see justice to have a higher priority than
any other moral concern. In particular, utilitarians think that we should promote goodness
(things of value), and many think that goodness can be found in a single good; such as
happiness, flourishing, well-being, or desire satisfaction. Utilitarian ideas of justice connect
morality to the law, economic distribution, and politics. What economic or political principles
will utilitarians say we should accept? That is not an easy question to answer and is still up in
the air. We have to discover the best economic and political systems for ourselves by seeing
the effects they produce.

Utilitarians often advocate for social welfare because everyone’s well-being is of moral interest
and social welfare seems like a good way to make sure everyone flourishes to a minimal extent.
On the other hand utilitarians often advocate free trade because (a) free trade can help reward
 V

people for hard work and encourage people to be productive, (b) the free market allows for a
great deal of freedom, (c) freedom has a tendency to lead to more prosperity, and (d) taking
away freedom has a tendency to cause suffering.

One conception of utilitarian justice can be found in the work Utilitarianism by John Stuart
Mill (91). Mill said that justice was a subset of morality—“injustice involves the violation of
the rights of some identifiable individual” (ibid.). Mill suggests, “Justice implies something
which is not only right to do, and wrong not to do, but which some individual person can claim
from us as his moral right” (ibid.). Morality is larger than justice because it’s plausible that we
can be heroic or act beyond the call of duty to help others and such acts would not be best
described as examples of “justice.”

When do we (or should we) have a right? When we can legitimately make demands on society
based on utilitarian grounds. “To have a right, then, is… to have something which society ought
to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask why it ought, I can give him
no other reason than general utility” (ibid.). Rights are rules society can make for everyone that
could help people flourish and prosper in general, and we should have rights given the
assumption that they are likely to increase goodness in the long run.

Mill’s conception of rights can include both positive rights (for public education, food, shelter,
medical assistance, etc.) and negative rights (to be allowed to say what we want, to be allowed
to have any religion, etc.) Both of these sorts of rights can potentially help people have greater
well-being.

Amartya Sen’s theory:

Amartya Sen, an acclaimed economist and philosopher, has made significant contributions to
the concept of utilitarian justice through his capabilities approach. Sen criticizes traditional
utilitarianism for focusing solely on aggregate utility or happiness without adequately
considering individual capabilities and freedoms.

According to Sen, the goal of justice should be to expand people's capabilities, which refer to
the real opportunities individuals have to lead lives they have reason to value. He argues that
individuals differ in their abilities, aspirations, and circumstances, and justice should be
concerned with enhancing their capabilities rather than simply maximizing overall happiness.

Sen emphasizes the importance of considering a wide range of factors that affect individuals'
well-being, such as education, health, political participation, social relationships, and personal
 VI

freedoms. He believes that a just society should strive to ensure that individuals have the
necessary resources, opportunities, and freedoms to pursue a life of their choosing.

In Sen's view, utilitarian justice should incorporate a concern for equality, diversity, and
individual agency. He argues that a focus solely on maximizing aggregate utility can lead to
neglecting the needs and freedoms of marginalized or disadvantaged individuals. Sen's
capabilities approach seeks to address these concerns by advocating for a more nuanced
understanding of justice that accounts for the diversity and complexity of individual lives.

By emphasizing the expansion of capabilities and freedoms, Sen's concept of utilitarian justice
provides a broader and more inclusive perspective that goes beyond the traditional utilitarian
focus on overall happiness. It promotes a society where justice is not solely measured by
economic indicators, but also by the substantive freedoms and opportunities available to
individuals to live fulfilling lives.

Effects of utilitarianism:

The influence of utilitarianism has been widespread and its significance in law, politics is
especially notable. The Utilitarian Theory of punishment justification stands in opposition to
the theory of “retribution.” In political theory utilitarianism bases upon their importance of
government authority and the sanctity of human freedoms, thus offering an alternative to
theories of moral law, civil freedoms, or social contract. Utilitarians typically advocate
democracy as a means of making government interests align with the general interest; they
have advocated for the greatest freedom of the individual together with equal freedom for
others because each individual is usually the best judge of his welfare, and they have believed
in the potential and desirability of radical social change through peaceful political processes.

Utilitarian claims can, therefore, lead to different conclusions with different factual
assumptions. If the inquirer believes that a strong government is needed to manage the
fundamental selfish interests of the individual and that any reform may threaten the stability of
the political order, he may be guided to an authoritarian or conservative position by utilitarian
arguments. On the other hand, William Godwin, a political philosopher at the beginning of the
19th century, assumed the fundamental goodness of human nature and argued that the greatest
happiness would come from a radical transformation of society in the direction of anarchist
communism.
 VII

Classical economics has received the most important statements, notably Ricardo and John
Stuart Mill. Ironically, the theory of economic value was focused largely on the expense of
labor in production rather than on the consumer value or usefulness of commodities. Later
developments more clearly reflected the philosophy of the Utilitarians. William Jevons, one of
the founders of the marginal utility school of analysis, derived many of his ideas from Bentham;
and, while replacing comparative preferences with comparative utilities, “welfare economics”
reflected the basic spirit of Utilitarian philosophy. In economic policy, the early utilitarians had
tended to reject governmental intervention in trade and industry on the premise that if left intact,
the economy would control itself for the greater welfare; however, later utilitarians lost trust in
private enterprise’s social efficiency and were willing to see governmental power and
administration used to correct their violations.
Utilitarianism of the 19th century was surprisingly popular in the long run as a movement for
the reform of social institutions.

The effect of utilitarian justice can have both positive and negative implications, depending on
how it is applied and the specific context in which it is implemented. Here are some potential
effects of utilitarian justice:

1. Promotion of overall well-being: Utilitarian justice seeks to maximize overall happiness

or utility in society. By prioritizing actions and policies that maximize the well-being
of the majority, it can lead to improvements in overall societal welfare. This may
involve redistributing resources, implementing policies that address social inequalities,
and prioritizing the fulfillment of basic needs.

2. Sacrifice of individual rights: One potential criticism of utilitarian justice is that it can
prioritize the happiness of the majority over the rights and well-being of individuals or
minority groups. In some cases, this may result in the infringement of individual
liberties or the neglect of marginalized communities. Striking a balance between the
happiness of the majority and the protection of individual rights is a challenge for
utilitarian justice.

3. Challenges in measuring and comparing utility: Utilitarian justice relies on the

measurement and comparison of utility or happiness. However, quantifying and
comparing subjective experiences of well-being can be complex and controversial.
Different individuals may have different notions of what constitutes happiness or utility,
making it difficult to objectively measure and compare outcomes.
 VIII

4. Ethical dilemmas and trade-offs: Utilitarian justice often involves making difficult
choices and trade-offs to maximize overall happiness. This can lead to ethical
dilemmas, such as deciding between prioritizing the immediate happiness of many
versus the long-term well-being of a few. Balancing competing interests and
considering the long-term consequences of actions is essential for making just decisions
within a utilitarian framework.

5. Potential for neglecting minority interests: Utilitarian justice runs the risk of neglecting
the interests and needs of minority groups or individuals with less social or political
power. The focus on maximizing overall happiness may result in the marginalization or
exclusion of those who do not contribute significantly to the overall utility.

6. Impact on economic and social policies: Utilitarian justice can influence policy
decisions in areas such as resource allocation, taxation, and social welfare programs. It
may lead to policies that aim to reduce poverty, improve healthcare and education
access, and promote social equality. However, it can also result in policies that prioritize
economic growth and material well-being at the expense of other important aspects of
human flourishing.

Overall, the effects of utilitarian justice depend on how it is implemented, the values and
priorities of decision-makers, and the specific context in which it is applied. Striking a balance
between the promotion of overall well-being and the protection of individual rights and needs
is crucial for ensuring fairness and justice within a utilitarian framework.

INDIAN REFERENCE

Utilitarian justice in India means framing laws, policies, and judicial decisions aimed at
achieving the greatest welfare of the greatest number. It emphasizes social utility — even if it
sometimes overrides individual interests — in favor of national welfare, equality, and social
reform.

Indian lawmakers and courts have used utilitarian reasoning in areas like reservation policies,
public interest litigations, and land acquisition laws
 IX

Impact of utilitarianism on India:

Wendy Doniger’s book, The Hindus: An Alternative History drew a lot of attention. Though
Article 19(1), the Indian Constitution memorializes the fundamental right of freedom of
expression it was quite disappointing that the supposed vanguards and protectors of
‘freedom of expression’ yielded and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (299 of
BHARATIYA Nyaya Sanhita ) was applied. Democracy is the government of the people but
is not a form of majoritarianism where what is right or wrong is decided according to the
interests of the majority.

Moreover, in the recent cases of sedition, even utterance of the words, “Pakistan
Zindabad” is considered to be a seditious act depending on the masses. The objective of the
principle of law is lost in the case of utilitarianism. India is a country that follows a positive
theory of law and the Constitution of India holds the supreme authority. The Courts take
decisions within the ambit of the law of the land. Thus, the view of the majority hold’s no
essence in the judiciary. Moreover in democracy, the voice of each individual of the country
holds an equal position. The vote of each citizen is equivalent irrespective of any basis. Thus,
in India majoritarianism holds no relevance, however, its influence can be reflected in cases of
sedition and fundamental rights.

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based
on its consequences. In the context of justice, utilitarianism holds that a just society is one that
produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

There are two main types of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act
utilitarianism judges the rightness or wrongness of an individual action based on the
consequences of that action alone. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, judges the rightness
 X

or wrongness of an action based on the consequences of following a general rule that would
govern that type of action.

For example, an act utilitarian might argue that it is right to steal a loaf of bread if the
consequences of stealing the bread (e.g., preventing the person from going hungry) outweigh
the consequences of not stealing the bread (e.g., the person being punished for theft). A rule
utilitarian, on the other hand, might argue that it is wrong to steal a loaf of bread, even if the
consequences of stealing the bread would be beneficial in this particular case. This is because
following the rule "never steal" would generally produce more happiness than following the
rule "steal when it is beneficial to do so."

The impact of utilitarian justice in India can be observed in various aspects of the country's
social, economic, and political landscape. Here are some key areas where utilitarian principles
have influenced the Indian context:

1. Social Welfare Policies: Utilitarian principles have influenced the development and
implementation of social welfare policies in India. The government has introduced
programs aimed at reducing poverty, providing access to education and healthcare, and
addressing social inequalities. Examples include the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which guarantees employment and income
to rural households, and the National Health Mission, which focuses on improving
healthcare access and infrastructure.

2. Development and Economic Policies: Utilitarian thinking has shaped India's

development and economic policies, with a focus on promoting economic growth and
poverty reduction. Policies such as liberalization, privatization, and foreign direct
investment have been implemented with the aim of maximizing overall economic
welfare. The pursuit of economic development has led to increased foreign investment,
infrastructure development, and technological advancements, contributing to the
country's overall progress.

3. Reservation and Affirmative Action: Utilitarian justice has influenced the

implementation of reservation policies and affirmative action in India. These policies
aim to address historical social injustices and promote social inclusion by providing
opportunities and representation to marginalized communities, such as Scheduled
 XI

Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. The focus is on uplifting the
socio-economic conditions of disadvantaged groups and reducing inequality.

4. Environmental Concerns: Utilitarian principles have gained significance in addressing

environmental challenges in India. Policies and regulations are being implemented to
balance economic development with environmental sustainability and conservation.
Efforts are being made to promote renewable energy sources, improve waste
management, and conserve natural resources, considering the long-term well-being and
utility of both present and future generations.

5. Access to Justice: Utilitarian thinking has influenced the reform of the Indian legal
system to improve access to justice for marginalized and underprivileged individuals.
Initiatives such as legal aid programs, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and
court reforms have been introduced to ensure fairness, efficiency, and equity in the
delivery of justice.

However, it is important to note that the impact of utilitarian justice in India is not without
challenges and criticisms. Critics argue that the utilitarian approach may sometimes overlook
cultural, regional, and individual variations, leading to the neglect of minority rights and the
perpetuation of social inequalities. Striking a balance between overall wellbeing and the
protection of individual rights and diversity remains an ongoing challenge in implementing
utilitarian principles effectively.

Criticisms:

Utilitarian justice, like any ethical framework, has faced several criticisms. Here are some
common critiques of utilitarianism:

1. Inadequate consideration of individual rights: Critics argue that utilitarian justice tends
to prioritize overall happiness or utility at the expense of individual rights. The focus
on maximizing overall welfare can lead to the neglect or violation of the rights of
minority groups or individuals. Critics argue that justice should also involve respecting
and protecting individual rights, even if it means sacrificing overall utility in some
cases.
 XII

2. Measurement and comparison of utility: One of the challenges of utilitarianism is the

difficulty in accurately measuring and comparing utility or happiness. Different
individuals may have diverse values, preferences, and ways of experiencing

happiness. Determining whose happiness should be prioritized and how to quantify and
compare different forms of utility poses significant challenges, making the practical
application of utilitarianism complex.

3. Potential for injustice to minority groups: Utilitarianism runs the risk of marginalizing
or sacrificing the interests of minority groups in favor of the majority. Critics argue that
this approach may perpetuate social inequalities and result in the oppression or neglect
of vulnerable or marginalized individuals or communities. Utilitarian justice may
overlook the importance of distributive justice and fail to address systemic injustices.

4. Lack of consideration for the intrinsic value of actions: Utilitarianism primarily focuses
on the consequences or outcomes of actions rather than considering the intrinsic moral
value of the actions themselves. Critics argue that certain actions may be inherently
wrong or right, regardless of their consequences. This criticism challenges the idea that
the morality of an action is solely determined by its consequences.

5. Potential for exploitation and manipulation: Critics argue that utilitarianism can be
manipulated or used to justify actions that may exploit or harm certain individuals or
groups. If the overall happiness or utility is the sole criterion for determining justice, it
may create a moral justification for actions that violate the rights or well-being of
specific individuals or communities, as long as it benefits the majority.

6. Neglect of individual autonomy and agency: Utilitarian justice can overlook the
importance of individual autonomy and agency in decision-making. Critics argue that
individuals have the right to make choices that align with their own values and
preferences, even if those choices do not maximize overall happiness. Utilitarianism
may undermine individual freedom by imposing judgments based solely on
consequentialist considerations.

It is important to note that these criticisms are not necessarily fatal to the utilitarian framework.
Many scholars and philosophers continue to explore and refine utilitarian theories to address
these concerns and strike a balance between the promotion of overall welfare and the protection
of individual rights and values.
 XIII

Conclusion:

The two main principles of utilitarian philosophy are problematic – happiness and
consequences. Whereas deontology places moral value on anything intrinsic to the agent, the
utilitarianism of his / her motives places moral value on something extrinsic to the agent which
produces the results of the behaviour in terms of happiness. To deontologists the end rarely
justifies the means; the end still justifies the means to utilitarians. Utilitarianism is a moral code
of ethics that is only as useful as the person who interprets and uses it.

This is just a method for addressing ethical issues, one that needs to be used with complete
awareness of the good and the negative to balance. Perhaps it is a code of ethics that is valuable
but imperfect for humans; we cannot make decisions that please everyone; this is impossible.
Instead, it is in our best interests to act for the greater good, as what would be the sense in
displeasing the majority unless the majority is morally repugnant and evil.

Somehow this consideration is scary as it might be possible that an individual’s view is at stake
if it is no longer in the best interests of the majority. Do my opinion and feelings no longer
count to a utilitarian decision-maker? However, with sound reasoning and sensible
interpretation utilitarianism shall work, but only for those whose intentions coincide with the
majority.

In conclusion, utilitarian justice offers a consequentialist approach to understanding and

implementing justice. It seeks to maximize overall happiness, well-being, or utility for the
greatest number of people. Utilitarianism emphasizes the consequences or outcomes of actions
and policies, often prioritizing the interests of the majority over the rights or needs of a
minority.

While utilitarian justice has its strengths, such as promoting overall welfare and guiding policy
decisions, it also faces significant criticisms. Critics argue that it can overlook individual rights,
struggle with measuring and comparing utility, neglect minority interests, disregard intrinsic
value of actions, and potentially lead to exploitation or manipulation.

Nevertheless, utilitarianism remains a significant and influential ethical theory, and its concept
of justice continues to be debated and refined. Scholars like Amartya Sen have offered
alternative approaches, emphasizing capabilities and individual freedoms. Striking a balance
 XIV

between overall well-being and the protection of individual rights and values is crucial for a
just application of utilitarian principles.

Ultimately, the concept of utilitarian justice invites ongoing exploration and ethical reflection,
as societies strive to navigate complex moral dilemmas and create systems that promote the
greatest overall welfare while upholding fundamental principles of fairness, equity, and respect
for individual rights.

BIBLEOGRAPHY:

https://ivypanda.com/essays/theories-of-justice-utilitarian-theory/
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3093-a-brief-notes-onutilitarianism-a-study-
on-bentham-and-j-s-mill-views.html
https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/three-theories-of-justice/ BOOKS:
Bentham, Jeremy. The introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. London: Athline
Press, 1970. Print.

Rawls, John. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1999a. Print.