Mill: Utilitarianism Part 2 and On Liberty 1

It would seem that the main argument against utilitarianism is on the grouds of justice, though it doesn't seem immediately clear as to what the objection is. So I'm going to speculate a bit and say that some would argue that a doctrine that is based on happiness and on the practical means of obtaining happiness for both individuals and a group would be antithetical to the idea of justice because if everyone were constantly seeking would make them happy then there would be a lot of selfish and greed and, by extention, unjust behavior, and that, in short, what is best for the individual isn't necessarily best for the whole group. I think my speculation may be a bit flawed, but I will continue.

I really like the way Mill describes the origin or justice, not as Hume would describe it as an artificial virtue, but as something that is a natural instinct that arises from natural inclinations of right and wrong, or harm fight or flight. If one person takes it to harm them, and it would be universally understood by each individual of the group, or accepted, that they too would consider it a harm towards them, then it is then unjust. Justice is then exacted when the group exacts vengence against the wrongdoer in order to protect or defend those individual members of the group that have been harmed, because (as we saw with the lions and the waterbuffalo) if you hurt one of them you have harmed them all and they will do anything to protect one another.

Yay for individuality! Personally I don't want to be a lemming, zombie, whatever, though I can understand that it is difficult for a society to balance between what is best for the individual and what is best for the society as a whole. I am complete (but never static) and unto myself, though every single one of us, no matter how strong of an individual, has been guilty of following the crowd at some point or other, it's whether or not we find the strength to overcome the peer pressure that's important. And I'm stubborn and outspoken enough that if I had been born a couple of centuries earlier I probably would have been burned at the stake. That's where many outspoken people ended up, because they were obviously in league with the devil. Medieval scare tactics are pretty amusing. I somewhat disagree with Mill on this point, ages such as these really did suppress the individual and those who displayed individuality (at least of those who were not in power) were severly punished. It was when such individuality eventually did flourish that we have such times as the Renaissance, which began when Johannes Gutenburg invented the printing press, when art flourished (under the patronage of the Church and other powerful patrons, think Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel and the Meddici's). But some did run into trouble, like Galileo who's ideas (as I learned in my Astronomy class) weren't what infuriated the church but his satire The Dialogue Concerning the Two Cheif World Systems in which he made a mockery of the Church and their outmoded conception of geocentricity. Even Michelangelo got into trouble, his David was actually very unpopular when it was first made and his fresco of the last judgement in the sistine chapel? (painted many years after he completed the ceiling) made a lot of people angry. I think it was the nudity that was deemed inappropriate, something about angels, saints and martyrs should be clothed. Okay, enough with the art history lesson.
Now for my favorite quote from Mill: "In proportion to the developement of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others." A perfect statement to illustrate the necessity of individuals in a society, especially those strong independent individuals. Many might say that those people are outspoken or dangerous because they don't always follow the norm, and normality, or mediocrity, is societies security blanket and uppity individuals threaten that security. But as we have seen it is those strong creative individuals who help shape history and can benefit others. Mill's line reminds me of something I read in a book on chakra healing, dealing with the heart chakra, that you can't fully love another person until you have learned to love yourself. A strong individual has integrity and self-respect, and therefore loves themself, and people tend to gravitate towards the strong and that attitude has a tendency to rub off on other people and they become the better for it, it is a person whose strength and self-love (not narcissistic) who has a greater capacity to love other individuals who is the most beneficial and useful to society, and who is more likely to be actively interested in their community.
I would like to make two more points concerning this, and they are going to be more like critisisms. First Mill also pointed out that many strong individuals are also very intelligent individuals (I don't think that intelligence and integrity necessarily go hand in hand, it doesn't take a genius or even someone of mediocre intelligence to make a good moral decision, there are many people out there who we may call unintelligent who stick to their guns in the face of opposition and take an active stance in the wellfare of their community) though many of those individuals are deemed eccentric. Some eccentric people can be fun, some are weird and some are downright strange and people try to avoid them (like Van Gogh). In this instance people would not gravitate towards them no matter how genius they are. Some eccentric people really aren't all that scary, their just offbeat and that makes them more interesting.
Secondly Mill also points out that many strong willed individuals can also be extremly dangerous and bad. And I would say that the difference between the good strong willed individual and the bad one is the point of self-love. It may be a little difficult to make this point so bear with me. As stated before, the person who respects and loves themself has a greater capacity to love others. If this is a true statement than it would only seem to be that those who are strong willed but bad and hurtful to others does not love others and therefore does not really love themselves. Now for examples, and I know that this one has been overused but I'm going to utilize Hitler. Hitler obviously didn't have a lot of love for anyone (definitely not a utilitarian) but I believe that this arises from a lack of self-love. I believe that Hitler was a very self-hating individual, and such individuals can lash out at others who they see as representative of themselves, in this instance the Jews (It is rumored that Hitler had some Jewish heritage) so why kill off your own people? It was a part of himself that he wanted to destroy; then he goes on to idolize physical ethnic attribute by building the Aerean race, blonde hair and blue eyes, which Hitler did not have. (I've read recently that the whole "ethnic cleansing" was Hindler's idea and that Hitler wasn't quite on board with it, but obviously he didn't stop it and definitely propogated it.) Another example comes from a movie Rebel Without a Cause when the character known as Plato who is introduced at the beginning of the movie in a police station having been taken into custody for shooting to death a litter of puppies. I watched this film for my Masculinities in Film class so we analysed his character quite a bit. Plato was from a wealthy family, his parents were never around and he was in the care of a nanny. He is a highschool student who is small and gets picked on a lot and has violent spurts of anger periodically throughout the film and he is slightly effeminate (I thought he was more timid and quiet than really effeminate) but it is pointed out that he may very well be homosexual (there are signifiers in the movie that point to this, and at the time this movie was made there were laws applied to the cinema that banned depictions or references to homosexuality). In short Plato was insecure, angry, and for the most part, helpless and innocent, like the puppies. So why would he take out his anger so violently on creatures that were powerless to defend themselves? It seems to me that he killed them because he saw them as being like himself, it was a way to try and kill that helpless aspect within himself and to take control and dominate those insecurities. In the end of the movie those insecurities get the best of him and he snapps, which leads to his death (sorry to spoil the movie).
Okay I think that is enough for tonight, long story short strong self-loving person is good, strong self-hating person is bad, and as for the eccentrics, there good weird and there is bad weird. And don't kill puppies!