In
Plato’s system of justice, he proposes the noble lie, created in order to keep
harmony within society. Since justice for Plato is everyone doing his or her
own work, the lie, which keeps citizens content with their respective duties,
is both necessary and just. Could Mill or Kant justify this ideal lie on the
basis of felicific calculus or the categorical imperative?
For
Mill, I believe the question is simply yes. Mill believes that what is just is
that which produces the most amount of good for the most amount of people.
There are two outcomes in this scenario: either one does not tell the noble
lie, and the entire society cannot function because no one is content with
their status, or one does tell the lie and the society is harmonious. The
latter is clearly more utile and provides the greatest amount of good for the
greatest amount of people. Therefore, I believe Mill would view the lie as a
just action based on its consequences.
However,
Kant’s system of justice necessarily cannot factor consequences into the
equation. Part of Kant’s categorical imperative is that in order for an action
to be just, one must be able to will it as a universal law. Rationally, a lie
cannot be willed as a universal law, for a society could not function when
everything said could never be believed. Therefore, based on the categorical
imperative, the noble lie appears to be immoral.
Nevertheless,
Kant’s system of justice seems very similar to Plato’s. Kant’s system is
deontological; one must do one’s duty, whatever one’s duty may be. Similarly,
Plato’s system requires all citizens to his or her work and not another’s.
Kant’s definition of justice is to “act externally in such a way that the free
use of you will is compatible with the freedom of everyone else according to a
universal law”. However, in Plato’s ideal society, the noble lie is necessary
to allow the free will of the citizens of the society to be exercised.
Similarly, Kant believes that some actions of coercion are just when they
preserve the freedom of others. Without the noble lie, the ideal society could
not function, and therefore the citizens’ use of their free will would be
hindered. Thus, I believe Kant views the noble lie as just because it opposes
the hindrance of free will.
So,
I believe that Mill and Kant, like Plato, would view the noble lie as a just
action. The question I now propose to you all is this: would this action be
both immoral yet just? Or is this a contradiction?
I think your answer to whether or not mill could justify Plato’s idea of the noble lie brings up an interesting point; does morality really exist for mill? Is morality separate from justice? It seems that the things that bring the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people are not always “right”, or can appear immoral to us.
ReplyDeleteBecause we live in America, our cultural moral code would probably make us feel uneasy about the noble lie. I think in today’s society, our ideas of morality and justice are deeply interconnected. If a team of scientists were to take to the streets and survey everyday American’s about whether or not they thought the noble lie was just, I think they would get an overwhelming “no” response. This is because, excluding philosophers, we do not often think of protecting our long-term freedom, but rather we focus on short-term gratification and not on principles. An example of this kind of thinking can be seen in the “tort reform” movement, which was a reform proposed whose cause was to prevent frivolous law suits, but actually limited rights of Americans. Tort reform’s goal was to limit people suing companies for minor or nonexistent injuries in order to gain monetary compensation, and achieved this by restricting American’s right to sue large corporations. Surprisingly, tort reform passed with the support of the majority of Americans, both republicans and democrats. Although tort reform limited Americans freedom, they did have the rationality to see that frivolous lawsuits were less important than individual rights. This is why I think our rationality goes against the idea of a noble lie being just or moral. (A great documentary on tort reform is Park Avenue: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/park-avenue-money-power-american-dream/)
-Maddy Clements
I agree with you when you say that Mill would deem the noble lie just, because like you said, the noble lie would ideally provide the most amount of happiness for the most amount of people. It would do this by creating a sense of necessity for everyone in the service they provide for the society, and that would help create happiness. When it comes to Kant, i think it is impossible to say that the noble lie would be just, because one cannot and could not ever will lying as a universal law. I also disagree that not using the noble lie would cause a hindrance of free will, because being truthful does not impede on somebodies free will. Therefor, i disagree with you and think that Kant would say that the noble lie is not just, while Mill would think it was just.
ReplyDeleteI think that you trapping yourself in a box when you say that Mill would agree with the noble lie. Yes, Mill does want the most amount of pleasure for the most amount of people; however, Mill probably wouldn't want a society like Plato's. And you never really address this point. What kind of society would Mill want? It would most likely be a majority rule type of society.
ReplyDeleteAs for the question, can something be immoral but yet be just, the answer is, "it depends." If you take the noble lie and use Plato's definition of justice, order, harmony, and cooperation, then yes, it is just. However if you were to say that morality and justice are interconnected than no, it is not possible. It honestly depends greatly on the type of philosopher. Although I wish there was a more definitive idea of what justice is. To me, justice is equal treatment under the law. Does it honestly just depend on the person's definition, or is there a right and wrong definition.