by Jason DeShaw
One
day you stumble upon a wallet lying in the street. You pick it up and look
inside. In it, you find thousands upon thousands of dollars, along with proof
that the wallet belongs to a local 'I'm a jerk and don't give to charity' type
of millionaire. So flabbergasted by the amount of money one person could be
carrying around, you don't even think about keeping the loot for yourself.
Instead, you are stuck with the decision to either return the money or
anonymously donate it to the local homeless shelter to save it from shutting
down. Although it may seem morally just to give the money to the shelter, I am
going to argue that, according to Mill, you should instead return the money to
that greedy millionaire.Right about now you are probably thinking, "Man, that 19th century British philosopher John Stuart Mill doesn't know what he's talkin' 'bout yo!" First of all, calm down, you sound angry. Secondly, he knows quite well what he's talking about, for he's a Utilitarian.
John Stuart Mill is well known for helping define (and follow) the moral idea known as Utilitarianism. According to the principle of Utility, one should always act to achieve the most pleasure possible in any and every situation. That means, that for every action you take, add up all the pleasures and all the pains. Still adding? Ok, I'll wait. If you got more pleasure than pain, congratulations, you win! Because of this, one might think that you should indeed give the money you found to the homeless shelter. The millionaire won't know its gone, nothing bad there. You will feel good about yourself, which is, well, good. Most importantly, the homeless shelter will remain open for business, giving countless people a roof over their head and warm food on the table. Just look at all the pleasures being maximized all over the board! Can you even find a pain? The millionaire won't even know the money is gone! The question then is why does Mill think this is the incorrect thing to do? Does Mill not understand his own belief system? Does Mill just really hate homeless people? The answer, my friend, is Justice!
"There are things which we wish that people should do, which we like or admire them for doing, perhaps dislike or despise them for not doing, but yet admit that they are not bound to do," Mill states. (Mill 368 2nd Ed.) What Mill is saying here is that even though there are things that people should do, let's say vote, we realize that the law does not bind and punish them for not doing these things (crazy Aussies). He continues, "Justice implies something which it is not only right to do, and wrong not to do, but which some individual person can claim from us as his moral right. No one has a moral right to our generosity or beneficence because we are not morally bound to practice those virtues toward any given individual (369)," and that's where everything falls into place. Now we have actions that can be wrong, but still not considered unjust. If no one can claim being wronged then the action is not unjust. You see, Mill even admits that neglecting to give to charity is a wrongdoing (368), but since no single individual can claim a moral right to someone's charity, the act is not considered to be unjust. John Stuart Mill - 1, Homeless Shelter - 0.
Before we go any further, let's see just how Mill defines a right. "To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of." (371) One example, then, as I conceive, would be the right not to be stolen from. If you, or I, or anyone, had something stolen, would it not then be assumed that society should defend us? I think so. One reason we have Police in society is prevention of theft or to help us recover lost items. We also have insurance agencies to replace or reimburse items that have been stolen. So have we concluded that not being stolen from is a moral right? Once again, I think so. This coincidently links right back to the millionaire's wallet. Even though people may not like him and call him a jerk for not giving to charity (sorry), that doesn't mean its ok to steal from him. He should not be punished for things he is not bound to do (give charity to a certain person at a certain time) and he should have his money returned to him, for it is his moral right not to be stolen from. Poor homeless shelter...
"Wait a second," you're probably thinking, "I object! Why is stealing such a bad thing? I mean Mill is a Utilitarian right? I bet I could get some pretty good pleasures out of stealing that sweet new Hi-Def TV. Stealing is good! We should all steal!" Ok bucko, you've had enough. I think the point you are trying to make is that from a Utilitarian stand point, stealing looks like a pretty good thing. It produces pleasure, and isn't that really what Utilitarianism is all about? How can this be?
Almost as if Mill was ready for your objection, he responds by saying, "...but security no human being can possibly live without; on it we depend for all our immunity from evil and for the whole value of all and every good, beyond the passing moment, since nothing but the gratification of the instant could be of any worth to us if we could be deprived of everything the next instant by whoever was momentarily stronger than ourselves." (371) As you can see, if everyone was to go about stealing everything they wanted, a person's security would be gone. Instead of the security of knowing what you had was safe, you would constantly be under threats from other people. Society would be in ruins. No one could function because of the paranoia that the person next to you might like that new jacket you are wearing or that car you are driving and no one could do anything about it. Going way back to the basic principle of Utility, the overall happiness and pleasure would be at an all time low. Therefore stealing would still be quite a bad thing. Oh Mill, you have all the answers!
As you can see, Mill (the charity loving guy that he is) would still rather return the wallet to the local millionaire then to give the money to the homeless shelter. Even though not giving to charity is wrong (by Mill's standards), it is not an unjust action, for no one person can lay claim to a wrongdoing. What is unjust though, is stealing. Every person has a moral right not to be stolen from. Human security is an interest that no human being can live without, and stealing, even money from a wallet to give to charity, threatens that security. We cannot have such actions in our society. Now return that wallet and go get some of your own money you have saved up. There's this homeless shelter I know of that could use a few dollars.