Can it ever be unjust to accumulate wealth?

The video I presented provides information on the utilitarian view. According to our book Mill believed that justice concerns certain rules and rights that are vitally important for human well-being and that the maximization of happiness ultimately determines what is just and unjust. The video illustrates this really well 4:45 in by explaining three core elements of Mill’s Utilitarianism, the information provided also compliments the information in our textbook. When it come to accumulating wealth in can only be seen as unjust if it is done through unjust means such as robbing a bank. This would be taking away from the idea of promoting social well being or happiness. If you approached the above question through the libertarian approach the overall concern for promoting   social well being wouldn’t be held in high regards if any at all. The only restriction for accumulating wealth through the libertarian approach is that one cannot restricts or interfere with anyone else’s liberties. Aside from that one restriction anyone can accumulate as much wealth as they desire without any person, group, or government disturbing you. Nozick’s theory has a similar comparison to being the neutral country of Switzerland in WW2. According to Nozick’s one could accumulate wealth with the limitations being that it would have to be entitled to you earns and have earned them without violating other people’s rights.

1 Comment for “M3-Williams”

Avatar photo



Nice find on Utilitarianism. I found the lecture quite interesting. In application, the utilitarian indicates it would be unjust if a small portion of the population possesses an enormous amount of wealth. A large number of people would live in poverty which would make them unhappy. On the contrary, if a greater number of people own wealth it would be fair because they will be happier. The Greatest Happiness Principle.