Utilitarianism has as its core belief human happiness, that is every action and aspirations are based on fulfilling happiness. Meanwhile, eminent domain is a principle which according to Delaware State Court is based the common good and that the state is duty bound to use its power to compel especially so on the use of public resource such as land for purposes for example of opening up new roads. That is, the state has the power to compel the use of such resources even if such resources are considered private property.In most countries where democratic principles are operative, the people whose properties were used by the state are usually compensated.
According to the glossary of terms in the court of common pleas, eminent domain is “the power of the government to take private property for public use through condemnation. ” While condemnation is defined according to the same glossary as “the legal process by which the government takes private land for public use, paying the owners a fair price. ”At a glance utilitarianism may come into conflict with eminent domain as it could be interpreted despite the fair compensation package as eating into the domain of citizen’s privacy. According to the utilitarian.
org, utilitarianism is based on the belief that “an action is right if it produces as much or more of an increase in happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not. ” Utilitarianism is essentially the same definition as eminent domain, in other words, both are based on the belief of the common good which arguably would lead to happiness of all concerned.Though eminent domain is associated with governance while utilitarianism has a broader context. ? Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill: opposing point of views of utilitarianism There were two influential perspectives on utilitarianism. One point of view represented by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was based on the moral grounding and adherence to certain standards of behavior or laws.
To Kant, it is not enough to do that which should be morally good that “it conform to the law; it must be done for the sake of the law. ”John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) approached the gist of human behavior on the individual’s ability and point of view. Thus, Mill argued that utilitarianism is “not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain; and instead of opposing the useful to the agreeable or the ornamental, have always declared that the useful means these, among other things. ” The use value is clearly associated by Mill with human well being.
Mill suggested that utility has different levels and the higher stages of pleasure is helping others or developing one’s potential.Such a point of view is radically different from the Kantian doctrine of the of carrying out the law or adherence to higher principles as not necessarily “pleasurable” and that the actual test is doing something because it dictated by reason and principles even if it would not result to happiness. Relating the views of Mill and Kant to eminent domain, the Kantian view is clearly supportive of eminent domain concept, while Mill tends to support the individual freedom to happiness or the right of the pursuit of happiness.Mill’s view could be interpreted as compatible with the right to privacy while Kant’s view parallels the premise that privacy could be bended due to the need for security. Greatest positive aspect of utilitarianism At a glance, utilitarianism’s greatest strength as a philosophy is its core premise of the primariness of the human being, of the individual that the state and its intrumentalities must respect this basic human right to the pursuit of happiness.
It clearly defines that no law should be adapted which may inhibit or endanger such a right.The proper balance between individual aspirations and the social responsibility has always been the core issue in democracies. Cases of eminent domain Eminent domain is a contentious issue which affect lives and could challenge fundamental laws of the land. There are three cases of eminent domain which illustrate how a balance between the common good and the individual rights could be seen. Case 1. Poletown, Michigan In 1981, the City of Detroit was allowed to proceed with the construction of its auto plant.
In a decision of the Michigan Supreme Court, the city was allowed to clear away an entire neighborhood. The argument being, the auto plant would be good for the economy and hence was being made for the common good. Around 1,000 households and 600 establishments were affected. However, this decision was later reversed by the US Supreme Court. The highest court of land rejected the premise that private profit though contributing to economic development could be interpreted as public use.
In this case eminent domain is clearly associated with public use and not for private use though benefits accrue to the public (Institute of Justice). Case 2. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff This a case wherein public or common good is clearly evident.
In the 1960’s land distribution in Hawaii was so unequal that the State of Hawaii decided to proceed with a condemnation scheming to democratize land distribution through an extensive housing project.This case showed that the power of the state or government could be harnessed for the benefit of the greater population. Though there were questions as to “public use” since the land were to redistributed as “private use,” the US Supreme Court upheld the decision of the the State of Hawaii as clearly, the unequal distribution of land ownership may result to greater social concerns and restlessness of the population (Legal Information Institute).Case 3.
Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. This case reflects the balance between the needs of the city and the role of the individuals which could be affected by the action. In 2005, the City of New London embarked on an integrated and city renewal development plan.
It coordinated residences, businesses and other developmental sectors. In the process it invoked eminent domain to transfer one public property to another for economic development.This case illustrates that economic development could be an acceptable reasoning provided the state shows considerable justification and shows that its plan is not for the benefit of chosen individuals. This case still sparks controversy as some critics argued that the moves taken by the city was in violation of citizens’ property rights. As in previous cases, it is clearly evident that there is this dynamic relationship between the individual’s rights and the right of the state to develop its constituents.
Again, the theme is individual and the common good (Legal Information Institute).
