69

And this condition in which freedom and equality are
sworn and everlasting enermies and when one prevails the other
dies seems to me to make good sense. And you will notice,
that throughout Mill's writings that he's having a little
trouble with the intricacy of his argument. Back on page 10,
where he defined the basic Black Letter Law of utilitarianism
namely "that actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness and wrong as they tend to promote the
opposite of suffering and pain". He seems to have forgotten
the possibility of the calculus showing the overall maximization
of pleasure at a time when we have maybe 10% of an oppressed
minority, and this ate on him. And he put in chapter
5 to try to patch that. And he made a plea for justive
as we will see when we discuss that book. But Rawls, in
some of the readings that you have, who made a name for
himself by saying all we need to do to make Mill right is
to add a little fairness. And that is the way that we will
handle that oppressed minority idea and all we do is add
a little pinch of liberty and a little pinch of equality,
and somehow they are going to get together and somehow
Rawls and I don't see eye to eye or at least he doesn't see
eye to eye with the Durants. Because he is asking for his
cake and to eat it too. Fairness, what's so universal about
that? Ed Young, my good friend here in Newport, former
publisher of the Providence Journal, tells about his
days on the Baltimore Sun with H. L. Menkin. When that
old iconoclast last visited one day by somebody who tried to

11