In Frankena’s compromise, I see that as opposed to utilitarianism, it is more fair, because we have no way of saying what happy or unhappy really means for individual persons, therefore we cannot judge on what it is exactly, that we have to do right by people in promoting happiness. Aside from that, Frankena says in his principle of justice, regarding people’s actions, that punishment should suit the crime, not to be mistaken with punishment should reflect the crime, because we cannot always do to a person the same thing as he did. Frankena’s ideas all revolve around similar things, like the equal distribution of justice, and how we should distribute it equally among all people. This as opposed to utilitarianism is a better idea, judging that utilitarianism, is for happiness of majority, whereas Frankena’s principle of justice is promoting equal distribution of happiness, judging by the criteria of the people. This sounds like a much more civilized idea than the theodicy....
