While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position. According to J.S Mill, one should choose an action that maximizes the happiness
Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome. Immanuel Kant designed ‘The Categorical Imperative’ theory which was associated with the fact that it was commanding us to practice our morals and desires in a specific way which was exercised through two rules. Kamm (2000) claims that these components were to ‘(1) treat persons as ends in themselves and (2) do not treat them as mere means’. Kamm is basically suggesting that we seek happiness of others, as that is morally right, however fulfill capacities of one’s own intellect. From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical.
Thus, justice would mean, every person who is responsible to deliver justice should be obliged to perform his craft properly and eliminate any person, who within it does alien things, to harmonize the whole process. Craft justice is not instrumental to justice, it is justice in itself. Therefore, Plato says that the substance of law will not change only the approach will change. We can consider his theory as a kind of harmony between the individual being and the state as a whole. He viewed justice as an idea, an attribute of the mind, which itself in a
Divine law cannot be attained alone by the means of natural reason alone; the precepts of divine law are disclosed only through divine revelation. Natural law includes possession of reason and free will, and should differentiate between good and avoid evil and appreciated the theory of natural law of morality. On his view, a human law (that is, that which is promulgated by human beings) is considered valid only insofar as its content conforms to the content of the natural law; as Aquinas puts the point: "Every human law has just so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law". To paraphrase
(Hunter, 2001, p.306) There is no exception for rational individuals in the world to escape from the law of categorical imperative. The presentation of categorical imperative is somehow like a test of morality (Hunter, 2001, p.306), rather than just a moral concept. Moral maxim is of vital necessity in the determination of morality for an action. From Kant’s view, an action can be treated as moral when it is motivated by one’s maxim, while it also suits the universal law. (Hunter, 2001, p.306) Therefore, it can be concluded that moral maxim is the standard of deciding whether an action is moral or not.
The means for determining the form and content of natural justice is the exercise of reason free from the distorting effects of mere prejudice or desire. This basic idea was similarly expressed by the Roman Stoics, such as Cicero and Seneca, who argued that morality originated in the rational will of God and the existence of a cosmic city
Hobbes 's moral theory is known as “social contract theory”,which is the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons.Social contract is a method that we ought to submit to the authority of an absolute sovereign power. There are four concepts employed by Hobbes which will be discussed as below. First,the right of nature indicate that every man is born to use his own power for the preservation of his own nature.Yet Hobbes adds reasons into the right of nature.Hobbes suggests that person A has the right to do action X as long as doing X has the right reason.Second,the law of nature is derived from the right of nature.Hobbes defines them as discoverable with reason and they are used to help people to avoid self-destruction and keep rational.Third,for Hobbes,all obligations are selfimposed,right of nature allows us to do anything we see fit to preserve our existence. Any restrictions on action must be voluntary.Finally it come to justice. For Hobbes, the just act is one that does not involve the contravention of a covenant.
Sequel to the time of Nietzsche, morality has been seen from the light that it is the commandment transmitted to us by a supreme lawgiver whom we must obey. Thus, the idea of the supreme lawgiver must be seriously defended for if it disappears, our morality must go with it and what a disaster that would be. Nietzsche however deviates from the popular consensus as far as morality is concerned. In tracing the origin of morality he wanted to point out that the force of morality is not the function of its divine or semi-divine origin and that crediting a god with our moral code is but a myth. For him, moralities evolved over time as natural phenomena in answer to a need to hold society together, to ensure their perpetuation and to help contain the drives and impulses which could without some check or sublimation, threaten or destroy the fabric of human relations.
KANT’S ETHICAL THEORY Introduction Immanuel Kant(1724-1804) was German philospher who was the opponent of utilitarianism and supported the Deontological Theory. Kant believed that certain types of actions were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act: (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (ii) (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes?
These rights are natural because human nature being there primary source of evolution. • Violation of human rights by the state The concept of AFSPA, can be highly refuted by this school of thought. As according to them, the man made laws can be called as just and fair, only if theyare subjected to objective moral principles, and they does not violate the natural rights of the individuals, on whom they are imposed. The state by enacting AFSPA, to attain national integrity and to fulfill the rhetoric of nationalism, tries to violate those basic human rights of the individuals, which are conferred to them by an eternal authority, which prohibits the state from violate them. The provisions of AFSPA, such as section 4(a), gives the officer in charge, a power to arrest anyone, with minor suspicion of him possessing fire arms, and anyone who is part of an assembly of more than 5 people, and even kill them , if they according to that officer are trying to abscond.