Even the answer of Eichmann demonstrates how wrong Kantian ethics had been misused and misinterpreted by him. Nevertheless, according to Kantian ethics, a personal life should not have a confliction with the law which is another reason that indicates that Eichmann was not a true “proper”
Glaucon claims that the sole reason one would pursue justice is if he or she is willed into in by his or her lack of power. P1- Some people lack the power to do injustice while others have the power to do injustice (Group 3 & Collaboration, P1-P2). P2- Both just and unjust people would do injustice if they have the power to do so (Group 3 & Collaboration, P3). C1- One will do justice only when he or she lacks the power to do injustice (Group 3 & Collaboration, C1). C2- Those with the power will choose injustice unless compelled by justice (Group 3 & Collaboration, C2).
Although, stealing is against the law - he had correct intentions, which he will prove as he defends himself to Hobbes and Locke. Thomas Hobbes removes the foundation of ethics and states that politics determines the common good, unlike his predecessors Plato and Aristotle. He determines that the concept of right or wrong and that society needs a sovereign to establish manner. Hood lives in the civil state where the sovereign has deemed it wrong to steal. This causes Hobbes to believe Hood followed a wrongdoing; disobeying the sovereign.
In order to perceive logic through the process of a rationalist it has to be fallacy proof and should be free from critical thinking. Biasness and emotions have no place in rationalism. People confuse free thinking and rationalism but the literal meaning does not connect them together. Free thinking is a non restrictive definition on the other hand rationalism is a restrictive
The author of the article denies the existence of a general obligation to obey the law with rebuttals to counter objections. He starts with the paradox of the just government. It is very confusing if there is an obligation to obey the law of a just state or if the laws of a government are moral when there is a moral obligation to follow them. However, moral obligation is needed to prove that a law is a relatively just law. This means that this moral obligation comes before the moral obligation to obey the law.
In this sense, the just man can be also considered as a thief. At that point, Polemarchus renounces of this idea of justice as being theft or craft, but he emphasizes on it as doing good to a friend and bad to an enemy. Socrates wouldn’t have asked for a better opportunity to raise the definition of a friend and an enemy. In trying to define these terms, Socrates introduces indirectly that there are circumstances that indicate wheter our actions are just or not, for example, lying can be in several circumstances just or
To others, taking away Shylock’s religion and livelihood is not considered being merciful because they are punishing Shylock for trying to get what was rightfully his. This shows that the value of mercy is subjective, and differs from person to person. Furthermore, there is the important question of when and how much mercy should be shown. In this scene, Shylock is asked to give mercy when he has to reason to. However, the duke claims that he is merciful to Shylock, even though he is not obliged to.
Pursuing one 's own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework. One of Mill 's replies to oppositions about utilitarianism is that the given analysis is not distinctive to utilitarianism, that any ethical theory would have such limitations. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this tactic? Does it really satisfy Mill 's stated objective, to dispel misconceptions about his theory? Might such a reply undermine all ethical
In this context, it means that not only will the theory be unable to expect or explain such cognitive errors, it might also be incapable to describe the intentional states of a person executing these mistakes (Stich as cited in Funkhouser, n.d.). Since there is no guarantee that human beings are rational agents at all time, Dennett’s intentional system theory is false as the theory is only valid when the intentional stance has been adopted towards an entity in which we believe that after adopting the following theory, we’re only able to foretell and define its behaviour by giving treatment to it as though it were a rational agent with activities are administered by its views and needs (Kind,
Rawls’ conception of need and equality based justice is not satisfied by his principles of justice – his argument is consequentially invalid. While Jerry Cohen recognises that there are strengths within his argument, he objects to a Rawlsian conception of justice based on its failure to extend beyond the basic structure, its incorporation of incentives that undermine justice, and its failure to adequately describe the prerequisites for legitimate inequality without risk of abuse motivated by self-interest of the better
Based of the Non Identity Problem reading, it can be classified under three general principles. The first is that future acts that harm the existing or future person are considered morally wrong. Therefore, acts that benefit future people cannot be morally wrong. Next, we must consider if an act does affect any future person, it is considered morally right to let a person exist, rather than let them not exist. If the choice causes them to be worse off, it is still better than not existing at all.