It should serve as a foundation for public justification among people who have differing notions of the good. The roots to this way of thinking lay in the concept of fairness. Rawls identifies justice with fairness however he does not imply that the notions of justice and fairness are the same. He assumes that the decisions made under the veil of ignorance are supposedly equal in every aspect ergo they are to result in fair and therefore just conclusions. The extent of fairness in this method is however, rather questionable and the same can be said for Rawls’s overall understanding of fairness, especially when looking at practicalities, because Rawls’s theory is highly idealistic and his methodology allegedly universal.
In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.
According to Utilitarianism, Popular Relativism and Subjectivism are rejected as they allow different moral standards for different societies . . . [and] for different persons” (pg. 26 – 27).
This is because the consequences of the utilitarian mentality can’t be applied in all situations due to the dangerous outcomes it can lead to. Kantian ethics is concerned about practical reason and motives rather than the consequences of the action. In most cases, the utilitarian will base their actions on what the best result is for the greatest number of people, while Kant argues that a goodwill “is good only through its willing” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In fact, Kant argues that even “with the greatest effort it should yet achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain…yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish this value” (Kant, 2008, p. 106).
For this reason, he indicates that it is important to define the underlying exclusions of an individual that is considered mad and finding various ways to avoid the silence about the affected individuals by annihilating repression and domination of the forces that create such an impact. On the other hand, Derrida indicates that Foucault’s approach may not be the most significant since the author tends to use the language of reason yet it is the indicator that banished the approach to explain madness. For this reason, Derrida indicates that if silence of madness is crucial in the world, then there is a need to use various instruments that define its significance to the human race. In the same perspective, it is noted that the language of reason should explain unequivocally that madness is malfunction of an individual and the reason may be false. However, if the reason is false, the explanation may not rely on the language that explains the signs of madness and insanity.
Introduction on Rawls & Sandel Rawls stated his Principles of Justice in his essay as a body comprising two main principles, namely liberty and equality; which was then revised in Justice as Fairness: A Restatement . Equality is then subdivided into Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle. He arranges these principles in ‘lexical priority’, prioritising in the order of Liberty, Fair Equality of Opportunity and the Difference Principle . The order of these principles work together when they conflict in practice and first principle is given priority over the second . Moreover, they are intended to work as a single conception of justice – ‘Justice as Fairness’.
General Remarks In the first chapter of the essay utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill begins by observing something of a crisis in moral thinking: essentially, people have been unable to come to any agreement on what philosophies the notions of "right" and "wrong" are based on. Having portrayed this problem, Mill introduces utilitarianism as a prospective solution. He argues that it is already indirectly used as a standard, and that it achieves the requirements of being a first principle. It is imperative to note that Mill explains morality 's purpose as bringing about a specific state of the world. Mill defines this context through which to understand morality as the essential one.
But the main conclusion of the Veil of Ignorance is that if we had to play a lottery, we would create the fairest and most just society we could achieve. In this kind of fair society, decisions and social acts will be made without bias or predisposed advantage of a group of people against others. Rawls’ experiment makes us think deeper and objectively which kind of society we would think just. When a political decision is made, we should try to use the veil of ignorance in order to see how fair this measure
Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver’s Travels, is fundamentally skeptical of philosopher John Locke’s views as expressed in his writing, The Second Treatise of Government. Locke holds the belief that when individuals are pursing self-interest within the realm of economics and politics that they are serving the common good regardless of intent. However, Swift disagrees and uses satire to express his hesitancy. The reason for Swift’s skepticism is that his purpose differs from Locke’s. Locke uses individualism to justify private property as a common good so that men may profit, whereas Swift depicts individualism as corrupting to human morality in order to further discredit modernity.
Furthermore, the apparent simplicity of systematic utilitarian theory gives a definite advantage to defend against the complexity of other moral systems, which are not spared usually face difficult conflict of duties. That simplicity is good in three fields. First, in its theoretical statement, as utilitarianism holds a single principle, giving maximum clarity and simplicity; Second, in its psychological description, because the only relevant to morality is intended to produce happiness, ignoring the complex set of reasons, norms, virtues ...; and third, in its application, since it is the same doctrine for both individual morality to