In my opinion, it would be difficult to disagree because most individuals value their own life. As it has been shown, the utilitarian view has its strengths and is certainly logical in some cases, however, Kantian ethics offer a more stable set of moral
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.
After Kino went out, Kino found the Pearl of the World the size of the seagull's egg. The neighbors started to crowd and followed Kino around. The hunters were even going to track down Kino for the pearl. In conclusion, people would do anything, even risking their own life to get something they selfishly want. Kino was very attracted to his pearl because it provided him with wealth and power which made him a very corrupted person.
“Harrison Bergeron“ by Kurt Vonnegut and the movie 2081 is directed by Chandler Tuttle. The theme of this story is that no one should be forced to be equal, since everyone is their own special person. The story describes George and Hazel Bergeron who both have different living perspectives. In the life of 2081 everyone is expected to be equal, because of this way of living George’s intelligence makes him differ from everyone else which is weighed down by earpieces that vibrate a sound. This earpiece transmitter distracts George from any thoughts that make him learn more or feel smarter.
Two are duties to ourselves - namely that of cultivating our intellectual talents and preserving ourselves (hence forbidding suicide), and two are duties to others, namely honesty in promises and helping them to achieve their own ends (G 4:29-30). I will discuss the plausibility (and implausibility) of two of these examples. First, to discuss the most plausible of these examples, I will assess our duty toward others to contribute to the fulfillment of their ends. This example encourages that we not only refrain from taking away from other’s happiness but that we actively and positively work to contribute to others’ happiness (G 4:430). I think that this is plausible and effective because, as Kant argued, if this standard was universalized - in other words, if everyone worked to contribute to their own, and to each other’s happiness and wellbeing - we can potentially actualize the virtues of harmonious and respectful coexistence.
The Organic society conservatives say that because humans are security seeking, they therefore cannot exist outside society but instead humans seek rootedness, they say that ‘duty and obligation holds society together’ . Hierarchy and Authority is seen as natural by conservatives as they say that it shows talent is spread out unevenly in society due to this there is a naturally existing hierarchy. Lastly Conservatives support ownership to property as property helps to give sercurity I a socirty which is unpredictable it gives a sense of protection. Conservatives believe that the ownership of property promotes positive values in society such as valuing others property because a person is a property owner, as a result property ownership allows someone a stake in society. According to Vincent (2009) there are five broad interpretations of conservatism which are the; aristocratic ideology, pragmatic ideology, situational perspective, natural conservatism and unequivocal
King addresses the characteristics of unjust laws in 3 points. First point being that just laws are always harmonious with natural morale law. Second point being that a just law is one that uplifts human personality as opposed to degrading human personality. Lastly, a just law can only be created in the most democratic manner possible and if it is not, the minority automatically has the right to disobey the law because they had no say in the creation of the law. As for the first point, a natural morale law must be measured by our natural human sense.
A Universal Basic Income would also result in an increase of welfare for the whole country. Besides suggesting to base income to meet just the basic needs of people he also criticizes the “traditional objection” that reward is needed to incentive the people to keep society from falling apart. Zinn believes the collective efforts of individuals alone, without a huge income motivating them would be efficient enough and would work well. He argues that there is no real proof that incentives are even necessary, therefore not needed. Zinn would agree with the philosopher and socialist St.Thomas Aquinas in the sense that Aquinas believes man can unselfishly work towards a goal together because everyone is willing to fulfill their own specific duties.
However, we can be firm with our own boundaries and be reasonable in our efforts to protect ourselves. Being assertive is a core communication skill. Being assertive means that you express yourself effectively and stand up for your point of view, while also respecting the rights and beliefs of others. Being assertive can also help boost your self-esteem and earn others' respect. This can help with stress management, especially if you tend to take on too many responsibilities
Rawls gave as an answer to the experiment anyway. He thought every sane person would choose a society with some basic social covered aspects, such as good education, great healthcare, a fair access to justice and a good housing for everyone. This raises another dilemma. People usually know which kind of society they want or they find fair, they just do not know how to achieve it or they just do not question about it because the choices were already made for them. 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.