Foucault is saying that a discipline- mechanism, and therefore Panopticism, has no goals of enhancing the distribution of power via extravagance or luxury. A discipline-mechanism has only one goal in mind: to make the use and retention of power more orderly and productive for those who hold it, and to appear to do the same for those who don 't without informing them of their actual imprisoned and restricted situation. By mentioning that a discipline-mechanism is “a design of subtle
Ethics and the search for a good moral foundation first drew me into the world of philosophy. It is agreed that the two most important Ethical views are from the world’s two most renowned ethical philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In this paper, I will explore be analyzing Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle and Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In particular, I want to discuss which principle provides a better guideline for making moral decisions. And which for practical purposes ought to be taught to individuals.
An avid supporter of Kant may argue an amoralists paradigm. They may rearticulate Kant 's perception on rationality--all people who choose to be rational are consistent which is a primary law of the Principle of Universalizability. If the Principle of Universalizability is obeyed then the person must be moral. A supporter may conclude the argument by articulating that if one is rational, then one is moral. But in further analysis, the amoralist has a more fundamental understanding of the human condition.
The reason being, the intrinsic properties of an individual cannot be the extent to which one considers its moral status, one should also consider the species, and the situation itself. This concept of equality that the critique argues, introduces the treatment of marginal human beings and non human animals, but does not focus on the vast differences that currently exist between these two parties. All things considered, if these critiques hone into species differences and proportionally how to treat each individual party with respect then these critiques would all-inclusive. All things considered, these critiques remain myopic because they do not consider conflicts of interest, especially in regards to the
Letter to Meneoceus Epicurus’ views are the views of a hedonist; the only thing that is intrinsically good is pleasure. By pleasure, Epicurus did not mean a sexual pleasure, but the “absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul” (Epicurus, n.d., p. 3), which meant that pleasure is the absence of pain, so removal of pain equals pleasure. Epicurus believed that living a calm life was better than living a thrilling life. However, a calm life would be boring and without purpose compared to a thrilling life. A thrilling life does not necessarily mean creating excitement in everything one does, but living a meaningful life without being too precarious to avoid pain.
Introduction In this essay, I will be comparing Deontology to Utilitarianism. I will attempt to substantiate why I am justified in arguing that Deontology is a superior moral theory than Utilitarianism. A Discussion of the Main Elements of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a moral theory developed by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1947 – 1832) and refined by fellow countryman John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873). It is a results-based concept that gives no weight to the intentions that drive actions but, rather, places emphasis on the consequences of such actions. With specific reference to Bentham’s Utilitarianism and his incorporation of Hedonistic Calculus, this theory is simply derived from human being’s primal desires to seek pleasure and restrict pain, and suggests that morally good actions are those which would accomplish such.
These characteristics, for Aristotle are related to pleasure and feelings which are themselves relate to all animals. However, choice is not for that choice is only related to rational beings. Additionally, acts done in anger or in appetite does not
For example, getting what you want may mean preventing others from getting what they want, so it seems impossible for everyone to be happy, and therefore moral. Kant does not agree with Aristotle on the claim that if you are moral, you are happy. He takes into account many instances where being moral does not lead to happiness, and where happiness does not entail morality. He goes on to explain that many people do not seem to know what makes them happy… “The concept of happiness is such an indeterminate concept that, although every human being wishes to attain this, he can still never say determinately and consistently with himself what he wishes and wills” (?????). Many tend to believe that attracted wealth will bring about happiness, but as studies show there is a cap where happiness levels off at a certain income, and it’s actually not that high.
Egoism is “An ethical position that puts the self at the center of any question that asks, ‘What’s Best for Me”,” (Leib). People who are egotistic are typically selfish, since they try to find out what’s most beneficial for them, not others. Altruism is the opposite of egotism. Altruism is “Any ethical position that put the needs of others before the needs of oneself for whatever reason,” (Leib). These altruistic individuals would be considered selfless because they find out what’s beneficial for others before themselves.
I will explore the basics of Kantianism and discuss the outcome of the non-rational beings in the kingdom of ends. Immanuel Kant is one of the great enlightenment philosophers who focuses on deontological ethics; Deon being Greek for “duty” and Kantianism being the popular branch of deontological ethics. Kantianism is making ethical choices based
Consequential Theory Rule Utilitarianism: I chose to use apply Rule Utilitarianism ; which is that one should follow the moral rule that would produce the most happiness if everyone followed it. We must evaluate the moral rules that are relevant to these kinds of situations and determine which rule would have the highest net utility if everyone followed it. (Goree) First we list moral rules that would be relevant to the situation. Secondly , we determine the net utility of each rule, if everyone followed it. Option A: Human cloning should be allowed.
89). He considers pleasures of the mind, which are pleasures of intellect, feelings, and imagination, to be superior than pleasures of mere sensation (Pg. 91). He argues that hedonism is not animalistic. Since humans feel pain in a different and more severe way than animals do, we should not expect that our pleasures are exclusively of sensation and appetite like animals (Pg.