The Golden Rule says to treat others the same way one would want to be treated. The Golden Rule can be achieved when equality and Civil Rights are being used between a group of people. An example is when a person is treated unfairly. Instead of attacking the other person they would try and solve it peacefully knowing that physical actions are unnecessary choices that will only make problems worse. The ideas of equality are neutral choices or actions set on two groups or more. Someone would want equality when one is treated unfairly compared to another group of beings. Civil Rights is gained when peaceful acts are evenly placed between two or more groups of people. If one follows the Golden Rule, one would want others to have the same rights
In the reading, "Utilitarianism," the author argues that happiness is the main criteria for morality since people base their actions off of the overall happiness it could promote (pp. 195 and 198) and that while actions differ in the quantity and quality of pleasure, pleasurable actions that require intellect are of the higher pleasures (pp. 196-197).
A philosophy cannot be binding if it does not contain inherent consequences for those who break its rules. In this chapter, Mill says he will explore what built-in sanctions utilitarianism can provide; in other words, what punishments the philosophy might impose upon those who do not abide by it. Mill notes a potential challenge to the utilitarian system: if a person is presented with a first principle that general custom does not deem fundamental, that person will see no reason to respect or value that principle. Rather, the corollary moral ideas based on the first principle will seem to have a stronger foundation (because they enjoy general acceptance) than the foundation itself. Mill says that this challenge will simply persist for utilitarianism
Ethics are a way to guide you through life. They provide a set of rules for each individual to follow based on what they believe. It is the way in which someone makes their decisions on what is right or wrong, in correlation to their preferred ethical framework. Religious background plays a big role in shaping these structures, as it suggests a design as to what is deemed good or sinful. Ethical frameworks are different formats of decision-making that one person can refer to when making a moral choice. Utilitarianism is a framework that helps the individual in living a fulfilled and good life. The reason for this can be based on Aristotle’s theory of eudaimonia. He believed that, for an individual to achieve a good life, they must first be
Buddhism started with the Buddha who was born as Siddhartha Gautama in Nepal around 2,500 years ago. The word ‘Buddha’ means ‘who is awake’ and in the sense of having ‘woken up to reality’. He did not say his is a god or a prophet. He was a human being who became Enlightened, try to understanding life in the deepest way possible.
The idea behind Kantian Ethics is that doing the right thing is not about the consequences of our actions but rather the principle motivating the action. Actions must be performed out of duty, that is, it is done solely because we have an obligation to perform such action out of respect for the moral law. As explained by Immanuel Kant, “the moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth” (105). Kant argues that to act morally, then, is to “act only on the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (108).
In the “letter from Birmingham Jail” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., he uses pathos, logos and rhetorical devices such as imagery, sarcasm and biblical allusions to show how his work of nonviolent protests are smart and how Birmingham has violated their civil rights. He expresses himself in his letter by explaining why he can not wait any longer because of the countless murders, the unsolved bombing, lynching, and violence towards the black community. MLK Jr. came across a statement which was a call for unity by eight Clergymen while being in the Birmingham city jail because of him not having a license to protest. In response to the eight Clergymen, Dr. king decided to write a historical letter letting them know that freedom was not an option because of the false promise and the continued violence. The letter is written to inform the people who are against, neutral and with segregation that it is time to take action and prove to the clergymen why he will stand up for what is right.
Sacrifice: destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else. America was once a great nation because of the incredible sacrifices that were made. America is, still, a great nation, but is lacking the sacrifices that were made years ago. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., for example, went to jail to gain freedom for his people. His powerful words in his famous “I Have a Dream” speech and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” moved his followers to take charge and earn their freedom. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, another incredible man, affirmed in his inaugural address that he would do anything to insure “survival and success of liberty” for Americans and it cost him his life (jfklibrary). Beyond his wealth and power, Kennedy was always considerate of the common man. This essay will explain how both Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy wanted to end segregation with faith and cooperation, but their ideas of achieving change were different; this essay will also connect their sacrifices, like going to jail or having the will to die, for the sake of the people.
John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States has expressed various issues during his Inaugural Address in 1961 and one of it was about civil rights in the states. When John F. Kennedy became president in 1961, African Americans throughout most of the South were denied voting rights, barred from public facilities, subjected to insults and violence, and couldn’t expect justice from the courts. In the North, they are faced by discrimination in education, employment, housing, and many other areas. Therefore, the Civil Rights Movement have made essential progress to bring justice.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy delivered his “Civil Rights Address” on June 11, 1963 to talk about how everyone is born equal and just because you are born with darker skin you shouldn’t be considered less of a person and have less rights. It was filmed in the oval office and broadcast on national radio and television. This speech is about equal rights for african americans. It was made because two black children had to be escorted to school by state troopers after numerous threats. John F. Kennedy used diction as well as logos and ethos to make listeners believe that his argument is right and they should take his side.
The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories.
John Stuart Mill, at the very beginning of chapter 2 entitled “what is utilitarianism”. starts off by explaining to the readers what utility is, Utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. This leads us to another name for utility which is the greatest happiness principle. Mill claims that “actions are right in proportions as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” “By Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by happiness, pain and the privation of pleasure”. (Mill, utilitarianism, p.697)
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory summed up by the phrase, the right action is one which creates the sum total amount of happiness for the greatest number. Therefore, utilitarians believe that morality’s purpose is to maximise the number of good things, such as happiness, and decrease the number of bad things, such as unhappiness, in the world. Critics of utilitarianism believe that this theory cannot accommodate moral rights since we go against our intuitions in moral dilemmas. However, utiltarians have a response to these criticisms which shows that utilitarianism is defensible.
In the excerpt from John Stuart Mill’s book, Utilitarianism, Mill defends the utilitarian theory against three different objections. The first, and strongest opposition to utilitarianism was the accusation that the emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure makes utilitarianism “a doctrine worthy of swine.” This was my favorite argument because Mill defended it so well stating that there are varying degrees of pleasure. He refers to them as “high” and “low” pleasures, which I do agree with. While a pig can eat exorbitant amounts of food for pleasure they cannot experience the pleasures that demand a higher level of intellect and consciousness (music, literature, art). Mill attempted to prove the invalidity
“By assuming other people should be treated the way I want to be treated, it imposes my preferences and values on those around me”(Does The Golden). Essayist and writer for the New York Times Magazine, Chuck Klosterman, explains in his article Does The Golden Rule Hold Up in Modern Society why the “Golden Rule” may actually be not so golden after all. Klosterman explains why assuming that people want the same things and think that the same actions are moral is simply irrational. He states, “Well, I certainly want to be treated in a manner that accounts for the possibility that other people can’t predict what I want”(Does The Golden). I interpret this to mean that he wants to be treated as a unique person who has his own morals and values.