This applies the sense of wisdom because the individual knows that not following a social ritual would invoke a moral consequence: shame. Once an individual feels a sense of shame, their soul is not in harmony. Thus, they would not be living a good life at that moment. Another point Mencius would make is a social ritual is not merely created because it is the right thing to do. Rather, the reason behind why a social ritual was created makes it right.
The main confusion of utilitarianism is that it has several interpretations. One of them claims that individuals should act for the public utility in favor of their own benefits. This first interpretation is an egoistic one, because people act in favor of the community with the only aim to have their own profits afterwards. Even though Rawls and Mill’s theories present similarities, the fundaments of the theories are the exact opposite. Rawls natural right theory privileges human rights over any other duty, whereas Mill’s utilitarian theory favors society over individual and natural rights.
To Hobbes, human beings are irrational in nature hence the need for a system (state) to maintain law and order. John Locke maintains that the state of Nature is peaceful but human beings may be driven by selfish interests to disrupt this peaceful state hence the need for a system (state) to regulate and oversee human activity. The views of the above scholars are complementary in nature in the sense that they all recognize the state as the basis for the attainment of
The first is that “without freedom there can be no morality.“this is also used as justification for his view that only action can have a moral judgement associated with it. The second is that morality is an innate function of humans “we have it within ourselves”. Jung also heavily implies that the collective unconciuos is a force of good and that styling our actions in accordance with its “wishes” we can find the “right” path. This is not the same as trying to be “normal” which Jung calls “a hell of sterility and hopelessness” but rather the act of conforming to the moral ideal of society. The third is that the“shadow“is necessary for moral behaviour which coincides with his belief that for good to exist there must be evil.
Rawls tried to take the social contract more higher or more abstract than tradition approach, he called “the original position” this is a condition that Rawls took it as an appropriate for the choice to choose the fundamental principle of justice for the society. Rawls believe that the way to set up justice as fairness must go beyond human-being who still can choose their benefit by bias stuffs which effected to them. To find out the principles in society would be chosen by people who do not know their position and do not know how they are going to be impacted by their decision.Rawls’ principle is a principle of distribution and so on when critic or look depth into this, we much concerned more what is the main point that he set up justice as fairness for
A philosopher Stuart Rachels suggests that, “ morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the condition that others accept them too”. For me this have a meaning that if we follow those guidelines we are being morally good, we can live morally by our own choice and if not probably we will have consequences and not just because a divine superior requires us live in morality. Even though I am a strong believer in God not all people is, therefore the social contract will apply for all
Patrick Devlin, in his philosophical piece, The Enforcement of Morals, speaks in-depth about the importance of a societal morality. In large part he attests that a society functions properly when a shared morality is present amongst it’s people, therefore any violation of that collective mindset will threaten the foundation that holds a society together . Devlin proceeds his argument even further by stating, “Immorality then, for the purpose of the law, is what every right-minded person is presumed to consider to be immoral” . If the predicament involving the obese man and his actions is analyzed through the lens of Devlin’s notion, it can be claimed that although these actions are not harmful to other members of society, these actions are opposed by the general consensus of people, thus posing a threat to that society’s existence and advocating for immorality. Although this statement seems rather hyperbolic in regards to a sole obese man choosing to eat unhealthy foods, it carries more significance if a group of individuals decide to adopt this lifestyle.
Hence, a rule utilitarian applies the Principle of Utility to moral rules, while an act utilitarian applies the Principle of Utility to individual moral actions. The good point of Rule Utilitarianism is it follows “moral rules” in which there are exceptions. In case of debate on the right to remain silent in Vietnam, like Act Utilitarianism, it will support the measure because we cannot sacrifice the right of some people to protect the interests of another group, but in case of that sacrifice is necessary for the whole society, we can do it as
What is basic to morality is the inclination for benevolence—an integral part of moral evaluations. Hutcheson set out to prove the existence of natural feelings, like benevolence, in order to show that not every action was performed out of self-interest. One of Hutcheson’s concerns were that one’s natural benevolence could get caught up with one’s selfish nature, although he hoped people could realize that natural benevolence will allow one to see the higher character and thus one could understand and encourage what is best for everyone. Hutcheson’s moral sense theory helped to conceptually evade the problems that stem from a stringent doctrine of egoism. He claimed that it is natural for one to want good things for others.
This may be because our actions are more likely to correspond to the balance of moral reasons if we follow the law than if we rely directly on our own judgment. If this is sometimes the case, then the law has made a difference to what we ought to do; for now it is sometimes true that we ought to obey the law, regardless of which course of action we should have taken in the absence of it.