From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical. Kant also discussed the importance of perfect and imperfect duties in relation to good morality between humans. He suggested that although we have ‘moral leeway’ in how or when we perform imperfect duties, we must ensure that we always succeed in carrying out perfect duties: ‘they must be done’ as negative duties are ‘more stringent’ than positive duties (Kamm,
“Realm of Ends” formulation of the categorical imperative, states that we must “act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for merely possible kingdom of ends.” (4:439) It acts as a social contract. Kant further explains it that “a rational being belongs as a member of the kingdom of ends when he gives universal laws in it but is also himself subject to those laws.” (4:434) Being subject to a law does not contradict with the concept of a rational being as an end in itself, because it is not like a slavery since it is not subject to arbitrary will. Just the opposite, since it draws central points from the first and second formulation, “the will of a member could regard itself as at the same time giving universal law through its maxim” (4:434) and no member will see another member as a mere mean. On the other hand, autonomy is not equal to self-mastery. For Kant, it is essentially social.
As mentioned above the importance of reason to Hume is marginal and accessory in his moral theory. The fundamental role goes on the other hand for passions. In fact because we have these passions we need to satisfy them so we invert to institutions which are artifacts that help us provide a regular and secure supply of impressions for our desires. Example, If someone is attached to a belonging, the passion that correspond to this attachment is called avidity, and the institution securing this belonging is called justice. It is the passion that is then at the origin of an institution and all correlative values.
For the second thinker, Sandel’s review on Rawls’ work and his principles will be discussed in order to find out whether their principles of justice are identical or follow the principles as stipulated by Rawls, provided with relevant citations of articles. The discussion on introducing the principles and how they correlate with one another will form the essence of this
Kelsen defines law as a type of norm. Therefore, it is subject to a normative order, which makes the “the specific meaning of an act of will directed at a definite human behavior”. Afterwards, Kelsen prescribes two conditions, which if fulfilled by any legal norm, it “is” a proper positive norm. The first condition is that: this norm should be “posited” to be created by an act of a human being, subsequently, any norm created by a god, by nature or by a superhuman being is not “positive” law. The second condition is: the legal norm must be effective which means that people should obey the legal norm and if not obeyed at least applied to them.
The first of these maxims is the maxim of universality. The part of the categorical imperative dictates that: We ask of any maxim whether we could consistently will that that maxim be held universally, that is, whether we could consistently will that it comes to describe, in a law-like way, human practice . . . [This principle] can be illustrated by the ‘lying promise’ example.
Existentialism finds the answer to the absurdities present in the world including issues about human freedom. Dudley (ND) averred that Kant’s idea of freedom is inclusive than the libertarian thought. Further, Kant illuminated that choices are determined by autonomous will and are not subject to restrictions. Likewise, there is freedom of the will and that will is subject to the condition of genuine freedom of choice. Kant wrote the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) where he described his ethical system that is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality.
Thus his idea of cooperation is based on reciprocity which necessitates the idea of mutual self-interestedness (Rawls, 1958, 170). This is how Rawls identifies the justice; “justice is the virtue of practices where there are assumed to be competing interests and conflicting claims, and where it is supposed that persons will press their rights on each other. That persons are mutually self-interested in certain situations and for certain purposes is what gives rise to the question of justice in practices covering those circumstances” (1958,
There are multiple opinions of what justice concludes of, but for now I will only focus on the two. I will be discussing the differences between Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” and Nozick’s “Entitlement Theory.” Not only that, I will also support why Nozick’s “Entitlement Theory” is the superior theory of Justice. Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” is based on the idea that society cooperates with one another for mutual advantage. If society is a matter of cooperation between equals, the conditions need to be defended and any inequalities among the social positions must be justified. However, in order for the agreement to be secured, we need to eliminate any bias of the rich or the poor, or the religious and the atheist.
This means that this moral obligation comes before the moral obligation to obey the law. Obligation to obey the law is only redundant since it is derived from these other moral obligations. If people refrain from doing immoral actions, it is because those actions are morally forbidden not because of the laws that prohibit
I. NO, EN VOGUE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ENFORCE MS. RAMIREZ’S NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PROVE A LEGITIMATE BUSINSINESS INTEREST EXTIST. A restrictive covenant is designed to protect both the employer and the employee. The employer’s business interest is protected from unfair competition where the employee has the right to earn a living while still competing in a free society. A restrictive covenant is justified; if the person seeking enforcement of contracts can enforce the contract, if the contract is signed by the person whom enforcement is sought, “is reasonable in time, area, and in the line of business.” They must also plead and prove that one or more legitimate business interest exist which justify the restrictive covenant.
For example, we cannot appeal to the rights of future people because there is no way we can communicate with them. Furthermore, we can morally make these decisions, even though they may be bad for some future people, on the assumption that they will have a life much better than ours (Parfit,