This absolute, universal law goes against the schemes of Marlee and Nick. Kantians also follow the maxim that every person is an end and not a means to an end. Thus while some utilitarians would accept the scheme, a Kantian would not in any circumstance accept it as it is basically using the gun manufacturer and it’s workers as a mean to an end as stated earlier. Another Kantians would not accept the schemes of Nick and Marlee, and the result of said schemes is due to an important principle brought about by Immanuel Kant which denotes that “…no human being should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone else’s end” (Thiroux and Krasemann 55). That principle is referred to as the Practical Imperative.
Stahmer believed this utilization of judges was not just as these judges were not from a neutral party. Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” supports this premise as it stated, “It is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, because self- love will bias men in favour of themselves and their friends. And on the other side, hostility, passion and revenge will lead them to punish others too severely.” Thus, per Dr. Stahmer, the courts should have neutral representatives and judges to serve. Neutrality in courts is the only similarity between Locke and Stahmer. In reference to theories on government and property, these two men have conflicting stances.
The idea of violence is a key difference when comparing X and King. King is known for his preaching of non-violent means of protest. He states: "We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive" (King 73). Here, Martin Luther King Jr. is inferring that violence is not necessary to convey a message or fight for what one believes, and that attaining justice isn 't limited to the act of violence.
“A moral system valid for all is basically immoral.” (Friedrich Nietzsche). As Friedrich Nietzsche claims, the morality does not have a definite boundary between moral and immoral. The morality, “the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong” (Oxford Dictionaries), cannot be defined like two different sides of a coin, but like a sphere, it cannot be told apart. In The Stranger, the concept of morality was approached several times through various incidents, which Monsieur Meursault faces. Monsieur Meursault, the protagonist, places barely any importance on morals and judging behaviors between right and wrong.
King states that “an unjust law is no law at all” because he believed that laws were put in place in order to benefit and aid the citizens of the state. If a law was unjust, however, it then was contradictory and should not be considered a law” (MLK). Martin Luther King Jr. stated, in his letter, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” King also says an unjust law is one that is forced upon a minority by a
For example, Kant upholds the notion of a universal, a priori law. Instead, Nietzsche rejects the existence of structures that objectively determine such concepts, claiming them to be mere projections of a week will. As such, in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, he contends: ‘there are no moral phenomena at all, only moral
KANT’S ETHICAL THEORY Introduction Immanuel Kant(1724-1804) was German philospher who was the opponent of utilitarianism and supported the Deontological Theory. Kant believed that certain types of actions were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act: (i) Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. (ii) (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes?
I agree with Skinner because the general public is nothing more than “Happy Slaves”, we are molded by hidden controls (laws) and don’t even realize it. Therefore, freedom is an illusion. For example, if we wanted to use our freedom of speech toward law enforcement we would face consequences for disrespecting an authority. Although, the first amendment is supposed to protect us, it does not excuse us from hindrance or consequences. The illusion that we have freedom is merely something created by the ruling power because they create and determine what actions the general public are able to do according to the
Both Francesca and Ugolino’s judgements resulted from deliberation and thought, and both of their thoughts were greatly influenced by their oppressed state and some biological factors. They were diverted away from the First good, which made them turn toward the apparent goods. The use of free will in the Inferno served as a path to sin for both Francesca and Ugolino. Dante recognizes that Francesca had very weak control over her judgements, and that love overpowered her, but he also made it clear that she deserves to be in hell. As for Ugolino, he also used his free will to resist loving his sons.
“Condemned to be free,” a quote from Jean- Paul Sartre, a atheistic existentialism philosopher who had a different view on human nature also known as existentialism. Sartre strongly believed that humans were free to create their own nature without a God, and were not made to have a purpose in life (pg. 67). I found this philosopher very interesting because I agree with believing that humans are fully responsible for their own actions. In addition, as Sartre stated, “we must suffer the anguish of own decision making and accept responsibility for its consequences,” which means that even though humans have the right to make their own choices, they also have to be responsible for the pain that comes along with it (pg.67).
Once again, the tenets of Freemasonry seem to be relevant as a Freemason believes in a “Supreme Being” but is not allowed to discuss his beliefs or persuade others of it. Worshipping anyone other than the Christian God or worshipping through anyone but the Pope would have been heresy at the time so the Old Charges of Freemasonry are relevant. The Charge says that “no Mason should reveal the secrets of a brother that may deprive him of his life and property.” Since being a stonemason did not involve heresy, there is little chance that this rule applied to
In this, souls are eternal and not created or governed by God, therefore evil does not contradict God’s goodness. Kaufman argues solutions for the problem of evil: memory, proportionality, infinite regress, death, and free will. I don’t believe the doctrine of karma is entirely a satisfactory argument. One problem with Kaufman’s argument is that death is not evil, but an important cycle. There is no immortal organism, everything dies, so death is not a punishment or evil.
The end would defy self-love and self-preservation so Kant permits no exceptions because the act of killing will never become a universal law of nature (Friend, 2011). However, Kant believes that autonomy is the soul core of human dignity (Kant, 1785). Killing people typically violates a person’s autonomy, but not upholding their
In other words, the Western argument concerns the admissibility of any suicide, regardless of value. Confucian ethics, however, deals only with the legality of a suicide, which is considered morally worthy. The Western argument is about the right to euthanasia, but only Confucian ethics has to do with righteousness, the correct behavior, or proper exercise of the right to euthanasia. Moreover, the ideas of self-ownership and individual sovereignty are totally unrelated to the Confucian