Kant always emphasized that everyone should be treated freely and equally. He emphasizes that everyone should be treated valuable and not be used to benefit others. He sets a fine line though saying he does not want people not be used at all, but if they are in the situation where they are that they should be treated just like you would want to be treated. What he tried to emphasis on the duty theory is that it is not only about doing the right thing. Immanuel Kant tries very hard to put morality out there on how human beings should be treated and his theory can be seen as absolutely amazing.
According to the story, the human understanding of justice is that it revolves around the actions assumed by the law rather than the actual outcomes. The idea of justice constructed upon the process accepted is based on the simple fact that it ensures that all the pertinent issues are addressed. Additionally, if the process is not followed correctly, it’ll become too complex to explain to the accuser how an action done good to them will now make up for an action done wrong to them before. This idea should be applied in today’s culture because the public is accountable for serving justice and it is obligated to follow the correct process in doing so appropriately. Much of the Assyrian law concept of justice is comparable to the Babylonian law because both had many very harsh punishments.
I will conclude by siding with consequentialism for various reasons that I will try my best to explain. Consequentialism The moral theory of consequentialism centers its view about morality as the production of all the kinds of consequences that are naturally good. In this theory according to Kalajtzidis (2013), the reference of consequences of a deed means the overall outcome of an action, the action itself being inclusive. Shafer-Landau (2012) cites that the people who propose and support consequentialism concur with the effect that morality is wholly concerned with issues to do with the creation of as much freedom in the world as can be naturally and humanly possible (Kalajtzidis, 2013). Moreover, supporters of this ethical approach acknowledge that it is the sole moral activity of human beings to spread happiness and provide relief to the individuals who are going through hard times and suffering (Shafer-Landau, 2012).
But are we free when we seek pleasure and avoid pain? Kant’s notion of freedom connects to morality, which displays contrast between duty and inclination, explaining how only the motive of duty, doing the right thing for the right reason, confers moral worth of an action. Kant believes that everything in nature, including humans, “works in accordance with laws,” that all actions must be appointed by law, The formula of universal law that basically states how you should treat humanity as an end rather than as a means. He says we should only act upon the maxim, a principle that gives a reason for action, without contradiction. Davis claims that law is not always reliable when insuring justice; moreover, Kant can support
JUSTICE IN NICOMACHEAN ETHICS: Aristotle observed in book V of the nicomachean ethics that the word justice is has a double meaning as: “Justice can mean either lawfulness or fairness, since injustice is lawlessness and unfairness. The laws encourage people to behave virtuously, so the just person, who by definition is lawful, will necessarily be virtuous. Virtue differs from justice because it deals with one’s moral state, while justice deals with one’s relations with others. Universal justice is that state of a person who is generally lawful and fair. Particular justice deals with the “divisible” goods of honor, money, and safety, where one person’s gain of such goods results in a corresponding loss by someone else.” TYPES OF JUSTICE: Following are the three main types of justice in accordance with Aristotle: Distributive justice (This deals with the distribution of burden) Compensatory justice (This deals in the matter of compensating persons for wrong doing) Retributive justice (This involves the
By using words and reason we treat them as another human being and with the respect humans deserve. Reason is exclusively human activity and that is why it shows respect. The next reason that Socrates uses to back up persuasion is that persuasion is holding to your promise (contract with country) and sticking to your word through persuading but still following the law. Why is it just to obey the law even if unjust? Obeying the law preserves the possibility or hope for justice.
He then goes on to expand on the consequences of the Basic Argument. He announces that the result of this is "that there is a fundamental sense in which no punishment or reward is ever ultimately just"(221). This would mean it is just as fair to punish or reward people for their actions as it is the color of their hair or face
- Detail the distinction between just and unjust laws. Why is it important Dr. King make this distinction? - One has a legal and moral responsibility to obey “just” laws because they are a “ man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” Any “just” law uplifts human personality. One has a moral responsibility to disobey “unjust” laws because they are “ a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Any “unjust” law degrades human
"Act that you use humanity, whether in your person or in another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." This is the translation of Immanuel Kant 's second categorical imperative which was also known as 'Mere Means Principle ' or 'The Principle of Humanity '. This principle put forth by the great philosopher attempts to give us parameters on, when using people is justified and when it is not. Using other people for our personal benefit cannot be justified morally. Their desires, wishes and intentions also need to be taken into consideration and need to be given equal weight like ours.
Thus from the analysis of this excerpt, morality is unnatural for human beings but brings about desirable social goods. Initially in the discourse between Plato and Glaucon, Glaucon argues that only those who are too weak to inflict injustice or defend themselves from injustice being done upon them, are the ones to devise a contract against it. Glaucon states “The purpose of the compact is to bind them all to neither suffer injustice nor commit it” (Glaucon 110), demonstrating how this pact of justice merely provides solitude for