He was very wary of the ruling class and their influence on society, specifically on society’s morals and ideologies. The upper classes set the foundation as to what morals are ubiquitous. Morals do not make a man; rather, a man makes morals. Depending on who was in the ruling class, the prominent morality of that time period would be one that best benefited them. For instance, in the time of the aristocracy, virtues such as honor and loyalty were made universal; whereas, the bourgeoisie focused on freedom and equality.
It should serve as a foundation for public justification among people who have differing notions of the good. The roots to this way of thinking lay in the concept of fairness. Rawls identifies justice with fairness however he does not imply that the notions of justice and fairness are the same. He assumes that the decisions made under the veil of ignorance are supposedly equal in every aspect ergo they are to result in fair and therefore just conclusions. The extent of fairness in this method is however, rather questionable and the same can be said for Rawls’s overall understanding of fairness, especially when looking at practicalities, because Rawls’s theory is highly idealistic and his methodology allegedly universal.
While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position. According to J.S Mill, one should choose an action that maximizes the happiness
Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome. Immanuel Kant designed ‘The Categorical Imperative’ theory which was associated with the fact that it was commanding us to practice our morals and desires in a specific way which was exercised through two rules. Kamm (2000) claims that these components were to ‘(1) treat persons as ends in themselves and (2) do not treat them as mere means’. Kamm is basically suggesting that we seek happiness of others, as that is morally right, however fulfill capacities of one’s own intellect. From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical.
The author arguing Hegel’s personality theory could argue that they themselves have also invested labour, skill and capital although lesser than the original author, but their work is an extension of their will and personhood. However, there are problems that may arise for the application of personality theory the first being recognition of will of the author by others and rights of the author such as alienation of the property. According to Hegel, the work must reflect the personal traits of the author and the same must be recognized by the society further, he says that, will and personal traits are inherent to an individual and they do not have the right to alienate their property. And, the problem does not end there today only arguing that a copied work is
Are human beings actions drive only by rational and self-interest, or they having another motivations? Thomas Hobbes an English philosopher explains the Social contract in an easy way; an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of a society or a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each. (Merriam-Webster) The essence of contractarianism is “Actions are morally right just because they are permitted by rules that free, equal, and rational people would agree to live by, on the conditions that others obey these rules as well.”, which is originated as a political theory and later is developed into a moral theory. There are 2 principal assumptions, the first that we are motivated by self-interest (ethical
Mill and Kant have opposite idea and they support different moral philosophies. Mill exactly suppose the idea of social thinking, namely he claims that everyone attach an importance to other human beings. However, Kant considers that selfishness reflect people’s characteristics, in other words, each person should pay attention to themselves not others, because the most important thing for them is themselves. Kant also highlight that people can only behave in a good manner, if they have good will. In other words, Kant attach an importance to people’s instinct or characteristics, Mill gives weight to promoting happiness and dissolution of the pain.
Plato’s republic aims to describe a just state, and in turn a just individual consistently throughout the text. By analogising the justice of the state and the justice of the individual, Plato attempts to demonstrate that a just society will breed just individuals. However, there are certain loop holes within his thought process that can lead one to wonder whether or not his ideas are pragmatic, and could function within a real societal structure- and if human beings given their inherently selfish nature, can adopt the traits necessary in order to achieve justice and the ideal state described in the Republic. Plato described the human soul as a “tripartite soul” where three main qualities seen in the human being, will also be reflected in the three classes of the ideal state. Reason is the highest of the three main qualities, and it forms the class of rulers and guardians.
Therefore, the actions and norms must be judged according to the principle of utility or of maximum happiness. Like other theories it constitutes a teleoenological ethics, because it values the actions as means to reach an end and according to the consequences that are detached from them: an action is good when its consequences are useful (they approach us to the happiness) and it is bad when Its consequences are not (they keep us away from it). According to John Stuart Mill, the main difference between utilitarianism and classical hedonism (epicureism) is that the first transcends the personal sphere: it does not understand by happiness the personal interest or pleasure, but the maximum benefit for the greater number of people. Pleasure is a common good. Mill distinguishes between inferior and superior pleasures: There are more estimable pleasures than others as they promote or not the moral development of the human being
I lean more towards Schwartz’s ideas, believing that there is a profound oversimplification of the term ‘tolerance’ and that it is much more complex than its definition or even its negative connotations. In my way of thinking, to tolerate something is neither to disapprove or to approve, or to disagree or agree; it is to accept. Whether that acceptance may not be agreeable to one’s own worldview, religion, or opinion, it is what keeps our society pluralistic and