Mill presents an argument for the value of utilitarianism as a moral theory. He suggests that happiness should be the criterion of morality. The morality of an action should be judged based on the consequences produced because if the action is morally right, it produces the most good for everyone involved. Mills also follows on and suggests that happiness is the sole desire of human life. We thrive to achieve the utmost desire and happiness while avoiding actions that result in pain and sadness.
Economic writer Stephen Moore claimed that the original and traditional American concept of equality as "equality under the law” means that the same rules apply to all, not the same results (29). He states that it isn’t possible to have a classless society because it hinders the economic prosperity of the nation. “Equality of rules ensures that all enjoy the same freedom of contract, which empowers them to maximize value and production, and plan investment knowing they can rely on their agreed contractual rights.” (Moore 29). He basically states that competition encourages the advancement of a nation and the equality under law allows for all to have the opportunity to contribute. He clearly understood Vonnegut’s work to be an attack against communism as he uses it in his argument against equalizing legislature
Comparative analysis of Aristotelian Equality In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle asserts one cannot live a virtuous and fulfilling life without the presence of a friend, despite the presence of the essential goods. In addition to his point, he states the best friendships are built upon a true equality which in turn builds on the mutual contributions and goodness of the character of the individuals within a friendship. Without equality, Aristotle argues, friendships tend to fall apart either due to eventual conflicts of interest or the friendship outliving it usefulness. However, some might argue the best friendships do not need any equality among individuals and can still produce the benefits of a Aristotle definition of the best friendship. Although this argument suggests the absence of equality produces a better friendship and life, I will defend Aristotle’s view by presenting textual evidence from of Nicomachean Ethics proving otherwise.
It is therefore true that citizens of a community are morally obligated to voluntarily participate in the maintenance of that community for the common good of the society. According to Cameron et al. (377), American poet Ralph Waldo Emerson says “there can be no high civility without morality” which implies the extent to which morality affects human existence. Without morality, people would be free to do as they choose without being held morally responsible. However, the obligations set by self or peers which do not necessarily meet personal desire but
All human beings believe in the existence of Supreme Being. We 'll have an obligation, the commands of Gods. Implementing every act commanded by the Gods is morally right; is the statement true? The theory asserts that obeying Supreme Being is moral, in my own view, I agree with the statement. My opinion is supported by the fact that the teachings and code of conduct to obeying Supreme Being leads to doing what is ethically right, for example, not stealing from others, not committing murder, helping others.
A particular message Epictetus presents is his realism. I can identify with that half heartedly but his logic is sound. “Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well” (Cahn, pt. 8). In short, don’t live life wanting fame and fortune and you won’t feel despair when you never
There are two philosophies on citizenship given by Aristotle in The Politics, and Marcus Aurelius in Meditations. I think that Aristotle’s theory is superior to that of Marcus Aurelius. I believe Aristotle gives a better description and real-world application on the idea of citizenship. Though his theory contains some ideas that are controversial in modern days I think we can use the rest of his theory to fix that. Aristotle does a far better job at analyzing the formation of a village, and how that can grow into a state.
What were the circumstances examine it from all perspectives? Definition Virtue ethics: Aristotle based virtue ethics on the quest to become a moral character, as being honest, brave, justice a person becomes an honest person and make honest choices, a guide for making society more peaceful without enforcing rules or punishment to resolve problems In my friend’s case if they had followed virtue ethics it would have been more peaceful and friendly acceptance of her beliefs and way to live her life. And the reaction towards something even if believed to be bad can show virtual ethics. In qualities such as faithfulness, generosity, and integrity. law makers make and enforce the law against discrimination.
Aristotle further divided particular justice as follows: Distributive Justice It deals with the just distribution of benefits and burdens among members of a community. Aristotle was of the opinion that this form of justice is the most powerful law to prevent any revolution, as this justice believes in proper and proportionate allocation of offices, honors, goods and services as per their requirement being a citizen of the state. Distributive justice accords goods and honor proportionately, giving to those who deserve the most. In some instances, a just distribution is one in which each person shares equally, but in others, unequal sharing is just if the inequality is in accord with some principle of distribution. The distributive justice is comparative, in that it considers not the absolute amount of benefits and burdens of each person but each person’s amount relative to that of
He believed in sticking to honesty at all times and was against the use of unethical means. He strived towards uplifting the people associated with him morally and spiritually. He emphasized on people to believe in personal freedom and not give away themselves for the fear of any person or situation. He engrossed himself in the sense of duty, thus showing his Dharmic Leadership style. His Transformational Leadership style came forward when he came up with a shared vision of an independent India.