I believe Aristotle has the stronger argument in terms of defining justice is. It is important to consider whether a law is just or unjust as opposed to Plato 's argument that we should follow all laws regardless; if we were choose to solely follow all laws and the consequence of that law caused harm to another human being we would unintentionally be harming others, which would make it harder for us to be virtuous. I also believe everyone should be held responsible for their own actions, in addition to using Aristotle 's definition of voluntary action, we choose to follow laws which leads to the world being a more desirable place to live. As we have seen with previous laws, such as slavery, if we fail to question the validity and consequence of the law, but voluntarily follow it blindly it can result in issues for years to come; similar to slavery, despite it being illegal today, prior legality negatively affects minorities in our society. If we fail to question unjust laws and believe everything we are told by the government, we are failing to think for ourselves.
In the Medieval and Early Modern Period, the most common way to ignite social change was through writing. Political and philosophical authors such as Geoffrey Chaucer and John Locke were often the voice of reason due to certain societal obligations based on the class system. Using moral allegories Chaucer explained the order of his society and its corruption. Contrary to Chaucer’s approach, Locke uses political theories and little pieces of evidence from the Holy Scripture in writing The Second Treatise of the Government to change his society’s view on the amount of power the government should hold. Individually, both authors, influenced by the religion, political state, and social structure in their period, wrote pieces of literature that
The Rule-utilitarians stablish that every person should follow rules that have been implemented for the good and happiness of the society. The Act-utilitarians do not focus on implementing rules but rather on the single actions and their consequences. Utilitarianism is useful for developing ethical arguments that justify the suffering of some for the happiness of the majority. For example public policy
Are we obligated to obey unjust laws? Laws are important because they are guidelines for a state. Without laws citizens would not know how to act and cause harm to others. Laws are aimed at common good and keep a society together and functioning. States have laws to maintain peace and safety among people and provide ways to resolve issues that arise among individuals.
The obligation of morality is necessary for the pure purpose of a peaceful world and that men need the consent of all to do so, but couldn’t because its in our nature. Though all people and state actors with in a political system should believe that “the peer principles of right have an objective reality, i.e. that they can be applied in practice.” The context required understanding his confidence that is consistent with the prominent issues in the 1700s such as the French revolution and the rising American Revolution that laid the foundation for Kant’s works. With these events occurring in that time frame, they served as particular situations where Kant questioned and actively proved some of his theories explaining his confidence with the philosophy of
While I think that people do actions in order to receive awards not everyone is seeking to be recognized. I agree when Rachels says that the best argument in establishing Ethical Egoism as a viable theory of morality is Thomas Hobbes principle that we should do unto others because if we do, others will more likely to do unto us (Pojman and Vaughn, 2014, pg. 527). People should avoid harming others because we should care about the interests of other people for the very same reason we care about our own interests; for their needs and desires are comparable to our own (Pojman and Vaughn, 2014, pg. 532).
But are either of them wrong? As long as they are being honest then they are both morally right. “Ethical subjectivism also illuminates the importance of being tolerant when one is engaged in ethical discourse because diverse ethical perspectives must be heard, understood, appreciated, and respected.” You don’t have to agree with that person’s every single ethical view if you strongly disagree with him/her; however, there is a responsibility to show respect toward that person for their moral standards. Just like cultural relativism, subjectivism also faces the same inconsistency. If every person is doing their job by following their values and commitments, then how do we know who is morally
It includes the physical laws of nature along with moral rules or moral law that all rational beings should conform their actions to. According to Locke moral law is an “obligation”, meaning that rational beings have the obligation to obey these moral laws, however, they have the ability to not obey them. This is shown when he says “Moral good or evil is only conformity or disagreement of our voluntary actions to some law.” (Essay, 2.28.5)
Even though Ross applauds the idea of benevolence in utilitarianism and the importance of justice, he disapproved of maximizing happiness as the main duty and stating that the moral rules were absolute. The basis of Ross’s moral theory lies in the concept of prima facie; the “duty” performed based on the relationship between certain individuals. Ross means that in any situation the individual needs to decide which relationship is most important to them at that time when making decisions. His main argument consists of: 1. If humans have common sense morality, then they follow prima
Moral theories are theories that help us distinguish between a right or a wrong action. Adequate moral theories help us understand that what we should or shouldn’t do in certain situations. Two of the most famous moral theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. According to Utilitarianism, an action is right if only if it out of all the other action gives out the maximum utility. In oppose to that, Kantianism says that an action is right if and only if, in performing that action, the person does not treat anyone as a mean and treats everyone as an end in itself.