Theories Of Hobbes Social Contract

Lewis, 1952, p. 17). Lewis states that moral law exists and is independent. The moral law presses upon us to do the decent thing, even if it causes us discomfort. The natural law directs the objects that exists whereas the moral law controls on how we behave towards others, how we live our lives and so on (C.S. Lewis, 1952, p. 20).

Mainstream enlightenment thinkers tend to have assumptions linked to the innate knowledge of humans. A chiefly influential figure in the Mainstream Enlightenment for political philosophy and of social thought, Jean Jacques-Rousseau’s “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” (1755), writes “We cannot desire or fear anything, except from the idea of it, or from the simple impulse of nature”. Nature was assumed to be the primal condition in which Man was innocent. It was assumed that Man was naturally innocent and “imbued with virtues”. That man in his natural state seeks to contribute to the common good.

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

According to Locke we can have certain and demonstrative knowledge of morality. However, I will argue that Locke’s theory or morality is not consistent with his claim that we can have demonstrative knowledge of morality. The first characterization of morality is natural law. Locke asserted that the natural law theory occurs without regularity, without exception, and holds universally true. It includes the physical laws of nature along with moral rules or moral law that all rational beings should conform their actions to.

The idea behind Kantian Ethics is that doing the right thing is not about the consequences of our actions but rather the principle motivating the action. Actions must be performed out of duty, that is, it is done solely because we have an obligation to perform such action out of respect for the moral law. As explained by Immanuel Kant, “the moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth” (105). Kant argues that to act morally, then, is to “act only on the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (108). Utilitarianism, developed by John Stuart Mill, is one of the most commonly used approaches in making moral decisions.

It does now not check with the legal guidelines of nature, in keeping with natural regulation ethical principle, the ethical requirements that Govern human behaviour are, in a few experience , objectively derived from the nature of humans and the nature of the arena. Therefore, we human beings are guided with the aid of our human nature out what the legal guidelines are, and to behave in conformity with the ones legal guidelines. The natural regulation method to fixing moral dilemmas starts with the primary notion that everybody has the proper to live their existence. From there, natural regulation theorists draw a line between an innocent life and the existence of an 'unjust aggressor. ' The herbal law idea recognizes the legal and moral idea of self-defense, which is often used to justify acts of struggle.

Though the ideas Mill discusses in On Liberty are applicable to present day, they should serve as guidelines rather than restrictions because of the situational controversies in adoption. Mill’s “harm principle” is based on the principle of utility and how he differentiates action and inaction. By first claiming “I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (Mill 10), he means that he wants to do the greatest good, thus declaring himself as a utilitarian. Concerning

(Johnson p. 42) that is the intention of the actions. It does not consider the consequences of an act, and it does not matter if the consequences benefits one person or many. Kant’s categorical imperative- “Treat people as an end, never merely as a means to an end.”( Johnson p. 44)-emphasizes the responsibility of treating people as a “moral” and “rational” ( Johnson p.44) beings that should not be used to our own benefit but as a people that have their own desires. Deontology is useful for developing ethical arguments that exalt individuals as an intelligent, and capable of taking correct moral decisions (Johnson p.43) c. Rawls ' Social Justice Rawls ' Social Justice is an ethical theory that define justice as “what people would choose when they are rational, self-interested and behind the veil of ignorance” (Johnson p. 48). Rawls’ theory of justice has two main ideas: first, everybody has the “equal right” to liberty, and second, “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone 's advantage, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all”( p. 48).

Kant’s principal of morality is a standard of rationality he called the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that there is one, ‘super rule’ that helps you decide if the maxims you are following are morally sound or not. Kant believes one’s duty means acting in accordance with certain moral laws/imperatives, “so act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” [Section 2. pg 14]. Therefore, Kant is saying that moral worth appears to require not only that one’s actions be motivated by duty, but also that no other motives are a driving factor in getting to that end. He further elaborates on this by stating that reason does not simply find the means to end, it decides on proper ends. This all leads to the conclusion that someone of moral worth in the eyes of Kant is only morally ideal if their actions are done from

Mill states, “It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (Mill 20). In order to determine if something is ethical or not, it must follow his Utilitarianism foundation. In addition, individual liberties are related to this foundation because they were asked if these liberties were right and ethnical moral. Moreover, Mill’s says that he uses “Utility as the ultimate appeal [to] all ethical questions” (Mill 20), which is used to determine the individual liberty that we