Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself. The context of the paper is discussion of why utilitarianism is consistently appealing.
I believe privacy is more important when it comes to security vs privacy debate. (Solove pg 163-167) Before I continue I need to explain each aspect of this argument. First of the two aspects stated in Solove 's essay is privacy and security, and Solove believes we as citizens of the united states as individuals should care more about our privacy even if we had “nothing to hide”. When it comes to our personal information like our SS#, address, credit card#, name, date of birth, and internet activities. Most of our personal info alone is not useful but Solove states “ a problem emerges from the fusion of small bits of seemingly innocuous data.
King answers this question by stating that there are two kinds of laws: just and unjust. The former is mainly characterized by one quality: morality. See, for a law to be just, it cannot be forced upon a specific demographic of the population by another; every demographic must have the opportunity for equal representation in the proposition of said law. Otherwise, there will always be a feeling of being acted-upon for the oppressed rather than collectively acting as a
A. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975: In this precedent, the supreme court decided that the presence of mental illness alone is not enough to warrant involuntary confinement. If the patient is no longer found dangerous to him/herself or others, there is no justification to continue confinement. Commitment needs to be justified on the basis of mental disease and dangerousness. This precedent is applicable to the case of Mr. Y, because the statement above states dangerousness and mental illness as a basis for justifying continual commitment for Mr. Y. If the preponderance of evidence shows that Mr. Y is dangerous due to his mental disease, then deciding to civilly commit him would meet the requirement of this precedent case.
The fault in this lies in the motivation behind the justices’ decisions; with judicial activism, it is nearly impossible to view law as objective and free of bias. Many fear that in acting as policy makers, justices bring their own partialities and beliefs into account instead of allowing the literal interpretation of the Constitution guide their decisions. On the other hand, judicial restraint can also be used when deciding cases. Judicial restraint refers to justices interpreting the United States Constitution word for word, keeping from bringing their own beliefs or biases into account and most importantly refraining from assuming the role of policy maker. Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
The living constitution approach implies that consequences do guide decisions because rules are bent and the original meaning of the documents are reinterpreted and applied to modern situations. Originalists argue that one cannot look to judges to come up with different answers because one does not like what happens when you apply the original view. However, as strong as this argument against the living constitution approach is, they still uphold timeless principles through these actions but just not as strictly as the Originalists do. An example of this is the confrontation clause debate about whether an accused molester should or should not be required to confront the child accuser in court. The Originalist approach says that the molester should be required to confront the child accuser because consequences cannot be considered and we must stick to the original view of the documents.
Eradication of the identities of marginalized groups infringes upon freedom. If everyone were the same on all levels then there would be an absence of freedom, because it would be frowned upon to be different. Although it is clear in the Rodney King scenario that the officer initiated the act and did not represent himself well in a place of authority, it didn’t seem to matter to the hierarchy of the court system. Furthermore, imagined violence is a possible place of power for those who cannot actually commit violence, even when it is continuously
States do not sufficiently mirror private associations, therefore they cannot be used as examples of groups that have the right to exclude similar to that of nations. I additionally claim that there is an extreme conflict between a state’s right to exclude and a general right of association among individuals. An individual’s right to associate has greater moral significance than the right of states to elect who to include. This being true, individual freedom of association actually supports the idea that individuals can migrate across national boundaries. However, even if one does not agree with this stance, Wellman’s premises fail to establish a strong enough argument for the right of states to exclude potential migrants
Thus, while not all iterations of pacifism are created equally, pacifism is worthy of serious consideration. It is not a universal moral truth, but rather a multifaceted doctrine that reflects a set of nearly universal human values. Pacifists can maintain moral integrity by embodying their deeply held moral convictions through a radical nonviolent practice. While the refusal to assert themselves as “right” may lead some critics or non-pacifists to see pacifism as a mere preference, by rejecting the supposition of a universal morality and countering hegemonic narratives of “right and wrong,” pacifists are able to combat violence in unique and effective
If not, conceivably there might be no theoretical and practical improvement regarding CI1. We might simply disregard this process or recognize it as a form of the universal law of nature; CI1A and CI1 might be, then, the same law in different forms. Actually, however, Silber attempts to disguise content as a form, although it seems that CI1A is intended to provide the content for procedural rationality; Silber insists nonetheless that the typic is merely formal. Kant and Silber both contend that CI1 and CI1A are the same law in the form. They deny that the analogy with nature and the talk of harmony in a kingdom of ends introduce material considerations (i.e.