In On Liberty, Mill theorizes the Principle of Liberty, in which he states that mankind has no right to prevent any other man from committing an action unless it is to prevent them from causing harm to others. Society cannot reject an individual’s conduct just because the majority of people find it offensive. However, this doesn’t mean that society can’t enforce certain constraints on people’s conduct through the law. This restriction of actions that impede upon the well being of others is necessary in order to protect an individual’s fundamental rights and basic moral liberties. With this being said, society only has the right to restrict behavior on the basis of justice, and not because society deems it to be immoral.
Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other. King’s own account of his philosophy of nonviolence indicated the extent to which he was influenced by Thoreau’s theoretical framework for thinking about civil disobedience and political obligation. Thoreau has confidence in democracy and the belief of unifying individuals of the society to realize it. However, Nietzsche overtly objected to democratic politics, with thinking that love, freedom and democracy are all the results of recognizing the right. Although democratic practices were on the way in the capitalist countries, he asserted that democratic politics possessed no advancement.
Morality, in his system, is a vehicle to move from state of nature into law of nature, and is a move mandated by self-interest. In the laws of nature, there is a covenant among people in which one of the parties must perform after the other through promise. However, promise in Hobbes’ system is not based on trust, virtue or any intrinsic purpose, because by the first natural right which is self-preservation, such justification seems as a luxury. Since one on trusts no one, promise keeping should be enforced by the fear of sovereign, whose job is to enforce the contract by punishing those who break it. Thus, the fear of punishment by sovereign makes promise keeping possible.
In Confucianism they believe people will follow their leader. On the contrary, Legalism, believes that people should not be given the choice to do good because if they have that choice it’s very unlikely they will try to do good. The law has to prevent people from doing any bad, and the consequences were very harsh, so that people will do the right thing. As you can see, they both have very different beliefs. But one thing they have in common is that they both want people to do good, and do the right thing.
If you would not want the rule to be universalised, you should not be completing the action. For example, if you were to lie, you are condoning lying universally so there will be no truth told by anyone, causing disruptions and disagreements. This is an absolutist stance because there are no exceptions to the rule. The Principle of humanity as an end not as a means is the second imperative. The action a person completes should not use another human to achieve a goal, this is because humans have intrinsic value and we have the innate ability to be rational and
Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war. This constant state of war is what Hobbes believes to be man’s original state of nature. According to Hobbes, man cannot be trusted in the state of nature. Limits must be put on freedom and inalienable rights. Hobbs believed that if man had complete freedom it would result in chaos.
Off the Precipice into the Gorge: Why Utilitarianism Can’t Save Us Introduction In his article, “A Critique of Utilitarianism” Bernard Williams is concerned that consequentialism has found plausibility in people’s minds due to a misunderstanding of and negative reaction to non-consequentialist theories. [1] Though he does not offer an alternative ethical theory, Williams successfully takes on the project of exploring how utilitarianism and those who uncritically embrace it have accepted an unworkable standard for defining right actions. Williams offers a unique and penetrating thesis: to define right action only by reference to whether it produces a good “state of affairs” necessitates a fundamental clash between an agent’s moral character and that allegedly right action. [2] In its attempt to compensate and maintain viability as a moral theory, utilitarianism smuggles into its calculus the agent’s non-utilitarian-based moral feelings. For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance.
The first is that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger. Second, that justice is obedience to laws and lastly, justice is nothing but the advantage of another, returning no benefit to the one who is just. It should be noted that all three of these claims are dealing with a ruler of a state, whether democratic or tyrannical. Since these claims were made on a large scale, I will discuss how Thrasymachus’ opinion that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger is flawed when it is applied to a ruler of a government such as ours. To do so, we will first look at Thrasymachus’ definition on the nature of justice, and examine what exactly is in the interest of the ruler.
Hume vs. The Social Contract Theory Hume’s main claims in “Of the Original Contract”: i) The idea that one’s duty of allegiance to one’s government stems from one’s having consented to it is false, because its consequences are absurd. If it were correct, then few would have any such duty, because few ever give genuine and voluntary consent to their governments. ii) The duty of allegiance to one’s government derives from utility, not agreement, consent, or promise. The reason why one has a duty to obey the government (when one does) is that such obedience maximizes society’s total utility.
The Unjust of Just law Ethics 110 22 Jun 2010 In a democratic state it is in never within our rights to break the law. Breaking the law leads to lawlessness and disobedience from the democracy that we have worked, or have been born into. If the law is unjust, then it might be fair to break that law as long as you are willing to suffer the consequences of punishment set aside for that particular unjust law. Failure to adhere to the punishment is unjust as well, for failure to adhere to the punishment of the law is a statement that you do not respect the laws of your society. Martin Luther King Jr. states “Oppressed People cannot remain oppressed forever.” (Cahn, 2009 p. 387) As we have seen throughout history, this is a true statement.