Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral. For each of these philosophies, the question of living the "good life" is an intricate part of the belief system. For the Utilitarians, living a life that benefited as many people as possible, in essence, a life that caused the greatest widespread good results would be considered a life of virtue. For Kant, the only moral action is one that is done entirely because of obligation. He also makes the distinction between motives, saying that an action can be "in accord with duty" and still be immoral.
• The only moral rule of agapeistic love – thinking of other before yourself and acting in accordance to that – encourages people to act in regards to the well-being of others than themselves. Surely this makes society a better place? Weaknesses: • Excludes a majority of universal truths. • The idea of love being an absolute moral principle defeats the major point of situation ethics. Situation ethics is a branch of relativism which argues that there are no moral absolutes, so therefore saying that love is the only moral rule is self-contradictory.
At the same to time I think it right to help the less fortunate and to recognize every person as they are, a human being. While I believe that every human being should have the pursuit of happiness and fulfill their self-interests, one should also show concern for our fellow man. Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents should do what is in their own self-interest. Ayn Rand believes that this doctrine is one that every man should follow for fear of becoming a society that lives for others and only others, like the dystopian society in her novel Anthem. While ethical egoism sounds appealing to me, I do not believe that is my only duty.
one of the strengths that Kant puts forward in the categorical imperceptive is that it provides justice for all and the dignity of the individual . Kant corrects a tenancy in utilitarianism thoughts to sacrifice an individual for the sake of the happiness of the majority. the insists you cant promote happiness if that happiness undermines another happiness. another strength is that Kant's theory gives humans intrinsic worth as the rational high point of creation. humans can only ever be treated as end in themselves never as means therefor humans cant be expended for some apparent greater good .
The action of duty must exclude the influence of inclination so it may only be influenced by the objectivity of the law and therefore subjectively respected by us as good. Kant then goes on to confront the claim that moral worth is linked to agreeable condition and the promotion of happiness by stating that the moral worth of an action lies in the principle and not the effect of the action. Kant claimed that agreeable conditions and happiness can be brought about by too many other causes that do not require human rationality, and that human rationality is the only place where the “supreme and unconditional good” (P.2) can
Utilitarians fixate on this exact notion. The idea is that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, consequences are all that matter. Utilitarians focus primarily on welfare in order to make the best decision, or rather the more just decision. It is based on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, in the long run. Utilitarianism emphasizes the idea of welfare as a means for justice because it primarily defers to the masses.
William Graham Sumner was another supporter of the laissez-faire idea. Sumner’s writing was a strong example that the government structure should not do anything but create peace. This concept is further backing the idea that government should be remain as small as possible. He writes in Social Classes Owe to Each Other that each social class owes eachother nothing, and that each citizen is entitled to the pursuit of happiness and an equal opportunity in doing so, but not everyone has the right to nor are they entitled to the right. This reflects the laissez-faire argument of what little the government interaction with social classes would
Classical Liberals were largely influenced by Jeremy Bentham and his idea of utilitarianism, they argue that individuals act in a way that will gain them ultimate pleasure and happiness, of which they alone judge the quality and are free from any paternal authority. Individuals were to make decisions themselves based on what gave them more or less utility. John Stuart Mill also shared the belief that no authority has the right to claim they know more about the individual’s interests. This leads to the belief in a minimal state that should only make decisions based on the greatest happiness. Modern Liberals, however, see the individual as somebody who is driven by self-development as opposed to an egoistic being.
My dream it that we can all live in a happy world, where we can all be friends with everyone, without discrimination of color, religion, nationality and most importantly that we can decide what it better for us. But I know that some times that is not possible because some people do not have that ability, and sometimes their disability to think right is very dangerous in our society. I rather have criminals and mentally ill persons medicated than having to think all the time about what could happen. I know that this way I can be sure in some way that I live in a not totally but in somehow safe world. I think it is sad that government has to force people to be medicated but it is very
The basic formulation of the categorical imperative states: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Similarly, Mill theorizes under the principle of utility, which means that actions are good if they promote happiness, and wrong if they produce the reverse of happiness because pleasure and the absence of pain are the only things desirable as ends. The Greatest Happiness Principle states