In the book, “The Republic”, there is an argument between Socrates and Thrasymachus, a sophist in ancient Greece. This argument is over their two very different opinions about the nature of justice. While Socrates argues that justice is an important good, Thrasymachus disagrees and states that injustice is an important good, not justice. To support his view, Thrasymachus offers three claims about justice. The first is that justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger.
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.
Critique of Kant’s Indiscriminant Use of the “Categorical Imperative” In terms of the discussion of morals, it all comes down to whether one believes the “good” in a morally good action lies in the cause or the effect of the action. For philosopher Immanuel Kant, the answer lies in the cause, or the initial motive of the action, rather than the consequences that arise from it. However, one cannot rely on his system of morals, as the more they get grounded into real life situations, the harder it is to justify certain actions. If one were to accept a higher and definite system of moral law that applies to any and all rational beings, it cannot be morally permissible for people to only consider the beginning motives of an action with blatant disregard for the potentially horrifying consequences that may follow. In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers.
2 Hume's position in ethics is best known for asserting four theses: Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions”. Moral distinctions are not derived from reason. Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action. While some virtues and vices are natural, others, including justice, are artificial. .
In this paper I will analytically examine Thrasymachus’ stance and use critical thought to support his valid claims while rejecting those which lack validity within Thrasymachus’ own definition of justice. Thrasymachus opens with the fairly pessimistic claim that justice or “what is right” is the advantage of the stronger. (Plato, 18) Governments use their power solely to enact laws that benefit themselves and those whom are under their direct influence – a tyrannical government puts into place authoritarian and brutal laws, a democratic government abides by libertarian and just laws, and et cetera. Failing to follow these rules laid out by the domineering government will label you as a wrongdoer and traitor to the state. This is because the ruling class only want to benefit their own selfish causes.
Phil 103 Essay What two principles of justice does Rawls believe would be chosen in the original position (when deciding the issue of distributive justice within states)? Are these good choices? Critically discuss with reference to Rawls’ own reasoning for the two principles. Rawls believes that the two principles of justice that would be chosen in the original position are: The Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle and The Difference Principle. In the original position, there is ‘The Veil of ignorance’ where individual factors about who someone is within society are not known.
Hard determinism is another concept on free will which views that determinism is true, and it is incompatible with free will, thus free will does not exist (Honderich 11). In this paper, we will look deeply into the concept of compatibilism. Compatibilists or soft determinists maintain and believe that determinism is well compatible with free will. Compatibilists thus define "free will" in a way that enables it to co-exist
According to Bentham and Mill, Utilitarianism is hedonistic only when the result of an action has no decidedly negative impact on others. [1] It is now generally taken to be a form of consequentialism, although when Anscombe first introduced that term it was to distinguish between "old-fashioned Utilitarianism" and consequentialism. [2] In utilitarianism, the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, although there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences, foreseen consequences and intended consequences. In A Fragment on Government, Bentham says, "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong"[3] and describes this as a fundamental axiom. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, he talks of "the principle of utility" but later prefers "the greatest happiness principle.
Is justice fairness? According to some individuals, justice and fairness are two completely different concepts and can never be the same, as justice is fairly treating individuals based upon what they do right or wrong the rewards / punishments that go along with it, whereas fairness is treating situations fairly amongst individuals involved (nobody is favoured). On the other hand, a second position states that according to other people, justice and fairness are the same and just two different words which ultimately mean the same thing. A third position agrees that both justice is not fairness and that justice is fairness (in favour of both). This essay will examine the question, “Is justice fairness?” by using the techniques of conceptual analysis.
As Lord Acton said ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. The principle of the separation of powers assumes that certain functions should be carried out by different institutions and that no one institution should trespass into the territory of another. Its origin date back to Aristotle, the father of Political Science. Although he did not discuss the issue in great detail, he analyzed the functions of the three branches without suggesting their separation. The separation of powers however, acquired greater significance when John Locke, an 18th century philosopher argued that the executive and legislative powers should be separate for the sake of liberty.