Final Exam for Justice
1. What is Kant’s moral theory and how does it differ from virtue ethics? Be sure to give a comprehensive summary of the basis of Kant’s ethics. Kant’s moral theory is an action that must be done with a sense of duty if it is to have moral worth. Kant states that life is not all about happiness, nonetheless, it is also about being intent because what Kant does is that he tries to produce happiness to the majority of the community that he is in. Kant’s moral theory has nothing to execute with Kant overall because he believes that an act is moral not by the consequences that occurred from the event, however by the intention that was behind the whole phenomenon. Nothing is good except the good will or the will to obey
…show more content…
What Kant is trying to explain is that occasionally you will not like what you are going to enjoy doing the right things all the time however is what we have to execute? The second one explains that people should follow the moral law, even if they feel very uncomfortable about what they are doing at the event. Virtue ethics is way different than the moral theory because it involves with what someone does something when they’re in public. This specific ethic emphasizes more on the action then why they did the action.
2. How does Rawls understand Justice, and how does he propose that we arrive at two principles of Justice that ought to inform social relations and political institutions? What are his two principles of Justice, and what changes would have to occur in the United States in order for us to adopt
…show more content…
This specific group is at the risk of becoming evil because the majority is making fun of the minority. We ought to be more concerned for them because another evil could occur. An example of Utilitarianism is when there is a new student at school and the majority of the students in the school picked on the new student. As a majority student, you would try to step up and stop the bullying that is going around. This brings me back to the Crito, what would have happen if Socrates had listened to the people in the prison and out. He would not have believed in himself. Criticism is about moral reasoning because it cannot be bound to the consequences of a person’s actions. The next response about utilitarianism is you don’t take account of intent. At the end they just look at the results overall. An example of one is when the professor’s husband took the bag off the cat’s head. At the end the cat ended dying. Utilitarianism thought that he was a criminal for killing an animal, even though he was trying to improve the
Kant states that moral worth is the value of a good will in dutiful action. Dutiful actions done “from duty” have moral worth while dutiful actions that are merely “according to duty” have no moral
INTRODUCTION John Rawls most famous work, A Theory of Justice, deals with a complex system of rules and principles. It introduces principles of justice to the world, principles which Rawls argues, are meant to create and strengthen equality while removing the inequality which exists within society. These principles are both meant as standalone laws and regulations, but they can be joined as well. The main function of the first principle is to ensure the liberty of every individual, while the second principle is meant to be the force for the removal of inequality through what Rawls calls distributive justice. I will begin this paper by making clear that this is a critique of Rawls and his principle of difference and not an attempt at a neutral analysis.
Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.
Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth century philosopher whose ideas redefined philosophical views of morality and justice, and provided a base for modern philosophers to argue these ideas. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he argues against Hume’s idea of utilitarianism. Kant also explores the idea of freedom, free action, moral action, and how to determine if our actions are moral by use of the categorical imperative.
However, Kant’s moral philosophy view is not without its problems. This is because the good will is not always inherently good without being qualified despite what Kant may claim. This can be seen as even if a person is an altruist who always tries to do their duty they can end up generating misery instead of pleasure. For example, say that you are going out and stealing from the rich to give to those less fortunate. In doing this you are only trying to help people and follow a duty to aid your fellow man, and it does not matter what consequences you may face due to your actions as you are supposed to have a good will even if it will get you into trouble. For a more extreme example say you are hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi Germany. The
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
John Rawls’ Theory of Justice attempts to establish a fair and reasonable social account of social justice. To do this, he discusses two fundamental principles of justice, which if implemented into society, would guarantee a just and fair way of life. Rawls is mostly concerned with the social good (what is good and just), and his aim with the Theory of Justice is to provide a way that society could be one that is fair and just, while taking into consideration, a person’s primary goods (rights and liberties, opportunities, income and wealth, and the social bases of self-respect). The usage of these principles will lead to an acceptable basis of self-respect. That saying, if the two principles are fair and just, then the final primary good,
Essay Question: 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 ti Rawls’ own reasoning for the two principles.
Kant theory is saying that everyone must do things for the right reasons. According to Deontological ethics theory, an action is considered favourable sometimes because of some good aspect of action in itself without considering its good result from the action. This theory is much based upon the one’s morals and values which expresses the “sake of duty” and virtue. Deontology tells us to be fair and not to take advantage of others while teleology tells about doing whatever we want and it gives us a result that is good to us. [17]
John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society , . Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound.
While Rawls clearly states what the purpose of his journal is, Rawls does not explicitly state what the concept of “justice as fairness is.” Rawls makes it clear that justice as fairness should be understood as political and not metaphysical, however, Rawls doesn’t give any background information on this topic, which can easily lead to confusion. In this context, what is the political? What is the metaphysical? In order to provide readers with a greater understanding of the argument being framed, Rawls should provide context for the terms being used in the thesis statement in order to frame a clearer and more readable argument.
As a deontological, or duty-based, theory, Kantianism is focus on intent. If the intent behind an action is morally praiseworthy and fits into the categorical imperative, it must be ethical. The categorical imperative is the main element in Kantianism, and it states that you must act as if it was universal law. This is similar to the Golden Rule of “treat others how you wish to be treated” and is a way to determine whether an act is morally praiseworthy. Kantian ethics are different from utilitarianism in that happiness is not a
Both Kantian and virtue ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, and to then, show which theory is most accurate.
The virtue ethics approach differs with other frameworks in that; it is not an ethical theory in the same way that Utilitarianism or Kantianism are, It is not so much a guide for moral decision-making, more a description of the moral life. Theories such as Utilitarianism and Kantianism address the question “How should I act?” – Virtue Theory addresses the questions “How should I live my life?”, and “What kind of person should I be?”It is interested in the whole person, not just their actions.