During the initial years of its development, internet had a set of design principles that made it what it is. One such crucial design principle that defined the distinctive nature of how the internet shaped out is the end to end arguments. These principles claim that application level functions preferably should be implemented at the application level itself (i.e., at the end points of a transaction) and not at the lower levels (i.e., the core of the network). And, the only functionality that is
communication network and to allow for the sharing of scientific research/resources around the nation1. The original architecture of the Internet is often described as an end-to-end architecture. The end-to-end architecture is a decentralized one in which a “mechanism should not be placed in the network if it can be placed at the end node” 2. This type of design keeps the core of the network simple and generic. Since that time, however, the scale of the Internet has grown exponentially. It became
Can Instrumental Reasoning Stand Alone? I. Introduction There is something appealing about ordinary instrumental or means-end reasoning. One begins with a want, a goal or a desire and considers available options as means to its satisfaction or achievement. If, among the available options, one is the best or only way to satisfy the desire or achieve the goal, one has a reason to select it. If two or more options both seem to lead to the goal, they may still differ in other ways, e.g., in
interference, for example, “a right to practice my religion.” Finally, “right” can refer to a system of justice as a whole. What follows is a brief description of these three senses of “right,” and of the relationships between them. Kant’s `Universal Principle of Right’ uses “right” in the first sense is to denote a property of actions. Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone’s
their proper end, and this will be nothing other than communal virtue. This instantiation of the practice of citizen-wide virtue is the intrinsic finality belonging to political society, and for St. Thomas, it is the genuine concern of the king to lead and direct citizens towards the common good. However, before treating of the precise content of the common good of political society, and the specific means through which the king should bring this about, St. Thomas will present two principles that are
practice, so disastrous that in the end ordinary human reason is to be found only in philosophy, and in particular in a critique of practical reason, which will trace our moral principle to its source in reason itself.” “A reviewer who wanted to find some fault with this work has hit the truth better, perhaps, than he thought, when he says that no new principle of morality is set forth in it, but only a new formula. But who would think of introducing a new principle of all morality, and making himself
advance the thesis that the human soul is not a religious fiction. Rather, the soul is the first principle of life, that which its origin is from God. By saying that the soul is the first principle of life, I mean that as Saint Thomas Aquinas has proposed in his Summa Theologica, “the soul which is the first principle of life, is not a body, but the act of a body.”1 There needs to be a first principle of life, so that we can function our body, and stay in the state that we call alive. The reason,
defines the synergistic-reflective-equilibrium mode. It briefly explains how it is a combination of both the theory model of moral decision-making and the intuition model of moral decision-making. The second part of this paper defines mid-level principles and explains how they are a natural development of the synergistic-reflective-equilibrium method. It will then be shown that both Mill and Kant used this method in their own moral theories. Lastly, it will be shown how "weighing and balancing" and
convinced that avoiding pain and seeking pleasure for the betterment of a community is the end, or the purpose of all human life. Bentham beliefs that happiness relies on pleasure, an idea that contradicts with my belief that happiness is an end onto itself, or self sufficient. I believe that if happiness is to be the sole purpose of man, as Bentham states in his collection of writings, then it should be the ultimate end, leading to nothing else. Therefore if happiness is self sufficient, it cannot rely
Bentham and Mill recognize that human kind should make their lives useful and good through bringing about happiness or pleasure. The idea of the “Greatest Happiness Principle was introduced by Bentham, who was a Utilitarian predecessor to Mill. According to Mill, human lives should abide by the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” This principle states that actions are good as they tend to promote happiness; and bad as they promote the reverse of happiness, therefore humans should make a conscious choice
The term bioethics refers to the moral principles used when one is making a decision while in the healthcare field. It is the moral compass that humans use to decide what is the right thing to do versus the wrong thing to do when faced with an ethical dilemma. These decisions may be based on principles, reasoning, personal beliefs, emotions, natural science, or other influential factors. Classical moral philosophy uses the principles, opinions, or thoughts one has to determine how they should live
An Exposition of Kant’s, Arendt’s, and Mill’s Moral Philosophy Immanuel Kant adheres to Deontological ethics. His theory offers a view of morality based on the principle of good will and duty. According to him, people can perform good actions solely with good intentions without any consideration of consequences. In addition, one must follow the laws and the categorical imperative to act in accordance with and from duty. Several other philosophers, such as Hannah Arendt, discuss Kant’s moral philosophy
who I am from my attributes and desires. Rawls encounters the unencumbered self in proposing both the veil of ignorance and the difference principle; both separate the subject from the attributes and ends of the subject. Rawls denies both the utilitarian and libertarian views as practical solutions, and puts forward the veil of ignorance and difference principle as a third alternative. This paper will begin with briefly describing what Sandel considers the unencumbered self. I will outline utilitarianism
presents a pragmatic, amoral process where the end justifies the means, I prefer the ethical ideology deontology with a universal stance within the realm of morality, because its principles provides moral guidance, encourages the categorical imperative, and provide prima facie duties. First, Deontology is the prevailing universal ethical ideology because its principles provide moral guidance. Deontology finds morality to be a virtue. Its principles have
Comparison and Contrast of Kant’s and Mill’s arguments on their respective principles The utilitarian philosophy of John Stuart Mill and the Kantian theory could not be any more opposite as far as philosophy is concerned. While utilitarianism is a consequential position that is solely focused on the outcomes of actions, Kant is mainly concerned with the reason behind the occurrence of an action irrespective of the outcome of the action. Though both theories appear complex, they have sufficient reasons
politics and morals is characterized by the claim “all politics must bend the knee before right” such that he asserts priority of morals over strategic advantage in politics (125). He further cautions against deference to practical rather than moral ends which will be discussed in greater detail later. For Kant, ideally, politics should be an application of morality and therefore no conflict can exist between politics and morality. However I will show that two problems of his stance (regarding practical
these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings. The first formulation of the categorical imperative is “act only in a way the maxim of which can be consistently willed as a universal law of nature.” This formulation in principle has as its supreme law, “always act according to that maxim whose
argues for the existence of a “foundational principle of a metaphysics of morals”. 1 Such a principle, he asserts, must account for three propositions of morality: only actions done from duty have genuine moral worth, moral value arises from the maxim its action involves, not from the purpose that is to be achieved through it, and that a duty is an obligation to act in a specific manner out of respect for the law.2 Kant names this foundational principle the categorical imperative. Kant’s categorical
subjects and act quickly and often times because they work in such fast paced environments they are on the receiving end of
decision to travel to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, raises critical questions about the moral responsibilities of healthcare providers, the rights of patients, and the role of autonomy in end-of-life decisions. This essay will analyze the ethical theories