An Understanding Of Morality By Using A Social Contract Essay

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

Morality and contract law look like two separate concepts, however, if we consider deeply, we will discover the relationship between them. Morality and legality are features of law. Consulting the fact that contract law should consider the acceptance of both sides, it will involve more problems about morality. If we attempt to understand the linkage, we should interpretation correlate notions of morality and contract law. What I intend to demonstrate is to hold the understanding of the purpose of contract law constant while analyzing varying understandings of morality. Firstly, I intend to solve what is the purpose of contract law. We must note that there exist two kinds of morality after a scrutiny of this question. Hence, being taken into account, we should critique magnanimous morality and mundane morality. Thirdly, we will construe the relationship between morality and contract law. As a final point, we will ponder the limits of contract law.

The question of what is truly the nature of justice remains an unanswered question as noted by Bertrand Russell in ‘The History of Western Philosophy’ wherein he notes that Socrates was unable to provide a convincing rebuttal of Glaucon’s arguments on justice, and neither have all the social philosophers since, been able to do. Amartya Sen, in his book ‘The Idea of Justice’, has

The way a government or state has ruled over a populace has always been attributed to the socially accepted political idea prevailing at the time, but their are multiple ideal political ideas that have shaped the modern world and all of them ultimately were hinged upon each other. The following political ideas of, a socially bound contract, the divine right of a king and the laws of god and nature are the founding principles throughout history that have lead to major political revolutions including republicanism and democracy.

"The current federal system of government in the United States is failing to meet its social contract obligations to the American people." There is nothing closer to the truth than this statement. While some may argue that the government is following the guidelines of a social contract, many aspects of the government have outgrown their britches and taken over.

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

The economic theory of contract is based off of rationality, whereby both parties who entered into the contract perceived themselves as benefiting from the contract. Thus it can be said that the doctrine of unconscionability is based from a utilitarian perspective, whereby the ‘enforcement [of interests in a contract]

Morals, values and ethics define who we are and what we believe. Culture, religion, and many other things affect our beliefs. One uses various types off ethics when surrounded by different groups. Knowing between right and wrong is a good foundation to practicing good ethics and morals. These things make morals, ethics, and values important in society.

The quality of your individual life would greatly improve in utopia. The burdens you face from corporate monopolies, the overwhelming weight of the devaluation of your currency and the lack of faith in your neighbors to achieve a civilization of peace and mutual respect has taken its toll for too long. Although this sounds as if it was taken directly from George Orwell’s book (1984) itself, the propaganda of a utopian government rule and the current everlasting war breathes as it’s on self-reliant organization today. Weary of the multiple political parties that are emerging every three seconds, we are faced with a question that has been proposed since the beginning of logical thinking. Is it

     Rousseau's principal aim in writing The Social Contract is to determine how freedom may be possible in civil society, and we might do well to pause briefly and understand what he means by "freedom." In the state of nature we enjoy the physical freedom of having no restraints on our behavior. By entering into the social contract, we place restraints on our behavior, which make it possible to live in a community. By giving up our physical freedom, however, we gain the civil freedom of being able to think rationally. We can put a check on our impulses and desires, and thus learn to think morally. The term "morality" only has significance within the confines of civil

Using valid peer-reviewed sources on the Internet, update any dated facts in this case with more current information. How do these new facts reflect the current ethical culture of the Red Cross?

On the formation of the Social Contract Theory has a long history, many people have formed Social Contract Theory has made a great contribution. Thomas Hobbes as one of the representatives of Modern Social Contract Theory, his departure from the theory of human nature, to a fictional state of nature as a starting point, put forward the basic principles of natural law, natural rights, and then through the Social Contract Theory, the establishment of his country theory. Thomas Hobbes certain extent, played a significant role, for people to bring enlightenment. But his theory does not apply in all cases; we need to analyze different aspects of different problems. In this essay, I will describe the Social Contract Theory, and explain the problem of how do we get out of the State of Nature raised by Hobbes Game. I explain the idea of cooperation that Thomas Hobbes can give to this problem, and then argue that this is not a satisfactory response to the problem for three reasons.

Everyday we are tested as individuals to make the right choice. How we view ourselves as individuals and how others view us are directly correlated to our moral decision-making. But morals are somewhat misleading. What might be a wrong decision for one person might be a solution to another. So how do we define morals? Do we follow Gods’ moral rules because to do so would increase out likelihood of obtaining salvation in the afterlife? Or is it simpler than that. Is God going to deny our entrance into heaven because we have run a stop sign here and there? No. I believe our moral values are much simpler than that. I believe that our moral decision-making comes from our upbringing of what is right or wrong. Our parents and

I can imagine a perfect world. A world where morality is of upmost importance in our dealings with each other, where morals are critically examined, and debated with reason as well as passion. This world would be a pinnacle of human achievement. A pinnacle that we are nowhere near. Why is this? Well, in today's society, morals are often associated with obeying the law, and since laws are legislated by politicians, they are subject to politics. Laws are not right in and of themselves, and morals are not a matter of a majority's opinion. Some matters that are in the domain of charity are done through politics, often citing morality as a reason. Where exactly does charity fit in with morals? With politics? In this paper I will explore the