Analysis Of John Stuart Mill 's The Republic Essay

If you had the option to choose, would you rather live in a society where you are treated as a rational being or a world where your contentment in life could all be taken away as a means of contributing to someone else’s happiness. When reflecting upon ethics and the many different theories, it is no question that Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham come to mind. After all, two of the most pronounced ethical theories are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. These two principles are extremely important and have had endless impacts on ethics and the world as a whole. These philosophers, Kant and Bentham, worked to study moral nature and developed theories based on moral philosophy. Although they are quite contrasting,

. .] I said I was busy,” (1-4). She then goes on to show how those lies not only did not incur immediate negative effects, but also proved somewhat beneficial to her and her family. By illustrating such a situation for the audience, Ericsson emphasizes the irrevocable role that lying plays in society while also initiating contemplation regarding the possible pros and cons of seemingly innocuous lying. Further on, as she deconstructs lying into specific categories, Ericsson provides contrast to her first anecdote with a narrative regarding a charlatan-esque friend who “seduced others into an illusion” that he was intelligent and trustworthy (11). In doing so, she introduces the audience to the position that lies have larger and more dangerous implications than they may have originally believed. Ericsson unseats her audience in order to make them question any preconceived concepts about lying they

Everyday examples of defiance are right in front of us, on the news, or being done by ourselves. Many studies have been done to explain why these urges make us do the things we do, but still there is no answer, except greed. Unlike Abigail some may break the law to do good, but still many are like Abigail and will do bad and only have a benefit for themselves. “Lying often starts with wrong-doing. For whatever reason, we do something that others disapprove of. When they are in a position of greater power, they might punish us. Even if not, their disapproval may be punishment enough.”(Straker) When Abigail was accused in the beginning of the story she lied to save her name and not be in shame from those in the town and her uncle. When we do something bad we lie to keep our names clean and to not feel shameful. “In consequence, we deny the crime, pointing the finger at others, denying the action or justifying the act with some fabricated excuse.”(Straker). This study gives a brief explanation as to why Abigail blamed Tituba, and why people who are convicted often rely on blaming their faults on others.“During a study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, women were presented with a photograph of their potential dream man. Half of the women were told their Mr. Right

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

Kant’s ethics is the most influential expression of an approach to ethics known as deontology, which is often contrasted with consequentialism. The distinctive feature of deontology is that it approves or disapproves of actions in and of themselves. For instance, according to Kant, lying is always wrong because we cannot will it as a universal maxim that lying is okay. The consequentialist view, by contrast, argues that moral value lies not in our actions but in their consequences. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is one of the most influential forms of consequentialist ethics. Mill argues that we should always aim at ensuring the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and that, for instance,

Kant’s ethics differs from utilitarian ethics both in its scope and in the precision with which it guides action. In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality. He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. Although the theories of Kant and Mill seem conflicting, they are also similar and both theories are interested in liberty for individuals.

In the article, “Morality and Moral Philosophy,” the author, William K. Frankena, gives the reader an overview and definition of ethics. Frankena uses Plato’s dialogue as an example to illustrate “the sort of thinking” we ought to do when faced with a moral dilemma. The purpose of this article is to describe the nature of ethics or moral philosophy and to demonstrate the different approaches to thinking ethically in decision making. There are those who oppose the idea of thinking ethically about moral issues. One could argue that taking an ethical approach is not always the best answer to a particular problem. Ethics doesn’t always show the right answer to the problem. Others might say, however, that applying moral principles when making moral

Both Susan Wolf’s article “Moral Saints” and John Stuart Mill’s book “Utilitarianism” will be discussed here. These works offer expositions of and opinions on the philosophical issue of the moral worth of adhering to a certain set of values, and how a person’s motivations for doing so can change their worth and the desirability of their way of life. Wolf offers the position that leading an extremely morally good life is undesirable, while Mill’s opposing position is that if morality leads to happiness, then that behavior is preferable. To determine which of these stances on the value of morality has the most pertinence, these two arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, and consequently their merit will be discussed. Finally, Wolf’s moral theory will be proven to be inferior to Mills’s, due to its prejudice, lack of supportive evidence, and its inability to be universally applicable.

Philosophy is a Greek word meaning "love of wisdom." Throughout Plato's Republic, wisdom plays an important role. According to Plato, education is wisdom and all of our knowledge is not acquiring information, but remembering it from the past. He felt that wisdom is a skill that comes to us naturally as we are just removing the veil of ignorance. His search for the true meaning of justice leads to a discussion with his peers of education and what part it should play in the ideal state that they have developed. He feels everyone has to be willing to learn and have courage in order to acquire knowledge. Glaucon challenges Plato to "praise justice as a good of that kind...because of its very self...and how injustice harms [them]"

The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.

“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in this world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will.” (Kant, pg.7 393). No other thing that may appear good can be unqualifiedly good, as even “Talents of the mind…Gifts of power…[Other] qualities…Have no intrinsic unconditional worth, but they always presuppose, rather, a good will, which restricts the high esteem in which they are otherwise rightly held.” (Kant, pg.7 393-394). So Immanuel Kant introduces the public to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, which results not in simply a grounding work, but one that is utterly groundbreaking. This opener, wholly devoted to the establishment of the importance of will and intention, notes the guiding characteristics of a good will. As enumerated previously, Kant recognizes the plausible potential positivity of plenty concepts, but remains of the mind that none of these are good in themselves without the efforts of a good will to guide and restrict them in a manner that perpetuates their positivity.

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.

In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.

According to Kant, moral questions are tied to the “maxims” of one’s own action. One must be able to convince others that his action is good and it is in the general interest of all. The “maxims” that are good to an individual must be will that it is in the general interest of all and therefore must be accepted as a “general law.” This “maxim” can be judged both from the ethical and moral point of view. However, Habermas’s view suggests that in order for a “maxim” to be called a norm, everyone must be potentially affected by it. Only then can it command in the equal interest of all and therefore must be considered as morally binding. The moral commands are expressed as an “ought.” In moral statement the question “what should I do” is transformed

“Absolute liberty is the absence of restraint; responsibility is restraint; therefore, the ideally free individual is responsible to himself” - Henry Brooks Adams. There has been great debate, past and present with regards to what constitutes as an individuals liberty. It has been subject to constant ridicule and examination due to violations of civil rights. Freedom, liberty, and independence are all important human rights represented within John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty.