Prathyusha Guduru In the history of philosophy, two of the most prominent philosophers were Hobbes and Hume. Both made important contributions to the world of ethics. One of the main important things they differed on is reason. Hobbs felt that reason is way to seek
Hume's view poses the question, which is better social peace or economic prosperity? Hume states that human beings are an animal whose life consists of worldly pleasures, and this is what leads them to a happy life. Again we see a clear contradiction to what "traditional" philosophers believe to be a happy life. As you can see Hume leaves out the spiritual, reasoning, and thinking part of human nature. Leaving all these factors out he comes up with his contributions to the well being of society. He believes that chastity, confidentiality, avoiding gossip, avoiding spying, being well mannered, and loyal are what can lead you to becoming prosperous. Hume looks at this from being prosperous only from a business-orientated point of view. People do like to become prosperous and have economic growth, but is that all that matters to us as humans? For Hume these feelings are justified because he says that we naturally care about other people and if we do not suffer from something we have a natural inclination to help others out. Hume finally comes a conclusion to his ethical theory in which he states that there are only four reasons in which to do morally good: useful to society, useful to oneself, agreeable to oneself, agreeable to others. Actions
The Catechism shows that; ‘Society ensures social justice by providing the conditions that allow associations and individuals to obtain their due.’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1928).
The idea then of a just society I contend, comes down to people living under a fair and common law, order, political system, social organization, as well as everyone having personal and political freedom.
John Stuart Mill vs. Immanuel Kant 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
What is really ethical? What is right? What is wrong? What are the factors involved in making the distinction between killing and letting die? What is the difference between killing one to save five and leaving one to die while rescuing five? Philippa Foot created a thought experiment that presents
The second way the two ideals are important to society is that they work cohesively and contrastingly to form rules and regulations in modern society. In modern day society, justice and fairness are the basis of all judicial systems, and morals of all humankind. The two work cohesively to form the morals and beliefs of a society. For example, when Tom was convicted, he was given a trial by jury. This is justice. However, when Tom was proven innocent, and still killed, this is an example of lack of fairness. When a man has every right to be let free, often times the prejudice and racism existing in the society prevents fairness. In modern society, this form of prejudice is becoming weaker. More people are being educated and exposed to different kinds of people in our society, through technology and quick-spreading information. A popular name in modern society, Mark Zuckerberg, states that, “There is a huge need and a huge opportunity to get everyone in the world connected, to give everyone a voice and to help transform society for the future.” This quotes supports that in the world of today, technology leads
To show Socrates his rationale, Glaucon proposes an elaborate thought experiment. Consider licensing both a just man and an unjust man to do whatever they please. Both will pursue the same desires of what is best for them, that is, “what any nature naturally pursues as good.” (Republic 359d) For Glaucon, people acting “justly” is the consequence of laws that “pervert” this natural pursuit of the good in order to “honor equality” in society.
John Stuart Mill's Philosophy of Happiness Along with other noted philosophers, John Stuart Mill developed the nineteenth century philosophy known as Utilitarianism - the contention that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Bentham, in particular, is acknowledged as the philosophy’s founder, it was Mill who justified the axiom through reason. He maintained that because human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, they are not merely satisfied with physical pleasures; humans strive to achieve pleasures of the mind as well. Once man has ascended to this high intellectual level, he desires to stay there, never descending to the lower level of
Assumptions about human nature in order to create social justice. According to Mill, social justice is “the idea that we can put in place a set of political institutions that will ensure the just distribution of benefits and costs throughout society.” In other words, social justice is in the hands of the government to create certain institutions that will greatly benefit everyone, and equally so. In order to do that, one must have an idea of the way human nature works so as to institute programs and such appropriately and properly.
In this essay I will assess and evaluate Mill’s concept of justice through the principles of utility. I will argue to defend Mill’s attempt to reconcile justice with the utilitarian principles he has explained by first summarizing these concepts and by proving utility. Summary John Stuart Mill introduces his assessment of Utilitarianism
Hume is considered one of many important figures in the history of modern While doing that job he traveled as an aide-de-camp to Turin. This is where he began to corresponded to political philosopher Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brede de Montesquieu. In 1751, Hume settled in Edinburgh where he then took up the job as Advocates Library. This is where he was in charge to write his History of England. This work of his became very successful in Britain and in other countries. Hume found himself financially independent and was courted by the London and Edinburgh society. In 1763, he went to Paris as a secretary to the British Ambassador. Hume’s left Paris in 1766 for London where he then was falsely accused of many misdeeds by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The two fought for a while until Jean went back to Paris. Hume’s work for the most part are philosophical, historical, and religious. One of Hume’s majors work the epistemology he split into two studies of work. Book one of the Treaties of Human Nature and the second one Philosophical Essays concerning human understanding. Hume was greatly influenced by John Locke which he knew his philosophy very well. Hume continued to maintain that beliefs are not based on reason and that reason is only based on data and experience. Hume’s moral philosophy includes his historical and religious work which helps reflect his theoretical empiricism. In his book number three of Treatise he defines moral judgements as a certain of approbation. To these qualities or acts it allows them to be approved by practically everyone. In the History of England Hume tried to outdo his predecessors in comprehensiveness. He did this by paying attention to detail and impartiality. But many critics found that most of his work in the History of England was found to be very prejudice against Whigs and the attitude from England towards Scotland. Hume practiced a lot of religious in his work including “Of Miracles”
I will be explaining John Stuart Mill’s view on ethics. This includes explaining the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, happiness, unhappiness, quality of pleasure, lying, and the relevance of time with his view. I will then explain how I agree with the principle of Rule Utilitarianism. I will also consider the objection of conflicting rules in Rule Utilitarianism as well as that of negative responsibility, giving my response to each.
This work has probably received more analysis than any other work on utilitarianism available. However, I seek to do here what many others have been unable to accomplish so far. I hope to, in five paragraphs, cover each of the chapters of Utilitarianism in enough depth to allow any reader to decide whether or not they subscribe to Mill's doctrine, and if so, which part or parts they subscribe to. I do this with the realization that much of Mill's deliberation in the text will be completely gone. I suggest that anyone who seeks to fully understand Mill's work should read it at length.
First and foremost, I believe that mankind possesses inherent political/social values or Natural Laws. In other words, there are inherent fundamental goals and shared needs that are the seeds of the social contract. Furthermore, the natural values of mankind, while in the State of Nature and before any form of social contract or civil society, are more utilitarian/collectivist. For this reason, the “right” thing to do is what will maximize utility and happiness for the greater good in the long run. On one hand, utilitarianism fails to respect individual rights based on Jeremy Bentham’s point of view. On the other hand, respecting individual liberty will lead to the greatest human happiness based on John Stuart Mill’s perspective. Some may argue that the natural values of mankind are more of individual rights and personal property; however, I would consider outside influences, such as society, to be the primary establishment of these values. In fact, I believe that the societal introduction of property rights and individual rights soon increased conflict because of new competition for resources and eventual disputes that arose between individuals or groups. Similar to Rousseau’s point of view, I firmly believe that civilization and institutions brought forth the evils and vices of mankind, while the primitive state of mankind was much more innocent and happy. Although each hypothetical argument cannot be proven by concrete evidence of what mankind was like in our initial