Mills Essay, Research Paper

Question 1

Mills states that it & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; is non the agent & # 8217 ; s ain greatest felicity, but the greatest sum

of felicity wholly & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; . This leaves no room for sentiment because so the greater

figure would non be contemplated. So who does Mills go forth to make up one’s mind to whom may

program what the greater felicity is? It would be left up to people with tonss of cognition

and wisdom. Mills thinks that the alleged experts would be able to make up one’s mind the greatest

felicity. But must be & # 8221 ; purely impartial as a disinterested and benevolent witness & # 8220 ; .

At some point his thought makes sense. To populate in a rigorous useful society you would necessitate

person to make up one’s mind what the greater good would be for all. I would to some extent hold

with him on that point. But the truth is we don & # 8217 ; t live in a useful society. Well, I like

doing my ain determinations and make up one’s minding what will do me happy who cares if everyone

else is happy if it & # 8217 ; s traveling to maintain me from being my ain individual.

I think Rachel & # 8217 ; s article brings up good point on how Utilitarianism can and can & # 8217 ; T

work. He agrees with it in general with the basic principals in theory for illustration that

effects are what affair most. He besides gives his grounds on why non to swear our

common sense. Rachel believes the ( act ) utilitarianism is legitimate because it focuses on

the effects of the single Acts of the Apostless to hold what is right and incorrect. For this Rachel

has pointed out that this proves that common sense is non to be trusted. Harmonizing to

Rachel, common sense includes biass that we have brought to the state of affairs. If pure

utilitarianism is applied, there is no room for the biass to pervert our ideas and

our determinations will be based on merely the effects.

This thought had a batch of cogency to it, but I don & # 8217 ; t cognize how practical it is. To disregard what

your common sense tells you to make or at least to set it aside while doing the determination

would be a difficult thing to make. I don & # 8217 ; t believe a whole batch of people would be willing to

really do this. I know for but me it would be really difficult to make. I & # 8217 ; m non certain I would desire

to. But so once more to look in on a perfect universe and see I would hold to hold it could

perchance bring forth many favourable results.

Question 2

Of the two preparations we discussed of Kant on the Categorical Imperative so I

would travel along with the 2nd thought it seems to be the most feasible and valuable. This

construct provinces that worlds are the terminals in themselves ( mere means ) . Though this point

seems to be really simple and idealistic, it could be reasonable. Kant believes that the

saving of life is the figure one responsibility in reasonable persons. This non merely includes

our lives, but besides seeking to assist others in their lives. This is what he meant when

discoursing that worlds are non agencies but ends. This goes on that worlds aren & # 8217 ; Ts used to

be methods to acquire someplace or something by other worlds. If this point was taken and

used it could turn out to be utile. People wouldn & # 8217 ; t be taken advantage of or manipulated.

Unless it was some sort of common understanding.

Human existences as terminals include another facet of life. That no cause if deserving taking a

human life to repair it. I would state I do agree with this sentiment. I guess it & # 8217 ; s merely the fact when

you look at what & # 8217 ; s traveling on in the intelligence and magazines and read that person gave there

life for that cause. Is anything deserving losing your life? I feel sort of shamed because I

wouldn & # 8217 ; t give my life for anybody & # 8217 ; s cause. I & # 8217 ; m the lone

cause I know. I rebelliously have

things I have strong feelings about but I wouldn & # 8217 ; t give my life over it. I guess Kant & # 8217 ; s

whole idea is how we should populate life for its ain interest. I guess I can sort of spell along

with that.

Question 3

I use to work as a gymnastic exercises manager and I had many parents of the kids I teach

stating of how good off they were to each other. It so makes me angry that they could sit

at that place and fundamentally boast to each other. I guess it merely green-eyed monster of how I wish I was in their

topographic point ( without the kids ) . I guess its sort of an apprehension of John Rawl & # 8217 ; s theory of

justness. His 2nd theory justifies their wealth and provinces that inequality is okay for all in

society benefit from it and the benefits are assessable to all.

Most of the parents autumn in this class themselves or their hubbies do. I guess I

understand because them conveying in their kids pays my salary. With most of the

parents businesss being physicians, tooth doctors, attorney & # 8217 ; s etc & # 8230 ; . I guess it all comes down to

the businesss profiting society. And anyone can take these places if they so

choose. So they met the two makings of Rawl & # 8217 ; s. Their wealth benefiting to all and

unfastened to all. So I merely wear & # 8217 ; t like his justifications because I & # 8217 ; m merely excessively covetous to accept

them.

Question 4

The masculine theory on moralss seem to be based on the duty and responsibility. The

Feminist theory of moralss are based on love and trust. And on a personal note either of

these theories on their ain Don & # 8217 ; Ts make a dam spot of sense. And even together gather really

small weight. The benefits of moralss that are centered on duty are reasonably obvious.

Society seems to hold this group of regulations to maintain society in order and so a certain sense

of duty is promoted. If we to compare this to a household it would state that the adult male

was to play the male parent figure and put the regulations and subject for interrupting those regulations and

other things like that.

Entirely it doesn & # 8217 ; t keep any land. Then theirs the feminist theory of love balances the

graduated table. The theory, which is based on trust, is suppose to be taught by the female parent. But

harmonizing to Baier, it is non merely plenty to learn duty without understanding the

intent of it. It is typically the traditional female parent function. These regulations and subject,

learning the moral values and fostering can they be explained. Let & # 8217 ; s use a common quotation mark

of & # 8220 ; so far so good & # 8221 ; and this seems to travel along good in the parenting section. Baier

seems to do a point with duty. That it & # 8217 ; s a individual & # 8217 ; s duty to trust conditions or

non they can transfuse the love and trust into a individual they are conveying into the rough universe.

This should be decided long earlier giving birth to a individual otherwise they shouldn & # 8217 ; Ts give

birth.

But these things love and trust make a individual vulnerable ( Baier emphasizes ) . It must

be learned on when to and when non to swear. Baier says this can replace & # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; Torahs with a

security increasing forfeit of security, distrust boosters of a clime of distrust. & # 8221 ; This

point sound impossible to me. Is it clip for a alteration? Traveling back to discourse the

household, it is quit possible and in some fortunes ; better to raise a kid entirely by one

parent but with the balance of both female parent and male parent but is strong and do logical

sense. In some state of affairss I guess it would be better to utilize these thoughts individually but put

them together and they seem to construct a strong balance with out traveling over the deep terminal.