Mills Principle of Utility and Rawls Veil of Ignorance - Essay Example

Kant makes a distinction between a will set by duty and will that’s merely in accordance with duty.  Explain this distinction and give an example of how a will can be in accordance with duty but not set by duty. A will, whether bad or good, determines the actions of a person. Duty, on the other hand, influences the will of a person. Kant in his paper focuses on the influence duty has on the will of a person. Will is either set by duty or it is in accordance with duty. Will is set by duty in the case of self-preservation where one is expected to maintain their lives. Humans preserve life, as duty requires. Duty seeks to restrict the actions of humans to follow a certain direction. In a way, duty brings out the best of someone’s will. Kant depicts how a dealer interacts with his customers to illustrate how accordance to duty affects the will of a person. The dealer treats all of his customers, whether recent or patrons equally. He does so prudently to maintain his customer base. 2. Explain Mill’s Principle of Utility.  Give an example that shows how it works. Utility is the greatest form of happiness a human can experience. According to the principle of utility, a person acts in ways that are most likely to cause him happiness. To the majority of humans, happiness is all about the absence of pain and the abundance of pleasure. Pleasure, as with any resource, is more desirable when it is in plenty. Quantity is more desirable than quality and is usually the measure of happiness. All humans are subject to this principle as they all attempt to achieve happiness in their lives. Another correlation that is similar to the relationship between pleasure and pain is that of vice and virtue. The desire of virtue is similar to that of happiness. Unlike happiness, the desire of virtue is not universal. For this reason, the pursuit of happiness is one of the motivators of human conduct but it is not the only one. 3. Explain Rawls’ veil of ignorance.  How is it supposed to help us develop principles?  Give an example.  The major issue of contention in developing laws is the issue of injustice and favoring one party over the other. Using a veil of ignorance, as Rawl puts it, lawmakers are able to develop laws that are just and fair. This veil ensures that there is no party that is advantaged or disadvantages as everyone becomes subject to social circumstances and natural chance. A veil of ignorance ensures that all the principles that dictate the law are arrived through fair agreement and bargain. Through the veil, justice has the chance to become fair. By thinking what might happen in the absence of a certain law, legislators naturally use to veil to come up with the laws. An example is that of a wealthy man suggesting the reduction of taxes that contribute to welfare. On the other hand, a poor man would adopt a contradicting standpoint, as he would advocate for the increase of the same. 4. In developing his argument that a right to healthcare is immoral because it fundamentally alters the structure of a right, Peikoff uses the analogy to a world where we have a moral right to hair care. Explain the analogy and the problems that would result in such a world. How does Peikoff argue that the hair care scenario is analogous to healthcare? Peikoff is of the opinion that socialized healthcare is an impractical idea. People support the idea due to its benefits to people but they often overlook its practicability. To further emphasize on his objection of the idea, he uses the analogy of hair care to illustrate the impractical nature of the socialized healthcare. In the analogy, the government provides free hair care for all its citizens. The haircuts are free as the governments funds the barbers to shave and style people’s hair. Due to its free nature, people show up every day at barbershops to have their hair cut. The number of customers increase and the government is prompted to dish more and more money to fund the project. The barbers, both honest and dishonest, soon become the wealthiest individuals in their towns. Within a given period, the government starts levying stringent laws to block the misuse of its money. It soon restricts the number of shaves a person can have in a day. In the end, free hair care only benefited the barbers who after the strict laws return to their ordinary status. Using the analogy, Peikoff gives us an idea of what might happen if healthcare was free. However, the two service industries are incomparable as they are subject to different laws and conditions. Health, unlike hair, is vital to the existence of an individual and its lack thereof causes death. 5. Explain the redistribution objection that Bradley considers. How does Bradley respond to the objection? Bradley in his paper uses various examples to illustrate redistribution in modern day society. His first example is that of the police force and their implementation of the law. Police officers benefit all people equally unlike government-funded healthcare. The police service, a public good, is different from healthcare in that it does not involve providing service at the expense of taxpayers. Healthcare is funded by taxation, which is used in the purchase of drugs and the provision of service. Furthermore, the police force redistributes wealth because they are able to provide service to both the poor and the rich. To some extent, the homeless people on the street benefit more from the presence of a police force than the average person. 6. According to Jordan, what is a resolution by accommodation? Why does Jordan argue that continuing to prohibit same-sex marriage is a resolution by accommodation? In arguments based on moral values on individuals, it is not usually a surprise that most end up in an impasse or a public dilemma. An impasse is whereby individuals are of differing opinions that are both correct but none wants to adopt the position of his counterpart. When such moral arguments are held publicly, they become public dilemmas such as the issue on abortion, homosexuality and others. In most cases, the government is often the arbitrator of such disputes. These dilemmas are resolved in one of two ways. First, the government can choose to support one side of the argument such as in the matter of slavery. Secondly, the government use the principle of accommodation to settle such a dispute such as the case of homosexuality in the country. The government’s stand on prohibiting same-sex marriages is an example of accommodation in place. The government publicly sides with the various religious organizations in prohibiting same-sex marriages but it does not involve itself with the private matters of its citizens. Homosexuality is a private matter and the government treats it as such. 7. In criticizing Jordan, Boonin argues that there is a fundamental difference between laws prohibiting interracial marriage and those prohibiting same-sex marriages. Explain his argument that articulates that difference. To an outsider, the laws that prohibit same-sex marriages are similar to those that prohibit interracial marriage. The latter is present in society due to the presence of slavery and racism in the country especially in the Southern states. In these states, interracial dating is not permissible let alone the marriage between blacks and whites. This stand, however, faces opposition as black men question the obligation of marrying women from their own race. Furthermore, by intermarrying both races are affected and not the whites alone as racists assume. Any law that permits interracial marriages does not, in any way, assure that a person will not face racial discrimination. The law treats individuals of both races equally as they are both restricted from marrying outside their race. The case is different for same-sex marriages where a law permitting these marriages protects both individuals in the marriage. Despite the altruistic nature of the law, it does not protect individuals of different sexual orientations. 8. Sketch Mosely’s “backward looking” argument that claims redistribution to African Americans is a matter of corrective justice. African Americans have faced inequalities since the days slavery was prevalent in the continental United States. Throughout the twentieth century, they fought for rights and equality through various demonstrations and revolutions. Throughout this time, they did not enjoy the same privileges as their White counterparts. The affirmative action of 1964 sought to bridge this gap. The Civil Rights Act, as it was officially known, established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This act led to the further discrimination of Blacks. The White population, due to the discrimination of the Blacks, had various expectations in education and employment. The affirmative action did not augur well with Whites, as they now had to pave way for the Blacks and in the process lower their previously high expectations. 9. Explain Pojman’s response to the “Compensation Argument.” The compensation argument is solely based on the tribulations the Blacks faced in the hands of the Whites. The argument states that the Whites are obliged to compensate the Blacks for the injury they suffered. The compensation in this case is that of preferential hiring, scholarships and the like. Pojman does not agree with the notion of compensating the Blacks due to the meaning of the word compensation. Compensation, according to Pojman, is justifiable when the government perpetrated the acts in question. A perfect example is that of the West German government compensating the families that suffered in the Nazi concentration camps. For this same reason, Pojman states that compensation of the Blacks does not fit into the usual pattern. The implementation of the Jim Crow laws was the only contribution the US government had in the oppression of the Blacks. Compensation is often implemented on an individual basis. That is when A wrongs B, B has the right to be compensated by A. 10. What does MacKinnon’s law against pornography claim? Why does she focus on trafficking? MacKinnon equates pornography to trafficking and other human violations. In the media depicting pornography, women are battered, bound as men perform all forms of atrocities against them. In videos deemed as soft core, the women are also violated as they are taken and used by the men. All these atrocities are filmed and distributed to the viewers, mostly men, who comprise of the eight billion-pornography business. This business thrives on men preying on women abusing them, calling them names among other profanities. In addition to being filmed, pornography is used in breaking down the self-esteem of women forcing them to join the business. To the untrained and unbiased viewer, pornography is the worst society has to offer. It is dehumanizing at best. Pornography violates the civil liberties of women and children. 11. Explain Vernick et al.’s argument that governments are justified in limiting individual autonomy by restricting access to handguns. Vernick and his co-authors analyze both the advantages and disadvantages of gun ownership. There are sober facts that support gun ownership but they are subject to being abused as Vernick and his co-authors state. They compare the strict gun laws of Canada with the lenient gun laws implemented in the USA. The US recorded a greater homicidal rate compared to Canada in the 1992. This statistic is one of the many that discourages the implementation of gun laws in other countries. There is increased crime in the form firearm-related deaths and suicides in country where gun laws are implemented. For this reason, Vernick and his co-authors propose that governments should prohibit the possession of guns by its citizens. These laws restrict people from acting freely without fear of consequence or reproach. 12. Explain two of the three problems Dworkin has with MacKinnon’s law Dworkin finds fault in MacKinnon’s law in matters regarding pornography. In her law, MacKinnon adopts an anti-pornography ordinance. He first objects to her definition of pornography as the explicit subordination of women in media. The ordinance proposed that pornography should be banned and distributed among the populace. In addition, the ordinance further restricts the exhibition of children in pornography. The MacKinnon law focuses more on the consequences pornography has on people and the law does not comment on the obscenities and indecency in pornography. It fails to comment on the artistic value that pornography thereby undermining the law. The law further claims that pornography increases the risk women have to being raped or being assaulted. Dworkin is of the opinion that to reduce such occurrences, the audience of pornography should be restricted. This restriction is feasible and the most effective in preventing women from being physically assaulted. 13. Explain Fox’s reasoning behind his use of “human animal” and “non-human animal.” Fox categorizes the animal kingdom into two “human animal” and “non-human animal”. “Human animal” refers to those animals that humans treat with affections, which often comprise of their pets. These animals are treated as they would humans: with love and affection. On the other hand, “non-human animal” suffer the wrath of humans. In addition to feeding on them, humans experiment on them as they are used to serve the needs of humans. Fox uses the term human to describe both sets of animals because humans are in all essence animals. Humans are in the kingdom “animalia” thus sharing some characteristics with other members of this kingdom. Furthermore, humans neglect the suffering “non-human animals” undergo in the service of humans. No one is there to shed a tear when they die or are killed. This is in contrast to how “human-animals” are treated. 14. Rolston makes a distinction between what is “cultural” and what is “natural.” Explain the distinction and how Rolston uses it to justify eating meat. Vegetarian culture is against the maiming, killing and slaughtering of animals for humans to feed on. They appeal to the sentimentality of humans as they seek to protect animals from being slaughtered. However, in their argument they fail to distinguish between nature, culture, and they involvement in the feeding of animal flesh. Early men were largely hunters and gatherers ate meat and the same is true for chimpanzees who feed on other animals. Vegetarianism offers better solutions in terms of nutrition and food production. Rolston further argues that some animals such as sheep were solely reared to be eaten as they serve no other purpose. He uses the example of chicken that live ignorantly throughout their lives and suffer only during their deaths. In eating meat, humans are simply following their natural instincts and adopting their place in the food chain. 15. According to Singer, there is some inconsistency with how opponents of voluntary euthanasia look at rights. Explain this inconsistency. Give examples. Does Singer find the inconsistency problematic? The use of voluntary euthanasia by patients who are in chronic conditions to alleviate their suffering sparks a lot of controversy. The controversy revolves around the right to killing an innocent individual, is it right or wrong? Those who oppose these often gain backing from religious bodies. With such an argument, the opponents of voluntary euthanasia see a difference between a brain-dead human with beings with similar mental level. The utilitarian view supports the view that every individual is their own best judge when it comes to happiness. For this reason, proponents of utilitarianism are of the opinion that if an individual opts for voluntary euthanasia he or she should be awarded the courtesy. In retrospect, opponents of this act will let the individual die writhing in pain keen to prolong the individuals 16. Explain this quote from Doerflinger: “It may be argued in objection that the person who ends his life has not truly suffered loss of freedom, because unlike the slave he need not continue to exist under the constraints of a loss of freedom” An individual who opts to end his life when in critical medical condition does not experience his last act as a free man. One might think that living is the ultimate form of freedom but Doerflinger objects this because a slave is also alive. In this comparison, Doerflinger concedes that the control one has over his own life is the ultimate form of freedom. A slave exists primarily on his loss of freedom while voluntarily ending one’s life is the opposite of this. How does he respond to this objection? Voluntary ending one’s life is an example of a “pro-choice” decision. Opponents of this suggest that it is a form of assisted suicide. However, this assistance is only offered to those whose lifespan is reduced and have reduced capabilities. 17. Explain two of the four considerations that incline Burrows to be in favor of buying and selling organs in ideal situations. Give examples. Burrow presents two arguments that give the inclination that he supports the selling and buying of body organs. The first argument he presents is that of trading of body organs. He argues that this would reduce the shortage that is currently in healthcare. The introduction of money, however, would attract the wrong kind of people such as drug addicts. The second argument that Burrow presents is a rights-based one. In this argument, he argues that people can trade the organs that they can live without. People can donate their kidneys in order to meet the short supply that is present. He further argues that by doing so, the resources become more evenly distributed as they are people who lack the organs. He urges people to contribute in alleviating poverty. 18. Why does Björkman think it is more virtuous to donate than to sell organs? Bjorkman, using Aristotelian approach, advocates that it is more virtuous to donate an organ rather than selling. A virtuous character, according to Aristotle, is one who lives a fulfilling life. By being virtuous, humans are able to have stable character traits. Through donation, one risks his or her life for no economical gain. We, as humans, look up to those people who take personal risks. These people show that they are unselfish, generous, benevolent and many others. On the other hand, a person who opts to trade in his organs is not selfless. He trades in his organs for a price rather than helping his fellow man. Read More