Mill, Kant, Waldron Philosophy Analysis - Assignment Example

Mill, Kant, Waldron Medium-Length Essays One would make no mistake pointing out that it is morally permissible tobreak an unjust law. The primary reason for it focuses on the fact that laws are adopted to make improvements in the social life and unjust laws simply reinforce negative state of affairs of the social environment. It is a kind of situation that Martin Luther King described in his Letter from Birmingham Jail. However, the question whether it is permissible to violate a just law to protest an unjust law is debatable. There are two major conditions for it: the just law must have minor significance and all the protesters should have a clear understanding of the goal. (2) Principle of Utility would neither permit nor prohibit suicide since the attitude towards it would be based on different circumstances. For example, if a person suffers from great amount of pain (physical or emotional) and recognizes suicide as a valid solution, PU would permit it. On the other hand, suicide should be prohibited if a person has great significance for the people around. Categorical imperative would always prohibit suicide since it is a duty of a person to take care of oneself and protect one’s life and no circumstances can change it. (3) The humanity version of the categorical imperative suggests that people should fight laziness as it wastes the talents that every one of us possesses. The major reason focuses on the idea that if everyone had been lazy, the society would have never developed so that people were able to afford to be lazy. A utilitarian would approach it from a different perspective: if doing nothing brings good and please for a person, the latter should follow this path. To my mind CI provides a better account of laziness and encourages people to fight it as it engages a broad perspective on the situation, making laziness universal. (4) Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative states the following: states the following: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction”. According to this formulation, lying to escape embarrassment is not prohibited. Indeed, if one tries to universalize the above mentioned maxim, one will see that application of it will be highly dependant on the circumstances which contradict the notion of universality. For example, lying to parents about a bad school day to escape embarrassment does not have the same impact as lying to a military commander to escape embarrassment. (5) Mill would point out that it is a mistake to value money for its own sake, people should value it for the abilities that it gives. On the other hand he would object that happiness is the only thing that really has intrinsic value; for example, a person might value ability to drive luxury cars a lot so having a park of expensive cars would be his variation of happiness. Williams would also reject the value of money for its own sake, but would consider happiness is the only thing that really has intrinsic value as at the end of one’s life morality of actions is why really matters. (6) A right to privacy is universal and it may not be limited by one’s citizenship. Countries all over the world consist of people who share a lot of similarities in their spiritual development, so privacy is a mere reflection of the duty of others to respect it regardless of circumstances. In other words, a person who comes from a high tech Western society and a person who is a representative of a traditional Eastern society are entitled to privacy and some personal space. Nevertheless, form of the latter is largely defined by their culture. (7) The reason why Thomson argues that the right to privacy consists in certain rights of ownership relies on the idea that the object that a person is entitled to have absolute ownership of is one’s private life. Thomson is right about it. That is why it is permissible for a person to waive one’s right to privacy in a given context since this may also be see as a manifestation of one’s ownership, namely deciding on the future of the object. For example a person may be willing to conceal one’s intimate life, but one may also decide to expose it. (8) It may be so that our intuitive response to Nozick’s experience machine presents a problem for utilitarianism as it shows that simulation of experience and focusing on utility can not make life a person full as one will always feel that there is more to existence. In addition to that, it also presents a problem for all forms of Consequentialism as it argues the significance of non material experience in life of a person. Long Essays (1) The idea that is discussed by Waldron focuses on a rather peculiar notion: the tyranny of morality. Indeed, while the latter is considered to be a positive notion that is irreplaceable while constructing a healthy social environment, there is not doubt that if people do not have a room for expressing the other side of their identity, namely the immoral one, the balance of social life will be distorted. It may be compared to a medicine which is has a positive effect on the body if given in small portions, but an overdose is likely to result in death. Thus, a suitable way to control tyranny of morality is the idea of privacy. Another interesting point about the idea of control of tyranny lies in the fact that it shows how easily a notion that is largely considered to be positive might turn into one that has a negative impact on the society. Indeed, since dawn of the civilization, morality was largely considered to be a trait that differed people from the rest of the living word. In other words, this idea may be considered to be a beacon that guided the humanity. Nevertheless, if not counterbalanced, it may harm the public. Indeed, the much discussed idea of privacy has always been regarded as one that does not serve any particular function. However, if one takes a close look at the role that is plays in the society, one will be able to see that it forms an alternative social environment, the one that is designed according to the personal beliefs of a particular person. In other words, the famous proverb, namely My home is my castle, adopts an additional dimension to it: castle in this case may mean not only the ability to defend from the external enemies, but also the part of social environment that lives according to an independent set of rules. One would make no mistake, pointing out that different cultures reflect the idea that life of a person should be divided into personal and social. The most explicit divide may be found in the Japanese culture that clearly regulates that way people should treat those who are on the inside and those who are on the outside. In other words, one should note that discussion about the role that privacy plays in the society and the way it safes its inner balance may be found in the communities all around the world. Keeping all this in mind, one should consider different kinds of privacy that people should be entitled to so that they can be free from the tyranny in question. To begin with, one should point out that people should be able to express their personal thoughts in the exact manner that they think them even if they contradict with the conventional rules of morality. Indeed, this will serve as a valve that regulates inner pressure. However, a person should understand the limits of such freedom. Secondly, intimate life of a person should also be out of reach of the society as this might be a platform where one might express one’s true identity and lack of such expression might result into problems that are being suppressed. What is more important is that one might come to a conclusion that the notion of privacy, just like the notion of morality, defines the identity of the human civilization. Indeed, there is no doubt in the fact that no similar concept might be found in the groups that are formed by other living organisms. This means that up to a certain extent the human nature needs privacy to express its full potential. That is why it is particularly important to sustain it. (2) It is beyond any doubt that in the first case, the act that was performed because of the gene does not have a lot of moral value as there is no morality involved in the question, only the reaction to an external stimulus. That is why the fireman in question can hardly earn any credit for the actions that some might view as heroic since for him there was not other way; so, this means that he did not have to make a difficult choice that resulted in those actions. Similar to this, Kant would point out that the person in question did not fulfill his duty willingly with absolute understanding of what is at stake and how this can be avoided. There is no doubt in the fact that it is virtually impossible to identify a gene that affects a particular trait in one’s character or is responsible for a particular pattern of behavior. This is quite important as it shows that the decisions that are made by the people are affected by a large array of different factors that could not be diminished to a part of one’s genome. Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the proposed situation is clearly hypothetical it shows that the involvement of free will is what truly makes an ethical action. Contrary to that, if a person is emotionally numb and recognizes all the risks that are associated with a certain action, but decides to act anyway, this action has a great moral value for the person will utilize one’s will to make a difficult decision. That is why, the credit that a person will receive for such an action will be great since one had an option to walk away from the problem that others experienced, but he deliberated decided not to. There is no doubt in the fact that Kant would point out that such a person would reflect the idea of a faithful compliance with the notion of categorical imperative. Indeed, the second action reflects that significance of duty and importance to follow it rather explicitly. One would make no mistake suggesting that the ability to follow one’s duty under the most extreme conditions as well as the ability to maintain personal integrity is what truly defines a remarkable individual which leads to praising and glorifying one. In other words, the second action which is performed by an emotionally numb, yet a determined fireman shows the significance of rational approach to the situations and the ability of a person to affects one’s behavior with will, not merely feelings or emotions. So, if one considers the differences that the two acts which were described above have, one will be able to point out that they focus on the notion of attitude of a person to the action that has to be performed or, more specifically, the involvement of reasoning. Thus, a person should not be credited for the actions that were conditioned by some external force, not inner decision. However, one may not omit the fact that the issue of morality is what stands behind the ability of a person to chose the appropriate action and recognize the relevant duty. It is rather clear that the proposed two options were designed specifically to articulate different important aspects of actions that are taken by the people. Thus, in the first case, the idea of determinism is largely involved. In spite of the fact that this approach might be rational and is able to explain different phenomena to a certain extent, if developed too far, it has a destructive influence on the idea of morality that has been praised by the humanity. On the other hand, the second case which advocates the free will is able to reflect the peculiarity of the human race. (3) The mere fact that there are several formulations of the idea of categorical imperative implies the idea that the philosopher was not satisfied with the first one and kept on exploring the world of ethics. That is why there is no wonder in that it may feature certain fallacious logic while considering moral value of the actions. What is more important is that the proper analysis of the first formulation is able to shed light on the problems that it features and one might also think about the way to configure it so that the formulation would retain the basis, but avoid the patterns of reasoning that lead to consequences that are largely regarded to be wrong. For example, according to the first formulation of categorical imperative lying to avoid some negative consequences such as embarrassment might be permitted. Even though the idea of lying is condemned, given certain conditions of reasoning, this action becomes permissible. Indeed, the explanation lies in the fact that the duty to refrain from lying may be largely modified by the presence of the aspect of embarrassment. As a result, the almost perfect logical of the categorical imperative as well as the positive intention of the person who designed it is distorted and leads to the consequences that are quite opposite from the one that were originally intended. On the other hand, the first formulation of categorical imperative would not also allow people to perform actions that are absolutely positive from the moral point of view. For example, a person may not be willing to accept charity as a universal law, so it would condemn helping others as in immoral act. There is no doubt in the fact that this kind of thinking may not be beneficial for the people around the world, so it is clear that there should be some improvements made to the categorical imperative. Indeed, one of the fundamental idea that are being promoted by the first formulation of the categorical imperative urges people to apply the pattern of their actions to a large scope. That is why, it may happen so that there may be a person who due to various factors might consider positive actions, like charity, to be useless and construct the categorical imperative accordingly. It may be rather interesting to analyze the way Kant would react to such objection to his claims. First of all, he would put emphasis on the fact that it is rather difficult to design a fully universal approach towards different actions as every person in the world possesses a unique view on the problems of morality so the subjective element of judgment is inevitable to a certain extent. The role of categorical imperative to design a way to make sure that the differences in the thinking of the people do not stand out and they are able to come to some sort of a unified vision. In other words, this ethical theory is trying to develop a common approach on the foundation that inevitable differs in each particular case. This might be compared to the situation when a person is trying to build a solid wall, but the ground beneath it move in different direction, gradually weakening it. Speaking of the other objections, Kant would note that one of the reasons why he designed the second formulation of categorical imperative is focused on the fact that the first one condemned fully ethical actions as immoral ones which, obviously, contradicts with the primary goal of the idea of categorical imperative which was advocated by this philosopher. In other words, when the latter noticed that the first formulation did not work it, he was compelled to design a better that so that it would bring the outcome that he wanted. (4) There is no doubt that the situation around Edward Snowden involves a considerable number of different issues that should be examined carefully as they affect all the citizens of the United States of America in direct or in indirect way. Keeping in mind what he has done, one might point out that this person is responsible for exposing unjust violation of privacy that was carried out by the NSA. Indeed, if it had not been for him, the Americans would have never learned the extent to which their government was invading the private life of its citizens. In addition to that, this situation also raises important questions about the scope of responsibilities that should be granted to the government and where those responsibilities end. What is more important, it also presents the peculiarities of the American legal system with regard to those who are willing to break some rules and regulations in order to achieve a greater good, in this case inform the public about the unjust actions that were performed by the government and are supposed to have a negative impact on the social environment. That is why it would not be an exaggeration to point out that the act which was performed by Edward Snowden should be justified as whistleblowing, even though it had not been recognized as such officially. There is a rather logical explanation why the government has decided to develop this kind of attitude towards the person in question. As a rule, the consequences of whistleblowing bring negative consequences for a defined group of individuals, while the reset of the society is able to enjoy benefits. Nevertheless, this defined group of individuals was the government and it simply was not able to acknowledge that it was doing something wrong as that would undermine the faith in justice and credibility of it. There is no doubt that this particular situation reflects the dilemma that focuses on the question Who controls the controllers? Thus, it is obviously not effective to sue the government in the court that was set up by the government since the latter will be able to influence the outcome pretty easily. One would make no mistake that Snowden should be offered some form of clemency since he did not want to damage the social life or did not want to harm the government: he simply presented the state of affairs as it was and did not change it in any way. It is obvious that this ugly truth can not be accepted easily, but this might become the first step on the way of restoring faith in the government. Indeed, privacy is an irreplaceable element of every society. That is why any government should develop a correct position towards respecting it and should be willing to acknowledge the harm that is caused by its actions in case it is necessary. In addition to that, people should be allowed to convey different messages through the act of civil disobedience that would contribute to the necessity of introducing important changes into the social life. One should keep in mind that the power that is vested in the government originates in people; this means that if the latter unite that are able to overcome any resistance that is featured by the governmental structures. All this is the essence of democracy and Edward Snowden shows how one person is able to encourage the entire society to protect what is rightfully their – the private life. Read More