happiness. But must be ” strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator “.
someone to decide what the greater good would be for all. I would to some extent agree
with him on that point. But the truth is we don’t live in a utilitarian society. Well, I like
common sense. Rachel believes the (act) utilitarianism is legitimate because it focuses on
has pointed out that this proves that common sense is not to be trusted. According to
our decisions will be based on only the consequences.
This idea had a lot of validity to it, but I don’t know how practical it is. To ignore what
your common sense tells you to do or at least to put it aside while making the decision
would be a hard thing to do. I don’t think a whole lot of people would be willing to
actually do this. I know for but me it would be very hard to do. I’m not sure I would want
to. But then again to look in on a perfect world and see I would have to agree it could
possibly produce many favorable outcomes.
would go along with the second idea it seems to be the most workable and valuable. This
concept states that humans are the ends in themselves(mere means). Though this point
seems to be very simple and idealistic, it could be sensible. Kant believes that the
our lives, but also trying to help others in their lives. This is what he meant when
discussing that humans are not means but ends. This goes on that humans aren’t used to
be methods to get somewhere or something by other humans. If this point was taken and
used it could prove to be useful. People wouldn’t be taken advantage of or manipulated.
Unless it was some kind of mutual agreement.
human life to fix it. I would say I do agree with this opinion. I guess it’s just the fact when
life for that cause. Is anything worth losing your life? I feel kind of shamed because I
wouldn’t give my life for anybody’s cause. I’m the only cause I know. I defiantly have
telling of how well off they were to each other. It so makes me angry that they could sit
there and basically brag to each other. I guess it just jealousy of how I wish I was in their
society benefit from it and the benefits are assessable to all.
Most of the parents fall in this category themselves or their husbands do. I guess I
understand because them bringing in their children pays my salary. With most of the
the occupations benefiting society. And anyone can choose these positions if they so
choose. So they met the two qualifications of Rawl’s. Their wealth benefiting to all and
open to all. So I just don’t like his justifications because I’m just too jealous to accept
The masculine theory on ethics seem to be based on the obligation and duty. The
these theories on their own don’t make a dam bit of sense. And even together gather very
little weight. The benefits of ethics that are centered on obligation are pretty obvious.
other things like that.
scale. The theory, which is based on trust, is suppose to be taught by the mother. But
according to Baier, it is not simply enough to teach obligation without understanding the
of “so far so good” and this seems to go along well in the parenting department. Baier
seems to make a point with obligation. That it’s a person’s obligation to relies weather or
This should be decided long before giving birth to a person otherwise they shouldn’t give
But these things love and trust make a person vulnerable (Baier emphasizes ). It must
be learned on when to and when not to trust. Baier says this can replace “… laws with a
family, it is quit possible and in some circumstances; better to raise a child solely by one
parent but with the balance of both mother and father but is strong and make logical
them together and they seem to build a strong balance with out going over the deep end.