First of all, Kant talks about the importance of a civil constitution because of the opportunity to unite into a society. He agrees that other social contracts have a great deal in common with others. However, he states one important difference and that is that this social contract is an end in itself. It is the first duty of every citizen in a commonwealth and without a commonwealth cannot work. Kant describes a civil constitution as “a relation of free human beings who are nevertheless subject to coercive laws.” Everyone wants to be happy, however, not anyone can be happy while all others are happy. To create a society where as many people as possible can be happy Kant gives three principles. These are freedom, equality, and independence. In the first half of this essay these three principles will be discussed. Thereafter, it will be discussed what rights subjects have when these rights are violated.
The first principle is the principle of freedom. This can be described as that nobody can coerce anyone to be happy in his way. Everyone can do what he thinks is good for him as long as you do not harm the right others have to do the same. To create a
…show more content…
He stresses the importance of voting because the general will of the people can only arise when people vote and this will create the basic law. However, it looks as if Kant is talking about universal voting rights. He singles out three groups that can not vote: children, women and non-property owners. For the first two of these groups, he thinks it seems unnatural for them to vote. The third group he explains by saying that one should be its own master and therefore should own property. In this way he would serve nobody else other than the commonwealth. After that, Kant talks about the right of every property owner to have just one vote , even when an enormous amount of property is owned by one
In the making of the United States, there were many events that are important. This paper intends to highlight a few of those events including; Magna Carta, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers. Many events in America’s history helped to establish the United States as a free and independent country. The Declaration of Independence in particular explains the rights and freedoms that Americans. Each document is like a stepping stones that leads to the next and building upon the pervious document.
Society’s structure has been debated and contested as far back as ancient Greece. Since then, man has developed social systems that greatly differ from anything the ancients had in mind. One such system is the social contract theory, which first came to prominence around the time of the enlightenment. Simplified, social contractarians argued that in order to achieve a balanced and stable society, all of its members must sacrifice certain liberties to a government or similar authority. As Rousseau explains, the contract begins when “Each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will” (148). Essentially, it is an agreement between the rulers and the ruled that produces a stable political state. John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract are both enlightenment works that detail contractarianism, yet each has a unique and different way of considering the social contract. Although John Stuart Mill is also known for his work with Utilitarianism, his essay On Liberty considers consent and other issues relating to contract theory. These authors provide different insights into the social contract, and frequently one will reject another’s idea and offer a new solution. Even after this meshing of ideas and solutions, contract theory falls short of practicality. The idea is appealing, appearing on the surface as a fair and just way of governance. However, true liberty cannot arise from a contract, as man cannot be “forced to be free” (150). There are two fundamental flaws with contractarianism: it is not practical and it ignores human nature, and even if were possible to establish a true contract-based society, the citi...
If we were to follow the four principles we would first need to look at the principle of autonomy
First and foremost, the Greatest Happiness Principle focuses on two main ideas: one’s actions and their resulting utility. An individual is considered moral correct if their actions promote universal utility. However, the principle doesn’t simply require individuals to make any choice that promotes utility. A person is considered “morally correct” when and only when their decision promotes the most pleasure and minimizes the most pain.
Locke states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i...
The concept Kant is displaying in his work is the universal maxim. He believes in the idea of the will of every human being to be a part of the universal law. Individuals are to reflect upon their action by looking at the motivating principle behind their action. The question is would the motivation of my action be universally accepted or rejected? Kant is saying that we should look at the motivating principle behind our actions and compare that to how it would be seen on a universal level. Then ask, would we want another person to act with the same motivating principle? In all we are to act in a manner that the will of our action be a maxim that becomes a universal law.
...o be an unbearable abuse of supreme authority” or in the face of governmental tyranny. However, Kant also outlines in his other work the importance of moral autonomy, which seems to betray his view of a citizen's duty to obey. As Arntzen states: “by denying a right of resistance even when civil society falls short of the ideal civil society, he maintains that one has a duty to act according to a will that is not one's own, and thereby seems to betray the person's autonomy and dignity he has so strongly asserted in GMS and KpV” (Arntzen: 1996). Arntzen then goes on to state that Kant must allow
Throughout history, the effects of the unequal distribution of power and justice within societies have become apparent through the failure of governments, resulting in the creation of theories regarding ways to balance the amount of power given and the way in which justice is enforced. Due to this need for change, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke created two separate theories in which the concept of a social contract is used to determine the ways in which a government can govern without forfeiting justice. In this essay, the relationship between force, morality, and rights within both theories will be investigated in order to determine the most beneficial format for society based on the ideas of the natural condition of mankind, the rights of the government, and the rights of the governed. Through this examination of ideas, a conclusion may be made concerning the ideal form of government to preside over society today.
A Justified Constitution The 1787 Constitution instilled, by design, an outline that would establish a federal government whilst ensuring a balance of equal power amongst itself in order to create a “just” system. In pursuance of a government in favor of justice, it would need to relay the ideals of being equitable and impartial for the benefit of the common good. Though this was not always an achievable goal, in which case African Americans composed around one fifth of the population in America, but only were accounted for as three fifths of a person in the Constitution under the Three Fifths Compromise. This was seen as a massive design flaw.
Imagine a child living in a hot, government owned apartment in Chicago. He has no father. With his single, jobless mother he struggles to the words of the founding fathers: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” (The Declaration of Independence). This is one of the most famous phrases in the US Declaration of Independence and has become the underpinning of the dreams of millions of people around the world. Although the words are different, these sentiments are reflected in the political and economical policies of many democracies. While the notion of ‘happiness for all’ seems like the obvious solution to many of our persistent problems, we inevitably encounter conflicts between our actions and our morals. “The state is based on……the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities.”(Marx, 1992). This essay focuses on the issues of a prominent theory, Utilitarianism as it blends and encompasses both areas of Economics and Ethics which have become the basis of our governmental bodies.
The Constitution is one of the most significant file and certificate in the United States, the constitution of United States of America was created by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the state of Philadelphia and in the year of 1787. The Constitution changed the life of people; furthermore, when the constitution was created, it provided different types of freedom for different people. The constitution of United States includes about twenty seven amendments, which the ten first amendments are most important, because they relate to basic freedom and equality of people. According to http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble; The preamble of constitution of United States says that “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” The constitution task is to try to defend and protect the people of United States; furthermore, it concludes different ages of people not a particular type of people. Actually, people of United States are free people intrusive Federal government doesn’t interfere in their life. The persons who wrote the constitution, tried to make a nation that a particular person doesn’t control all the affairs of the country; in addition, the European countries were absolutely monarchy which cause the people not decide and control everything. The United States doesn’t have queens or kings and no one is above the law. The United Stat...
It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rights theory, according to Kant. He believes that moral principles are universal, and that all rational human beings are expected to conform to moral reasoning. Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals.... ... middle of paper ... ...
In chapter 11 The Kantian Perspective: Fairness and Justice Immanuel Kant suggests that the clear cut basic works upon the same technique as the ethical law and it is likewise disregarded by the individuals who accept who apply "double standards ". The downright basic may further be recognized as a prerequisite to not regard other objective creatures as means, for Kant communicates that every single reasonable being contain the capacity of pressing together objectives, yet never see themselves as just an intends to another reason for their moves are eventually made all alone benefit and are finishes in themselves. Immanuel Kant thought along these lines and was prone to the most splendid savant ever to have done as such. He remains maybe the
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
J.S. Mill’s principle of utility is explained as actions are right as they tend to gain happiness, and wrong as they tend to reduce happiness. Mill defines happiness as, “pleasure and the absence of happiness is pain.” He argues that pleasure can differ in quality and quantity, and that more complex pleasures are ranked higher. Mills also places people’s achievements of goals, such as a virtuous living, should be counted as part of their happiness. When Mill states that the principle of utility is the “First Principle” of morality he is ranking the principle of utility highest because that in order to know what the boundaries of morality are, it is necessary to know how actions should be accounted. The first principle dictates the rest of the principles of morality because it illuminates what the right thing to do is, and that is to maximize happiness. Happiness is the goal of morality, and this is why Mill believes that morality must have a first principle.