Throughout the history of humanity, morals have been incorporated into everyday life. The first set of morals came from religion, which told people what to do and not do to go to heaven. To centuries, the morals established by the church had never been questioned. To analyze the kind of morals, present in humanities every day, philosophers identified the different types of ethical moral. Two of this philosopher 's theories would be defined to find the similarities and differences that impact humanity. One of this philosophers is Utilitarian John Stuart Mill, author of Utilitarianism that focuses on utility. The other philosopher is metaphysician Immanuel Kant, author of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals focusing on the theory of Categorical …show more content…
Both theorists have in common the following. Under Categorical imperative and Utilitarianism, everyone in society counts. To be more specific, whatever action taken has to impact other and no only the individual. When conduction an action, the personal feeling is not subjective. For Kant, people have to do what is right because it is the right thing to do, without taking into consideration personal opinion. On the other hand, mill’s theory would agree with the idea of non-subjectivity but not on the same terms as Kant. Mill would argue that if something brings happiness to the general public but not to the individual, it would still be considered the right thing to do. Both authors do not believe in the idea of virtue theory. However, their reasons are parallel to each other. Mill argues that actions have to be a focus on the concept of utility, since actions might be morally wrong and still be part of maximizing happiness. In Kant 's perspective, people have to do what is good based on their duty to the general public and not because it is morally right. Kant also believes that people’s rights are not to be disobeyed for the benefit of everyone. Mill would disagree with this theory since Utilitarianism accepts the concept to violate others rights if the outcome brings general happiness. This idea follows the value of the object, which argues that …show more content…
During the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr wrote The Letter from Birmingham. In the letter, MLk explains how white church ministers and middle-class black thought that he was moving too fast to the idea of equality. However, King believes that it was his duty and the necessary thing to end segregation for the majority that hast been told too many times that time would heal all wounds. The country has to desegregation for colored people to be viewed as equal. Even though theoretically colored individuals are equal, in practice they are view as inferior to whites. The main point is that white’s preference for segregation interferes with people of color happiness. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill will react to the following situations as follows. Kant would agree that the civil right movement for the benefit of a minority that is being oppressed is the right thing to do. People like MLK are no fighting for desegregation only for their personal gain but for the vast majority. Mill would also agree with the idea of desegregation since MLK is giving up his happiness for the overall happiness of everyone. Even though some white would lose the pleasure of isolated locations, it is all about the happiness of the majority. The solution will not only maximize happiness but also minimize the pain of a group whose pain
In this excerpt, King conveys the prejudiced feelings that every African American would feel in this kind of society, which causes the reader to automatically feel sympathy towards the cause. Martin Luther King Jr.’s approach towards ending segregation was not only tactful, it was forthright in the ideals of racial equality. His argument holds such strong logic, that it seems like it is unchallengeable. This letter is solid proof of the intelligence and passion that contributed greatly towards African Americans gaining the rights they fought for, and rightfully deserve.
...places a person’s dignity and honor before life, while Mill places society’s happiness before all else. For Kant, capital punishment serves to preserve the dignity of an individual, while for Mill, capital punishment is used to protect society’s overall happiness. If it were up to you, which side would you take on capital punishment? Kant and Mill raise good questions and points in their perspective arguments, but there are too many contradictions for me to defend on either one of their points of views. I stand against capital punishment.
The author, Dr. Martian Luther King Jr., makes a statement “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.” He uses this concept to convey the point of the Negros hard work to negotiate the issue has failed, but now they must confront it. The March on Good Friday, 1963, 53 blacks, led by Reverend Martian Luther King, Jr., was his first physical protest to segregation laws that had taken place after several efforts to simply negotiate. The author uses several phrases that describe his nonviolent efforts and his devotion to the issue of segregation that makes the reader believe his how seriously King takes this issue. “Conversely, one has the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Dr. Martian Luther King, Jr. explains with this that an “unjust law is no law at all.” King does not feel like he has broken any laws in his protest against segregation. In his eyes, laws are made to protect the people, not degrade and punish. “The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him March.” As far as King is concerned, the Negros will continue to do whatever is necessary, preferably non-violently, to obtain the moral and legal right that is theirs. If they are not allowe...
Approximately three hundred years separate the earliest of these works, The Prince, from the most recent, Utilitarianism, and a progression is discernible in the concept of morality over this span. Machiavelli does not mention the word "morality," but his description of the trends and ideals of human political interaction allow for a reasonable deduction of the concept. Locke, too, does not use the word, but he does write of "the standard of right and wrong." In contrast, Mill writes explicitly and extensively of morality in its forms, sources, and obligations. A logical starting point in this examination is a look at their relative views of human nature.
I believe the letter also sought to solidify his position on the injustice created by segregation and illustrate the lack of action not only of the white moderate, but also the complacent black citizens. In addition, it was important to make light of the single-minded comments of the white religious leaders when referring to their worry about the demonstrations; without focusing on why the demonstrations came about. They were looking at the effects and not the causes. Also, Martin Luther King says that “…freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Important distinctions to make for those that are not compelled by the injustice of segregation; mainly the complacent black citizens and the white moderate. Ultimately, the letter is a call to action; a call to the people of the American South to change their beliefs and change their society. Also, an example of how difficult it is to achieve change when resistance is demonstrated by individuals and society at large.
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Martin Luther King, Jr. is known to be a civil rights activist, humanitarian, a father, and a clergyman. He is well known for fighting for the equal rights of colored people and ending discrimination. King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is an important part of history that showed King’s opinion of a letter that he happened to read in the newspaper written by a group of clergyman. In this letter, the group of clergyman report that colored people, also known as black people, are being violent towards Birmingham City. Also, the clergymen believed the time that will allow segregation to be diminished was not happening anytime soon because it is not convenient. King refuted the clergymen’s argument in a variety of ways using tactics of argumentation and persuasion like appeal to emotion through real life examples, appeal to logic, and even articulating certain phrases through metaphors and word choice. Many of these different tactics of argumentation and persuasion made his letter very effective and is now seen as a great piece that is looked upon highly today.
One may be very impressed with Martin Luther King’s braviary, patience, and respect towards his readers. From here on out after analyzing his piece of writing many may want to reflect back on history and the realization of this event that had taken place. This letter gives you a glimpse as to what African Americans and people of other nationalities had went through during segregational times. This letter is inspirational and one should feel so lucky to be able to have read and understand this glance of our nation’s
Martin Luther King Jr. is known for his use of religion to justify actions, with this letter as a prime example. He believes that the morality of laws should be put into question to see if they are just, where the measurement of morality comes from an inner scale that is balanced by religion. Martin Luther King Jr. was a revolutionary, inciting nonviolent change in America through government protests, not conforming to the rules and norms has set for him to accept his poor condition in life. He says, “...segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful.” Therefore, he believes that the government’s rule is not legitimate unless it follows his perception of what is just, which is fueled by religious beliefs. This causes independent action because he senses a problem in life, and feels like he must serve a greater purpose to be able to solve
Recently you have received a letter from Martin Luther King Jr. entitled “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” In Dr. King’s letter he illustrates the motives and reasoning for the extremist action of the Civil Rights movement throughout the 1960’s. In the course of Dr. King’s letter to you, he uses rhetorical questioning and logistical reasoning, imagery and metaphors, and many other rhetorical devices to broaden your perspectives. I am writing this analysis in hopes you might reconsider the current stance you have taken up regarding the issues at hand.
In 1963 on April 16th, Martin Luther King Jr, who was in the Birmingham jail for non-violent protesting wrote a letter in response to a statement from eight white Clergymen, in which they stated that his recent activities were “unwise and untimely.” In this letter King proceeds to state his purpose and reasons for his timing and his protests and powerfully he does so. He most obviously directs the letter to the Clergymen but there seems to be a many different audiences he wishes to enlighten on his thoughts. From what I gather he wants public figures and everyday men to read his letter, and by doing so he hopes to raise awareness for the cruel acts that have been done to the blacks. King gets his point across, that segregation is unfair and morally not right and that man has a responsibility to act against unjust laws, by using many different strategies throughout the letter. He uses logos, pathos, and ethos to do so. While using these devices he shows emotion, gives logic to his reasoning’s and gives credibility as well.
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
The injustice of segregation laws is leading to a violent impact throughout the African American community, as they strive to have equal rights. In the essay, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. describes many struggles the African American community is going through. Dr. King effectively uses rhetorical appeals to persuade the clergymen that segregation laws are unjust and must end.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.