An example of a universal maxim that we as citizens in a democratic republic ought to see realized in our own country.
It should be a universally acclaimed notion that each and every person deserves to be assisted by the people around regardless of language differences, religion, skin color, education, income, and place of origin. This should be applied as a universal law where everybody will have a molar obligation to assist another person in problems like injuries, being stranded, illness, hunger, thirst, homelessness and being lost amongst others. The maxim should apply to all the circumstances where one human being posses the ability to help another person with a need or a problem.
According to Kant, we have a freedom of choice. Reason is probed by our will and will is probed by our inclinations. We have a choice by controlling our will and that is done by reason. Letting the desires to take control makes a person lose their will until they take independence from the inclination. Hence as human beings, we have a freedom of choice on whether to help a needy person if we have the ability and the opportunity to do so. But still there is the desire to let the needy person remain helpless because they do not come from our community, religion, social class, skin color, place of origin and language amongst other attributes (Example esay.com, 2002-2011).
Human reason plays a major role in assistance as a maxim in a democratic country. This is because to decide whether or not to assist a needy person is a decision which needs portray a person’s level of mercy and humanly inclination. If a person lets others to suffer while it’s possible to offer them help, then that person is considered to have very low inner consciousness.
For a ...
... middle of paper ...
...eparing. And because I am a human being I cannot drive the school bus and attend school at the same time. Hence I need a fellow human being in the form of the driver to assist me. Then on getting to school, I cannot be a student and a teacher. Hence I need the teacher to come to my aid and assist me in class work. So in my schooling life I need assistance from other people.
Works Cited
References List
Example esay.com (2002-2011). Kingdom of ends. Retrieved from:
http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/77418.html
Korsgaard Christine M (1985) Kant’s formula of Universal Law. Retrieved from:
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3201869/Korsgaard_KantForumulaUniversalLaw.pdf?sequence=2
Palmaquist Joseph (1995), Kant’s System of Perspectives. Retrieved from:
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.
as an equal, and it is the duty of every person to help those who are
Based on Rawls’s definition of social cooperation as something achievable for persons with certain moral capacities and sense of justice, Kittay’s understanding of moral ethics emphasized on sense of attachment, empathetic attention to others’ needs and responsiveness to those needs. Such attachment and the capacity to respond to vulnerability, show that humans are by nature not individualistic, but collaborative. Kittay also pointed out the fact that everyone may become dependent and may require support from others at that point. Such understanding, and the need to be assured that if we become dependent we would be taken care of, ought to be acknowledged when we discuss moral ethics of human nature. Women for example, make sacrifices on their maternal roles to provide care, and the ability to care have been politically fought for in many countries, as people widely value the dependency relationships between human
... were outsiders may have contributed to their selfish, cowardly behavior. Thus, it is the individual who demonstrates a high degree of independence, a strong sense of duty where charity is concerned, and an ability to value every human life regardless of religion or ethnicity that will be most likely to selflessly aid people in distress. Conversely, it is the individual that lacks the aforementioned traits, who will be the least effective in assisting those in need.
Singer’s principle ‘If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance we ought, morally, to do it,’ outlines such high obligations for people of wealthy countries that are too demanding. I do not agree with Peter Singer’s principle. This principle limits my freedom of choice, my freedom to act. It fails to recognize the morals and ethics I value as a person. It requires me to favor those who are physically distant rather than my neighbor; furthermore, the drowning child example does not support his thesis because physical distance affects the amount of obligation I feel to help others. And lastly it rejects other moral concerns we have, that may be of equal importance.
Throughout this paper I will argue between Mil (Utilitarianism) and Held (Care Ethics). Mil is a British Philosopher well known for his ethical and political work and Held is an American Feminist and Moral Philosopher. After reading this essay you will have a good view on what Utilitarianism and Care Ethics is and also what my concluding position is.
In this paper, I will argue that killing is better than letting die if, in general, the intention is compassion rather than gratification. In other words, it is morally permissible to deliberately take action that results in another’s death if the motivation is out of compassion rather than gratification, and that this is significantly better than deliberately failing to take steps which are available and which would have saved another’s life – merely allowing someone to die.(definitions –cite NESBITT) ................
Furthermore, Seyla Benhabib, a Turkish-American philosopher and Professor of Political Science at Yale University, combats the claim of scholars, like Mohanty, that universalism is ethnocentric. While some intellectuals believe that universalism is a concept that the West has internationally promoted without considering other cultures that may differ from the West, Benhabib strongly disagrees. First, Benhabib puts forth the idea that other cultures have been and are compatible with the West. Like Nussbaum, she believes that our cultures are not as different as we have come to believe. She states that universal legal principles have been created as a product of all cultures in all areas of the world feeding off one another. Those who believe
This paper shows that altruism is a very complex issue and much more information could be introduced, following this would allow a greater look at the complexity of other views such as the religious or the philosophical side. Garrett Hardin’s ‘lifeboat ethics’ is a perfect example and proof of this paper, showing that we would rather let others gets killed instead of trying to help a
As a result, when a person who is “cold and indifferent to the sufferings of others’ does an action that elicits a positive response from someone by helping them, he is more morally worthy according to Kant. Such a person does this action even when he does not want or feel like doing that action. There is neither emotional payback in the form of contentment nor material benefits of helping someone else. Emotional selflessness brings the moral worth in the action of helping others. Hence, according to Kant, there must be something in that person that motivates them to help others even though they get nothing out of it and this motivation is the product of rational thinking, that provides for a better moral worth. On the other hand when a person “is a sympathetic, compassionate philanthropist who finds an inner satisfact...
For Kant and Luther, the question of human freedom and the amount individuals are at liberty of, if any, is determined in an effort to achieve high morality. However, it precisely the outlook that Kant deems fatalist which Luther argues for, that is, freedom through faith. For Luther, we do not posses the liberty required to live a moral life without God’s guidance. On the other hand, for Kant, the predestination that Luther argues for places individuals in a state of “immaturity” and therefore unable to achieve freedom to be moral. In contrast to Luther’s argument, for Kant self-determination, autonomy, and morality are closely related to his notion of human freedom.
Over the years, human beings have not made the right conclusions when it comes to benevolence. In considering when a decision should be made regarding a fellow human being in need, trivial conditions are used as excuses such as distance, magnitude, and how well you know someone. Considerably wealthy countries have given money but it amounts to a fraction of the costs of their own development of transportation and entertainment. The morality of the situation is skewed in order to coddle the conscience of the inactive. As much as people and governments would like to, they cannot deny what is happening in the world around them. The position taken by Singer is that the way people in wealthier countries respond to situations in which others around them need help due to some man made or natural disaster is unjustifiable. Singer argues that many thinks need to be redesigned—namely, what shapes and affects our definition of morality and our way of life that we tend to take for granted.
On the contrary, Kantian ethics value every individual rather than the majority. This theory holds that every human has rights and an action is wrong if it violates them. Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative states “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” (O’Neill 400) This states that you can not use people in a way that they would not consent to. Kantian ethics also state that
...ter place. It should be recognized that the progress of a society solely does not depend on the prosperity or fortunate chances of just one individual; it is based entirely on the whole population. By seeing that we have a moral obligation to help human beings wherever they are, we are improving the living conditions for all.
Defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as a system of values and beliefs that is based on the idea that people are basically good and that problems can be solved using reason instead of religion (Merriam-Webster), Humanism takes an ethical and philosophical stance that is expressed through a myriad of types including Literary Humanism, Renaissance Humanism, Western Cultural Humanism, Philosophical Humanism, Christian Humanism, Modern Humanism, Secular Humanism, and Religious Humanism (American Humanist Association). Though there are many different “denominations”, if you will, of Humanism, they are all typically aligned with secularism and a perspective that believes in “human nature”, or how humans naturally think, feel, and act.