Compare Mill And Kants Ethical Theories; Which Makes A Better Societal

Compare Mill and Kant's ethical theories; which makes a better societal order? John Stuart Mill (1808-73) believed in an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. There are many formulation of this theory. One such is, "Everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved." However, good is a relative term. What is good? Utilitarians disagreed on this subject. Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows: According to the Greatest Happiness Principle ? The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments. Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own. Each person's happiness is equally important. Mill believed that a free act is not an undetermined act. It is determined by the unconstrained choice of the person performing the act. Either external or internal forces compel an unfree act. Mill also determined that every situation depends on how you address the situation and that you are only responsible for your feelings and actions. You decide how you feel about what you think you saw. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is. Kant described two types of common commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law." Therefore, before proceeding to act, you must decide what rule you would be following if you were to act, whether you are willing for that rule to be followed by everyone all over. If you are willing to universalize the act, it must be moral; if you are not, then the act is morally impermissible. Kant believed that the welfare of each individual should properly be regarded as an end in itself, as stated in the Formula of the End in Itself: 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. Kant believes that moral rules are exceptionless. Therefore, it is wrong to kill in all situations, even those of self-defense. This is belief comes from the Universal Law theory. Since we would never want murder to become a universal law, then it must be not moral in all situations. So which of the two theories would make a better societal order? That is a difficult question because both theories have "problems." For Kant it is described above, his rules are absolute. Killing could never be make universal, therefore it is wrong in each and every situation. There are never any extenuating circumstances, such

How to Write a Business Research Paper

How to Write a Business Research Paper Writing a Business research paper calls for both writing skills as well as specialized knowledge of the given topic, just as with other types of written work. However, because of the nature of, and roles within, the business field, business research papers are different from other academic papers in one or two ways. Firstly, this type of paper relies on a wide variety of models and resources. Further, the purpose of this type of paper is multi-faceted and multi-functional. A business research paper has various sections that must be completed. The introduction section gives a hint of what the topic is about and includes the thesis statement. This thesis statement details the problem being addressed and how the writer plans to address it. The literature review section outlines the importance of the problem, its history, and previous attempts made to address the issue being discussed. It also includes the current research in relation to the topic. This section enables the writer to demonstrate their research skills and their understanding of the topic being addressed. The methods and procedures section explains the sources of data used. It includes secondary data, primary data, and data collection methods and analysis. The writer has to justify the methods of data collection used and provide details of people and activities involved in the entire research process. The discussion section follows and it is the climax of the whole research paper. This makes it the most important part of the business research paper, and it is where the writer discusses the propositions and identifies the practical value provided by the research. The conclusion is the final section, and it is a summary of the whole paper. It should highlight key points detailed in the discussion sections. Having discussed the structure of a business research paper, it is best to detail how a writer should go about writing the paper. Firstly, a writer should find a suitable topic for the paper. The topic should be restricted but wide enough for meaningful research. A reader should be able to know what the paper is all about just by reading the topic. The topic should also be appealing to the target audience, as this is what will catch the attention of a reader and compel them to go through the whole paper. With a topic chosen, the writer should then conduct research from various sources available. From the findings, a strong thesis statement can then be written. An outline or draft should follow, from which the writer builds content for the paper. After writing the final paper, the writer should revise it and make sure that all key points are addressed and that the right structure has been followed. Finally, and importantly, a good Business research paper should be free from grammatical errors and plagiarism.

Early american history Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Early american history - Essay Example This followed a drastic change in the reforms at that time in America. The reforms that were made at that time included the following changes: All powers of legislation were transferred to a central body which was the Congress and constituted of the Senate as well as House of Representatives. Members from the House of Representative were to be reselected every two years and their qualifications were the basis of their selection. A minimum age of 25 was decided for political representation and the House of Representatives had the authority to choose their senior officials. There were to be two Senators from each state and each one will have equal representation. An annual meeting of the Congress would be held at the end of the year for discussing issues that arose in that year. Each House of Representatives was responsible for its actions and for regulating the behavior of its members, and had the right to punish or dismiss them if they did not follow the rules, regardless of their po sition. The House of Representatives shall be responsible for originating bills and the approved ones (the ones that had a simple 2/3 majority) shall be presented to the President for approval. The Congress had power to collect taxes etc. The judicial power will be entrusted to the Supreme Court before which a series of smaller courts would need to be passed. Congress will not make any kind of laws that prohibit people from practicing the religion of their own choice or hinder their freedom of any kind- speech or expression. Everyone will have rights such as the right to speak regardless of power and authority, race, religion or any other means of discrimination. Everyone was to be considered as having the same importance (Conlin, 1877). All in all, the source we are talking about here was not created for people who only want to read history because it is in their course work or just for the sake of it. The source is created by Joseph R. Conlin; students actually enjoy reading it an d read it by choice instead of force. The source basically describes the improvements that took place in the political scenario of America in the late 19th century but is does not tell us what America was before those changes occurred. The source tells all the improvements that were made at that time when changes were demanded by the minorities who were not treated equally, hence reforms were made so that political issues can be resolved, and there are central bodies that will deal with policies and procedures where everyone can participate with a certain qualification and each person has the right to get equal representation in the government regardless of position. Policies and procedures had become organized and more systematic and now there was a fixed procedure to get demands accepted. If two thirds of the Senate agrees to a certain point then that bill can be passed and presented to the President who may approve or disprove it because he has the final power. Moreover, courts a lso became very systematic and well organized. Supreme Court was the highest and any case would have to pass through the smaller courts to reach the Supreme Court which gave the final verdict (Conlin, 1877). Ultimately, it can be sad that the source explains the improvements very explicitly but only talks of the past very implicitly, if at