Who is a party to the social government?

Who is a party to the social government? Anyone under the age of 18 is considered a minor. These minors are party to the social contract because of their parent/guardian who take on full responsibility for the minors actions. These parents/guardians have an obligation to society to raise a minor to abide laws and social policies so minors are able to grow into responsible law abiding adults. With this said, it is also a given that a minor who is ten thinks very differently from an adult who is twenty five. If a ten year old steals from a store the repercussions are different as opposed to a twenty five year old stealing from a store. In this case, the owner of the store might notify the minor’s parent/guardian and the parent/guardian would have to discipline their child in a way that is appropriate. On the other hand, the adult in this case might receive some type of jail time or a penalty of some sort. With this said, minors are partied to the contract in a limited way, therefore their subjectivity to moral judgment is also limited.

Morality and Gov’t

I believe that there is a connection between morality and government. The government is impacts society in a very distinct way. Our society relies on its government. In order for our society to operate well, the government needs to make appropriate decisions. I do believe that society in a way looks up to the people who are involved in making the government the way it is. I do believe that moral standards are applied to the government. For example, the scandal with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky has made history. Society as a whole frowned upon this action. However, if a regular Joe made the same type mistake, he would not receive the same reaction as they did with Clinton. 

WAR

A society that has no laws would lead to a society of chaos. When there is nothing preventing people from doing whatever they want to whom ever they want this would be the most devastating thing that could happen. This society would lead to men killing each other not only in a personal conflict, but in conflicts against all of society. People would have to constantly watch out for themselves ultimately leaving the society in a constant fear of one another. It is a war that will never be resolved unless everyone is dead.  

Kant vs Mill

I feel that both Kant and Mill have arguments against their theories on morality that would make it difficult to choose which is best. With this said I simply chose Mills theory because I felt that Utilitarianism is little more practical if you were actually trying to follow their theories. I would rather try to see what actions bring upon the greatest amount of pleasure than try to turn everything into universal law. I also believe Mills theory is understood better than Kant’s theory on morality.

What is the connection between rationality and self-interest or self-love?

Rationality is the quality of being consistent based on logic. We use rationality daily in order to make decisions, and carry out our lives. Self-love is a regard of one’s own interest, which is an outcome of the decisions that are made from a rational point. The connection that Kant believes that if one does not follow categorical imperative, they are considered irrational. We used the example of suicide in class. According to categorical imperative, the maxim that is to be tested is: from self love a person makes it their notion to end their life, because living longer will cause more pain than happiness. The act of committing suicide is an individual’s motive. The maxim of suicide cannot be considered as a law of nature therefore the act is morally wrong. Therefore the wrongness of this act is based on one’s motives.

Categorical Imperative Method

Categorical Imperative according to Kant is an absolute universal moral obligation. According to Kant, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. We used cheating on a test as an example in class on Thursday. We need to see whether or not cheating can be imagined as a universal law of nature. Since cheating cannot be a universal law of nature, then we have a duty not to perform the act. If everyone were to cheat on a exam, then why would an exam exist in the first place?