nessuh’s Weblog

Children should not be responsible for knowing the social contract because wisdom comes with age. They dont know at birth what is right and what is wrong. But people should be required to abide by the rules and what they are supposed to do. They have to go by whatever the rules are in place where they live until they move somewhere else where the rules are different they have to follow the ones they are forced to.


Rationality and self-love, according to Kant, are connected in the sene that humans have the ability to reason. This ability allows humans to act in accordance to our beliefs on what is moral and what is immoral. In Kant’s view, morality should follow the concept of categorical imperative. He connects rationality and morality and says that any action going against this is immoral. Morality is solely based on the ability to reason and our actions that follow and not based on what the individual desires.

According to Kant, only act in accordance to your maxim. Your maxim would only be moral if it could become a universal law. Lets say if cheating on exams were made into a universal law. So everyone is cheating on their exams now and its ok. But then the professor thinks, Wait a second, what is the point of giving out an exam if everyone is just going to cheat? No one actually knows the information so the professor isnt really testing the students, he/she is simply giving them an assignment. The professor stops giving out exams and now there cannot be a universal law to cheat on exams because there are no exams in the first place.

Happiness most definitley does have an intrinsic value. Many different actions or things can happen that can make a person happy but the value of happiness is so much greater than it is not dependent on external factors. Being happy has a much greater value than being sad because no one would ever chose to be sad over being happy. Everyone lives to be happy. Everyone does actions in order to make themselves happy. No one would ever chose unhappiness when they could chose happiness just as easily.

If I could sit down and have a conversation with John Stuart Mill, the first thing I would ask is..Do you honestly think that anyone would sit down and think about how their actions would affect the overall happiness of a large group of people? It is just extremely difficult to take into consideration everyone’s happiness.

Expediency is said to allow too many white lies. But like in one of my previous blogs, there are lies that dont constitute as being bad lies. Although, the majority of people would say that lying is bad, in the case of the dying grandmother, would anyone really say that it was a poor choice on the daughter’s part to tell her mothr that she could fight off the sickness? Of course not. Of course there are circumstances in which people make the wrong decision and decide to lie about something stupid such as denying that the girl youre with is indeed your girlfriend and not your ugly cousin from out of town(Boone’s example). But does any of this make any sense? Who knows. Point being that there are lies that could be in a sense..good.

The concept of utilitarianism definitely asks too much of everyday normal people. How could a person honestly stop and think about every action and whether or not it will increase or decrease the overall happiness of people? The world is too fast pace. There is absolutely no way to take into account everyone’s happiness. Everyone has their own opinions on what they consider right and wrong. And just like that, everyone makes their own decision according to what they believe.

  • None
  • caity84: All lies serve a purpose. The problem is that the lie must serve a positive purpose for it to be considered good in my opinion. If the lie only bene
  • caity84: I think you are right.  No one will ever be able to think about how each one of their actions effects other people.  I do believe though that we can
  • mmastar: Do you think that self love can come in the way of morality? Or is morality self love at its most?