oonaxzieoo’s Weblog

H E L L O ! ! !

 

            The author mentioned something about moral tradition which developed the concept of rights, autonomy and justice is the same tradition that provided justifications The author mentioned that there is a clear difference between saying that someone has a right to do something in this sense and saying that it is the right thing for him to do or that he does no wrong in doing it. Someone may have the right to do something that is wrong for him to do.

           

            It was said that conservatives and liberals do agree that sometimes a man does not do the wrong thing to break a law, when his conscience so requires. 

 

            I think that in this chapter it points out that one must know their rights. And not everything that is for us will do well for us is a right thing to do. Sometimes things that we think that is right for us are not always right in the eyes of many. We should do right things based on what is right for many and not just what will benefit us.

 

Justice as fairness said by the author begins. He said with one of the most general of all choices which person might make together. Our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it.

            He also said that in working out the conception of justice as fairness one main task clearly is to determine which principles of justice would be chosen in the original position.  One feature of justice as fairness is to think of the parties in the initial situation as rational and mutually disinterested.

            The author said also that it is clear for her that the best moral theory has to be a cooperative product of women and men, has to harmonize justice and care.

Justice as fairness said by the author begins. He said with one of the most general of all choices which person might make together. Our social situation is just if it is such that by this sequence of hypothetical agreements we would have contracted into the general system of rules which defines it.

            He also said that in working out the conception of justice as fairness one main task clearly is to determine which principles of justice would be chosen in the original position.  One feature of justice as fairness is to think of the parties in the initial situation as rational and mutually disinterested.

            The author said also that justice as fairness is not a complete contract theory. Obviously if justice as fairness succeeds reasonably well, a next step would be to study the more general view suggested by the name rightness as fairness.

            John Rawls mentioned about two principles of justice. First, he said that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others. Second, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions an offices open to all.

The author mentioned that there is a clear difference between saying that someone has a right to do something in this sense and saying that it is the right thing for him to do or that he does no wrong in doing it. Someone may have the right to do something that is wrong for him to do.

           

            It was said that conservatives and liberals do agree that sometimes a man does not do the wrong thing to break a law, when his conscience so requires. 

 

            I think that in this chapter it points out that one must know their rights. And not everything that is for us will do well for us is a right thing to do. Sometimes things that we think that is right for us are not always right in the eyes of many. We should do right things based on what is right for many and not just what will benefit us.

The author mentioned that there is a clear difference between saying that someone has a right to do something in this sense and saying that it is the right thing for him to do or that he does no wrong in doing it. Someone may have the right to do something that is wrong for him to do.

           

            It was said that conservatives and liberals do agree that sometimes a man does not do the wrong thing to break a law, when his conscience so requires. 

 

            I think that in this chapter it points out that one must know their rights. And not everything that is for us will do well for us is a right thing to do. Sometimes things that we think that is right for us are not always right in the eyes of many. We should do right things based on what is right for many and not just what will benefit us.

 

            The author mentioned something also about organized labor, even this picture he said is now archaic.  He also said that claiming that one has a right is another sort of thing once can do with language. He also mentioned that if there conceivable circumstances in which one would admit rights differently there is no doubt that their characteristic use and that for which they are distinctively well suited.

The author mentioned that there is a clear difference between saying that someone has a right to do something in this sense and saying that it is the right thing for him to do or that he does no wrong in doing it. Someone may have the right to do something that is wrong for him to do.

           

            It was said that conservatives and liberals do agree that sometimes a man does not do the wrong thing to break a law, when his conscience so requires. 

 

            I think that in this chapter it points out that one must know their rights. And not everything that is for us will do well for us is a right thing to do. Sometimes things that we think that is right for us are not always right in the eyes of many. We should do right things based on what is right for many and not just what will benefit us.

 

            The author mentioned something also about organized labor, even this picture he said is now archaic.  He also said that claiming that one has a right is another sort of thing once can do with language. He also mentioned that if there conceivable circumstances in which one would admit rights differently there is no doubt that their characteristic use and that for which they are distinctively well suited.

According to Aristotle, happiness is not pleasure, honour, or wealth. Happiness by his definition is related to virtue because based on what Aristotle said happiness is an activity of the soul with accordance with virtue. Aristotle mentioned that happiness by his definition is related to virtue. He also pointed out the two kinds of Virtue: Moral and Intellectual. He mentioned that moral virtue comes from training and habit. Also, he said that moral virtue is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. In the other hand, Aristotle defined intellectual virtue as the most perfect happiness and is found in the activity of reason or contemplation. Happiness is related to pleasure in the sense that based on what Aristotle said that most men seem to identify happiness with pleasure that is why they love the life of enjoyment.

 

He said that moral virtue comes from training and habit. He pointed out also that moral virtue is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. In example to that is courage as a mean between the extremes of rashness and cowardice.

 

Based on how I understand the content, I think it is possible for everyone in our society to be happy. Everyone can be happy but to what happiness is differs depending on the aspect that a certain person finds fulfilment. In example to that, for some pleasure can be a form of happiness while for others it may be honour or wealth. There are a lot of reasons for a person to be happy and every person has different views about their own happiness.

The author mentioned something about, good will. It is said that it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. Intelligence, wit, judgement and any other talents of the mind we may care to name of courage, resolution and constancy of purpose, as qualities of temperament are without a doubt good and desirable in many respects.

           

            A good will said to be not good because of what is effects or accomplishes because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end. Also, it was stated that, the moral worth of an action does not depend on the result expected from it and so too does not depend on any principle of action that needs to borrow its motive from this expected result.

           

            This chapter mentioned also that if all imperatives of duty can be derived from this one imperative as their principle, then even although we leave it unsettled whether what we call duty may not be an empty concept, we shall still be able to show at least what we understand by ti and what the concept means.

 

            The author pointed out also that the will is conceived as a power of determining oneself to action in accordance with the idea of certain laws. He also mentioned something about the practical imperative will therefore be as follows: 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.

May 2017
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031