good and evil essay

There are many different views on what is right and wrong and ethically and morally appropriate. Immanuel Margen (1724-1804) and Jon Stuart Mill (1806-1873), both regarded as two of the very best philosophers of them all, had several views on how one should live the Good Lifestyle. John Stuart Mill’s theory was named Utilitarianism and Kant’s theory, the Particular Imperative. Immanuel Kant thought that it was essential for a person to have meaning values than to be smart, funny, or have some other talents or traits of the human mind or body system.

This individual believed certainly that it was great to have these talents yet that “moral worth was invaluable. Margen expressed, “to act morally is to take action from no other purpose than the purpose of doing precisely what is right (Sommers & Sommers, 2010, l. 230). Margen believed that morality was not just about the results or perhaps effect of an action but the is going to behind the action. This individual believed which our actions must come from a sense of Duty, not because we all care for or love one an additional but because it is our Duty to “respect the Moral Law (p.

246).

Judging the value of a decision based on regardless of whether it was carrying out a rule or set of guidelines is called deontological ethics. This individual believed it turned out not the effects of the actions which were important but the person’s motive carrying out the stated action. Various disagree with Kant saying we must have got a foundation to start coming from, a reason such as love or perhaps concern to accomplish what is morally correct. David Stuart Mill believed our actions must promote delight to all engaged, not just the person doing the action because of it to be morally correct. Mill endorsed the “principle of utility therefore that actions are accurate if

that they produce happiness and incorrect if leading to the opposite of happiness. Mill’s version from the yellow metal Rule is definitely “To do as you can be done by, and love your neighbor while yourself (p. 211). Mill defended Utilitarianism saying that the result and implications of the actions, to produce joy that is, tends to make the stated action right. This is referred to as the Greatest Delight Principle. Utilitarianism is not based on the happiness or perhaps satisfaction of 1 individual although of the whole mass or perhaps group of people engaged, “the welfare of all citizens (Rachels & Rachels, 2012, p.

101). Casablanca Inside the movie Casablanca, the main character, Rick Blaine believed in living the Good Lifestyle just like David Stuart Mill. He as well was focused on the consequences of action. Ron also seemed to be like Kant in that he previously a strong impression of responsibility professionally. Ron had a obligation to himself, which he made clear in many situations, but likewise had a work to his acquaintances and patrons of his cabaret’. Rick produced decisions to advertise happiness, just like Mill, yet his decisions were based on selfish reasons.

If others were happy he would make more money. Rick could have been considered a Utilitarian because he made decisions many times that will put the joy of the group ahead of the happiness of 1 individual, therefore the second proposition of Time-honored Utilitarianism; “An action’s effects matter simply insofar because they involve the higher or lesser happiness of individual’s (Rachels & Rachels, p. 128, para. 1). In the beginning, David made the decision to leave the police have Ugarte into custody as a way not to disrupt the rest of the clients.

He also did it to create himself happy so that he’d not have any complications with the specialists, so his establishment might run smoother, and also therefore he would manage to have the get out of visas that Ugarte got given him to hold on. In the beginning Ron was only concerned with his own happiness and he states this kind of early on when he said, “I stick my neck out for nobody.  But , as the story progresses it seems that David started to produce decisions to benefit other folks, not just him.

When a small woman got into contact with him and told him her story of planning to get to America he rigged the game to benefit her and her husband so they really would have the money to buy all their passes. This would benefit the man and woman, help to make him appear good, gain his buddie who distributed the kompakti?kas, and in-turn would probably return to benefit him again. As stated earlier, Kant believed the particular one should have a moral accountability to do what is right and that it comes from a person’s pure sense of duty certainly not from any emotion.

Kant strictly “denied that emotions could have any foundation for morality in any way and that we need to actually “discipline our thoughts by reason (Betzler, 08, p. 308). Kant truly believed it is an obligation and it is required to do what is morally right. This is how Rick were throughout till he came into contact with his old appreciate, Ilsa. Ilsa seemed to reveal the best in him. If he realized just how much he actually cared for Ilsa and loved her, he only wanted to see her happy whether or not it was avoid him.

In the end he made a choice for the more good of all involved rather than just himself. This individual helped Ilsa and her husband keep Casablanca even though he recognized he would enter into trouble. Rick showed his real perception of moral value when he performed this. One other character that also showed his morality was Chief Renault. He helped Ron many times and recognized his good motives towards other folks at the end in the movie. It appeared like Captain Renault was thankful for Rick putting Ilsa and Victor Laszlo first although it meant he’d not have her anymore.

Captain Renault protected for David in the end in order that Rick will not be busted. Captain Renault also demonstrated that having been looking out for the benefit of the group not just one person when he performed this. Therefore , who is to state what makes a task right or wrong? Does the action must be backed by a feeling of duty or perhaps should it be powered by take pleasure in and empathy for others? Would it be not only the consequence of the action that matters? If perhaps good comes from the actions and the action comes from the heart, therefore is it not good?

Kant thought that “love and consideration should not be in order to cooperate in the performance of Duty (p. 247). Simply cannot Duty, take pleasure in, compassion, and friendship communicate to make a decision right and justified together with the end result becoming happiness? Recommendations Betzler, Meters. (2008). Kant’s ethics of virtue. Walt de Gruyter. ISBN: 9783110177282 Rachels, M. & Rachels, S. (2012). The portions of moral beliefs (7th ed. ). New york city, New York: McGraw Hill Sommers, C. L. & Sommers, F. (2010). Vice and virtue in everyday life: Initial reading in ethics (8th ed. ). Belmont, LOS ANGELES: Wadsworth

You may also be interested in this: dreams and aspirations good examples

you