Natural Right and Utilitarianism
1)Locke’s concept of the social contract is to protect people’s rights. According to Locke the contract is between the people and these branches of government that they set up. The reason government arises the social contract between people, is because that people want to live longer and better. The legitimacy of the government comes from the fact we consent to set up that authority and protect our natural rights.
For example, if we designate a group of people as the executive power to enforce our law, in that case they will be part of the contract, and we contract them to do certain job since they are protected by the natural right. But if the executive power will abuse the system, by brutalize someone or be racist to them, then we will be able to remove them, and that’s how rebellion and political change is built into Locke’s system, which will be very important for a revolution. )Natural rights ethics contend that all humans have rights separate from their membership in a political state. Alternatively, rights are self-evident, and exist independently, and prior to any duties we may have. These rights stalk from our psychology of humankind. John Locke examine actions as morally right or wrong, for example, killing is wrong because it violate natural right, stealing is wrong because it violate the right of property. On the other hand, utilitarianism is more the opposite.
Need essay sample on "Natural Right and Utilitarianism" ? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $12.90/page
It asks us to look at the consequences of our actions. . As an example, killing and stealing are not morally wrong, but it depends on wether or not we can achieve the best possible outcome with that decision. For Mills intellectual pleasure are better than the physical one and that they should count more, he also will say that everyone will get more pleasure out of the theory if they would be sufficiently familiar with it, but reality is that moat people are not. )If my doctor will tell me that i’ll be dying soon, and the only way I can be saved is by a medical procedure that cost a lot of money which I will not be able to afford it, but if I convince all valencia students to donate $1 for that, then the greatest happiness still served by 70. 000 students suffering the loss of $1 and me staying alive and that will be more as a moral decision because if i’m the only one that get the benefit of staying alive, it still will be more important than losing one dollar.
The natural right in the other hand, will be more focusing on whether or not will be the right thing for valencia students to donate $1 in order for me to live, because reality is by them giving the money to help me live will not violate the natural right. It is actually the contrary since they were helping me survive. also, since the transaction was voluntary coming from the students it will not violate their right either. 4) The right ethics is unlike utilitarianism, since it focusses more on doing the right thing instead of concentrating on the result it self.
Right ethics helps us understand our rights and duties in the world we live in by balancing our needs with those of the community. However, Utilitarianism believes that the most ethical thing to do is to increase the happiness in a society. Comparing those two theories, I personally consider utilitarianism is more convincing in the light of our own moral understanding, just because I believe that actions have more accountable outcomes, and that ethical choices have outcomes that leads to the happiness of most society members.