A theory of justice
نوشته شده توسط : Thomas

Now if we assume that we can determine a cardinal utility for each person, how can we establish a measure of interpersonal relations? A common solution is the zero-one rule: set the value of an individual's worst position to zero and his best position to one. This rule seems reasonable at the moment, but perhaps it expresses the idea that each person can only have one share at most in another way. However, there are other comparable symmetrical schemes, for example, assigning the value of the worst choice to zero and the value of the total number of utilities from the various choices to one. The two rules seem to be equally just, since the former starts from the equal maximum utility of each person, and the latter from the equal average utility of each person; but both may lead to different social decisions. Moreover, these programmes require virtually all people to have a similar capacity for satisfaction, which seems to be an extraordinary price to pay simply for prescribing an interpersonal measure. These rules clearly regulate the concept of welfare in a special way, because the general concept of welfare seems to allow for differences, that is, different interpretations of the concept of welfare will be equally, if not more,Theobromine Powder, common sense. For example, the zero-one rule means that when other conditions are equal, educating people to have few desires and be easy to satisfy can produce greater social utility, and these people generally have stronger demands. They are content with less welfare, which presumably brings them closer to the highest utility. If one cannot accept this result and still wishes to adhere to the utilitarian view,S Adenosyl Methionine, one must find other interpersonal measures. In addition, we should point out that although the Neumann-Morgenstern hypothesis holds that people do not like to take risks, that is, to participate in the actual process of taking risks, the resulting measure is still influenced by their attitude towards uncertainty, which is defined by the total probability distribution. Therefore, if this rule of utility is used in social decisions, then people's feelings about risk-taking will affect the welfare standards that should be greatly improved. Once again, we see the unintended moral consequences of agreements that dictate interpersonal comparisons. As before, the measure of utility is influenced by accidents that are random from a moral perspective. This situation is totally different from that pointed out by Kant when he explained the theory of justice as fairness, Quillaja Saponin ,Berberine Hydrochloride Factory, because according to Kant's explanation, the ideal is deeply rooted in the principles of this theory, which itself depends on the basic good necessary for interpersonal comparison. Therefore, it seems that the ambiguity of utilitarian principles can not be satisfactorily eliminated simply by a more precise measure of utilitarianism. On the contrary, if we look at the customary practices required for interpersonal comparisons, we can see that there are different ways of regulating these comparisons. However, these methods involve some apparently different assumptions and presumably have quite different results. Among these regulations and corresponding rules, which one conforms to the concept of justice is a moral issue. I think what this means is that interpersonal comparison is determined by value judgment. While the recognition of the utilitarian principle is clearly a matter of moral theory, it is less obvious that the method of measuring welfare raises similar problems. Since there is more than one method, the choice will depend on how the metric is used; that is, ethical considerations will ultimately be decisive. Maine's view of the general utilitarian assumption is quite appropriate here. He points out that these assumptions are quite clear once we realize that they are based only on a legislative code of conduct, and he points out that this is also Bentham's view. If this is a society with a large population and a fairly single population, and the legislation is a vigorous modern legislation, then the only principle that can guide large-scale legislation is the utilitarian principle. The necessity of ignoring the differences between people, even the differences between people that actually exist, produces the principle of treating all people equally, as well as the principle of similarity and margin. Of course, the customary practice of interpersonal comparison should also be judged in this way. Contract theory says that once we realize this, we will also realize that the idea of measuring and aggregating welfare is best abandoned altogether. From the point of view of its original status, it is not part of any practical concept of social justice. Much more desirable and at the same time much simpler to apply are these two principles of justice. All things considered, even from the particular point of view of a mixed conception of justice, there are reasons to choose the principle of difference, or the whole second principle, over the utilitarian principle. Section 50 The Principle of Perfection So far, I have said little about the principle of the highest good. But having just considered some hybrid ideas, I now intend to examine this notion. There are two different cases: in the first case, it is the sole principle of teleology, which guides the organization of society and stipulates the responsibilities and obligations of individuals in order to maximize the achievements of human excellence in art, science and culture. Obviously, the higher the requirement of this principle, the higher the ideal goal. Nietzsche's sometimes absolute emphasis on the careers of great figures such as Socrates and Goethe is extraordinary. He said in some places that human beings should continue to strive to produce great people. We strive for the highest model of human beings, that is,Heme Iron Polypeptide, to value our own lives. The second case is to be found, besides in the writings of some others, in the writings of Aristotle. The claims made in this case are much stronger. pioneer-biotech.com





:: بازدید از این مطلب : 56
|
امتیاز مطلب : 0
|
تعداد امتیازدهندگان : 0
|
مجموع امتیاز : 0
تاریخ انتشار : چهار شنبه 16 شهريور 1401 | نظرات ()
مطالب مرتبط با این پست
لیست
می توانید دیدگاه خود را بنویسید


نام
آدرس ایمیل
وب سایت/بلاگ
:) :( ;) :D
;)) :X :? :P
:* =(( :O };-
:B /:) =DD :S
-) :-(( :-| :-))
نظر خصوصی

 کد را وارد نمایید:

آپلود عکس دلخواه: