Natural Rights and Utilitarianism
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. 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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document