Yet the concept of justice means that a common agreement on what is ethical and what not, needs to be reached. So we could ask justice for what?
On 19 May, 10:46, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey there Utalitatrians..... I stand by Jon Rawls.... and He wasnt a > big fan of the geatest happiness of the greatest number > principle...but he was speaking from the Justice perspective.. > > On May 18, 2:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ahhh the mine field that is Ethics and Morality! > > > What is ethical must really be as Allan says what brings the greatest > > good. For the reatest number can of ourse be argued. Morality though > > well, that can only ever be personal so subjective as fish! > > > On 18 May, 02:24, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think it is a good way of examining the idea of ethics. > > > > It was started > > > by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) an Englishman who, in trying to reform > > > some of the unfair laws in England developed his theory that the > > > morally correct rule was the one that provided the greatest good to > > > the greatest number of people. > > > > I think that ethics should be based on the greatest good for the greatest > > > number of people. > > > and it should not ever abuse greatest number of people for the benefit of > > > the few. This it would seem to be the greatest source of today's problems > > > including those brought on by religion. > > > Allan > > > > -- > > > ( > > > ) > > > I_D Allan- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
