Justice and moral rights ppt hahahajakallapa

hahahahahahaha

1. JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS Presented by: Dela Torre, Tarah Shane D.

2. What is a right? Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward society’s pursuit for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a valid claim on society and are justified by utility. L A W

3. Right due to the price and the right to free speech or religion among others are justified because they contributed to the general goods. A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles in as much as they produce an overall happiness that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their implementation. L A W

4. Utilitarians argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because the category of rights is directly associated with the individual’s most vital interests. All of these rights are predicted on the person’s right to life.

5. Mill created a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points out that when legal rights are not morally justified in accordance to the greatest happiness principle, then these rights need neither be observed, nor respected.

6. Mill thinks that it is commended to endure legal punishments for acts of civil disobedience for the safe of promoting a higher moral good. At an instance of conflict between moral and legal rights, Mill points out that moral rights take precedence over legal rights.

7. John Stuart Mill thinks that educating children properly with appropriate laws and public opinion can prevent people from developing questionable and objectionable desire. Do you agree?

8. CHALLENGE Does utilitarianism sacrifice individual rights in favor of communal ones? Can the prospect of constructing a dam and benefiting millions or urban settlers tolerable at the expenses of indigenous claims to ancentral domains.

9. HARNESS John Stuart Mill denies that utilitarianism sacrifices individual rights. He thinks that the principle of utility is the very foundation and basis for the justification for protecting individual rights.

10. SUMMARY Bentham and Mill see moral good as pleasure, Not merely self gratification, but also the greatest happiness for the greatest number. We are compelled to do whatever increases pleasure and decreases pain to the most number of persons, counting as one and none as more than on. In determining the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, there is no distinction between Bentham and Mill.

11. Jeremy Bentham suggests his felicitfic calculus, a framework for quantifying moral valuation. Mill provides a criterion for comparative pleasures; he thinks that persons who experience two different types of pleasures generally prefer higher intellectual pleasures to base sensual ones.

12. Mill provides an adequate discourse on rights despite it being mistakenly argued to be the weakness of utilitarianism. He argues that rights are socially protected interests that are justified by their contribution to the greatest happiness principle.

13. However, he also claims that in extreme circumstances, respect for individual rights can be overridden to promote the better welfare especially in circumstances of conflict valuation.

14. Does anyone have any questions ? Please keep this slide for attribution Thanks!

15. This presentation has been made using the following fonts: Playfair Display ( https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Playfair+Display ) Barlow ( https://fonts.google.com/specimen/Barlow ) #7c1e1e #fcfcfc #080d3c #b6312f #878787 #ebc151 #d3a94c #976734 #c6c6c6 #634e42 Fonts & colors used