HUM103

Weekly Reflection 4

1:

I do not agree with this view for multiple reasons. Firstly, we have to realize that historically,

there have been many tribes that have lived without the structure similar to a modern-day

governing state. These tribes lived a life close to nature and integrated the state nature into their

every-day lives. I think that it is a bit narrow to assume human beings as naturally corrupted.

This brings me to my next point which is that of the state of today’s society. Majority of the

societies today adhere to a system where they give up their power to the governing start in hopes

of security. But this lack of autonomy does not necessarily ensure safety or privilege. In fact, it

should be a cause of concern that there are still so many conflicts going on in the world even

though it is away from nature. To conclude, I do not agree with Thomas Hobbes on this topic.

2:

John Stuart Mill saw pleasure as the ultimate and main factor behind the well-being of every

human being. He believed that if there is pleasure in life then a person will be happy and live a

good life. He put pain as the direct opposition to pleasure and believed that it was the bane of

one’s existence. He concluded that happiness was the true essence of life and that it was

pleasure: the complete absence of and freedom from pain.

Act Utilitarianism is a belief that thinks an action as morally correct when it makes the greatest

number of good come into reality for the highest possible number of people. So, it judges the

moral of an action with attention to the final outcomes. But Rule Utilitarianism is different from

this as it believes that the moral correctness of an action does not depend on the results itself but

rather on the moral correctness of the rules that are integrated in producing the results. So, even

if there were really good results from an action, it will dissect the moral correctness of the rules

behind the action.