Mohammad Fasiul Abedin Khan

22121092

Section 17

Section I - Question 1

According to Immanuel Kant, as opposed to being a theory about maximizing our happiness,

ethics is about improving our chances of experiencing joy. Deontology is a branch of moral

philosophy that focuses on duty or moral obligation. It is based on the idea that specific

actions are morally right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. Extreme deontologist

Kant was unwavering in his conviction that intentions matter more than outcomes. When

someone does something that improves the lives of those around them and their own, we call

that a good deed. Certain behaviors are expected of all reasonable people, while others are

not.

Duty, or the sense of moral responsibility, is the central concern of deontology, a branch of

ethics. It holds that certain deeds are always evil or good, no matter the circumstances.

Deontologists think you have to obey a set of moral rules even if doing so would have

negative consequences. Instead of looking at the outcomes of an activity, deontologists focus

on whether or not it is in line with a moral code or obligation. In accordance with

deontological thought, for instance, it is always wrong to lie, whether doing so results in

positive or negative outcomes. This is because, in the eyes of deontologists, being truthful is

an absolute need of morality. Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes duty above all

else, contrasting with consequentialism. According to consequentialists, the moral worth of

an action is established not by whether or not it adheres to a predefined code of ethics but

rather by the effects it has on other people and society as a whole.

Kant distinguished between "good without qualification" and "qualified good" in his critique

of the Aristotelian concept of "intrinsic and instrumental good." According to Aristotle, an

intrinsic good is good in and of itself, whereas an instrumental good is good only as a means

to achieve some other end. Kant rejected this distinction, arguing that all things considered

"good" are ultimately qualified goods because they are valuable only as means to some end.

In contrast, Kant believed that the only thing that is truly good without qualification is

goodwill, which is the desire to act in accordance with moral principles. For example,

according to Aristotle, happiness is an intrinsic good because it is good in and of itself.

However, Kant would argue that happiness is not good without qualification because it is not

under our control and may be obtained through immoral means. Instead, Kant would say that

goodwill is the only thing that is truly good without qualification because it is something we

have complete control over and is not dependent on external circumstances. Another example

might be wealth. According to Aristotle, wealth is an instrumental good because it is valuable

only to achieve other ends, such as security, comfort, and power. However, Kant would argue

that wealth is not good without qualification because it may be obtained through dishonest or

unethical means and is not under our direct control. In contrast, goodwill is truly good

without qualification because it is a virtue that we have complete control over and is not

dependent on external circumstances.

In Kantian ethics, "goodwill" refers to a person's desire to act in accordance with moral

principles without any selfish or ulterior motives. It is considered a "good without

qualification" because it is good in and of itself, regardless of the consequences of the actions

it prompts. Kant believed that goodwill is the only thing that is truly good and worthy of

moral worth. He argued that other things, such as happiness, intelligence, and wealth, may be

desirable, but they are not inherently good because they are not under our direct control and
may be obtained through immoral means. In contrast, goodwill is something we have

complete control over and is not dependent on external circumstances. According to Kant,

goodwill is central to his duty ethics because it is the foundation of moral behavior. In order

to act morally, we must act out of a sense of duty and commitment to moral principles rather

than for personal gain or self-interest. Goodwill motivates us to fulfill our moral duties and

do what is right, even when it may be difficult or unpopular. An example of goodwill in

action might be a person who volunteers their time to help others without expecting anything

in return. They are motivated by a desire to do good and positively impact the world rather

than by a desire for personal gain or recognition. This selfless action is an expression of

goodwill and is seen as morally praiseworthy in Kantian ethics.

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher born and lived his entire life in Königsberg, East

Prussia. During Europe's Age of Enlightenment, he significantly influenced current

philosophy and was a prominent thinker. Kant's books are so difficult to read and grasp that

one is practically required to be a philosophy expert to read and understand them. He was a

professor at the University of Königsberg for his entire career. Due to this, he is

acknowledged as an extreme deontologist, and his works are generally referred to as Kantian

Deontology. A sensible individual upholds some moral obligations. Some moral laws

mandate these moral responsibilities. To be righteous, it is one's duty to perform these

actions. In line with the law, an imperative is a command that must be complied with.

Therefore, Immanuel Kant's philosophy has two distinct types of imperative: hypothetical

and categorical.

The term "imperative" describes an order or a direction that specifies an action that one must

do. There are two kinds of imperatives in Kantian ethics: hypothetical and categorical. The
term "hypothetical imperative" refers to a conditional order to achieve a particular result.

Ultimately, it teaches us the steps to reach a predetermined goal. Such advice can go like this,

"If you want to do well on your examinations, you need to study." Specifically, the directive

to study is conditional on achieving specific test results. On the other hand, a categorical

imperative is an absolute order that holds true for all rational creatures regardless of their

motivations. This moral ideal must be upheld for no other reason than that it is the proper

thing to do. "Act solely according to that maxim by which you may at the same time wish

that it should become a universal rule," Kant said in his famous categorical imperative. Take

the cardinal rule "Do not lie" as an example. This rule is for all reasonable creatures to

follow, regardless of their ultimate aims. It's the correct thing to do. Hence it's a moral value

that must be upheld. On the other hand, the hypothetical imperative, "If you want to avoid

getting into trouble, do not lie," depends on the premise that difficulty avoidance is the

desired outcome. Because it rests on the idea that all rational beings have intrinsic value and

dignity, Kant argued that the categorical imperative is the basis of moral action. It is a moral

concept that must be upheld because it is the right thing to do, regardless of the cost or the

actor's motives.

Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative is: "Act only according to that maxim

by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This

formulation is intended to provide a test for determining whether an action is morally

permissible. According to Kant, for an action to be morally permissible, it must be possible

that the maxim (principle) behind the action be made into a universal law, meaning that it

should apply to all rational beings in similar circumstances. For example, consider the action

of stealing. If we were to formulate the maxim behind this action as "It is okay to take

something that belongs to someone else if you really need it or if you can get away with it," it
would not be possible to will this maxim to be made into a universal law. If everyone were to

act according to this maxim, society would break down, as people would constantly be

stealing from each other. Therefore, Kant would argue that stealing is not morally permissible

according to the first formulation of the categorical imperative. On the other hand, consider

the action of helping someone in need. If we were to formulate the maxim behind this action

as "It is good to help those in need," it would be possible to will that this maxim is made into

a universal law. If everyone acted according to this maxim, society would be more

compassionate and caring. Therefore, Kant would argue that helping those in need is morally

permissible according to the first formulation of the categorical imperative. This formulation

of the categorical imperative emphasizes the importance of moral principles and all rational

beings' inherent worth and dignity. It suggests that actions should be guided by principles that

respect the autonomy and dignity of others rather than by self-interest or personal gain.

In Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy, a perfect duty is a moral obligation that must be

fulfilled under all circumstances, while an imperfect duty is a moral obligation that may be

fulfilled in various ways depending on the circumstances. Perfect duties are necessary for

preserving human life or maintaining moral order, such as the duty not to lie or not to cause

unnecessary harm to others. These duties are considered absolute and cannot be traded

against other moral considerations. Imperfect duties, on the other hand, are not necessary for

preserving human life or maintaining the moral order but are still considered essential for

moral behavior. Examples of imperfect duties include cultivating one's talents, help others in

need, and promoting the general welfare. These duties are considered relative, meaning they

may be fulfilled in various ways depending on the specific circumstances. For example, the

duty not to lie is a perfect duty because it is necessary to maintain trust and preserve the

moral order. Lying is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. On the other hand, the
duty to help others in need is imperfect because it is not necessary for preserving human life

or maintaining the moral order. However, it is still considered an important moral obligation.

The specific way this duty is fulfilled may vary depending on the circumstances and the

available resources.

Immanuel Kant's moral test, also known as the Categorical Imperative, is a framework for

evaluating the moral worth of actions. It consists of four formulations: the first formulation,

also known as the "Formula of Universal Law," states that one should act only in accordance

with a maxim (a principle or rule of action) that one can will to be a universal law. In other

words, one should act in a way that the principle or rule of action behind their action could be

applied universally without contradiction. With respect to wasting food, one could apply the

first formulation of the categorical imperative to determine whether it is a violation of a

perfect or imperfect duty. If one were to waste food, they would be acting in accordance with

the maxim "It is okay to waste food." If this maxim were to be universalized, it would imply

that it is acceptable for everyone to waste food. However, this would lead to a contradiction,

as it is not possible for everyone to waste food and for there to be enough food for everyone.

Therefore, wasting food would constitute a violation of a perfect duty, which is a moral

obligation that must always be fulfilled.

For example, imagine that you are at a buffet and you take more food than you can eat. If you

were to waste the excess food, you would be acting in accordance with the maxim "It is okay

to waste food." However, if this maxim were universalized, it would lead to a contradiction,

as it would not be possible for everyone to waste food and for there to be enough food for

everyone. Therefore, wasting food in this situation would be a violation of a perfect duty. On

the other hand, if one were to waste food but had no alternative options available, they may

be acting in accordance with the imperfect duty of self-preservation. Imperfect duties are
moral obligations that may not always be fulfilled in a given situation, but should be fulfilled

when possible. In this case, the imperfect duty of self-preservation could justify wasting food

if there are no other options for preserving one's own life. For example, imagine that you are

stranded in a desert with little food and water. If you were to waste some of the food to

preserve your own life, you would be acting in accordance with the imperfect duty of self-

preservation. In this case, wasting food would not violate a perfect or imperfect duty, as it is

necessary for survival. Overall, whether wasting food constitutes a violation of a perfect or

imperfect duty will depend on the specific circumstances and the motivations behind the

action.

Overall, deontology is a valuable moral theory that provides a clear and consistent framework

for moral behavior and decision-making. It emphasizes the importance of moral duty and

rules and provides a valuable way to think about moral problems and dilemmas. However,

like any moral theory, it is not without its limitations, and it is essential to consider its

strengths and weaknesses when applying it to real-world situations.

References

● Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2007, November 21). Deontological Ethics (Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

● Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2011). Cengage Advantage Books: Ethics: Discovering

Right and Wrong. Cengage Learning.

● Weijers, D., & Moore, A. (2013, October 17). Hedonism (Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/
 ● Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.). (2012). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Wiley.

● Velasquez, M. (2011). Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Wadsworth/Cengage

Learning.

Section II - Question 3

The essence of a noble spirit, according to Friedrich Nietzsche, is egoism. Instead of

emphasizing a person's traits, the contemporary ethical consequentialist approach stresses the

action's positive or negative consequences. Egoism is a strategy that disregards the moral

implications of its activities. Egoists are those who adhere to and practice egoism as an

ethical philosophy. As with every other philosophical doctrine, egoism has its proponents and

opponents.

Is our every action motivated by self-interest? As a philosophical ideology, egoism asserts

that a person's pursuit of pleasure and contentment is limited to their interests. The finest

illustration of this is the conduct of our elected officials. Politicians assist the public by giving

the impression that they serve the public's best interests, but this is not the case. Instead, they

are motivated by self-interest. They are assisting the populace for the populace to elect them;

hence, they will exert power. The attitude of a student is another example. Suppose a student

prepared for an exam, arrived in the test room, and found the paper more difficult than he had

anticipated. Now, to succeed on the test, he must cheat. If this person's perspective on the

situation is egotistical, he will cheat on the test to get the grade he needs. If egoism becomes

the central concept driving ethical systems, it will serve individual interests more than

morality. There are several sorts of egoism, but moral philosophers are most interested in
psychological and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism is a theory of how humans act, while

ethical egoism is a view of how they should behave.

Defining "self-interest" is essential to understand every kind of egoism. Psychological egoism

is the theory that all human actions are ultimately motivated by self-interest. This means that,

at the root of every action, people are motivated by their own desires and goals, rather than

by a desire to help others or act in a moral way. For example, a person who donates money to

charity may do so because it makes them feel good about themselves, rather than because

they genuinely care about the well-being of the recipients. Similarly, a person who helps a

friend in need may do so because they expect to receive something in return, rather than out

of a genuine desire to be of assistance. On the other hand, ethical egoism is the belief that it is

morally right for individuals to act in their own self-interest. According to this perspective,

people should always act in a way that maximizes their own happiness or well-being, even if

it means disregarding the interests of others. For example, an ethical egoist might argue that it

is perfectly acceptable for a person to lie in order to get ahead in their career, as long as it

benefits them personally. Similarly, an ethical egoist might justify cheating on a test as long

as it helps them get a better grade. Both psychological and ethical egoism are controversial

theories, as they can be seen as being at odds with the values of compassion, empathy, and

concern for the well-being of others. Nevertheless, many people believe that it is important to

consider the needs and interests of others in our actions and that it is morally wrong to act

solely in our self-interest at the expense of others.

There are some key differences between psychological egoism and ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism is a descriptive theory that describes how people actually behave,
while ethical egoism is a prescriptive theory that tells people how they ought to behave.

Psychological egoism is based on the idea that people are motivated by self-interest, while

ethical egoism is based on the idea that self-interest is morally good. Finally, psychological

egoism is a controversial theory that is not widely accepted by psychologists or philosophers,

while ethical egoism is a more widely accepted moral theory, although it is also the subject of

much debate and disagreement.

The word hedonism is derived from an ancient Greek word that means pleasure. According to

hedonism, only happiness has value, while pain or dissatisfaction has the opposite of value.

Jeremy Bentham supported psychological and ethical hedonism in the first two sentences of

his work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Pain and pleasure are

the two masters that nature has placed humankind under. They are responsible for advising

what we should do and deciding what we shall do. The debate about hedonism existed for

centuries before Bentham's birth and continued after his death. Some ethicists think that

while determining the morality of an activity, we should evaluate the positive and negative

outcomes for ourselves. The term for these ethicists is the egoist. Many egoists are hedonists;

for instance, the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus maintained that individuals should live

to provide as much pleasure as possible for themselves. However, two things need emphasis.

First, it is vital to comprehend the hedonist's definition of "pleasure." Second, not all egoists

are hedonists to the extreme.

Egoism and hedonism are two distinct philosophical theories that pertain to how individuals

should act and what they should pursue in life. While there is some overlap between the two

theories, they are not the same thing. Egoism is the belief that people should act in their own
self-interest, regardless of the consequences for others. Psychological egoism is the theory

that all human actions are ultimately motivated by self-interest, while ethical egoism is the

belief that it is morally right for individuals to act in their own self-interest. Hedonism is the

belief that pleasure and happiness are the most important goals in life, and that people should

strive to maximize their own pleasure and minimize their suffering. There are two types of

hedonism: psychological hedonism, which asserts that pleasure is the only thing that people

truly desire, and ethical hedonism, which holds that pleasure is the highest moral good.

It is important to note that not all egoists are hedonists, and not all hedonists are egoists.

Egoism focuses on self-interest, while hedonism focuses on pleasure and happiness. It is

possible for a person to be an egoist without being a hedonist, or vice versa. For example, a

person who is an egoist may prioritize their own career advancement over the well-being of

others, even if it does not bring them pleasure. On the other hand, a person who is a hedonist

may prioritize their own pleasure and happiness, even if it means acting in a way that is not in

their own self-interest.In contrast, it is also possible for a person to be both an egoist and a

hedonist. For example, a person who values their own happiness and pleasure and pursues

them aggressively, while also prioritizing their own self-interest, could be considered both an

egoist and a hedonist.

One main criticism of ethical egoism is that it is selfish and lacks concern for the well-being

of others. Ethical egoism holds that it is always morally right to act in one's self-interest and

that people should pursue their well-being and happiness above all else. This can be seen as a

selfish and self-centered approach to ethics, as it puts the interests of the individual above the

interests of others. For example, suppose that a person is faced with a moral dilemma: they

can either help a stranger in need or pursue their interests. According to ethical egoism,

people should choose to pursue their interests because acting in their self-interest is the
highest moral good. However, this decision might be seen as lacking in compassion and

concern for the stranger's well-being and might be criticized as selfish and self-centered.

Another criticism of ethical egoism is that it can lead to conflict and social disharmony. If

everyone were to act in their self-interest at all times, it could lead to a situation in which

everyone is competing with each other and trying to advance their interests at the expense of

others. This could lead to a breakdown of social cooperation and harmony, as people are

more focused on their own goals and less concerned about the well-being of others. Ethical

egoism is a controversial moral theory subject to much debate and criticism. While it is based

on the idea that acting in one's self-interest is the highest moral good, it is often seen as

lacking in compassion and concern for the well-being of others, and it can lead to conflict and

social disharmony if taken to an extreme. These reasons suggest that ethical egoism cannot be

considered an ethical standard.

Egoism, or the belief that the pursuit of one's self-interest is the primary motivation for

human action, plays a central role in Thomas Hobbes' social contract theory. According to

Hobbes, individuals in the state of nature are driven by self-interest and constantly in conflict

with one another. To escape this state of war and establish a more peaceful and orderly

society, Hobbes argued that individuals must enter into a social contract with one another,

giving up their natural rights and submitting to a sovereign's authority. In Hobbes' view,

individuals enter into the social contract not out of a sense of altruism or concern for the

welfare of others but rather because they believe it is in their self-interest to do so. By giving

up their natural rights and submitting to the sovereign's authority, individuals can gain

protection and security, as the sovereign is responsible for maintaining order and resolving

disputes. In this way, egoism is a driving force behind the formation of the social contract, as

individuals seek to escape the state of war and improve their well-being by entering into the
contract. For example, consider a group of people living in a state of nature constantly in

conflict with one another. Individuals are driven by self-interest and may engage in violence

or other forms of aggression to get what they want. To escape this state of war and establish a

more peaceful and orderly society, the individuals in this group may decide to enter into a

social contract with one another and create a government that will establish laws and enforces

them. By giving up some of their freedom and submitting to the government's authority, the

individuals in this group can gain protection and security, as the government is responsible

for maintaining order and resolving disputes. In this way, egoism plays a role in forming the

social contract, as individuals seek to improve their well-being by escaping the state of war

and establishing a government that will provide protection and security.

In Thomas Hobbes's social contract theory, the state of nature is characterized as a "state of

war," in which there is no central authority to enforce laws and maintain order. Hobbes felt

humans are greedy and self-interested, causing continual conflict and insecurity. An example

of how the state of nature can turn into a social contract theory might be a group of

individuals living in a state of nature who are constantly in conflict over resources and

territory. In order to escape this state of constant conflict, they might enter into a social

contract in which they agree to give up some of their freedom in exchange for the protection

and security provided by the state. In this scenario, the individuals are motivated by egoistic

self-interest, as they give up some of their freedom to gain the benefits of living in a society

protected by the state. Hobbes would argue that the state serves the self-interest of its citizens

by protecting their rights and promoting the common good, which ultimately benefits all

members of society. Hobbes's social contract theory is based on the idea that the state of

nature is a "state of war," in which individuals are motivated by egoistic self-interest to

escape the chaos and insecurity of the state of nature by forming a social contract and
establishing a state. In turn, the state serves its citizens' self-interest by providing security and

protecting their rights. This example illustrates how the state of nature can turn into a social

contract theory as individuals come together and form a state in order to achieve security and

order.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were influential philosophers who developed social contract

theories in the seventeenth century. These theories concerned the nature of government and

the relationship between individuals and the state. Locke's social contract theory is based on

the idea that individuals have natural rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property.

In order to protect these rights, people form governments. According to Locke, the purpose of

government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens. Locke believed that people have a

right to revolt against a government that fails to fulfill its purpose of protecting natural rights.

He argued that the government is only legitimate if it has the consent of the governed. In

contrast, Hobbes' social contract theory is based on the idea that individuals give up their

natural rights in exchange for the protection and security provided by the state. Hobbes

argued that people are naturally selfish and violent and that the only way to ensure peace and

stability is for people to give up their rights and submit to the absolute authority of the state.

One key difference between the two theories is that Locke's theory is based on the idea of

natural rights, while Hobbes' theory is based on absolute authority. Another difference is that

Locke believed in the right to revolt against an oppressive government, while Hobbes argued

that people should submit to the state's authority no matter what. An example of the

difference between these two theories can be seen in how they approach taxation. Under

Locke's theory, the government is responsible for using tax revenue to protect the natural

rights of its citizens. If the government fails to fulfill this responsibility, the people have the
right to revolt. In contrast, under Hobbes' theory, the government has absolute authority to

collect taxes, and the people have no right to question or challenge this authority.

John Locke was critical of Thomas Hobbes' social contract theory, particularly Hobbes' belief

in the absolute authority of the sovereign. Locke argued that Hobbes' theory would lead to a

tyrannical government, as the sovereign would have unlimited power and the people would

have no way to hold the government accountable. Locke also disagreed with Hobbes' view of

the state of nature, which Hobbes described as a state of war in which individuals constantly

conflict. Instead, Locke argued that the state of nature is not a state of war but rather a state of

freedom and equality in which individuals have the right to defend their own lives and

property. Additionally, Locke argued that Hobbes' social contract theory failed to account for

the role of consent in creating a government. According to Locke, individuals must freely

consent to the social contract, and the government is established due to the contract. This

means that the government must be based on the consent of the governed rather than on the

absolute authority of the sovereign. Overall, Locke's critique of Hobbes' social contract

theory was that it was too authoritarian and did not adequately protect the natural rights of

individuals. So instead, Locke proposed his social contract theory, emphasizing the

importance of consent and the protection of natural rights.

I believe egoism plays a vital role in our life. Most of us are motivated by egoism. And as we

all are motivated by self-interest, there is a place for conflicts. And to establish a peaceful

society, I believe in the absolute authority of the sovereign proposed by Thomas Hobbes. So

if the decision-making are given to the mass, then everyone will try to think of themselves,

which will result in anarchy. In contrast, if one individual or group has the decision-making

power, there will be no chaos. Locke criticized the idea of Hobbes, saying that there is no
space for consent and protection of the natural rights of individuals, but still, Hobbes's theory

is superior because of egoism. Because most people do not think about the more extensive

group of people, instead, they think of themselves. So if a sovereign is given absolute

authority, then though they will be motivated by egoism in this way, social harmony can be

maintained.

To summarize, egoism is a philosophy that promotes self-love and provides guidance on how

to pursue and maintain our self-interest. This is in contrast to the contemporary ethical

consequentialist approach, which focuses on the consequences of actions rather than personal

traits. Egoism can be seen in the actions of politicians and students motivated by their own

goals rather than the greater good. And from egoism we get the idea of social contract theory

from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Ultimately, egoism as a philosophy raises important

questions about the nature of human motivation and the role of self-interest in ethical

decision-making. In essence, adopting an egoistic ideology allows us to cultivate and enhance

our most positive and developed personal traits, as it focuses on pursuing and advancing our

self-interest.

References

● Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2011). Cengage Advantage Books: Ethics: Discovering

Right and Wrong. Cengage Learning.

● Shafer-Landau, R. (Ed.). (2012). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Wiley.

 ● Shaver, R. (2002, November 4). Egoism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/

● Velasquez, M. (2011). Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Wadsworth/Cengage

Learning.

● Weijers, D., & Moore, A. (2013, October 17). Hedonism (Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/

● Gert, B. (1967). Hobbes and Psychological Egoism. Journal of the History of Ideas,

28(4), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708526

● Tyler, C. (2017). Jeremy Bentham on Open Government and Privacy. Journal of

Information Ethics, 26(1), 112.

Section III Question 5

Faiz Ahmed Taiyeb argues that in Bangladesh, the concept of "development" has become

more about tangible, visible projects that are intended to boost GDP growth, such as large

infrastructure projects like the Padma Bridge and the Dhaka Metro Rail. However, these

projects may only sometimes lead to real improvements in people's lives or address issues

like wealth inequality, rising costs of living, and poor working conditions and wages in the

informal job market. Taiyeb suggests that the current development model in Bangladesh must

adequately address the needs and suffering of ordinary people and may fail to deliver on its

promised benefits over time.

Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher and social reformer believed that pleasure and pain were the

ultimate drivers of human behavior and that people should strive to maximize pleasure and

minimize pain. He developed the concept of "utilitarianism," which holds that the moral

value of an action should be determined by its ability to promote the greatest happiness for
the most significant number of people. Bentham believed this could be quantified and

measured through a calculation of pleasure versus pain, known as the "hedonic calculus." On

the other hand, John Stuart Mill, another philosopher, and reformer, argued that not all

pleasures are created equal and that some pleasures are of a higher quality than others. He

believed that "higher" pleasures, such as those derived from intellectual pursuits, were

superior to "lower" pleasures derived from physical sensations. According to Mill, people

should strive to maximize higher pleasures and minimize lower pleasures to achieve the most

significant overall happiness.

In the context of the mega project idea, Bentham's utilitarianism might be used to argue that

these projects are justified if they promote the greatest happiness for the most significant

number of people, even if they also cause some level of pain or sacrifice for a minority of

people. Mill's concept of higher pleasure versus lower pleasure, on the other hand, might be

used to argue that these projects should be evaluated in terms of the long-term, intangible

benefits they bring, such as improvements in education, health, and social well-being, rather

than just the short-term, tangible benefits they bring in terms of economic growth and GDP.

The categorical imperative is a moral principle proposed by philosopher Immanuel Kant. It

suggests that specific moral rules or duties are binding on all rational agents, regardless of

their particular desires or interests. According to Kant, the categorical imperative is derived

from the nature of reason itself and provides a way of evaluating the moral worth of actions

and policies. The "formula of universal law" is one formulation of the categorical imperative

that states that actions should be evaluated based on whether they can be willed as a universal

law, meaning that they should be capable of being followed consistently by all rational agents

without contradiction. This principle is often understood as a test of consistency: if an action

cannot be consistently willed as a universal law, it is not morally justified. The "formula of

autonomy" is another formulation of the categorical imperative that states that actions should

be evaluated based on whether they respect the autonomy or dignity of other rational agents.

This principle suggests that all rational agents should be treated as ends rather than simply as

a means to an end.

Given these principles, a Kantian might react to Bangladesh's mega projects in several ways.

The projects can violate the autonomy or dignity of some groups of people (e.g., through

environmental destruction or displacement). In that case, a Kantian might argue that they are

not morally justified. On the other hand, if the projects are seen as promoting the common

good or the well-being of the majority of people, then a Kantian might argue that they are

morally justified, provided that they do not violate the autonomy or dignity of anyone else.

Ethical egoism is a philosophical theory suggesting that the primary moral rule is to act in

self-interest. According to ethical egoism, actions that promote one's well-being or happiness

are morally right, while actions that do not promote one's well-being are morally wrong.

Ethical egoism is based on the idea that individuals are motivated primarily by self-interest

and should act in ways that maximize their pleasure or happiness. Ethical egoists may argue

that this is a natural and rational way to act and that it is ultimately in the best interests of

society as a whole, as it encourages individuals to pursue their own goals and interests, which

may lead to greater overall prosperity and happiness.

From the perspective of ethical egoism, the citizens of Bangladesh might be motivated to

support the mega projects if they believe that the projects are likely to benefit them

personally, regardless of the impact on anyone else. Suppose the projects are likely to create
jobs or economic opportunities for citizens. In that case, they might be motivated to support

the projects, even if they produce negative consequences for others or the environment.

I agree with the argument of government. Here from the Kantian perspective, the

government's arguments seem more acceptable. Because from the formula of universalism,

the projects are universal as these projects are necessary for the country's development. Again

from the formula of autonomy, these projects are justified as they are not harming the

autonomy of any individual. These projects are universal as they are how other countries

developed their GDP and other economic factors. These projects are universal as they can be

done again and again as they are crucial for the development of any country. And from the

formula of autonomy, these projects are justified as they are not harming any individual

rather they will create jobs for many. Therefore I agree with the argument of the government.