Absolute Moral Rules - 1954 Words | Bartleby

padding-top-2"> Absolute Moral Rules One may believe that an absolute rule against killing humans is essential because killing is always evil and inhumane. Others believe that there are great exceptions to killing humans, such as self-defense, that need to be taken into account when making an absolute rule about killing humans. If someone tries to kill your family member or tries to kill you, should you stand there and die because you do not want to violate the absolute rule, even if your reason behind breaking the rule brings about more happiness and outweighs the consequences of breaking the rule? Immanuel Kant believes that good will, what he sees to be the ultimate intrinsic good, along with following the categorical imperative determine whether show more content Kant argues that the right action is one that follows the categorical imperative, in this case, abiding by the moral rule not to kill anyone. Kant believes that no matter the circumstance, if humans violate the categorical imperative, and there are bad consequences, they are responsible for these consequences. If humans act under the categorical imperative and there are still bad consequences, they are not responsible because they abide by their duty- to follow the exceptionless moral rule. The only way to violate the moral rule is if the individual breaking the rule creates a new maxim, in which, for instance, it is always permissible to kill under self-defense. The issue with this new absolute rule is that by saying humans can kill in self-defense are the intentions of the humans good-willed or are their intentions faulty? Also, is killing under self-defense really going to bring about a new universal maxim in which everyone can kill under self-defen se, no matter the circumstance? It would be impossible to create this self-defense universal maim because creating this new maxim would just bring about new exceptions within that rule. Utilitarians, on the other hand, go against Kant’s idea that there should be absolute moral rules. They believe that moral rules should be followed if the consequence for one’s action brings about the most happiness and the least amount of pain. In Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill The War Of The World War I - 1593 Words | Bartleby padding-top-2"> An advocate can be defined as a person who pleads on another’s behalf. Advocates are important in today 's society as they provide representation for the disadvantaged and foster a sense of hope for change in the world. During his life Wilfred Owen, the famous war poet, lived under many titles: he was a son, a brother, a student, a teacher, a fighter, an inpatient, a war poet and most importantly, an advocate. This essay addresses his most eminent poems, contrasting the ways in which war was promoted versus the true reality of war, as well as the ways in which Owen gave a voice to the men dying in futile war. Volunteer recruitment and conscription for World War 1 began in 1914 and continued until 1918, when World War 1 came to an end. Historically, war was portrayed as being heroic, and in some senses, adventurous. Boys as young as 16 falsified their age in order to fight, 18 year old men joined with parental permission, and 21 year old men joined on their own terms. Word of mouth, pressure from society, as well as Australian war promotion slogans such as â€Å"Boys, come over here, you’re wanted!† and "Get into khaki, we’re doing our bit!† acted as bait to lure young men into battle. The naive, selfless nature of these young fighters was constantly taken advantage of. They were not told about the trenches, the lack of food, the bone chilling cold, the shrapnel, the shell-shock or the dull ache of missing loved ones that would be ever-present in their chests. Owen, like many