Mill suggests a test is used in order to determine this. He says that of two pleasures, if there is one that almost all, or all people who have experienced both pleasures decide to prefer, despite any feeling of moral obligation to prefer that pleasure, then that is the more desirable pleasure. Also, if one of the two pleasures is, by those who are well aquainted with both, places so far above the other pleasure, that they prefer it, even though it could come with feeling of discontent, and the person will not replace this pleasure with any other. (quality over quantity) The formulation of humanity is to "only act so that you use humanity, whether in yourself or another, as an end (in itself), and never merely as a means. (treating people as ones with feelings, not as a means where you use them)
While Kant agrees that a society could subsist if everyone did nothing, he notes that the man would have no pleasures to enjoy, for if everyone let their talents go to waste, there would be no one to create luxuries that created this theoretical situation in the first place. Not only that, but cultivating one's talents is a duty to oneself. Thus, it is not willed to make laziness universal, and as a part of humanity we have a duty to cultivate our talents, which cannot be, achieved through laziness/slothness.
Therefore, laziness is immoral because of the society it would create.
I think Kant's reasons are compelling because as humans we each have an underlying want to be the best we can be. Most people cannot live by being lazy/sloth as that would create an unproductive society where people cannot be happy as nothing would improve. As humans, we act in a way to improve ourselves and society, By being lazy, this cannot provide for this.
sitting on the couch, treating others as a mere means so that you can live this life style
using them to a means to your end of happiness
you're treating yourself as a mere means because you're treating yourself over humanity for your own happiness
The formula of universal law: only act in accordance with a maxim if you can at the same time will it as universal.
A maxim is a ground rule or subjective principle of action; in that sense, a maxim is a thought that can motivate individuals
in other words, it is an underlying, general rule to which we appeal when we perform actions. Furthermore, Kant's theory requires that it be subjective; that is, "it is the principle of a particular subject or agent" This means that a maxim does not hold objectively, as a law of nature would, but is determined by reason "in accordance with the conditions of the subject" that is acting on it.
The categorical imperative on this formulation cannot prohibit lying to escape embarrassment because you cannot make this a universal law. You will not be able to keep everyone in the world from lying because it cannot be regulated.
This would not allow anyone including yourself and others to lie to escape embarrassment. You cannot be the exception. It commands that every maxim you act on, that you are willing to allow everyone else to act in a similar situation. For example, if I wanted to lie everytime to escape embarrassment, I would have to be willing to make it so that everyone always lies to escape embarrassment- but if this were to happen, no one would ever believe you and you would never believe them therefore your lie would not prevent you from escaping embarrassment. So by willing that such a maxim (of lying to prevent embarrassment) to become a universal law, it would thwart your goal- thus it is impermissible to lie, according to the categorical imperative. It is impermissible because the only way to lie is to make an exception for yourself.
yes, happiness only has intrsinc value: the guy that only values money, he is not mistaken and sees that money has instrumental value; the guy that only wants to keep making money, mill says that money doesn't have intrinsic value, but when treating it like intrinsic value he is one step away from happiness; mill: money isn't a basic thing you need for happiness; money doesn't have intrinsic value, but mill says given his value by valuing money for it's own sake, he's doing this for his happiness. He gets happiness by the mere possess of money
it's part of happiness, it is included in happiness.
Williams: he is opposed. Consequentialism is weird. Actions should also have intrinsic value. Happiness is not mere. We take pleasure in actually doing.
Not valuable for the affects, but the process and happiness you get from doing the projects
Art, friendship, scientific discovery
Guy counting the blades of grass. No obvious,
Need to defend your response with arguments
john the fireman: what would Kant say, and what would you say.
Kant: if john is doing it out of benevolent inclination, it does not have moral worth.
Act only has moral worth if you do it for respect of the moral law.
His act doesn't have moral worth, doing things out of duty has more worth than benevolent inclination.
We are our rational selves.
It wasn't up to him, he just got lucky for being happy.
Praise the guy with duty because he is doing it for good will. And does have moral worth and praise.
You: miserable wretch. Kant needs to allow for someone moral worth, even if they do it by benevolent inclination as long as they have respect for the moral law.
It would be crazy to
A lot of people know what to do the right thing. Some people do the right thing, others still don't do the right thing.
Kant: formula of humanity, treat your humanity higher than others.
Treating others humanity as a mere means, to increase your happiness.
Treat them as a mere means to your own happiness.
Who should we praise more? If john number 2 more, then agree with kant. But why? Kant says, because he is struggling with this, but it's also because he's using his humanity (that has unconditional intrinsic value); only blame people for what they have control over (it wasn't up to john 1 that he woke up happy), only get praised for things that are under your control.
Epistemological: it is possible, but we can't know it. You seem to be doing it for the right reasons, but you actually get pleasure from it.
your own answer. And argue for it.
Step 1: the ultimate question.
Yes, he exposed. Was it a violation of our right to privacy? The case of us using google, are we waiving our right to privacy? Listening to phone calls is violation. Make distinguishings.
Yes, unjust and immoral. And look up an example. Do arguments by analogy: shouting coupling waves right to privacy to person outside. But if they record it, is that a violation?
Yes, violated. But it's justified for competing right to security. Violated right to privacry but outweight by the right of security.
Step 2: does it fit criteria for civil disobedience? Is it justified?
Civil Disobidience (acc to brownlee): Moral motive, intention to communication, publicity, non-violence, accepting consequence/punishment, illegality
- prospect of success
SEP on Civil Disobdience in reader
NOT CIVIL disobedience becuse if they break a law must accept that they may be arrested and have a duty to submit to punishment.
NOT A whistle-blower is one who reveals to the public wrongdoing, corruption or illegal behavior committed by those in authority, but who also cooperates with investigators as they work to ascertain the veracity of those allegations. Snowden had a chance to properly blow the whistle. He could have reported serious problems associated with the National Security Agency program to Congress under a process established by the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. The law would have provided Snowden legal protections and given Congress an opportunity to properly investigate the matter without jeopardizing national security.