According to Bellah, justice can be defined a total of three times. For starters, it is the meaning of education. Justice is educative in nature. Justice is responsible for the education of people for the common good of everybody. For example, when justice is ordained, people are educated on the benefits that it has altogether. Once these people are educated, then the education will then help in civilizing the entire world.
Bellah in his studies continues to state that, justice is also the formation of the common good. This means that it is responsible for forming something good. Whenever justice is practiced, the end result is something good. For example, when justice is served by taking people to court and making them pay their dues, then justice is formed (Bellah, 453).
He also referred to justice as what is good. To this meaning, it is doing the right thing. For example, when people are made to pay for their wrong doings, it is referred to as a good deed. There are many other ways that somebody can do a good thing.
All of these definitions are all related to one another. They all denotes similar thing generally. All of their meanings refer to doing something good. This goes to show that, justice is a good action and should be embraced all over and in the minds of people. Justice is educative, good and right. A country that practices justice in their system is a country whose citizens are extremely happy ((Bellah, 454)..
This notion of justice provides an environment that is conducive for people to live. When this is the case, then there will be peace in that particular country. Peace is a very invaluable necessity that is encouraged by nations worldwide. All countries need to collaborate and work together for the good of peace in their nations.
The views of Franklin and Whitman encapsulated the individualist strand of American life in a number of ways. For starters, Franklin was for the opinion that the success of an individual was their chance to move on ahead with their own initiative as well. The harder people worked, the more successful they will become. He also came up with a saying that said, ‘early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy and wise’ (Hospers 72).
However, according to Whitman, he was of the opinion that success had very little to do with materialistic gains. Instead, it focused on the acquisition of experience in the general field or area. This meant that a person had a strong life altogether. On that note, freedom was termed as the ability to express you against any form of constraints that may hinder a person to do their work (Hospers 73).
Utilitarian individualism differs from expressive individualism in a number of ways. In the utilitarian individualism, freedom is defined as the ability of a person to aggressively pursue their self-interests. At the end of the goo, the social goo would automatically be visible to the entire society. On the other hand, according to the expressive individualism, freedom is defined as the ability of a person to express self from any form of constraint. That is, they are to be free from bondage (Hospers 82).
Another notable difference between the two is that, in utilitarian individualism, success is thought of giving a chance to a person to go ahead with their own interests in life. That is, they pursue their own initiatives. On the other hand, according to expressive individualism success is not entirely associated with the acquisition of materialistic items. It is mainly focused on the need to live a life that is full of experiences (Hospers 90).
As human being, we are all directed by our morals. We are obligated to do what is right at all times. Moral rules and moral principles are created by society. It defines what is right from what is wrong. Humans are morally obligated to perform certain activities altogether. These include treating one another with the respect and dignity that each one of use deserves.
Relativism of moral rules, involves the process of putting across theories or aspects of truth to the morals that are being held by a person. Rules are made up by society as life moves on. They are some of the glitches that have been discovered in the moral composition of people. Culture dictates the kind of morals that we are going to have and how we are going to live by them. These rules once they are made, they are very relevant to the culture that is making them. This is because they are going to be unique in nature (Hospers 120).
On the other hand, relativity of moral principles is the manner in which human beings obey the moral principles that have been in existence since the dawn of humanity. These principles have been carried forward over the years. This makes them very relevant to culture and society at large, in the fact that they were created by their ancestors, and therefore they are obligated to follow them just as they are (Hospers 127).
If the rules are not followed by the members of the society or the specific culture, then it will be a violation of the authority of the elders of that culture. Some of the implications may include various forms of punishments. As for the principles of moral, the implications will not be as harsh as for the moral rules.
Ethical egoism can be divided into three broad categories. They include the following;
- Personal ethical egoism. This type of egoism only believes that I should base their actions on the basis of their own selfish interests. It however, does not refer to what motives that other people should act on.
- Individual ethical egoism. This egoism refers to the opinion that all people should base their actions on the need to serve an individual’s self-interests. It believes that egoism is only consistent to one particular person at a time.
- Universal ethical egoism. This is a doctrine which states that everybody to should pursue their own personal interests on their own.
A universal ethical egoist is a person who recognizes that there are other people within the same society and therefore, nobody should just follow they own interests. This person believes that everybody should follow their own individual interests on their own. Everybody should be independent enough and free from any form of obligation to others. This means that this person is not selfish in any way whatsoever. This is a very important virtue in any one person (Hospers 165).
On the other hand, an egotist is a term used to describe a person that is boastful in nature. That is, they are selfish and self-centered as well. They only think about themselves and never think of others within the society. This kind of person is not interested in knowing what is going on with other people. Instead, all they care about is selves.
Philosophers from around the world have been shooting down the concepts of ethical egoism. It displays a total of three different characters altogether. All of them differ with the manner in which they think and reason. According to Hosper, the patterns of life are what should define a person’s character and not their ego. He believed that this portrayed the wrong information about an individual. It believes that it is in the doctrine that one should never act contrary to their own self-interests. Egoism proposes that people think about others first and always satisfy the interests of others first before their own (Hospers, 207).
I feel that this is not a solid base for rejection. This is because; there is no harm in thinking about the interests or other people. Always putting ourselves first is portraying a selfish character within us. His rejection does not give any implications as to what will happen in the event that we think about others and not only about ourselves. Something that does not have any consequences is good. The reason for objecting also does not go into detail as to why it is happening.
Utilitarianism refers to a course of action whereby one only has a specific goal or objective. That is to ensure that the action being done to the other party is going to make them happy and sad. The primary objective is to maximise happiness and reduce suffering as much as possible. This applies in real life when one does a bad action that is meant to produce good results. It is termed as doing evil for the greater good of anybody. The concept behind it is very good. However, most people do not often understand exactly where it is coming from (Bellah 450).
It differs from ethical egoism, altruism and rule-egoism in a number of ways altogether. For the ethical egoism, it is different from utilitarianism because it believes that one’s actions should be directed at fulfilling their own self-interests. It believes that people should think about themselves first before thinking about others. Altruism is a concept that also talks about something similar to egoism. The same also applies to rule-egoist. These three concepts assume that the interests of an individual should be placed first before the interests of any other person. The people who have these qualities in them are all selfish in nature and cannot fit in the same society as the utilitarianism people (Bellah 462)..
Utilitarianism does not agree with these concepts. It believes in putting others before you. The spirit of selfishness is not entertained. It is for this reason that such people are very different from each other to an extent that they cannot mix if they are put in the same place. However, this spirit is more preferred as it promotes good governance among [people of the same society as well as promoting peace and understanding among them.
Works Cited
Bellah, Robert. Habits of the Heart Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in
American Life.page 400-500.
Hospers, John. Human Conduct pg.1-18, pg.71-126, pg.135-170, pg.205-267
