this is virtue according to Aristole

The Virtue according to Aristotle

Ethics is not merely a theoretical study for Aristotle. Unlike any intellectual capacity, virtues of character are dispositions to act in certain ways in response to similar situations, the habits of behaving in a certain way. Thus, good conduct arises from habits that in turn can only be acquired by repeated action and correction, making ethics an intensely practical discipline.

Each of the virtues is a state of being that naturally seeks its mean relative to us. According to Aristotle, the virtuous habit of action is always an intermediate state between the opposed vices of excess and deficiency: too much and too little are always wrong; the right kind of action always lies in the mean. Thus, for example: with respect to acting in the face of danger,
courage  is a mean between the excess of rashness and the deficiency of cowardice;
with respect to the enjoyment of pleasures, temperance  is a mean between the excess of intemperance and the deficiency of insensibility; with respect to spending money,
generosity is a mean between the excess of wastefulness and the deficiency of stinginess;
with respect to relations with strangers, being friendly is a mean between the excess of being ingratiating and the deficiency of being surly; and with respect to self-esteem, magnanimity  is a mean between the excess of vanity and the deficiency of pusillanimity. Notice that the application of this theory of virtue requires a great deal of flexibility: friendliness is closer to its excess than to its deficiency, while few human beings are naturally inclined to undervalue pleasure, so it is not unusual to overlook or ignore one of the extremes in each of these instances and simply to regard the virtue as the opposite of the other vice.

Although the analysis may be complicated or awkward in some instances, the general plan of Aristotle's ethical doctrine is clear: avoid extremes of all sorts and seek moderation in all things. Not bad advice, surely. Some version of this general approach dominated Western culture for many centuries.

 

 

 

APPLIED ETHICS QUESTION ANSWER

Abortion and Its Related Problems Looked at from the Points of View of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Movements; Critique their Position and Identify and Substantiate your Position?

 

Introduction

             The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" generally boil down to the question of whether the individual wants to see abortion banned, but there's more to the debate than that. Let's explore, briefly, what the central arguments are about

             Support for the legalization of abortion, called the pro-choice movement by its proponents, is a political movement encompassing the ethical view that a woman should have the legal right to stop the pregnancy. Abortion-rights advocates argue that whether or not to continue with a pregnancy is an inviolable personal choice, as it involves a woman's body, personal health, and future. They believe that both parents' and children's lives are better when abortions are legal, thus preventing women from going to desperate lengths to obtain illegal abortions. More broadly, abortion-rights advocates frame their beliefs in terms of individual liberty, reproductive freedom, and reproductive rights. There are three different positions, they are the most permissive, the least permissive and inter mediate position respectively.

The Most Permissive –Abortion is always Permissible

           This is the stand adopted by the pro-choice camp. They propose two standard arguments. They are the following sentences.

A.    Fetus does not have the rights guaranteed to ordinary citizens.eg. Right to life, right to bodily integrity among the rights, there is the right of the woman to control what happens in her body. She has the right to decide when and whether to become a mother. Given these rights, the unborn baby does not have any rights.consiquently, it is always permissible to have an abortion, and the decision is left to the woman.

B.     In certain cases, the most permissive position agrees that the fetus has some rights. However those rights are overruled by the rights of the woman. Accordingly, abortion is always morally permissible.

 

 The Least Permissive –Abortion is never permissive

               The position is adopted by the pro-life the fundamental assumption is the fetus either from the moment of conception or in any case, from an early stage of development which has the same right not to be killed that is possessed by any other human being. To say that someone is "pro-life" is to say that the person believes that the government has an obligation to preserve all human life, regardless of intent, viability, or quality-of-life concerns. In cases where the pro-life ethnic conflicts with personal autonomy, as in the case of abortion and assisted suicide, it is conservative. In cases where the pro-life ethnic conflicts with government policy, as in the case of the death penalty and war, it is liberal.

Intermediate Position

              This middle position uses parts of the arguments of previous positions. They argue that fetus does have the right not to be killed, but that right is weaker than the same right enjoyed by other human beings.therefore,incase of substantial need, the fetus right can be outweighed by others and thus abortion become morally permissible. Mostly they argue based on the consequences of abortions.

Point of Conflict

            The pro-life and pro-choice movements primarily come into conflict on the issue of abortion. The pro-life movement argues that even non-viable, undeveloped human life is sacred and must be protected by the government. Abortion, according to this model, must not be legal, nor should it be widely practiced on an illegal basis.

           The pro-choice movement argues that in cases where human personhood cannot be proven, e.g. in pregnancies prior to the point of viability, the government does not have the right to impede a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy.

Religion and the Sanctity of Life

If one believes in an immortal soul that is implanted at the moment of conception, and if personhood is determined by the presence of that immortal soul, then there is little difference, in effect, between terminating a week-old pregnancy or killing a living, breathing person. Rational members of the pro-life movement do acknowledge that there is a difference in intent--abortion would be, at worst, involuntary manslaughter rather than murder--but the consequences, i.e. the death of a human person, are regarded by pro-lifers in much the same way.

Opposition to the Legalization of Abortion

          Opposition to the legalization of abortion is centered on the pro-life or anti-abortion movement, a political movement opposing it on moral grounds and supporting its legal prohibition or restriction. Around the world, those involved in the pro-life movement generally maintain that the human fetus and in most cases the human embryo which is a person and therefore has a right to life. On the issue of abortion, "pro-life" advocates are opposed by "pro-choice" advocates who generally advocate legal abortion as an important facet of women's own decision. The "pro-life" concept is sometimes broadened to include positions on other issues, such as opposition to euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research. A major stated goal within the pro-life movement is to "restore legal protection to innocent human life.

Critique of these Positions

             Abortion is a 'front line' for the defense of women's reproductive rights because anti-abortion politics is a leading edge for a broader right-wing agenda. Meanwhile, worldwide, many women wish to limit or space births. Each year an estimated 22 per cent of all pregnancies are terminated by abortion. Anti-abortion advocates have used many strategies to restrict women's access to abortion, but their claim that abortion damages women's mental health has particular implications for feminist psychologists. If this claim is accurate, then we want to understand how such damage happens and work to ensure that women have access to prevention and treatment by qualified mental health providers. If this claim is inaccurate, then we have a responsibility to counter it, as 'silence is consent'. Because claims that choosing to have a legal abortion can damage women's mental health have not been substantiated in the scientific literature, pro-life advocates use cyberspace, which has no peer review, to get out their message. Abortion is constructed as a wrong and shameful act that leads to a psychological disorder labeled as 'post-abortion syndrome'. Women are told to expect 'anniversary reactions' and to 'admit their personal responsibility', to pray for others and recognize that 'they too acted out of ignorance, fear, or petty human selfishness'. The two main groups involved in the abortion analysis .they are the pro-choice movement, and the pro-life movement. Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position.

Arguments in Favor of the Right to Abortion

Bodily Rights

              Abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body .it would be permissible to "unplug" and thereby cause the death of the person who is using one's kidneys. So it is permissible to abort the fetus the one who has no right to use one's body against one's will. There are morally relevant disanalogies between abortion and the kidney failure scenario. For example, the fetus is the woman's child as opposed to a mere stranger; that abortion kills the fetus rather than merely letting it die and that in the case of pregnancy arising from voluntary intercourse. The woman has either tacitly consented to the fetus using her body or has a duty to allow it to use her body .since she herself is responsible for its need to use her body. Some writers defend the analogy against these objections. Arguing that the disanalogies are morally irrelevant or do not apply to abortion in the way critics have claimed. Not all women think abortion is cool for them, but all women have the right to make this choice.

Abortion is a simple medical procedure which ends a pregnancy. Throughout history, around the world, and in many religions, women have used abortion as a part of our healthcare. Other options for an unplanned pregnancy include adoption or keeping the child.

Conclusion

                   I would like to conclude with a few descriptions. Any reason we have for choosing abortion is a good reason. These are our bodies and our lives. No one has the right to force us to have a baby, or to punish us for liking sex. Support for the legalization of abortion, called the pro-choice movement by its proponents, is a political movement encompassing the view that a woman should have the legal right to terminate a pregnancy. Abortion-rights campaigners are opposed by anti-abortion campaigners who are also called pro-life campaigners who generally argue for the rights of fetuses. Many abortion-rights campaigners also say that anti-abortion activists oppose sex education and contraception, thus increasing the demand for abortion, and that abortion-rights activists, in contrast, support policies that decrease this demand.

                  I personally support that abortion rights which see abortion as a last resort and focus on a number of situations where they feel abortion is a necessary option. Among these situations are those where the woman was raped, her health or life is at risk, contraception was used but failed, the fetus has acute congenital disorder and defects, incest, one-child policy, or she feels unable to raise a child. So she has the every right to opt for the abortion whether she want or not. Moreover according to me abortion is permissible for such cases.

APPLIED ETHICS QUESTION

Abortion and Its Related Problems Looked at from the Points of View of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Movements; Critique their Position and Identify and Substantiate your Position.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" generally boil down to the question of whether the individual wants to see abortion banned, but there's more to the debate than that. Let's explore, briefly, what the central arguments are about

Support for the legalization of abortion, called the pro-choice movement by its proponents, is a movement encompassing the moral view that a woman should have the legal right to avoid the pregnency. Abortion-rights advocates argue that whether or not to continue with a pregnancy is an inviolable personal choice, as it involves a woman's body, personal health, and future. They believe that both parents' and children's lives are better when abortions are legal, thus preventing women from going to desperate lengths to obtain illegal abortions. More broadly, abortion-rights advocates frame their beliefs in terms of individual liberty, reproductive freedom, and reproductive rights. There are three different positions ,they are the most permissive , the least permissive and inter mediate position respectively.

THE MOST PERMISSIVE –ABORTION IS ALWAYS PERMISSIBLE

 This is the stand adopted by the pro-choice camp. They propose two standard arguments. They are the following sentences.

A.    Fetus does not have the rights guaranteed to ordinary citizens.eg. Right to life, right to bodily integrity among the rights, there is the right of the woman to control what happens in her body. She has the right to decide when and whether to become a mother. Given these rights, the unborn baby does not have any rights.consiquently,it is always permissible to have an abortion, and the decision is left to the woman.

B.     In certain cases, the most permissive position agrees that the fetus has some rights. However those rights are overruled by the rights of the woman. accordingly, abortion is always morally permissible.

 

 THE LEAST PERMISSIVE –ABORTION IS NEVER PERMISSIVE

The position is adopted by the pro-life the fundamental assumption is the fetus either from the moment of conception or in any case, from an early stage of development which has the same right not to be killed that is possessed by any other human being. To say that someone is "pro-life" is to say that the person believes that the government has an obligation to preserve all human life, regardless of intent, viability, or quality-of-life concerns. In cases where the pro-life ethnic conflicts with personal autonomy, as in the case of abortion and assisted suicide, it is conservative. In cases where the pro-life ethic conflicts with government policy, as in the case of the death penalty and war, it is liberal.

INTERMEDIATE POSITION

This middle position uses parts of the arguments of previous positions. They argue that fetus does have the right not to be killed, but that right is weaker than the same right enjoyed by other human beings.therefore,incase of substantial need, the fetus right can be outweighed by others and thus abortion become morally permissible. Mostly they argue based on the consequences of abortions.

POINT OF CONFLICT

The pro-life and pro-choice movements primarily come into conflict on the issue of abortion. The pro-life movement argues that even non-viable, undeveloped human life is sacred and must be protected by the government. Abortion, according to this model, must not be legal, nor should it be widely practiced on an illegal basis.

The pro-choice movement argues that in cases where human personhood cannot be proven, e.g. In pregnancies prior to the point of viability, the government does not have the right to impede a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy.

RELIGION AND THE SANCTITY OF LIFE

 

If one believes in an immortal soul that is implanted at the moment of conception, and if personhood is determined by the presence of that immortal soul, then there is little difference, in effect, between terminating a week-old pregnancy or killing a living, breathing person. Rational members of the pro-life movement do acknowledge that there is a difference in intent--abortion would be, at worst, involuntary manslaughter rather than murder--but the consequences, i.e. The death of a human person, are regarded by pro-lifers in much the same way.

OPPOSITION TO THE LEGALIZATION OF ABORTION

Opposition to the legalization of abortion is centered around the pro-life or anti-abortion movement, a political movement opposing elective  on moral grounds and supporting its legal prohibition or restriction. Around the world, those involved in the pro-life movement generally maintain that the human fetus and in most cases the human embryo which is a person and therefore has a right to life. On the issue of abortion, "pro-life" advocates are opposed by"pro-choice" advocates who generally advocate legal abortion as an important facet of women . The "pro-life" concept is sometimes broadened to include positions on other issues, such as  an opposition. A major stated goal within the pro-life movement is to "restore legal protection to innocent human life.

CRITIQUE OF THESE POSITIONS

Abortion is a 'front line' for the defense of women's reproductive rights because anti-abortion politics is a leading edge for a broader right-wing agenda. Meanwhile, worldwide, many women wish to limit or space births. Each year an estimated 22 per cent of all pregnancies are terminated by abortion. Anti-abortion advocates have used many strategies to restrict women's access to abortion, but their claim that abortion damages women's mental health has particular implications for feminist psychologists. If this claim is accurate, then we want to understand how such damage happens and work to ensure that women have access to prevention and treatment by qualified mental health providers. If this claim is inaccurate, then we have a responsibility to counter it, as 'silence is consent'. Because claims that choosing to have a legal abortion can damage women's mental health have not been substantiated in the scientific literature, pro-life advocates use cyberspace, which has no peer review, to get out their message. Abortion is constructed as a wrong and shameful act that leads to a psychological disorder labeled as 'post-abortion syndrome'. Women are told to expect 'anniversary reactions' and to 'admit their personal responsibility', to pray for others and recognize that 'they too acted out of ignorance, fear, or petty human selfishness'. The two main groups involved in the abortion analysis .they are the pro-choice movement, and the pro-life movement. Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE RIGHT TO ABORTION

BODILY RIGHTS

Abortion is morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body .it would be permissible to "unplug" and thereby cause the death of the person who is using one's kidneys. So it is permissible to abort the fetus the one who  has no right to use one's body against one's will. There are morally relevant disanalogies between abortion and the kidney failure scenario. For example, the fetus is the woman's child as opposed to a mere stranger; that abortion kills the fetus rather than merely letting it die and that in the case of pregnancy arising from voluntary intercourse. The woman has either tacitly consented to the fetus using her body or has a duty to allow it to use her body .since she herself is responsible for its need to use her body. Some writers defend the analogy against these objections. Arguing that the disanalogies are morally irrelevant or do not apply to abortion in the way critics have claimed. Not all women think abortion is cool for themselves, but all women have the right to make this choice.

Abortion is a simple medical procedure which ends a pregnancy. Throughout history, around the world, and in many religions, women have used abortion as a part of our healthcare. Other options for an unplanned pregnancy include adoption or keeping the child.

COCLUSION

I would like to conclude with a few descriptions. Any reason we have for choosing abortion is a good reason. These are our bodies and our lives. No one has the right to force us to have a baby, or to punish us for liking sex. Support for the legalization of abortion, called the pro-choice movement by its proponents, is a movement encompassing the view that a woman should have the legal right toavoid it . Abortion-rights campaigners are opposed by anti-abortion campaigners who are also called pro-life campaigners who generally argue for the rights of fetuses. Many abortion-rights campaigners also say that anti-abortion activists oppose sex education and contraception, thus increasing the demand for abortion, and that abortion-rights activists, in contrast, support policies that decrease this demand.

I am personally  supporting that  abortion rights which see abortion as a last resort and focus on a number of situations where they feel abortion is a necessary option. Among these situations are those where the woman was raped, her health or life or that of the fetus is at risk, contraception was used but failed, the fetus has acute congenital disorder  and defects, incest, one-child policy, or she feels unable to raise a child.

Antony Veliyath

Diploma in Philosophy 2 nd Year

assignments

1.The Dissolubility of Marriage  by Devan

                Indissolubility is that essential property of marriage in virtue of which the conjugal bond between husband and wife cannot be dissolved or broken by any human power during the life time of either of the two. It means that the marriage cannot be dissolved, that it must last until the death of the partners.

It divided into two

1. Separation

2. Divorce

2.EXPLAIN THE CATE GORICAL IMPERTAITVE ACC TO KANT

Formula-I (The formula of the Universal Law)

"Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

            This is from the point of view of the acting individual. He should make sure that the underlying maxim of the action should be an objective one-can be willed universally. In other words anyone is said to be moral if he/she falls in line with the general will. No exception from the general wills if allowed here for anyone because exceptions are due to inclinations. This point to a necessary community matrix in which in which morally worthy actions can be realized.  

Moral > universal > objective.

Immoral>particular>subject

            Autonomy of any agent is not taken away. It is safe guarded in the first formulation. Morality is the universal disposition to act according to the categorical imperative which is necessitated by reason.

Variant formula:  "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through tour will a universal law of nature"

 

Formula II- The formula of the end-in-itself

"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of others, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

            Humanity is to be treated as the unconditional and of morality i.e., being moral being human for Kant, the end of humanity is the rational end. It is the a priori end, those functions independent of inclinations. The end of humanity is already present as an end-in-itself. For Kant, humanity is the Absolute value. Rational beings are called persons because we are capable of treating our own humanity and that of others as an end in itself. We can uphold our own human nature only by recognizing and respectively other rational agents. It also includes acknowledging that all are endowed with a good will and that they are end-in-themselves.

            When formula I and II are put together we arrive in a combined formula as. Adopt only those maxims which have an end of treating the humanity of oneself and others not as a mere mean but as an end in itself universally.

 

Formula III

Along with the universal application (from) and the fundamental content (matter), in the third formula, Kant proposes the Obligating Aspect.

"So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims". "So act that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle establishing universal law". Its implied principle is: the moral agent gives himself or herself the universal law. Universal legislation if universally binding.

            The universal legislation of moral law is said to be a legislation effected by each for all and all for each. Rational is Relational.

 

Variation of formula III: Kingdom of Ends

"So act as if you were always through your maxims a law-making member in a universal kingdom of ends". Kingdom of ends contains explicit command to practice morality in view of a collective goal or moral community. The moral community is constituted by Ends-in-themselves. That is the Ideal kingdom of persons. The kingdom ensure from (1) The power of legislating for oneself and (2) The imperative to treat everyone else as an end-in-itself.

As every end chosen by a goose ill is good, the ideal of the totality of all Goods represented in the kingdom of ends must be the Absolute Good.     

 

Good will ,Christraj M.

 

 

Half page answer

 

Good will

Good will is unconditional good. It seems to constitute the indispensable condition of our very worthiness to be happy. Good will is the only good without qualification.  A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end: it is good thoughts willing alone that is, good in itself. It is the source of morality basis of humanity. That is, that which making a human being worthy of being human is the power of willing.  Goodwill is an accounting concept meaning the value of an entity over and above the value of its assets. An attitude of kindness or friendliness; benevolence. An attitude of kindness or friendliness; benevolence. Cheerful acquiescence or willingness. Kant says that the good will is the only thing "good without limitation". By this he obviously does not mean that it is the only thing that is good, since he goes on to list and classify other goods whose goodness is not without limitation. What he means is that considered in itself the good will is something entirely good and in no respect bad. He explains that the good will is the only good thing whose goodness is not diminished by its combination with anything else – even with all the evil things that may be found in conjunction with it.

 

 

 

Sibin Thomas, Self Defence

                                                One page answers

 Self Defence

Self defence is the repelling of force by force for once on safety. In the ordinary situations the civil government will do that, in the extra ordinary situations the individual have the freedom to defend. One can defend oneself against an unjust in the following situation:

A. the motive must be self defence alone.

B. force must be used at the time of attack.

C. there must be no other way of repelling the attack.

D. no more injury may be inflicted than the necessary.

Self defence is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property or the well-being of another from physical harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely. To be acquitted of any kind of physical harm-related crime (such as assault and battery and homicide) using the self-defense justification, one must prove legal provocation, meaning that one must prove that he was in a position in which not using self-defense would most likely lead to death or serious injuries. The threat of damage or loss of property alone is not enough. Physical self defense is the use of physical force to counter an immediate threat of violence. Such force can be either armed or unarmed. In either case, the chances of success depend on a large number of parameters, related to the severity of the threat on one hand, but also on the mental and physical preparedness of the defender.

Rights of self-defense

The most crucial difference between self-defense training for civilian application in a society under rule of law to military combative is the necessity to consider the extent of force permitted in a given situation under the self-defense laws of the applicable jurisdiction. The self-defense laws of modern legislation build on the Roman law principle of dominium where any attack on the members of the family or the property it owned was a personal attack on the Pater families. In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argues that although some may be stronger or more intelligent than others in their natural state, none are so strong as to be beyond a fear of violent death, which justifies self-defense as the highest necessity. In his 1918 speech Politik als Beruf (Politics as a Vocation), Max Weber defined a state as an authority having the monopoly of the legitimate means of organised violence within defined territorial boundaries. Modern libertarianism characterizes the majority of laws as intrusive to personal autonomy and, in particular, argues that the right of self-defense from coercion (including violence) is a fundamental human right. In this context, note that Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

 

 

Sibin Thomas, “Right to life’’ as Analyzed by Deontologist.

One page answers.

"Right to life'' as Analyzed by Deontologist.

The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). Deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do. Deontology characterizes those systems of morality in which the rightness is determined without regard to consequence. Right to life includes the following arguments.

1.     Right not to be killed.

2.     Right to receive life saving aid.

     1. Right not to be killed.

This right which we hold against all people is that no one may cause our death. Killing involves a cause effect relationship. A person who has no right to kill has no right to cause for death.

   2. Right to receive life saving aid.

  This right which we hold against different people in different degrees, is the right that others must come to our aid, to save our life.

On deontological accounts of morality, agents cannot make certain wrongful choices even if by doing so the number of wrongful choices will be minimized. For deontologists, what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm. Such norms are to be simply obeyed by each moral agent; such norm-keepings are not to be maximized by each agent. In this sense, for deontologists, the Right has priority over the Good. Deontologists of this stripe are committed to something like the doctrine of double effect, a long-established doctrine of Catholic theology. The Doctrine asserts that we are categorically forbidden to intend evils such as killing the innocent, or torturing others, even though doing such acts would minimize the doing of like acts by others (or even ourselves) in the future. By contrast, if we only risk, cause, or predict that our acts will have consequences making them acts of killing or of torture, and then we might be able to justify the doing of such acts by the killing/torture-minimizing consequences of such actions. Whether such distinctions are plausible is standard taken to measure the plausibility of an intention-focused version of the agent-centered version of deontology.

Sibin Thomas, The position of Peter Singer on Preference Utilitarianism.

MORAL PHILOSOPHY,          One page answers

The position of Peter Singer on Preference Utilitarianism.

Peter Albert David Singer (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian philosopher who is the Ira W. Decamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, preference utilitarian perspective. He is not concerned with so much of pain and pleasure. His emphasis is on satisfying as many of the preferences as possible. Preference utilitarianism holds that the good is preference satisfaction.

The individuals are happy to the extent they achieve and maintain an integrated satisfaction of their preference s.  In this context preference includes desire; plans etc. morally right actions maximize aggregate preference satisfaction and minimize aggregate preference frustration or denial.

Preference =Reasoned desires

Preference utilitarianism attempts to maximize the satisfaction of preferences. This view avoids making judgments about what is intrinsically good, finding its content instead in the desires that people, or sentient beings generally, do have. Most of the utilitarianism holds moral judgment, not on desires that people actually have but rather on those they would have if they were fully informed and thinking clearly. To avoid the prejudices, he propose the idea of an impartial stand point from which to compare interest s. this is an elaboration of the familiar idea of putting oneself  in the others shoes. Singer has wavered about whether the precise aim is the total amount of satisfied interests or instead the most satisfied interests among those beings already exist prior to the decision one is making. 

 Preference: a journey model

Suppose you have planned to go for a journey, but your vehicle had a problem and if you have not gone long you could come back; its consequence would be less. Suppose you went a long distance and your vehicle had a problem but in fact you are near to destination and if you called off the journey then the consequence will be more or high. In short peter singer tells about the good is preference satisfaction.

Sibin Thomas, Justification of private property.

One page answers.

Justification of private property.

Property is essential for living a happy life. Therefore in order to facilitate material property's availability and effective management, human beings should acquire its ownership. "Ownership is the right to exclusive control and disposal over a thing at will.'' The right to private property is the social-political principle that adult human beings may not be prohibited or prevented by anyone from acquiring, holding and trading (with willing parties) valued items not already owned by others. Such a right is, thus, unalienable and, if in fact justified, is supposed to enjoy respect and legal protection in a just human community. Private ownership is the right which enables one to make and use    for substance, comfort, and further development, the goods that are required for one's further needs.

Characteristics

There are many different ways in which private property has been supported in the history of political economy. Most prominent has been the claim that there should be legal protection of the right private property. 

Modern property rights are based on conceptions of owners and possession as belonging to legal persons, even if the legal person is not a natural person. In most countries, corporations, for example, have legal rights similar to those of citizens. Therefore, the corporation is a juristic person or artificial legal entity, under a concept that some refer to as "corporate personhood". Property rights are protected in the current laws of most states, usually in their constitution or in a bill of rights. Protection is also prescribed in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17, and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Protocol.

1. Control of the use of the property

2. The right to any benefit from the property (examples: mining rights and rent)

3. A right to transfer or sell the property

4. A right to exclude others from the property.