Introduction
This essay will explore how several prominent philosophers have discussed concepts related to ultraism, individual liberty, and business ethics. The philosophers examined include John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, Adam Smith, John Locke, Robert Nozick, and John Rawls. While each thinker approached these issues from different perspectives, they offered insight into debates around individual rights, social responsibility, and the role of economic systems.
John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Harm
John Stuart Mill was a classical liberal who advanced the harm principle as the basis for justifying restrictions on individual liberty. According to Mill, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” For Mill, personal liberty should generally be respected so long as it does not impinge on the rights and interests of others (Dirth et al.). However, Mill acknowledged limiting some “self-regarding” acts to promote public decency or avoid the corruption of others. Overall, Mill took a cautious view of restricting liberty that stresses individual autonomy within reasonable limits to prevent harm.
Immanuel Kant on Dignity and Duty
Where Mill prioritized liberty, Immanuel Kant focused on human dignity and moral duty. For Kant, people possess intrinsic worth or dignity that demands they be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as a means. This view led Kant to argue that specific “perfect duties” are owed to all, like the duty not to deceive. Kant also advocated for principles of justice and public rights. Regarding business, Kant urged that economic activity should not be pursued in ways that violate moral laws or disrespect human dignity through deception or exploitation (Dirth et al.). Overall, Kant took a stricter view than Mill in favoring certain obligations and limiting some behaviors to uphold dignity.
Adam Smith on Sympathy, Markets, and Beneficence
Adam Smith is known as a founder of modern economic theory and an advocate of free markets. However, Smith also emphasized the natural human capacity for sympathy with others and a limited concept of perfect duties. Like Kant, Smith saw specific positive duties of beneficence toward others in need. Smith also analyzed how self-interest and competition within a free market, if reasonably regulated, could promote general prosperity through increased production and division of labor (Dirth et al.). Overall, Smith combined advocacy for economic liberty with acknowledging mutual sympathy and essential duties of care as part of human nature.
John Locke on Property, Consent, and Revolution
The social contract theorist John Locke viewed liberty as centered on individual property rights. For Locke, people in a “state of nature” have natural rights to life, liberty, and their persons and possessions acquired through work. Governments obtain legitimate power through the implicit or explicit consent of the governed. If a government systematically violates fundamental rights or acts intolerably unjust to the people, Locke asserted people have a right to alter or abolish that government and institute a new system to protect natural rights (Dirth et al.). These ideas influenced later political thinkers and revolutionary movements appealing to the consent of the governed.
Robert Nozick on Minimal States and Libertarianism
In the mid-20th century, Robert Nozick developed a libertarian theory of justice as an entitlement based on individual rights. Nozick argued that any more extensive state beyond essential protection of citizens from force, theft, fraud, and enforcing contracts violated individual liberty (Dirth et al.). Provided holdings are justly acquired through voluntary exchange or production respecting primary side constraints against coercion and violence, people have rights to their possessions that should not be restricted or redistributed by the state (Tseng and Wang). Nozick took a more minimal view of state interference than previous philosophers studied here.
John Rawls on Justice, Fairness, and Basic Structure
A prominent 20th-century political philosopher, John Rawls, argued a just society should uphold two principles: 1) Equal fundamental liberties for all citizens, and 2) Inequalities must reasonably improve the condition of the least well-off while maintaining maximum equal liberty. Rawls believed these “justice as rational individuals could deduce fairness” principles in an “original position” blind to social status behind a “veil of ignorance.” Rawls primarily aimed to analyze principles of justice for primary political and economic institutions rather than individual actions (Tseng & Wang). His view took a more active stance than Nozick’s in potentially justified redistribution to maximize liberties for all in society.
Conclusion
These six philosophers offer differing perspectives on critical issues within ultraism, including debates around individual liberty, economic and political justice, societal obligations, and the legitimate role and powers of the state. While each has specific positions, they demonstrate a spectrum of views on balancing autonomy, dignity, consent, property rights, social responsibility, and fairness in assessing ethics and justice. Continued dialogue considering multiple viewpoints remains essential for addressing complex questions regarding the relationship between individuals, institutions, and communities.
Works Cited
Dirth, Elizabeth, et al. “What Do Researchers Mean When Talking about Justice? An Empirical Review of Justice Narratives in Global Change Research.” Earth System Governance, vol. 6, Elsevier BV, Dec. 2020, pp. 100042–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100042. Accessed 13 Dec. 2023.
Tseng, Po-En, and Ya Wang. “Deontological or Utilitarian? An Eternal Ethical Dilemma in Outbreak.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 16, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Aug. 2021, pp. 8565–65, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168565. Accessed 13 Dec. 2023.
write