Social Contracts

Children cannot be subject to social contracts. Anyone under the age of 18 is legally bounded by their parents therefore, they are unable to sign any contract or be under a contract without the consent of their parents or guardian. This does not mean that they are not subject to moral judgment. There have been some cases where a child has murdered someone and has been tried as an adult. Age cannot be discriminated in regards to moral judgement whereas age is relative when it comes to contracts.

Social Contracts

Children cannot be subject to social contracts. Anyone under the age of 18 is legally bounded by their parents therefore, they are unable to sign any contract or be under a contract without the consent of their parents or guardian. This does not mean that they are not subject to moral judgment. There have been some cases where a child has murdered someone and has been tried as an adult. Age cannot be discriminated in regards to moral judgement whereas age is relative when it comes to contracts.

Morality and Government

Yes, I think there is a connection between morality and government. We elect government officials to control and regulate the aspects in which we live and expect them to hold their positions with integrity and morality. Although there have been numerous times in history that such people have failed to to do so. For example, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, and Elliot Spitzer.

State of War

I feel that Hobbes makes a good point. Some natural resources are very scarce in the world and what are people supposed to do when those resources run out. The answer seems to point to a war. For example, in between India and China there is a body of water that as of now is providing both countries sufficiently. But what is going to happen when that body of water starts to dry up? What are the people of the two countries going to do when water a major resource is scarce? The only thing is to compromise or fight.

Shortcomings of Mill

I would have to say that Mill’s theory bothers me more than Kant’s. I still do not fully understand how Mill could explain committing an act that is lawfully wrong although it may increase overall happiness. Although Mill explains the holes in his theory very well and rebuttles any objection I still feel that there are flaws in his theory.

Kant reiterates that every person that is rational has self-love and will do anything and everything it takes to better themselves. Something is categorically imperative if it is widely accepted throughout the world. This has to do with rationality because before most people commit an act they think about their moral values. These values determine whether a person will commit that act or not. The relationship between rationality and categorical imperative that Kant speaks about is the idea of a universal law.