There exists a woman, lets call her Jenny, who would have been appointed to a major advisory position if Hillary Clinton would’ve became president. Jenny is an expert on welfare policy. But, as you may know, Clinton didn’t win the election leaving Jenny without a Job. Now for our scenario lets say Hillary’s competitor, Donald Trump, who Jenny despises and believes will be a bad president, offers her the same job. Should she take it? My answer is yes; Jenny should accept the job. It would be in Jenny’s best interest morally to do so, and three main philosophers we talked about in class would agree.
To start off, John Stuart Mill would for sure think Jenny should take the job. Mill argues ‘actions are right in proportion if they tend to promote happiness, wrong if they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ (Mill, 1863, 17). Jenny taking the job would promote more happiness than non-happiness. …show more content…
Say instead Jenny asked herself if ‘it is universally okay for everyone to help a man who wants to hurt a lot of people?’ Of course if everyone universally did that, the world would be a lot darker of a place. Here critics argue is a flaw in Kant’s two question system; as one can easily manipulate the wording of the question. Yet, that is why there is a second question. The second question helps protect against those who try to manipulate a question so they can do something that is questionable. The second part asks if one is doing something just for their own purpose. Supposing Jenny worded the first question in some way where she was able to say she shouldn’t work for Trump. She would then have to ask herself if she is choosing to not work for her own purpose, or is it respecting others. Because her actions in the long run are hurting others if she does not take the job. We know that Jenny must take the Job following the ideas of
To start off, John Stuart Mill would for sure think Jenny should take the job. Mill argues ‘actions are right in proportion if they tend to promote happiness, wrong if they tend to produce the reverse of happiness’ (Mill, 1863, 17). Jenny taking the job would promote more happiness than non-happiness. …show more content…
Say instead Jenny asked herself if ‘it is universally okay for everyone to help a man who wants to hurt a lot of people?’ Of course if everyone universally did that, the world would be a lot darker of a place. Here critics argue is a flaw in Kant’s two question system; as one can easily manipulate the wording of the question. Yet, that is why there is a second question. The second question helps protect against those who try to manipulate a question so they can do something that is questionable. The second part asks if one is doing something just for their own purpose. Supposing Jenny worded the first question in some way where she was able to say she shouldn’t work for Trump. She would then have to ask herself if she is choosing to not work for her own purpose, or is it respecting others. Because her actions in the long run are hurting others if she does not take the job. We know that Jenny must take the Job following the ideas of