How to Argue for Moral Premise Using Mills, Kant and Rawls to help your arguments

Two types of moral argument Consequentialist (Utilitarian) An act is good/moral if it brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism Nonconsequentialist (Moral rule) Act only on that moral rule you can will to be a universal law of nature Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative

Death Penalty Consequentialist The death penalty is justified because of its consequences. It deters criminals from committing murder because they know if they kill someone, they will be executed Moral Rule If you take a life, you must give a life. So if you kill someone, you must pay with your own life

For your own argument, try to identify one consequentialist (utilitarian) argument and one nonconquentialist (rule based) argument

Arguments About Justice First, marriage is a private thing concerns the two people who decide to spend their lives together. In this regard, the people concerned have the right and freedom to choose his or her partner. It is not right to intervene in their marriage.

P1: If people have the right to decide who they want to spend their lives with, then gay marriage should be allowed P2: people have the right to decide who they want to spend their lives with C: gay marriage should be allowed

P2: People have the right to decide who they want to spend their lives with How do you defend this claim? What is a right? What is your proof that people have them?

Arguments from Authority Recognized Sources: E.g., United Nations Doctrine on human rights Authoritative Thinkers E.g., Site the words of thinkers of various traditions Philosophical Theory: Offer a theoretical defense

Argument from the Authority of Reason It is not right/unjust to interfere in marriage. What is just? John Rawls, Theory of Justice. Those principles are just which one would choose behind a veil of ignorance where you do not know what your status is in the society

Why is it unjust to discriminate against people of different races? P1: Those principles are just that would be chosen from behind the Veil of Ignorance, that is, those principles all would choose if they did not know where in the society they would end up P2: Behind the veil of ignorance no one would choose to discriminate against one race because, in theory, they could be of that race C: It is not just to discriminate against one race

Gay marriage Those principles are just which one would choose behind a veil of ignorance where you do not know what your status is in the society Suppose you did not know whether you would be straight or gay—you would not want to deny yourself the right to marry So to deprive the right to marry to anyone is unjust

Question Is John Rawls justice argument a consequentialist (utilitarian) or nonconsequentialist (rule base)?