From the argument above, it is demonstrated which moral theory, Immanuel Kant’s Kantianism, or Bentham’s Theory of Utilitarianism, is superior. The premises stem from the idea of using a person as a means when all other aspects are equal. Because the argument begins with all else is equal, and the only thing being considered is using people as mere means, no premise is extremely controversial. The only thing we should examine is how each theory acts in accordance with the means of people. According to Utilitarianism, it is justified to do so as long as the best overall consequences are promoted for the greatest number of people. In the instance of killing/murder, moral theory says that killing innocent people is usually always wrong. According …show more content…
The first is that everyone is entitled to basic freedoms (freedom of speech, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, fair value of political liberties, etc.). Everyone should be given the same opportunities to hold positions in office, influence selections, etc. regardless of a person’s social class. The second is what is known as the difference principle. The difference principle shows that there can be inequality in society as long as it makes the worst person better off. Inequalities serve to help society as a whole. Rawls then created a thought experiment called the original position to help support his two principles of justice. This was called the “veil of ignorance,” it is where there were representatives from society who were all behind a veil of ignorance, meaning that they do not know where they will end up in society. For example, if you didn’t know if you were rich or poor or smart or unintelligent. If you did not know your place in society or your inherent talents, you would most likely choose the principles that are fairest to all of society. Rawls has these views because he is an egalitarian and equality is a term that resonates with him. The notion behind his original position is to create a system where people should get what they deserve by how much they contribute to the common good, not by the place that they are born into since that’s a matter of