Ethics and Morality One Example Where the

Ethics and Morality One example where the moral judgment of Kant and utilitarianism might conflict is in the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Where Kant would argue it is always wrong to kill innocent civilians, utilitarianism would hold that in order to more quickly end World War II, and thus potentially save countless additional lives, the bombing would satisfy utilitarian calculus. An example where Kantianism and libertarianism would conflict may be in the instance of the use of recreational drugs.

Kant would argue that recreational drug use harms others by creating a trade/market that is filled with criminality; or drug use can be harmful if the eventual hospitalization of the user takes up medical resources that otherwise would go to those who are ill through no fault of their own.

A libertarian may argue that the use of illicit drugs is an act of free choice and the user uses with the knowledge of the consequences of his or her action, and thus an individual should be free to engage in recreational drug use, since it is arguable the damage to the social body is negligible.

Rawls would argue that government action may be necessary to distribute/redistribute resources due to inequalities created by the operation of free markets, since free markets tend to create significant inequalities of wealth and property; whereas a libertarian would argue that the government should not, or have very little intervention in the operation of free markets, since engaging in market economic activity is an act of free choice (or not).

Capability theory is the understanding that an individual's ability to live a safe and secure life is of significant moral importance; and that also, one's ability or freedom to attain this well-being is based upon his or her ability or opportunity to secure a safe, happy and meaningful life. This theory argues that individual ends are attained through certain freedoms and rights, and it is the capability to exercise the right or freedom that is paramount.

The goal of capability theory then, is to determine how to bring this moral system into being. This theory of justice is relatively new in the history of ideas. Libertarians may find this theory lacking in that it is argued that certain governmental, economic and social institutions may be necessary to "level the playing field" so that all persons are granted the same opportunities and resources to pursue those ends that give their lives meaning, safety and happiness.

Though libertarians may agree with the justice of the theory, they would disagree in the use of institutions to limit those individual freedoms while "enhancing" the freedoms of those poorly situated. This theory is Kantian in nature in that reason constructs a theory of justice where humanity "wills" in its institutions those social, political and economic structures whereby individuals act in a system which benefits all, and in which individuals exercise their liberty.

Capability theory is thus consonant to Kant in that the system seeks the moral/legal/economic code where as all freely pursue their ends, they do so with the minimal amount of harm to others. If you use Rawls as a frame, then yes, economic inequality in the United States is a moral problem since this inequality violates Rawls' two principles of justice.

First, it is obvious that not all Americans "have equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others." Those who are wealthy have greater access to government, financial and legal resources, etc., than those in the middle and lower socio-economic strata. That is, money buys access, better legal representation, and so on and thus enhances the "rights" of those with economic means while diminish the rights of those without.

Also, a part of Rawls' second principle is violated in that economic inequalities are not arranged so that they benefit the least-advantaged in society; and also access to positions and offices are not open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. Wealth seems to create structural inequality.

It seems that in a modern, complex, industrial, and democratic state, there needs to be some sort of mechanism that at least fosters material and social equality so that there is political equality and relative equal exercising of rights by the citizens of the polity. It seems there needs to be major constitutional and political reform to reduce venomous effect of wealth and finance on the American political system.

A cost-effective and efficient health-care delivery system is crucial in the modern era to help a contemporary nation-state achieve "happiness." Without a healthy body politic, the public space is "infected" so to speak, with sickness and unhealthiness that drags down the quality of life for all. But how best to achieve this end without harming individuals and the national economy? It seems to me that reform could have been much more effective without the money pumped into the effort by the pharmaceutical, health care and legal industry.

If they are for the reform, a conscientious citizen must ask "why are these industries happy? What are they gaining from this legislation?" Instead of subsidizing health insurance by compelling purchase on the part of citizens, perhaps an explicit, dedicated tax would serve a better purpose; but this tax must be.