Compare de Beauvoir's position with the position of either Mill or Essay

Compare de Beauvoir's position with the position of either Mill or Rawls - Essay Example For a utilitarian what is good is what gives pleasure, happiness, contentment or welfare. Utilitarianism contains a theory of good and a theory of right. It is characteristic of the utilitarian theory of right that rightness is derived from goodness. They base what is either good or right on human experience (Nabor-Nery, 2003). People tend to approve the things which bring about pleasure but disapprove which do not. Hobbes says that, a man fears depends on his individual character and upbringing page 2. For example if a person is comfortable with taking a bottle of wine they are happy and enjoy the pleasure that comes forth. Others hate taking whine therefore it will be obvious that they will disapprove that idea. They shall consider that as a wrong act to follow. Therefore, a person is free to do what they desire as long whatever they are doing gives them pleasure and are comfortable with it. Happiness will lead to calmness and a very stable community. When people are happy they are most likely to leave good lives which have no crime thus creating a society which can be confided in. For example, Hobbes tells us to seek peace and follow it in Page60. For the De Beauvoir position under freedom, the author argues that everyone has the ability to take note of them and choose what to do (Keltner, 2006). We are free, but our freedom is always enacted in a world. This limits the level of freedom as compared to Mills point of view. We have to follow the rules brought about by for example, the government. She also says that freedom is the universal absolute end. You are able to do what you desire to do. There seems to be a little contradiction of the ideas which are presented by Mill and De Beauvoir. Consequentiality theory For the Consequentialism theory Milldefines, it as those moral theories that hold a particular actions consequences usually form the basis of any valid moral judgment regarding that particular action. He argues that for whatever you do it is a must you pay for it. For example, when you steal something which is not yours you must suffer the consequences of that action which is not acceptable in the society. It also focuses on the outcomes of the actions, emphasizes on results instead of the types of acts involved. Before you do something you should be able to consider the consequences that follow the reaction. Mill insists that it is always fair for what to pay for your actions (Nabor-Nery, 2003). This will create a good society and will make everybody watch what they are doing for that fear. It will make people more organized and answerable in what they do. It also creates a stable government and reduces the problems and risks of political instability in the country. A person is always responsible for what they do. No one can pay for your mistakes. It is only you who will suffer for your own misconduct. De Beauvoir argues that the reaction of other people to another person based on the fact that you cannot help but be affected by those reactions, the author says that they are forced not to be satisfied by your actions (Keltner, 2006). She also argues that other people responses are positively necessary for one to keep on acting. For both authors, they contradict on ides as we have seen above. They all