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

Comp be de Beauvoirs position with the position of either Mill or Rawls - Essay ExampleFor a utilitarian what is heavy is what gives pleasure, happiness, contentment or welf atomic number 18. Utilitarianism contains a theory of salutary 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 nearly pleasure but disapprove which do not. Hobbes says that, a man fears depends on his individual character and nurture 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 pull up stakes be patent that they will disapprove that idea. They shall consider that as a wrong act to follow. Therefore, a person is resign to do what they desire as long whatever they are doing gives them pleasur e and are comfortable with it. gaiety 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 edict 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 causation 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 honorable theories that hold a particular actions consequences usual ly form the basis of any valid moral perceptiveness regarding that particular action. He argues that for whatever you do it is a must(prenominal) you afford 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. in the beginning 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 agnise 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 governmental instability in the country. A person is always responsible for what they do. No one can pay for your mistakes. It is only y ou who will suffer for your own misconduct. De Beauvoir argues that the reaction of other people to another person ground on the fact that you cannot help but be affected by those reactions, the author says that they are compel not to be satisfied by your actions (Keltner, 2006). She also argues that other people responses are positively inevitable for one to keep on acting. For both authors, they contradict on ides as we have seen above. They all