An analysis of the story of John, in correlation to Kant’s and Rousseau’s theories.
This paper examines John’s actions and discusses his morality or lack thereof, according to Kant’s and Rousseau’s theories. The paper explains that John’s actions were ultimately immoral, when viewed from a universal perspective, eventhough his deeds may have resulted in immediate overall good.
“It is also amply evident that John’s crimes, in fact, benefit the people by virtue of first freeing them from a tyrant and later through governing so wisely and justly that at his death, every citizen felt as if she or he had lost a parent. The issue, therefore, is to examine whether an individual’s actions that are recognized to be morally wrong can be overlooked if they are simply the means to an end that leads to the larger good of society.”