Immanuel Kant

...

As we know his utilitarianism theory about the good of an act only being right or

permissible as long as it brings about the happiness of everyone/majority. This rule doesn’t

because it is religious, and based on beliefs a certain group of people. Therefore, Mill will say

that we have no obligation not to take the name of God in vain.

Question 2: Do we have an obligation to follow Rule 8?

MILL

Since according to John Stuart Mill, an action is only right/permissible if it brings happiness

and supplies good for the majority. Obviously, the rich, wealthy, and those who hold high

position aren’t the majority, so to Mill, the rule shouldn’t even exist in the first place, and we are

under no obligation to follow it.

KANT

According to Kant’s deontological ethics, the morality of an action is what truly matters,

regardless of whatever consequences that might come from it. Is the act right or wrong?

Logically, a person desperate enough to steal from a go or court is definitely poor. Given the

period when this rule was made, there was a huge respect for the court, and the gods were

deemed sacred, so asking a poor person who was desperate enough to steal from such power to

pay thirtyfold or be put to death, is immoral. Therefore, if Kant were to answer that question, he

would say that we aren’t obligated to follow rule 8.

PALEY

Paley, just like Mill was really big on utilitarianism. "Theological and non-theological

varieties of utilitarianism agree on the account of the rightness of an action: the rightness

depends entirely on the value of the consequences. But there is a difference in respect of the

notion of moral duty. According to that quote, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime. He also

sought justice for the poor, and in this situation where the poor stole, Paley will not be in support

of the punishment. Paley would say that we have no obligation to follow rule 8.

How would you answer Question 1 and Question 2? Explain.

Looking from the different perspectives of people, it would be difficult to have just an

answer, as not everyone is a Christian, or believe in the existence of a God. Personally, I am a

Christian and I will say that as one, it is important to show respect to our creator. He gave those

rules to Moses to guide the steps of His people. When Jesus taught, he broke those laws into two

parts, which is love your neighbors and love your God. Therefore, I believe that we have an

obligation not to take the name of God in vain. Calling the name of the Lord in vain.

In my opinion, we do not have an obligation to follow rule 8 because it is not a reasonable

law, and the punishment does not fit the crime. Yes, the person stole, but can they be punished

differently? Can they be put in prison for a short period of time? Can they get a job so they can

pay the debt of their theft gradually? The answer to all these questions is yes. Therefore , death is

wrong and not moral, so is making the thief overpay.