Reread that, you likely read the opposite at first. Our western societies are more and more going the opposite direction. Infringing on rights to safe lives. I say, NO. The ends do not justify the means.

Most people who are pro-choice are "pro-choice, with caveats." For example, most pro-choice people I'm aware of are quite fine with abortions being illegal in the final trimester, except for

I've studied political theory for years, and at the end of the day, if there's one thing I'm absolutely sure of, it's that I care more about how policies will affect people's day-to-day lives than about

Utilitarianism seems self-evidently true. You can disagree with the particulars, but the essence is correct—happiness and pleasure are good, while suffering and pain are bad. The utilitarianism of Mill

Moral maxims are rules governing actions, or commands to act in certain ways considered morally correct. Some of the most well known maxims are those that come to us by way of religious tradition. “Thou

It matters in moral philosophy how you arrive at your conclusions. In this post I’d like to discuss two different ways through which we could justify moral activities. Consequentialist The Consequentialist

Deontological libertarianism is based on the non-aggression principle, which states that no human being holds the right to initiate force or fraud against the person or property of another human being,

The non-aggression principle is a libertarian ideal which results in a very simplified black and white morality. While this kind of morality is logical it is not necessarily practical for best choice under