功利主义伦理与个人权利伦理自然不一致。现在，如果个人被允许拥有某些权利，只要他们行使这些权利被认为是服务于或带来了大多数人的最大利益，他们实际上没有不可剥夺的或个人的权利[8]。因此，当枪支倡导者，如加里·克莱克，用功利主义的观点为拥有和携带枪支的权利辩护时，就没有理由为个人权利辩护了。相反，他们只是试图说服大多数人允许他们行使携带武器的权利这样的自由。在个人权利伦理下，个人不应被仅仅当作达到目的的手段，而必须被当作，用康德的话来说，“目的在自身”[1]。每个人都有自己的自由意志，我相信自由是美国立国之本。因此，限制一个人携带武器的权利是不道德的，因为另一个人滥用了他的自由。功利主义认为，只要那些将要被牺牲的人没有太多的[8]，使用某些人只是为了实现其他人的目的。这就是说，没有人有生命的权利，他的权利被抛在一边去追求最大的利益。没有什么能改变个人拥有携带和拥有武器的基本权利，每个人都有生命的权利。最后我想说的是:“当你从我冰冷而死的手中夺走我的枪时，你就可以得到我的枪了。
美国留学生论文代写:功利主义伦理
The utilitarian ethics is naturally inconsistent with the ethics of individual rights. Now, if individuals are permitted to have certain rights only so long as their exercise of those rights is perceived to serve or bring the greatest good of the greatest number, they in fact have no inalienable or individual rights [8]. Thus, when gun advocates such as Gary Kleck, defend the right to own and carry guns with utilitarian arguments, there are in no sense defending individual right. Instead, they are just trying to convince the greatest number to permit them to exercise such a freedom as the right to bear arms. Under an individual right ethics, individuals may not be treated solely as a means to an end but must also be treated, in Kant’s words, as “ends in themselves” [1]. Everyone possesses their own free will and I believe freedom is what America was founded upon. Therefore, it is unethical to restrict one’s right to bear arms on the account that another man that has abused his freedom. Utilitarianism justifies using some merely as a means to the fulfillment of others’ ends, so long as those who are to be sacrificed are not too numerous [8]. This is saying that no individual has the right to life, and his rights are being thrown aside in pursuit of the greatest good. Nothing changes that individuals have the fundamental right to carry and own arms, and everyone has the right to life. I will end with this, “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
