!

As a student with a fondness for ethics, Ive often wondered what some of the

great ethicists would have to say about the Occupy Wall Street movement. At rst I think surely Kant would have strong anti-movement leanings, as he would likely feel that it is our duty to maintain our covenants to pay our debts without relying on others to bail us out when weve overextended ourselves. But perhaps Kant would throw us all for a loop, and remind the 1% of his third categorical imperative, saying that they cannot possibly justify the amount of wealth they possess when there is so much need elsewhere; clearly this is a demonstration of using humanity as a means. Still, what would Kant have to say to the 99% about standing up for ones beliefs? Would we, should we, ever universalize a maxim that says we should stand up for our deeply held personal belief when they conict with what society has historically viewed as taboo? Perhaps to answer this question, one might have to step away from duty, and move on to social contract. ! Would Hobbes theory lead us to rationalize that since we are within a standing

contract that things simply are the way that they are, and thats that? While I believe that Hobbes would see the social contract as being set by the majority, if we look closely, are the majority seeking reform? Is it possible that there are members of the 99%who would say that theyre content with their lives and dont support the movement? I feel quite strongly that Hobbes would say if the members of the Occupy Wall Street movement were to gain the power that they are looking for they would be unsatised. So perhaps he would be against reform on the grounds that no matter how much things change, the desires of some group would remain unfullled, and a perfectly good contract would be disturbed without reason.

Its entirely possible that Mill would say that since we are working with the vast

majority, that the greatest happiness principle clearly applies - one percent of the population cannot possibly draw so much pleasure from having wealth that it makes up for the misery of the rest of society. If this is the case, then there must be a redistribution of resources to promote Mills greatest happiness principle. But then we run into the problem of quantication. Furthermore, its possible that if one were to diffuse the wealth of the few to the many, that the economic ramications would be completely detrimental. Mill, working on the basis of consequences, would have to admit there is a potential that, if those who have worked hard for their money lost their earned income they would have little motivation to continue providing a means of income for others. !