Weekly Assignments

Title page

Philosophy

Initial post

The central argument made by Bunch states that women rights are human rights. This reflects that females are humans and part of society so they must possess the same rights as that of males. Differentiating females due to their gender is wrong and against the ideology of human rights. Human rights mean creating equal opportunities for human development. I agree with Bunch’s claims that females cannot be considered different from other humans. I agree that “feminist redefine human right abuses to include the degradation and violation of woman” CITATION Cha901 \l 1033 (Bunch, 1990). Females have struggled for centuries to demand a better place. Several movements allowed them to change their status from conventional females. Bunch’s argument also states that women’s rights are not different from civil rights. This is because they must be free to choose anything including education, marriage or work. I accept that people who are resisting against women rights are actually against human rights. They don’t consider females as humans, which inclines them to believe that they are unequal.

Although the conditions of women improved in the modern age they are still facing discrimination in pays. I think that irrespective of all efforts made by females for demanding equal rights, they are unable to get the same recognition at the workplace. Most of the company including multinational firms are treating female employees differently from males. The prevalence of pay gap depicts that there is still a need for promoting the concept of women equality and rights. Such gaps have limited the opportunities for growth for females that is against the notion of civil rights. The concept of human rights states that everyone must have access to everything equally. I believe such attitudes of firms and business culture reflects the influence of the past.

When we consider the employment it reveals that the majority of the leadership positions are enjoyed by males. Very few females manage to reach to the executive levels. Similarly, females are also facing inequality due to discriminatory practices adopted by firms. At large organizations, males are provided more chances of growth compared to females. Women keep struggling at the same position that reflects the absence of equality and fairness. I think that the firms are providing more chances of growth to the males that represent the violation of women’s rights and human rights. I think that females must get the same chances for promotion. The pay gap also depicts females irrespective of their capabilities and potentialities are unable to reach to the executive levels. Another issue that need to be changed is the elimination of abuse against females. Even in the twenty-first century, they are victims of physical abuse that reflects a violation of women's rights. The justice system can take a more effective role by ensuring their safety.

Contemporary moral issues related to women rights include maintaining a balance between personal and professional lives. Although females are entering the workforce for improving their lifestyles and for attaining independence this affect their personal lives. They sometimes neglect their responsibility as a mother that is immoral. I think females must be free to work and make independent choices but they must be able to maintain work-life balance. I believe an appropriate solution for overcoming this moral issue is by working part-time. This will allow females to manage their work and responsibilities as a mother. If their work or professional duty is not affecting their children negatively they can continue to work. Rights do not mean that they have a right to neglect their other duties.

Response

I agree with the post of James White-White. The post explains that the conditions of women have improved today. The cultural revolution has helped them to attain better statuses. I agree that females are not entering every field and are representing every sector. The post mentions the role of Feminist transformation of human rights. When compared to the past, women today don't face socio-cultural constraints. They can choose to acquire an education and enter the workforce. There has been a significant rise in the number of female workforces. I agree that the conditions of women will improve further in future because they have become strong. Today it is not possible to stop them from accomplishing their professional or personal goals. They enjoy the freedom of choice and liberty. It is wrong to say that women today are still lacking equal rights. I also agree that making females part of society will strengthen the economy.

I like the post of Katharine R. Forcier because she provides a strong criticism on feminine rights. She agrees with Bunch's argument that female rights must be considered as human rights. I agree with the claims that this argument suggests that females must have access to the same rights as other humans. This reflects that there must be no difference between males or females. I also agree that the conditions of women improved since 1990. They managed to enter the workforce and are visible in every aspect of society. Although their situations are better but there is still the issue of unequal pay. I agree that this needs to be resolved. Work pay discrimination is still prevalent in society that needs to be changed. These discrimination limits equal opportunities for females. I believe that this is also against the ideology of women rights and empowerment.

Reference

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bunch, C. (1990). Women's Rights as Humans Rights: Toward a Re-vision of Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 12 (4), 486-498.

Weekly Assignments

Discussion

Seneca provides a deeper analysis of natures meanness perceived by human beings. I agree with his argument that people who criticize the shortness of life are unable to see its reality. Life according to him is long that grants them sufficient time to engage in social obligations. The criticism drawn by Seneca reflects the flaws of mankind who get involved in unnecessary activities. They ignore the importance of time and waste it without considering the outcomes. Although ending of time is unknown, but one has the authority to make the best use of all time available in their lifespan. Another striking revelation made by Seneca is that people value money more than time. I agree with his views that people overweighing money are irrational. People continue to spend time on useless activities by assuming that it is endless and immortal. Most of the time is consumed in non-productive activities such as parties, drunkenness, and lusts.

Many things pointed by Seneca about the importance of life resonate with me. I myself have been engaged in useless activities such as social media, gaming, and parties that brings no positive outcomes. I willfully squander time on these activities and ignore many important things such as studying, attending seminars and workshops. I thus feel a connection with Seneca's reasoning because I fit in the definition of mankind explained by him. Like other humans, I care less about time than money. I have never thought about time's ending and believe that I got plenty of it. I agree with Seneca's claim that "the life we are given isn't short, but we make it so; we're not ill provided but we're wasteful of life” CITATION Luc05 \l 1033 (Seneca). The shortness of life depends on one's choices. I think that people who learn the significance of time will make productive use of it. They will engage themselves in utilitarian activities such as working, studying and achievement of goals. This will bring them close to their life goals, so they will not consider life short. I also agree with Seneca that life is long and offers ample opportunities to the people who map it well. Life is long only when we know how to use it. I agree with his claim that, “one person’s held in the grip of voracious avarice, another by the kind of diligence that busies itself with pointless enterprise” CITATION Luc05 \l 1033 (Seneca). The likelihood of mankind to complaint nature is high when they are following a pointless path. Their inability to refrain from idleness causes them to waste time.

I accept Seneca's reasoning on the shortness of life by considering his parallel comparison on wealth and time. He portrays the exact nature of mankind by stating, "many are kept busy either striving after other people's wealth or complaining about their own" CITATION Luc05 \l 1033 (Seneca). They lack a consistent goal in life that results in their dissatisfaction. According to him, life gives adequate time to everyone to rise and acquire one's dream. Their failure to recognize the importance of time results in their restlessness and fall. I agree that people are never willing to distribute their money but are ready to waste time on extravagant activities. The overall analysis of Seneca depicts that the duration of lifespan depends on the approach adopted by humans for spending it. The desire for money motivates humans to keep themselves occupied with business with the ultimate goal of attaining leisure. I agree that these people are wasting their time by ignoring the future. The most practical use of time is made by people who are capable of controlling their passions and live a happy life.

Response 1

I like the post of Tristan J Salameh because it provides a deeper analysis of Seneca's philosophy of life. It depends on how they live their lives and adopt behaviors towards different events. I agree that "our lives are perhaps relatively short, but what we do with our lives must last for centuries." I think that a person who makes the best choices and lives to the fullest will not make a complaint about the shortness of life. Also if an idle person gets more years to live, it will be of no use. So, one must not black life but focus on ways for making it worth and useful. I agree that people can accomplish their dreams in the time they get to live. More years would do not good. Salameh makes an important point that people have been concerned about extending their years of life but not on finding ways for making it useful.

Response 2

I agree with the viewpoints of Andrew J Zeppa. He has mentioned how Seneca can be an inspiration for people who lack motivation. I agree that one needs to communicate with self for uncovering desires and goals. This is the only way by which we can focus on making the best use of our lives. I also agree that people who accomplish their goals will never find lives short. I agree that people have a lot of tendencies to repeat the same mistakes over and over because they are preoccupied with their thoughts. People waste too much time thinking about the future that causes frustration. One must live in the present and focus on goals. I think Zeppa makes the right point that one must find ways of living happily such as by focusing on the relationship, creativity, experience, contribution, and freedom. People who are goal oriented and avoid destructive thinking will find lives sufficient.

Work Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY Seneca, Lucius. On the Shortness of Life: Life Is Long if You Know How to Use It (Penguin Great Ideas) 1st Edition. Trans. C. D. N. Costa. Penguin Books, 2005.

Weekly Assignments

Maya Angelou’s “Graduation” and Du Bois’s “Of the Sons of Masters and Man” both discuss the venom of the racism that has been the ugliest part of our society for God-knows how many years. Both pieces reflect how this social evil has caused serious damage to the development of different personalities and backed the greatness of this society. It has been discussed that in almost every field people are often judged by their skin color and culture especially in America which houses various cultures, skin colors, and religious groups. There are horrible concepts that circle in our society which make no sense at all. For instance, considering whites as superior and blacks as inferiors is a kind of concept that shakes the roots of unity in this society. Both writers’ point of views intersects at the same issue, i.e. the wrong biases in different fields of life. Just because if someone is white American, it does not mean he has attained the most superior level in the races of human beings. There have been millions of decisions made in the favor whites, entirely neglecting and considering blacks just because of their skin color it has been thought they are not appropriate for many things and they are meant to hold the lowest place in the society. Such concepts have only bestowed this society with nothing but horrors, broken hearts, shattered peace, imbalance, inequality, and unproductivity. This unfairness has been harming the humanity for a long time and millions are suffering because of it. For instance, black Americans have suffered a lot in the past and even in the modern society their exist a majority of such whites who think they are superior over blacks, their false pride results in bullying those who have black skin. Both pieces have shared the struggles of Black Americans in the society.

Angelou’s have chosen an emotional and interesting way to raise awareness about the issue of racial discrimination and bias in society. She chose to reflect on how such issues impact on the personalities of those who are black and as well as those who are white. Her words are powerful enough to radiate emotions (Angelou). She has discussed an important factor that children get familiar with these terms in their early childhood because institutions like school have a great part in that. Basically, there is a “divide” of races that had been argued in her piece of writing. This “divide” is the cause of biases in society. Those students whose skin is black learn about this “divide” being a victim of racism and inequality and their personality starts questioning that if they are actually inferior and less than those who are white. Their broken personality creates chaos inside, and they start suffering even from a young age. On the other hand, white students learn this concept that they are some sort of superior and that’s the way how it is. When all of these students grow up, they act according to their learning in society. Dubois used an open, empowering and inspiring tone. He stated why is it of utmost necessary for generations to find solutions for such ugly and horrible social issues that bring nothing but imbalance, inequality and chaos in the society ("Chapter 9: Of The Sons Of Master And Man | The Souls Of Black Folk | W. E. B. Du Bois | Lit2go ETC"). His beamed his thoughts and perceptions with his loud and clear words and purposed solutions to these issues and taught ways through which we all can make this world a heavenly place.

Response to James White

Yes, you are completely right. Both pieces are arguing and discussing the same issues in society but in different ways. Both are reflecting that how hard it gets for those who experience racism and inequality. Angelou has chosen to express her opinion in a deep and emotional way and described how badly it influences on the personalities of the victim, especially when they are students in the learning process. She enlightened how devastating it is when actions of institutions and teachers teach students about these issues in the environment of “school.” Dubois, on the other hand, wrote about the importance of equality and justice in the maintaining of peace and purposed solutions that can help in that. His writing is strong and clear about the consequences that this society is going to face if the issues like bias and racial discrimination are left unresolved. He has taught how equality can bring peace and harmony in the society.

Response to Mary E Joyce

I totally agree with her that both writers have used different tones in describing the same issue. Dubois writing magnetizes readers to the pool of inspiration and optimism. He argued his point of view strongly and signified the importance of equality and harmony in the society. His readers feel strength and empowerment that his words radiate. I am personally inspired by his ideas and the way he speaks up against racial difference and bias in society. He made sure to raise awareness about the importance of swiping racism and inequality off society. On the other hand, Angelou’s writing was full of interest and emotions indeed. Her way of writing reflects the sufferings and the negative influences that racism and inequality cause. She has poured her words entirely from the heart and illumed how damage such social evils cause to society.

References

"Chapter 9: Of The Sons Of Master And Man | The Souls Of Black Folk | W. E. B. Du Bois | Lit2go ETC." Etc.usf.edu. N.p., 2019. Web. 27 Feb. 2019.

Eng101wlac.files.wordpress.com. N.p., 2019. Web. 27 Feb. 2019.

Weekly Assignments

Famine, affluence, and mortality

Peter Singer in "Famine, Affluence and Morality" explains the moral duty of affluent to help the poor. Funds provided by governments are inadequate for controlling famine or hunger. Poor in underdeveloped countries continue to suffer the consequences of famine and poverty due to lack of support from the rich. I agree with Singer’s claims that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” CITATION Rus13 \l 1033 (Shafer-Landau, 2013). When an individual holds the power of stopping deaths caused by famines, they must do that. Wealth brings responsibility and moral duty for the rich. It can be argued that as affluent have excessive wealth so they have an ethical obligation of donating. The money that they give away in charities does not affect their lifestyles. Because donations don't bring misery to the rich they must give part of their wealth for supporting the poor. Peter Singer has provides a realistic solution for ending famine, poverty, and related implications. Many people lost their lives due to hunger that reflects the selfishness of society. The argument of Singer emphasizes on one's responsibility towards people and society CITATION Mat15 \l 1033 (Parfitt & Skorczewski, 2015).

Affluent are morally bound to offer help to the people who are living in underdeveloped/ poor countries. It does not matter where the poor is because all humans are equal. I agree “if we accept any principle of impartiality, universalizability, equality, or whatever, we cannot discriminate against someone merely because he is far away from us” CITATION Rus13 \l 1033 (Shafer-Landau, 2013). The argument of Singer claims that one’s responsibility is not limited to his own land. Moral obligation reflects that affluent must be able to treat all human beings equally. The only criteria that makes one responsible for donating are wealth. When one holds the power of saving lives, one must not consider origin, place or religion of the victim. A wealthy person can offer help to anyone, anywhere in the world. I agree with Singer’s philosophy that one needs to recognize their obligation or duty associated with their position. If someone can prevent death by giving money, one cannot justify his action of denying help. Affluent who deny charities are immoral and inhumane. They may be in no better position of judging the needs of the poor but they have an obligation of saving people.

I agree that “if everyone in circumstances like mine gave £5 to the Bengal Relief Fund, there would be enough to provide food, shelter, and medical care for the refugees” CITATION Rus13 \l 1033 (Shafer-Landau, 2013). This depicts that everyone needs to accept their moral duty towards society and their role of helping humanity. Donations from more people will save more poor from deaths and famines. If fewer people make charities or donations only limited people will be saved from misery. When giving away some money don't affect one's status or position it is easier to help the poor. I agree with the viewpoints of Singer because the larger refugee population suffers the consequences' of poverty and famine. This is due to limited support from society. The solution of saving refugees rests in the hand of affluent and society. However, I believe that one should not cut their basic necessities for providing relief to the poor. Such as a father struggling to earn money for paying for his son's education is not obliged to give charities. The philosophy of Singer is applicable to the rich and affluent who have millions of savings.

Response

I agree with Katharine R. Forcier’s argument that the involvement of affluent in charities and grants can provide relief to the people who are suffering from famine. It is a moral duty of the people to give away part of their wealth in donations that will minimize the social injustice like deaths from famine. As one class is holding access to more resources they have a responsibility to use them for the welfare of the society. I agree with Katharine because she makes a strong claim that Singer’s idea of supporting humankind is valid. It doesn’t cause any harm to the affluent who only donate some part of their savings that is not consumed. I agree with the point, “but only me giving $5 a month, would not do much to solve the problem”. To end famine and deaths associated with it everyone needs to play their role. Fewer people donating their money won’t bring any change.

I agree with the argument of James White-White who states that there are people in this world who are actually following Singer’s philosophy. There are people who try to support needy from their hard-earned money. White provides a real-life example of his friend who after settling in America continued to support people of his community in Indonesia. I agree with White's viewpoints that every one of us has a moral obligation of helping others by providing food, clothing, and shelter. If someone has the ability to help others he must do it because denying help is more painful. I think the decision of giving charities is personal and people use different justifications for their actions. I agree that one needs to be powerful and self-sufficient for offering support. If someone is struggling for a better life it is irrational to help others. Larger change can only be brought if everyone contributes to charities.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY Parfitt, M., & Skorczewski, D. (2015). Pursuing Happiness: A Bedford Spotlight Reader. Bedford/St. Martin's.

Shafer-Landau, R. (2013). Ethical Theory An Anthology Second Edition. A John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Weekly Assignments

Post

Michael Cohen, the former attorney of President, reveals the horrible side of Donald Trump. He criticizes the negative role played by him in America, starting from his election campaigning. However, there are many fallacies in the argument made by Cohen that makes his position doubtful. Cohen himself worked with Trump for many years and now regret his association with him. He claims that Trump has promoted emotions of hatred and intolerance for winning the election. Cohen states that he is ashamed of working with the President and is guilty because he had protected and promoted him. He further claims that he had concealed Trump's illicit acts rather than listening to his own conscience.

Cohen's fallacy is visible as he mentions, "he is a racist, he is a conman, and he is a cheat." Trump knew Stone spoke with Wikileaks about the DNC email leak. The speaker has attempted to harm the reputation of Trump by bringing his real face in front of the public. However, this also proves his unreliable because he continued to support the president for many years. It is difficult to believe if he really is ashamed of his support and protection towards Trump or taking for his personal interest. Here Cohen is using Ad Hominem fallacy for attacking Trump and putting his reputation on stake. Whatever he said is not proved. Also, Cohen had used evidence from the past when Trump was not a president. He used his business details but didn't prove where he had been involved in illicit conducts. He has attacked the character of the president for providing him guilty and wrong.

He further claims that Trump had paid in hush money. Cohen states, "Trump directed his nonprofit to repay fake auction bidder." He fails to prove his point against exhibits the use of fallacy. At most of the places, the speaker has been unable to justify his claims. He relies on minor evidence that is not adequate for proving the cunning nature of Trump. It can also be witnessed that the allegations made are a reflection of personal belief. What Cohen claims seems like he is motivated by his interest because he accepts that he lied and supported Trump, so it is difficult to believe if he is telling the truth now.

The reason for blaming Trump is to convince the audience that he is a cheat and wrong Americans who lack the capability of taking the role of president. In accusing Trump, Cohen has ignored that he already faced much criticism in election campaigns. Irrespective of all the claims, Trump won the election by getting the majority vote. This was because people chose him and rejected all the fallacies that attempted to prove him wrong or corrupt. Another weakness in Cohen's argument is an emphasis on past events. The speaker has not mentioned or proved any current issue that explains the corruption of the president. It is also not appropriate to mix the personal life of Trump with political life CITATION CNN19 \l 1033 (CNN, 2019).

If Cohen still attempts to fool the audience, he must consider that he lost his credibility. People are less likely to fall for his fallacy. The man could have come up before the election if it really mattered of people and America. But he preferred to attack Trump in his presidency that reveals some personal interest. In conclusion, it is irrational to believe the words of Cohen because he fails to provide evidence for his claims. It can also be seen that the speaker has relied on fallacy for criticizing Trump that is a less intelligent approach.

Responses

I agree with the views of Dean B Adams who has focused on the credibility and reliability of Cohen. He recognizes the act of Cohen as irrational because he has only used words to claim the President. I agree with Dean that Cohen has used fallacy for deceiving the listeners because he has not supported the argument with evidence. It is also difficult to accept his views because he himself is incredible. Cohen has supported Trump for a long time and gained benefits. Now the reason for turning against him could be personal interest. I agree with Dean that it is unwise to fall for the fallacy that relies on weaker claims. I agree that "his entire testimony is invalid because he has lied in the past and therefore he must be lying now." Speaker's inability to blaming before the election shows that he is unreliable. It is not appropriate to believe to what Cohen said. I accept his point that Cohen relies on Ad Hominem fallacy.

I agree with the views of Andrew J Zeppa who denies the testimony of Cohen and considers it invalid. This is because Cohen has not revealed any true side of Trump and used his tactics of blaming him. It can be seen that he relied on Ad Hominem fallacy because he lacks real evidence. I agree that “although personal factors are never relevant to truth or falsity, they are relevant to believability." By speaking against the President, the position of Cohen has become more unreliable because he has supported him in his business and presidential campaigns. He makes bold claims that are lacking logic and evidentiary support. This reveals that Cohen is motivated by his personal belief. There could be some personal motive or interest because if he were concerned about the country, he would have taken this action before election.

Reference

BIBLIOGRAPHY CNN. (2019). Michael Cohen's entire statement to the House committee. Retrieved 03 13, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEvaN_F4iiE

Weekly Assignments

Paper

Initial post

The article selected for the research is “Should assist die to be legalised?” The article has relevance with the topic that I selected for my research is “assisted suicide or the use of euthanasia”. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the argument that when assisted suicide can be legalized and when it can be avoided. The article explains that when patients are willing to end their lives in case of severe illness it will be ethical to use euthanasia. The article highlights key arguments prevailing on the issue of assisted suicide.

The findings explain that patients must be given the right to decide for their lives. This will allow them to get rid of pain and prolonged illness that means a rational choice will be made. The article mentions, "assisted dying could only be considered under circumstances in which a patient of legal age is diagnosed with a progressive disease that is irreversible by treatment and is “reasonably expected to die within six months” CITATION Tho142 \l 1033 (Frost, Sinha, & Gilbert, 2014). This criterion will minimize the possibilities of misusing euthanasia. However, it will require clear monitoring and supervision. The article explains that it is not justified to completely ban euthanasia because it will cause destruction to the patients. In many cases assisted suicide is better than keeping the patients alive. The article suggests that setting a legal age will helpful for the physicians to identify the cases in which euthanasia can be adopted. Another important criteria explained by the article is of considering the condition of the patient. This suggests that euthanasia must be legal only when the patient is suffering from a terminal illness.

It is also important to identify conditions when euthanasia is illegal. The article explains the need for taking informed consent from the patients. When patients lack will power and exhibit lower threshold against pains they can be offered the option of euthanasia. In legalizing assisted suicide the healthcare institutes must take into consideration that patients have provided their consent. It is the responsibility of the doctor to explain the procedure and take consent from the patients. Patient’s rights and autonomy must be respected when the doctors’ aims at using assisted suicide. It is important to consider the consent and willingness of the patient in all cases. This will discourage wrong use of assisted suicides. It is also critical to ensure that doctors use this option only when it is legal. Without informing the patients any decision will be wrong and against the law. The doctors have a responsibility to inform the patients about the procedure and their rights regarding euthanasia.

The article also identifies the need for euthanasia. This reflects that determining the conditions with accuracy that require assisted suicide. “Doctrine of Double Effect’ might be seen as a subjective interpretation that has been applied unequally due to a lack of specialist training or knowledge” CITATION Tho142 \l 1033 (Frost, Sinha, & Gilbert, 2014). This reflects the need for providing adequate training and knowledge to the physicians. The article explains that doctors lacking specialization would not be able to handle such situations. Only specialized doctors and staff must be allowed to use euthanasia after fulfilling the legal conditions. the article will be used in the present research for highlighting the facts that make it useful for the patients and the society. It claims that only in limited cases it must be legalized such as when chances of survival are zero and the patient is suffering from extreme pain. The purpose of euthanasia is to act in the best interest of the patient.

Replies

I like the post of Katherine R Forcier who commented on the article, Conscientious objection to abortion: Zambian healthcare practitioners' beliefs and practices. I think that she makes aright choice of the article because it is linked to her selected topic for the research. I think she did a good job in defining the main aspects of the article such as the health implications of abortions. The article provides a deeper analysis of the topic of abortions. I agree with the viewpoints of Katherine because she identifies the main concerns associated with the controversial topic of abortions. I agree that abortions “may underestimate the impact of practitioners' religious, moral, and ethical beliefs on abortion accessibility”. The selection of the right article has improved her argument and will help her in conducting a thorough research on the selected topic of abortions. The right choice of the article adds more weight to the discussion.

I like the post of Caroline M Munger who selected the topic of business ethics. Her choice of the article is appropriate because it provides a deeper analysis of unethical practices that undermines business morality. I think that the inclusion of the article has increased her command on the selected research topic. The article reveals information about some unethical practices that prevail in the business world and uncover its long-term implications. The article rightly points out the Ponzi schemes and their impacts on society. I agree with Caroline's claims that the companies are only seeking ways for maximizing profits and neglects the consumers that are unethical. I believe that the inclusion of scholarly article has added more weight to the argument. Caroline has thus managed to provide adequate support for his chosen research topic. This will increase the possibilities of conducting valid and reliable research.

Reference

BIBLIOGRAPHY Frost, T. D., Sinha, D., & Gilbert, B. J. (2014). Should assist dying to be legalised? Philos Ethics Humanit Med, 9 (3).

Weekly Assignments

Discussion

I have examined President Donald Trump’s “Presidential Announcement Speech” of 2015 for identifying fallacies. In the article, Trump has repeatedly used fallacies for the convincing audience to believe his criticism. I was surprised by the false causality fallacy apparent in his comment, “when was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time”. The argument made by Trump is invalid and lacks logic. I think he has used false causality for making his speech powerful and effective. In his motive of persuading audience, he builds a baseless argument. Trump used the statement for misguiding people and convincing them to see the threats faced by American from China. The use of strawman fallacy also surprised me as Trump mentions, “Americans are wrong. They are not our fried believe me. But they are killing us economically”. By strong words, he attempts to show the negative consequences of building relationships with other countries. I think he used the fallacy for adding weight to his speech. The economic comparison drawn by him is not supported by facts or statistics that make the argument invalid. Trump is simply blaming other countries and state's weakened trade policies. He is aiming to show that America is undergoing a tough time and that is due to flaws of trade policy. I believe that he is speaking against trade and suggests adopting strict trade measures. There is no reality in the issues highlighted by Trump because in reality the American economy as progressing at the time he discouraged trade. His comment that I’m beating China is to convince people about his strong views against trade. This speech was only made for winning the trust and votes of the Americans. I think the purpose of using fallacy was political gain. The powerful words are used for showing that he cared for his people and the country. Fallacy include false statements that can mislead the listeners. I find the arguments surprising because they are overdramatized.

http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/

I use fallacy when my parents tell me that I should give more time to studies. But I explain that social and communications skills are more important for a career than studies. No one thinks that students must not study. The fallacy builds an illusion of different opinion that sometimes persuades the listener (parents) that it may be of less value. I use this fallacy for just changing their thoughts about studying for some time. The purpose of fallacy here is to convince the listener to believe in what is said. I counteract the tendency by saying ‘study without skills is useless.' This convinces the listener to consider the outcomes.

I think that the best way of avoiding fallacies is to identify how the logic of the argument can go wrong. It is also important to consider if the argument proves anything or not. Considering the fact that fallacies lack reality can also be used for avoiding them. The avoidance can also be achieved by recognizing that fallacies are only used for misguiding people. The best way of avoiding fallacy is to identify the logical errors in the discussion. The valid claims are supported by factual and logical information. It is thus simple to identify that Trump's speech lacked real evidence. Another idea of avoiding fallacy is to do research on the topic to find the reality of the debate. Use of critical approach and skepticism allow readers to recognize the weaknesses of the argument.

Response 1

I like the post of Kathrine R. Forcier for choosing an interesting video of Donald Trump. I think this is the best way of analyzing political fallacies and its impacts on the audience. I agree with her viewpoints that the reason for using fallacy here is for appealing to the audience's ego. The president has not identified the real issues. I agree with the comment, “Trump has just won the admiration of the people there who were supporting him because they think "wow, this man is not going to be self-serving." Forcier attempts to justify her claims by explaining that the statement of the president lacks logic. There are no real basis behind his argument. Also he failed to add facts. I agree that the reason for using fallacy is to misguide people because he attempts to show his patriotism. The primary motive behind the use of fallacy is a political agenda.

Response 2

I agree with the fallacies highlighted by Tristan J Salameh. The post aims at uncovering the fallacies used in the commercial. The purpose of using fallacies is to persuade the viewers. I agree that the fallacy can be identified as, “4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trident gum to their patients who chew gum, so why does the fifth dentist recommend against it?” there is no clear backing or facts that prove the validity of the argument. This indicates that fallacy is used for misguiding or distracting the audience. No clear evidence is used for supporting the statements exhibiting that the advertisement is based on the baseless idea. I agree with the point that it is easy for the viewers to identify the fallacy by comparing the arguments. Unqualified authority is visible in the argument that makes it ineffective. Only irrational viewers will fall for the fallacy who ignores the facts or logic.

Work Cited

Time. Here's Donald Trump's Presidential Announcement Speech. 2015. 2017 йил 12-Oct <http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/>.

Western Philosophy: Observe Wether People Engage For Reasoning

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Western Philosophy: Observe Whether People Engage for Reasoning?

Sometimes the world around us isn’t intellectual stimulating by itself. We want to expand on what we already experience by thinking in an unconventional way. We want to feel connected to our world yet separate from the meaningless practices that we do day to day. People may want to think about the “why” surrounding their lives and the things beyond them.

If a closer look at the breakdown of the word “philosophy” is given from its Latin and Greek origin, “phylos” meaning love and “Sophie” meaning wisdom. It’s the love for wisdom. Hence the search is not necessarily for the answers but for one’s own intellectual growth. This is a deep human desire. Philosophical contemplation can happen by accident even. Someone could just be observing their surroundings, and slowly the thoughts begin to develop that “why”. This usually happens when the minds are idle and people are able to reach farther with their deepest thoughts.

Hence, people engage in it to feel connected to the world yet still free to roam their most abstract thoughts surrounding the universe. They feel satisfied and wanting more after thinking philosophically. It humbles a person when they think about how extraordinary and insignificant the human species is (Paxton). In general, the reasons are driven mainly by curiosity, which is motivated by evolution. Therefore, by biological design, achieving a piece of knowledge about the previously unknown causes a sense of pleasure.

Sometimes, people aim for the ideal ultimate pleasure of the absolute knowledge impulsively. This results in the desire to understand generalities and in general impression that such generalities carry some kind of mysticism. Once such generalities or incapacities are understood in terms of achieving these ones, it is undeniable that such mysticisms are simply triviality in a disguised form. In addition to this, the sense of mysticism is, respectively, simply due to a person's incapacity of storing mentally a large string of tautologies or due to ambiguities of the language.

Works Cited:

Paxton, Joseph M., and Joshua D. Greene. "Moral reasoning: Hints and allegations." Topics in cognitive science 2.3 (2010): 511-527.

What Are The Advantages Of Virtue Ethics, When Compared To The Previous Systems Of Morality

The Advantages of Virtue Ethics in Comparison to Previous System of Morality

[Author Name(s), First M. Last, Omit Titles and Degrees]

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

The Advantages of Virtue Ethics in Comparison to Previous System of Morality

Virtue ethics have benefits over the previous system of morality. This essay will discuss both the system of morality and virtue ethics, as well as, provide information about how virtue ethics have advantages over the morality system. The virtue theory has various components including the virtue statement, components of virtue and the explanation about how these quantities are good. This essay will also describe whether virtues are similar for everyone or different from one person to another and from one culture to another.

System of Morality

The system of morality has a fascinating and rich history. This subject can be approached through perspectives which will both repel and attract the reader at the same time ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"J6ttNSPj","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}The Elements of Moral Philosophy,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":525,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/MNLBGTRT"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/MNLBGTRT"],"itemData":{"id":525,"type":"webpage","title":"The Elements of Moral Philosophy","URL":"https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/elements-moral-philosophy-rachels-rachels/M9781259914256.html","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” n.d.). Although different scholars' theories conflict with one another which made it hard to understand the true meaning of the system of morality ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"m83G0TZb","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory\\uc0\\u8212{}JournalQuest,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory—JournalQuest,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":523,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/3EFQ6G3A"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/3EFQ6G3A"],"itemData":{"id":523,"type":"webpage","title":"Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory - JournalQuest","URL":"http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1385/virtue-ethics-and-moral-theory","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} ("Virtue Ethics and it's Potential as the Leading Moral Theory—JournalQuest," n.d.). The moral philosophy is based on the attempt to acquire a systematic understanding of morality nature ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"JIOKPeGV","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}What is a Moral System? | Danney Ursery,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“What is a Moral System? | Danney Ursery,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":527,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/TQ2HRQ2C"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/TQ2HRQ2C"],"itemData":{"id":527,"type":"webpage","title":"What is a Moral System? | Danney Ursery","URL":"http://sites.stedwards.edu/ursery/class-resources/what-is-a-moral-system/","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“What is a Moral System? | Danney Ursery,” n.d.).

Being the moral agents, it is the duty of everyone that they should be concerned about others' welfare which can be affected by them. It is noticed that thousands of children around the globe die every year because they failed to acquire significant vaccination ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"nST4CxxY","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}James Rachels: What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“James Rachels: What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":535,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/JQGVARUG"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/JQGVARUG"],"itemData":{"id":535,"type":"webpage","title":"James Rachels: What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?","URL":"https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/merlinos/berachels.html","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“James Rachels: What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?,” n.d.). The citizens of wealthier nations can reduce this number but they usually don’t. The moral community is not limited to place but also of time. It is the main obligation of the system of morality to consider the interests of every person equally ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"BLHb0Rd7","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}James Rachels: What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“James Rachels: What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":535,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/JQGVARUG"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/JQGVARUG"],"itemData":{"id":535,"type":"webpage","title":"James Rachels: What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?","URL":"https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/merlinos/berachels.html","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“James Rachels: What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like?,” n.d.). But this theory is less effective in the case of two employees hired at the same time in the organization one worked harder than the other, but if both are treated equally for promotion this will be not fair according to the circumstances.

Virtue Ethics Theory

The moral theory of virtue ethics emphasized the individual character's role in evaluating the rightness of the action. It is considered as the main moral theory and usually contrasted with obligation and duty that emphasized on obeying moral rules ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"z1gMXsKj","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory\\uc0\\u8212{}JournalQuest,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory—JournalQuest,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":523,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/3EFQ6G3A"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/3EFQ6G3A"],"itemData":{"id":523,"type":"webpage","title":"Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory - JournalQuest","URL":"http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1385/virtue-ethics-and-moral-theory","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory—JournalQuest,” n.d.). The virtue ethics is based on accounts of wrong and right deeds, based on the ‘virtuous agent’. It identifies the actions as right or wrong based on the circumstances of the virtuous agent. Virtue is the character trait that is valued positively in the person.

According to Aristotle, “virtue is a trait of character manifested in habitual action.” The ‘habitual’ word is significant as the person who speaks truth occasionally, is different from the person who is honest and truthful in his or her actions. In this case, honesty is the unchangeable and firm characteristic.

Virtues Features

Generally, each distinctive feature of virtue has its characteristics. Following, are the four example of virtues:

Courage

Aristotle said that courage is the mean character between two extremes which are foolhardiness and cowardliness. Courage is also regarded as military virtue as it is the fundamental requirement for soldiers. Courage is also required in creating an unpleasant situation such as when making apologies. Courage is also required for doing something good such as working as a volunteer. Although, in some of the cases, courage is unproblematic but in unusual circumstances it develops troublesome conditions. For example the case of 9/11 in which 19 hijackers killed about 3,000 people ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"P6jrHraT","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}The Elements of Moral Philosophy,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":525,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/MNLBGTRT"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/MNLBGTRT"],"itemData":{"id":525,"type":"webpage","title":"The Elements of Moral Philosophy","URL":"https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/elements-moral-philosophy-rachels-rachels/M9781259914256.html","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” n.d.).

Generosity

It is the willingness to pay to others. A person can be generous with particular resources for example, with their time, money and knowledge. According to Aristotle, generosity is similar to courage, as it is the mean between two extremes that are extravagance and stringiness. One person gives too much, while the other person gives very little. According to Jesus, it is wrong that riches possess all the things while the poor starve ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"X4t5szYa","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}The Elements of Moral Philosophy,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":525,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/MNLBGTRT"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/MNLBGTRT"],"itemData":{"id":525,"type":"webpage","title":"The Elements of Moral Philosophy","URL":"https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/elements-moral-philosophy-rachels-rachels/M9781259914256.html","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“The Elements of Moral Philosophy,” n.d.). One might find the teachings of Jesus too demanding and would reject it. Although the generosity virtue is not prevailing in our lives, which are too luxurious. The generosity interpretation is required in our lives, as it should not be extravagant.

Honesty

The honest person is the one who never deceives or lies, except for a few compelling reasons. But it must be remembered that honesty is not the only thing that would be valued. There is some cases in which the honest person might sometimes deceive or lie with justifications.

Loyalty to Family and Friends

Friendship is the most important component of a good life. According to Aristotle, "No one would choose to live without friends, even if he had all other goods ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"PaQmCu7E","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Ethics\\uc0\\u8212{}Materials,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“Ethics—Materials,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":531,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/YJSUJZ9D"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/YJSUJZ9D"],"itemData":{"id":531,"type":"webpage","title":"Ethics - Materials","URL":"http://ethicsintroduction.weebly.com/","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Ethics—Materials,” n.d.)." Friendship is more than material assistance; our self-esteem is also mostly based on our friends’ assurance. If a person needs friends, it is required that he or she must possess friendship qualities. These are also some limits between friends but most of the time, friends are the only people who tell you the hard truth about yourselves. But people accept criticism of friends as they are not rejecting us. We are usually closer to the family as compared to friends so, we might show more loyalty towards family members.

So, virtues are the characteristic traits that are required for people. Courage is considered a good characteristic as it is required to handle difficult circumstances. Generosity is another effective trait as several people require help ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"6UaRlixI","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory\\uc0\\u8212{}JournalQuest,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory—JournalQuest,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":523,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/3EFQ6G3A"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/3EFQ6G3A"],"itemData":{"id":523,"type":"webpage","title":"Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory - JournalQuest","URL":"http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1385/virtue-ethics-and-moral-theory","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory—JournalQuest,” n.d.). Honesty is also required as its absence can cause critical effects in all ways. Loyalty is also a significant trait with friends and family standing side by side to each other when nobody is present ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"1kJ7tM1x","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Ethics\\uc0\\u8212{}Materials,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“Ethics—Materials,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":531,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/YJSUJZ9D"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/YJSUJZ9D"],"itemData":{"id":531,"type":"webpage","title":"Ethics - Materials","URL":"http://ethicsintroduction.weebly.com/","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Ethics—Materials,” n.d.).

Furthermore, it is also noticed that virtues differ from one society to the other, as well as, differ from one person to another. As people differ in personality with one another and have different characteristic qualities which help them in developing different virtues. But in particular circumstances, everyone requires similar fundamental requirements. Courage is required for everyone as no one can avoid the difficult circumstances, as well as, everyone who needs courage in tackling a particular issue ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"C2fikxr6","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Ethics\\uc0\\u8212{}Materials,\\uc0\\u8221{} n.d.)","plainCitation":"(“Ethics—Materials,” n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":531,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/YJSUJZ9D"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/vDOrLj7p/items/YJSUJZ9D"],"itemData":{"id":531,"type":"webpage","title":"Ethics - Materials","URL":"http://ethicsintroduction.weebly.com/","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,3]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Ethics—Materials,” n.d.). It is also universal that every society has people who are dealing with worse situations so, generosity will always give advantages to them. The other trait of virtue which is also commonly required is honesty as there is no society which can exist when they don’t have a dependable and trustable communication. It is the common nature of humans that they require loyalty from friends and family.

Virtue Ethics Advantages

There are two major advantages of virtue ethics:

Moral Motivation

The reason virtue ethics seems attractive is that they give moral motivation in an attractive and natural account. For example, a person in the hospital is recovered from a long illness, this person gets delighted when someone comes to visit him as there visit helps him, psychologically. But if we ask that person how much he enjoyed meeting with that hospitalized person and he would reply that he is only performing his duty. This might seem awkward to some, but it is the actual truth. For that, we need a theory that is focused on personal qualities such as friendship, love, loyalty, generosity, and honesty.

Immorality Ideals Doubts

The moral philosophy modern theme is based on impartiality which means that everyone is morally equal. The moral theory which is based on virtues, although can be easily accounted such as loyalty, provide partiality for friends and loved ones. The impartiality requirement gives an idea to the extent of how such virtues are interconnected with each other.

Conclusion

Virtue ethics is considered as the recurring idea that is regarded as 'practical wisdom'. Through practical wisdom, we understand that virtues can be learned through organizing life which is same as learning new skills. In contrast to the system of morality, the virtue ethics are referred to as the ethics 'non-codifiability’ As in this dilemma and situation, the right and effective solutions, depend on simple ideas such as universalizability and the better for more numbers. So, the virtue ethics advantages are not reprimanded legally or make anything disadvantageous, although the benefit is safety. The advantages of virtues are feeling better in the long run, as well as, other people naturally respecting you more. It is getting a higher amount of generic benefits and virtue in return. The secondary benefits include inner peace and calmness. As the person who has virtuous ethics knows that he/she is doing right, thus there is no shame and guilt linked with it . Although, virtue ethics is considered as incomplete as it does not help us while dealing with the moral conflict cases, the theory of virtue ethics tells us that we should be kind in such situations in which we don’t understand what to do.

References

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Ethics—Materials. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2019, from http://ethicsintroduction.weebly.com/

James Rachels: What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory Be Like? (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/merlinos/berachels.html

The Elements of Moral Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2019, from https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/elements-moral-philosophy-rachels-rachels/M9781259914256.html

Virtue Ethics and its Potential as the Leading Moral Theory—JournalQuest. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2019, from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1385/virtue-ethics-and-moral-theory

What is a Moral System? | Danney Ursery. (n.d.). Retrieved December 3, 2019, from http://sites.stedwards.edu/ursery/class-resources/what-is-a-moral-system/

What Are The Advantages Of Virtue Ethics, When Compared To The Previous Systems Of Morality?

Virtue Ethics- A comparison with Morality Systems

[Name of Author]

[Name of Institution]

Authors Note

All the research work done during this research process is highly authenticated and based on the personal views of the researcher by giving definitive and appropriate results. All the results and opinions which are utilized in their research are by the researcher's point of view, and they cannot be claimed or used anywhere without the permission of the author.

Abstract

The amalgamation of virtue ethics and morality is evident in all the societies all across the globe. The issue with these terms is that there is a thin line which is to be determined by all the people. The virtues are the traits of the virtuous person on which the society relies and adopt the same habits in their lives whereas the morality is considered as the benchmark of the community which is to be followed by every member of the society in all the aspects. But on the other hand, if we look at the branch of ethics which leads towards the virtue ethics, it has a vital role in determining and polishing the personality of the people rather than any other office. This branch has created more awareness in the society than any other branch and has given significant developmental changes in the personalities of people and have given them a geometrical turn of 180 digress in their life. This change is witnessed n all the aspects of life. Without the presence of the virtue ethics and morality together, the society is unable to achieve their goals in their life. This is the specialty of these two traits that gives the ability to the man to live by society.

Introduction

Philosophy of life is a difference in all the perspectives of living life in today's world. The moral value is changed from that of the previous values which were engraved in the human mind. All these values have left an impact on the lives of the people. The primary value which is now the question of the society is about the ethics and morality and the values which are not observed in society.

The ethics are considered as the original core essential ingredient of the society. Without the presence of ethics, it gets difficult for people to survive in society. Ethics defines the living patterns and the cultural values and integrity of the people. Ethics define the norms and value soft he society which has vital importance in determining the paths of the community which the people have to opt throughout their lives. While considering the term ethics, it has various branches in the field of philosophy which plays a significant role in the practical experience. After the practical implication, the next step which is highly relevant is the practicality of the theories which are not being practiced and all those theories which were derived by philosophers all across the globe. The purpose of the formation of all these theories was to implicate the rules of life on the individuals who represent any society so that these values can be implicated in all the nations which determine the characters and the paths of the community.The term ethics has a vast terminology when it comes towards implication in the fields of life. In every field of life, there rules, regulations and logicality variate from time to time all these aspects are inter-linked with all the fields of life and the rules which are required to fulfill all these aspects. Like in the field of information technology, hacking is considered ethical.

At times there is a need for information for the peace and stability of the country and to save them from big catastrophes in the country where such rules are needed to be implemented. Similarly, in many field illegal; actions are considered as ethical as it is the requirement of their job.

While discussing the virtue ethics, this is another diversified field of ethics which refers to the person who is highly virtuous in his acts and his acts becomes an example for the society and they become the part of the norms and vocabulary of that community. This field is evident in all the fields of life, and at times it is amalgamated with the morality but morality is considered as the standards that are set apart by the people of the society to meet the standards of the society without which it becomes difficult for them to be a part of the society as the implications in the society can create hindrance for the people to meet the standards and reach the benchmark. Somehow this is the beauty of the society to bring change in the society from the ground level to the point where the society is ready to accept all the changes. These changes enable a man to understand the hidden codes of life which can help them and the future generation in all the aspects as these virtue ethics have vital importance in the lives of people to give them morality codes.

Discussion

The importance of virtue ethics is not restricted towards the qualities of the ethics and the priorities of a person who possess all the good ethics, but it depends upon the entire society which tends to follow the rules (Tang, 2015). The rules are not the similar ones which were followed by the

Ancestors. But these rules defines and gives birth to a new era which helps the people to bring them on a track which was long lost in the hassle of life. These moral values are now no more the part of our life as we are so busy in the robotics life that we are unable to provide these basic rules to our youth. This is the biggest dilemma of the society that we are having few of the moral codes when it comes towards the virtue ethics; the issue is that the generation living in the modernized world, do not consider it as their part of duties of the society.

Virtue Ethics

The virtue ethics is the field of ethics which gives the complete guide to the human beings to opt the righteous path in all the steps if life. This gives the advantage to human beings to establish themselves in society as a stabilized candidate to be a role model for society. This is not only implicated towards one individual who can have all these traits in the society, but this can be transferred to all the people of the society (Mattingly & Throop, 2018). This is not a limited version of ethics, but this is the advantage of the righteous person to transfer all these thought-provoking processed to the people all across the community so that the society may act in a situation of need. It is not an easy task to bring reforms in the society, but it needs time to bring a change. Initially, it was considered that having moral codes of life gives the benefits to the people, but the modern studies give a different answer to this situation that now the virtue ethics have taken over the society with their widespread advantages (Vaughn, 2015).

Advantages of Virtue Ethics over Morality

With the time, the more educational reforms have given us this ability to learn from our mistakes and overcome them in the possible suited time so that changes can be adapted in the society. Initially due to lack of knowledge and resources. These issues were not resolved at that time, but eventually, with the time, the situation started changing. At the initial period of the life, the essential ingredient of life to live a stabilized life in the suitable ways and adopting the authenticated rules, the chief norm which required in all the people was morality (Mattingly & Throop, 2018). The morality codes were highly essential as it was there to be a gentleman of society, without morality, there is no one in the society. Moral codes used to determine the human behavior and nature of the society. Moral codes were always applied in all ye situation, but the issue was there was a less compensation on the application of the moral codes, and due to its applicability and complications, the situation can get out of control, and wrong decisions can be implemented on the adverse situations, which needs to be catered.

The other factor of the morality codes is that all type of religions and societies teaches the moral teachings. These teachings are interlinked with each other, and there is no other possible amendment which is required in it. These codes are being applied on the life since an extended period. These rules cannot be changed but the need amendments from time to time as the religions need flexibility in all the periods but do not require any significant changes in the society as they can give severe consequences to the people.

Whereas when we come to the advantages of the virtue ethics, they can give a clear and transparent system to live life. Nobody can be a right person y bringing specific changes in their life at a particular time of life. To be a virtuous person in life, one needs time from the beginning session of life, and this can be only done when the person sets an example in the society from the beginning periods. If the person is providing justice to everyone without any biases in the society, then he can be known as a virtuous person (Tang, 2015). The feeling fidelity cannot be developed for everyone in the society in a single person’s personality. It needs time for the people to develop such patience and love for someone else besides the family but the virtuous person like Fathers' Saints, Priests are the exceptional people in the society who have nurtured this feeling in themselves and then their community so that there may be a path which is crystal clear without any benefits (Vaughn, 2015).

The only dilemma in this aspect is that the people are unable to give a clear guidance in identifying the real and the fake people, and even if they have the opportunity to find out the solution to this problem, they are unable to get the complete guidance in this perspective which can bring a negative aspect to the virtue ethics (Vaughn, 2015). The other issue is the general agreement to the solution is not acceptable, but the solution is required in the best possible way by the virtuous person himself.

Conclusion

With this, we can conclude that the scope of morality is existing but now it is overtaken by the virtue ethics and this is the new enigma which will be followed by the people all across the globe. No religion or any other discrimination can affect the traits of this virtue, but it has emerged without any discrimination and provided man a change to bring positivity back in their lives.

References

Vaughn, L. (2015). Beginning Ethics: An introduction to moral philosophy. WW Norton.

Mattingly, C., & Throop, J. (2018). The anthropology of ethics and morality. Annual Review of Anthropology, 47, 475-492.

Tang, B. (2015). Recognizing Criminal Behavior of Persons Diagnosed with Mental Illness: An Analysis of the Intentionality and a Philosophical Disclosure on Ethics and Morality.

What Connections Can You See Between The Two Theories Of Descartes That We Have Studied So Far, Namely, A) His Theory Of Knowledge, Which Is Rationalism; And B) His Theory Of Dualism, Or The Distinction Between Mind And Body?

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Connections Between Theory of Knowledge and Theory of Dualism

The connection between the theory of knowledge and the theory of dualism is that knowledge and understanding are the same, however, there has to be rationality in accepting knowledge. Gaining knowledge demands a standard and this demand can be fulfilled with the help of senses and these senses are the human body and mind according to Descartes.

Descartes set some standards for knowledge and he believed that there is only some belief that can be certain; there should not be any doubt and one should be able enough to perform functions according to these standards. Knowledge cannot be gained from books only, there has to be a logical application of reasoning and individualism to make decisions based on rationality. Limiting knowledge to books may not be encouraging for those who seek to obserce and think rationally according to nature.The thinking capacity of an individual encourages to argue according to logical thinking which is a gift to humans from God.

Knowledge gaining is a mental activity; without the mind, there is no possibility to think rationally and gain knowledge.The human body and mind are two distinctions. Our senses are tested on the basis of knowledge that we possess. Descartes believed that the ideas which humans get are inborn and have been possessed by us since birth. Discovering knowledge and rational thinking about facts and the capacities of human are objective to the reality focusing the environment ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"QrWPXWnI","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Department of Philosophy, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria and Minimah 35)","plainCitation":"(Department of Philosophy, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria and Minimah 35)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":718,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/F0XOCTdk/items/I95Q5EW3"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/F0XOCTdk/items/I95Q5EW3"],"itemData":{"id":718,"type":"article-journal","title":"Rationalists’ Concept of Mental Activity: The Cartesian Example","container-title":"IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science","page":"34-44","volume":"13","issue":"1","source":"Crossref","abstract":"The philosophical criticisms of the last two centuries have prosecuted a very searching analysis of the cognitive capacity of the human mind to know if there is a real world outside the mind. With the transition to the modern period, there was enormous transformation in the conception of thinking and knowing. Philosophers of some certain persuasions began to set the philosophical agenda to understand the objective world based on the foundations of rationalism. These philosophers have insisted that the human mind naturally possess innate ideas, principles or capacity to know things independent of sense – experience. Given these antecedence, this paper extrapolates the rationalists’ concept of mind using the Cartesian example as a case study1. It argues that for Descartes, the deliverances of external objects by the senses are deceptive and cannot lead us to the true knowledge of things. For him, the human mind possesses the modalities of thought and has at its disposal certain innate principles produced by the mechanism of reasoning that lead to our knowledge of the world. His attempt to investigate the cognitive activities of the subject as the key source of understanding the objective universe opens the door to the development of an epistemology that sees the mind as a ‘productive’ process. In this way, Descartes’ theory of mind and consciousness represents a move away from the investigation of reality (the structures, categories of reality/object) as conceived by classical philosophers to the investigation of the knowing process (the structures, categories of the knowing process/subject) as initiated by modern philosophers.","DOI":"10.9790/0837-1313444","ISSN":"22790845, 22790837","shortTitle":"Rationalists’ Concept of Mental Activity","language":"en","author":[{"literal":"Department of Philosophy, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria"},{"family":"Minimah","given":"Francis"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2013"]]}},"locator":"35","label":"page"}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Department of Philosophy, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria and Minimah 35). These facts and ideas which our minds develop are based on the logical and rational thinking which humans possess. False assumptions lead to meagre decisions, while rational thinking about facts and knowledge may improve qualities of Methodical experimentations. Methodical experimentations based on methods of doubt which contribute to methods of success. These wrong decisions may contradict with nature and rationality which will be leadin our mind rtowards problems ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"utMKGUlk","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Maxwell)","plainCitation":"(Maxwell)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":719,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/F0XOCTdk/items/ZJRNGFTM"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/F0XOCTdk/items/ZJRNGFTM"],"itemData":{"id":719,"type":"article-journal","title":"The Mind–Body Problem and Explanatory Dualism","container-title":"Philosophy","page":"49-71","volume":"75","source":"ResearchGate","abstract":"An important part of the mind–brain problem arises because consciousness seems inherently resistant to scientific explanation. The solution to this dilemma is to recognize, first, that scientific explanation can only render comprehensible a selected aspect of what there is, and second, that there is a mode of explanation, the personalistic, different from, irreducible to, but as viable as, scientific explanation, in terms of which consciousness can be understood. The problem of explaining why experiential or mental aspects of brain processes or things should be correlated with certain physical processes or things is a non-problem because there is no kind of explanation possible in terms of which an explanation could be couched. A physical theory, amplified to include the experiential, might be predictive but would, necessarily, cease to be explanatory; and an amplified personalistic explanation could not succeed either. There is, in short, an explanation as to why there cannot be an explanation of correlations between physical and mental aspects of processes going on inside our heads. Despite this, there are important, as yet unsolved but solvable problems of knowledge and understanding concerning such correlations. The central serious task for research is to discover how the two explanatory accounts of what goes on inside our heads, physical and personal, are inter-related.","DOI":"10.1017/S003181910000005X","journalAbbreviation":"Philosophy","author":[{"family":"Maxwell","given":"Nicholas"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2000",1,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Maxwell).

Works Cited:

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Department of Philosophy, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria, and Francis Minimah. “Rationalists’ Concept of Mental Activity: The Cartesian Example.” IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science, vol. 13, no. 1, 2013, pp. 34–44. Crossref, doi:10.9790/0837-1313444.

Maxwell, Nicholas. “The Mind–Body Problem and Explanatory Dualism.” Philosophy, vol. 75, Jan. 2000, pp. 49–71. ResearchGate, doi:10.1017/S003181910000005X.

What Is Justice?

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

What is justice?

Introduction

The word justice is derived from a Greek word, “just” having several senses such as “right” in English. Justice is defined as a stance of “being right”, “choosing right” or favoring “deserved”. There are a number of concepts that are associated with justice, starting from right of law to an individual perspective that reflects human and individual power of decision making. (Pater, et, al. 2019). In a simplified form, there are several paradigms of justice, adhering to a code of conduct that is already formulated, leading to an individual’s point of view. There are several philosophers and theologians who have tried to define justice in terms of their understanding of world. It would not be wrong to say that justice refers to one, who is observant of duty or custom, honest, lawful and legally right.

Discussion

Plato, one of the greatest philosophers has defined, “Justice” as a “stance of morality”. According to his writing, Republic, justice is derived from “Dikaisyne” that is much similar to righteousness. In a simplified form, justice refers to “duty of man”. He included fields of human conduct in justice, as long as they can affect others. (Neely, et, al. 2019, pp. 139). It is significant to note that Plato’s definition of justice is a reflection of democratic government that punished Socrates. Being a student of Socrates, Plato used his knowledge as a concept of defense for Socrates. Plato is of view, justice is actually the quality of soul that restricts a man from irrational action and desires that may prove to be selfish. It is asserted that Plato's justice was assigned to save Athens. In contrast, I think justice has nothing to do with past, taking into account that a state or lawmaking body can never be rational. For me, justice is the stance of “righteousness”, taking into account that laws are equally applicable and affirmative. There is no entity who could challenge “law” and “its implication”, because justice is neutrality of decision. Believing in neutrality, justice is something abstract, it could not be achieved because there is no realistic ground of lack of biases in present time

. Plato justified, justice is an impression that could lay down the formation of “Ideal Society”. The great philosopher then defined ideal society as a society where righteousness is reigned as supreme, referring to the cure of all evils. Plato defined justice in terms of its opposite, “injustice” or cruelty that is actually a baseline of all social evil. Although defining justice clarifies the characteristics of an ideal society but it confused the broader perspective where situations and things are never ideal. In the complexities of modernistic and materialistic world, there is a great obsession of power because peaceful attire never means everything is fine. (Adams, et, al. 2018, pp. 1-3). It would not be wrong to say that there is a great conflict between Plato’s idea of justice and my perspective because there is a much deviation in past and present. Today, there is no tunnel that could lead to the worries and tribulations of real victim, taking into account that actual victim is so tormented that his views cannot be brought to public hearings and the ones with authority are using their resources in fact manipulating them. In a simplified form, my definition of justice is a stance that could allow everyone to express what they feel, narrate what they heard and achieve what they strive for, taking into account that it is more like a dream that cannot be turned into a reality. (Pater, et, al. 2019).

I believe in the ideology of circumstances where reality is what that can be analyzed and seen being practiced. It is significant to note that justice refers to the stance of being just and it is none of human attribute because we believe in appearances. Much like Plato, justice can never be related to political authorities because they are meant to make laws that can never be wrong, taking into account that Plato defined justice in terms of clashes and unsatisfactory action he saw in democratic system of that time. I think Plato’s account of justice is notwithstanding scrutiny because Socrates was more like a rebel who questioned the prevalent rules and it is evident that none of the states could bear interference. (Pater, et, al. 2019). Although Socrates was also justified, still I think Plato has not done justice with "justice" because his definition of justice is based on morality where morality would never allow questioning the authorities who have made certain laws unless they are evidently ineffective. Side by side, Plato’s definition reflects morality without staying enacted to it because it infers a deep insight into the actual social happening that could bring forth the devastated and neglected. In contrast to Plato, my understanding of justice is based on the code of conduct that could be vigilant enough to hear the unheard and act without being selfish. (Adams, et, al. 2018, pp. 1-3).

Conclusion

Justice refers to a paradigm where "humanity and morality" come first. It is an attribute that positions man above all other beings in this world, taking into account that it is not seemingly possible. Although Plato tried his best to define justice, his understanding was the product of social setting and a mindset which was whelmed by the death of his teacher. In contrast, my definition of justice is an abstraction because justice is not behooved to achievement; it is just an impression of which lawmaking bodies strive for.

Work Cited

Adams, Matthew. "Virtue and law in Plato and beyond." (2018): 1-3.

Neely, Sol. "Midrash and Social Justice." New Directions in Jewish American and Holocaust Literatures: Reading and Teaching (2019): 139.

Pater, Walter. Plato and Platonism. BoD–Books on Demand, 2019.

What Is Luck Egalitarianism, And Does It Constitute A Plausible Theory Of Justice? In Your Response, You Must Make Reference To Elizabeth Anderson’s ‘What Is The Point Of Equality?’.

Assignment Title

Student’s name

Professor’s name

Subject code

University

Luck egalitarianism represents a group of egalitarianism theories of distributive justice. Primarily, it aims at counteracting the distributive effects of luck. Originally, luck egalitarianism deals with the distribution of justice within a society (Nozick, 1974). It argues that luck (despite being good or bad) remains a reality of human life, which cannot be ignored. However, if all or any of these realities grounded in luck begin to negatively affect the prospects and interests of a person’s life then such realities start mattering for the justice system of a society. And, in this regard, it becomes the duty of the justice system to nullify or at least neutralize the affects of such bad luck.

The core idea of luck egalitarianism lies in the notion that each individual of a society must take responsibility for their actions or choices, and assume the costs of making such choices or taking such decisions. Only in this condition, the idea of moral equality of individuals would ably be prevailed within a society. On the other side of discussion, it supports the notion that any person born with bad luck must not be worse off just because of it. For some of the researchers and authors, including Anderson (1999) and Cohen (1983), the primary purpose of this distributive principle is to counter the negative effects of luck on the opportunity for wellbeing of a person. Nevertheless, for other authors and researchers such as Dworkin (2000), the objective of distributive justice is to nullify or at least mitigate the effects of luck on the social distribution of goods and resources among the individuals.

However, with the development in the past literature over the past few decades, it has become clear that the intuitive idea behind this idea lies in the demand or desire that no person is differentiated in the society on the grounds of good or bad luck. This conclusion is also exhib9ted in the past literature on luck egalitarianism. The researchers and authors had been working on, and had performed varying attempts on designing distributive principles, which are appropriately sensitive to the considerations of luck and responsibility. However, the advocates of welfare-based principle argue that the material goods and services have no intrinsic value. They further argue that such material goods and services remain valuable as long as they keep adding to activities aimed at increasing profitability.

For these reasons, advocates of welfare-based principles argue that justice distributive principles must be inclusive of material goods and services. The luck egalitarianism or liberalization principle, on the other end of discussion, contrast with each other. It, therefore, generally criticizes any idea of justice distribution requiring the pursuit of specific pattern. A few examples of such an idea include equality or maximization of welfare or of material goods and services. They further argue that some of the pattern pursuit highly conflicts with more important oral demands of self-ownership or liberty. Hence, although luck egalitarianism comes in different forms but the central idea of all of these ideas remains the same. Putting it in words, the core idea of the notion is that equalities that many authors and researchers believe that the particular principles must be advocated and defended on their particular project. In this regard, the authors can justify issue by putting pressure on the idea that she has an aim to understand the hidden and real meaning of the theory.

Distributive justice emphasizes the difference between the theories. For this reason, it also ably provides an avenue for the persons having interest in ignoring the principles of justice in the society. Additionally, most of the people, as a member of the same society, tend to compensate people for having brute, bad luck. In this regard, however, they have wrongfully assumed that the justice is all about this, and nothing exists outside the boundary of this narrow circle. Recently, some of the authors and researchers have heavily criticized. Firstly, they have been criticized for leaving out of the picture one of the most non-distributive egalitarian concerns. Secondly, they have been argued for as being a complete misconstrual of egalitarian justice.

Anderson Elizabeth, strongly argued that egalitarianism believes in people living together within a community. The communities are being governed by principles that express the notion that all citizens deserve equal respect and concern of the society. Furthermore, in the same vein. Anderson has also made the most radical claim that egalitarians have no non-instrumental concerns about the distribution of justice. Based on this claim, Anderson has further elaborated on the fact that egalitarians have no direct but indirect concern in this context. Also, their concern must stand equal for being a member of the society. However, such an idea cannot be obtained and practiced over one night. For this reason, redistribution of wealth, income, etc. would be required for such large scale egalitarianism. Moreover, it does not require elimination of differential brute luck. The only requirement of egalitarianism, as Anderson puts it, is to create and maintain ability of each member of the society to function as equal human being.

Anderson (1999) explains that if the conservative secretly peened the recent work that defends equality, the results could not be much hopeful. She points out to the fact that the serious mistake that these egalitarians, who assume equality as a compensation for bad luck, make is to imagine equality as a solution to the problem of bad luck of individuals. They further believe that equality prevails within a society when no one suffers of a deficiency that has not been created by them. Therefore, it can be argued that egalitarians see the quest for equality as a species of litigation or insurance adjustment. However, the proper goal of equality is to differentiate between preventable or foreseeable adversaries and uncontrollable misfortunes. Additionally, it must also examine the damages the adversaries have caused, and how to best compensate these damages.

Luck egalitarian question that if this situation is correct. Firstly, they must all argue in the very same manner as Anderson has described it. The members of a society do this because they believe that social standing must be seen as a tangible good, which should be distributed equally among all of the people. However, this can be obtained only after setting aside the considerations about responsibility. If such a thing prevails, there would remain very less between Anderson’s concerns and luck egalitarianism. The latter asks that why do humans owe to each other, and the former asks that what constitutes a fair distribution. These are two different questions primarily due to the fact that distribution is a complex notion, which becomes unfair even when all members of a society have done what they owed to others. For instance, within a community, some of the people die young while others die old, and on one can do anything to prevent it.

Secondly, supposedly said, the available resources are so optimally distributed among the society in a manner that effective and efficient functioning in political decision making and within a civil society is assured (Kymlicka, 2002). Again, supposedly saying, if one has a choice between two distributions, i.e., one that benefits the ones with worse off with regard to how well their lives are being spent, and the other that benefits those who are already going through the best phase of how their life is being spent. For this reason, both of these distributions are equally good on the account of Anderson despite the fact that many see it as an inappropriate and unhealthy approach implication of her view. Although the problem becomes less of a headache if the threshold of equal financing remains very high.

However, with such high thresholds, another problems surfaces with much more seriousness than before. If people must be assured of equal functioning at such a high level despite the fact that they act foolishly in keeping up with their responsibilities, the cost of their choices must not be imposed on them. It becomes unfair to them. Anderson has also provided an answer to this serious problem, i.e., democratic equality fails to introduce any good change and ascribes on hope on the fact that luck can be neglected by responsibility.

Overall, based on the discussion developed above, it can be concluded that luck egalitarianism is not a plausible theory of justice primarily due to the fact that human life constitutes of a jumble of lotteries; it is a particular way of looking at the world. This view of seeing the world is far more attractive and successful than the philosophy of luck egalitarianism. Therefore, the world view is a problem here. The assumption that luck is a powerful tool in the context of social sorting.

References

Anderson, E. 1999. What Is the Point of Equality? Ethics, 109, 287-337.

Cohen, G.A. 1983. The Structure of Proletarian Unfreedom. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12, 3-33.

Dworkin, R. 2000. Sovereign Virtue, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Chapter 2 (Excerpt).

Kymlicka, Chapter 3: Liberal Equality, pages 70-101.

Kymlicka, Chapter 3: Liberal Equality, to page 70 only.

Kymlicka, Chapter 4: Libertarianism, pages 102-127.

Kymlicka, Chapter 5: Marxism.

Kymlicka, W. 2002. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (Second Edition), Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. Chapters 1 & 2: Introduction, and Utilitarianism.

Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia, USA, Basic Books. Chapter 7 (Excerpt).

Pogge, T. 2008. World Poverty and Human Rights (Second Edition), Malden, MA, Polity Press. Pages 97-123.

Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition), Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Sections 1-5, 11-13, & 24-26.

Singer, P. 1972. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 229-243.

What Is Philosophy?

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Value of Philosophy

Introduction

Philosophy refers to the love of wisdom, and in a broad sense, it is an act of an individual for understanding the truth about something. The search for truth can be in any form and for anything that is the subject of person. It occurs that academic scholars’ tries to find out the reality about the world, their self and argue for answering the life. For the practice of philosophy, Bertrand Russell in Chapter 15 of the Problems of Philosophy illustrates the practical man who in his opinion is in the pursuit of hair-splitting distinctions. It is the result of viewing the wrong concept about the end of life and the things that are discussed under the resources which are achieved by finding the truth. The author contrasts the utility of philosophy which argue for analyzing the far-reaching effects on humanity.

Discussion

The author discusses the concept of open-minded in his chapter, and he strives that we cannot attain real about the truth without knowing the effects and level of acceptance on behalf of others. Restricting the thought process will not lead to any conclusion. One must be open-minded, and its definition reflects that accepting the ideas of others for further investigation is the principal value of the philosophical study. Even the disciples of the teacher have to approach reality without bounding themselves under the guidelines provided to them. Instructions are important, but it ensures that there must be the free mind with no prejudice and restricted lines. Here comes the practical man who is the person that pursuit the food for thought and the material needs. Behavior and philosophical attitude are sensitive to the food of free and open-minded individual (Russell, P. 238). There would be a criticism on the work done by a person for finding truth and identity and it will have to face adverse opinion for betterment and revision in the thought process.

The author provides that open-mindedness is “The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what his science has ascertained particular body of truths, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science” It is because of the accepting others opinion one can reach up to the real value of truth (Russell, P. 243).

One of the significant aspects is the part of the questions which is recognized by nature and progressively answered by the scholars. The profound interests of humans are countered in these questions like the creation of universe with any unity of plan or it is the composition of atoms. This argument has put the mind with indefinite growth of wisdom. There could be the opinion that life on earth must be impossible with the small planet and where a transitory accident could have happened. Further, the argument that all the good or evil are essential for the universe or these are concerns of man which create something unusual and irrespective of the truth hovering in someone mind. Most of the answers to these questions are also not true according to the value of philosophy. Other than replying such type of questions and concerns raised in one’s mind, one should not forget that philosophy strives for making us sensitive with open minds about the importance and consciousness of the speculative moves in the world (Russell, P. 244). We generally do not care about our intentions and accepting the ideas putting by someone in favor or against the values of truth.

Same is the case with Bartered Russel whose main ideas have some directives for the philosophers to develop a program of thoughts that could offer a limited set of conclusions against the human knowledge and religious beliefs. These arguments according to the author are based on unwise dogmatic declarations and ideas. With a high degree of certainty one cannot reach or strict to reacting the questions in a single drive. Uncertainty is significant to stimulate new items and beliefs in the mind of common man. Here is the real value of philosophy which goes through the life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from the conventional sense. Further, the habitual beliefs and the common sense of age or the nation reflect that there must be convictions which grown up through cooperation and deliberate reason. Even the most ordinary things of life can be seen as essential and sensitive means.

The unfamiliar way of ordinary philosophizing things allows the possibility for new knowledge and interaction of genius minds (Russell, P. 245). The author suggests certain possibilities which include the enlargement of our thoughts and freedom from the tyranny of custom and traditional rational. We cannot link the real things with imaginations, but the questions about things lead to the increased knowledge of what these things should be. The concepts liberate the philosophy from ‘our sense of wonder’ and ‘arrogant dogmatism.' The personal aims and private interests do not allow for the investigation of truth about life and these are considered as necessary in this world. The value under the things contemplates the distinct elements, and it also led to the outside world for expanding the ideas (Russell, P. 245). The author argues that “in one way or another if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison” from the personal world and thought process. There is significant support for free minds because the writer illustrates that we cannot be restricted to our memory and individual thinking. Our knowledge of this world or anything we are going to search would distort the objects.

The progress of the intellect is based on accepting the opposite ideas and those who are not the same as others. One should enlarge the self, and the primary value of philosophy is not in any comprehensive response. A mind can also be celebrated through the greatness of the universe which lies in philosophical language. Last lines of the chapter unfolded that the author is discussing impairing influence of idealist position and the widespread tendency towards the opinion that man is a measure of all the things. Time, space and all the materials are properties of mind, and anything that is not created by man is unknowable. These arguments strive for real values of philosophy and provide that self-thinking should not be involved in the learning of new ideas and skills. Approaching the real problems cannot be possible without continuous learning (Russell, P. 246). We need to understand the bitter truth and should follow the plan of action that is devised for our life.

Russel supported the ideas and material things that are independent of mind, and there is no acquaintance with any of them, and a veil remains complete. There is a revisionary element in the philosophy of an author who thinks that one must have a strength of the reasoning, which is based on facts and supported by various claims of life. The world of ideation will not work in the finding of truth. Further, the author also asked for applying values and methods of logic to resolve the problems associated with philosophy. The tension between empiricist and rationalist can also be determined by the writer’s approach for lettering and illustration of arguments that are derived from other theories. We cannot deny the fact that life is moving with every day and with innovations it attempts to ask various questions (Russell, P. 249). These include the definite struggle to find the truth as to why we were created and the purpose of the universe in a logical manner. The war of nerves along with the cycles of the earth would be persistent until the real truth is not found by the scholars and researchers like Bertrand Russel.

Conclusion

To conclude the discussion the chapter of philosophy will not end with the opinion and thoughts provided by the writer. Much of the material is left for the debate and answering individual questions. However, there is one thing which generates the importance of logic and arguments for finding the reality of life that the consequence of viewing the wrong concept about the end of life and the goods that are discussed under the human thought process is achieved only by finding the truth. The author create differences for the utility of philosophy which argue for analyzing the far-reaching effects on humanity. There would be no limitation and lines draw in the sense of exploring more and more about the incidents of life and reality.

Works Cited

Russell, Bertrand. "The value of philosophy." The problems of philosophy (1912): 237-250.

Whatever Prompt Writer Choses

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Compare and Contrast References to “Pleasure” in regards to “Happiness” in the works of Mill and Aristotle.

Introduction

John Stuart Mill has made the proclamation that the philosophies of utilitarianism are not implausible or obscure, but they serve as the roots of ethical systems of the past. He even claimed to the fact that it would be easy to demonstrate that whatever consistency and balance the past moral ethics were able to attain, is primarily because of the implicit impact of a standard not familiarized. This standard that Mill talked about is the Greatest Happiness Principle. Mill has made assured claims on the fact that utilitarianism is entrenched in other ethical systems as well, but not everyone will agree to that fact. There are people who might even believe that utilitarianism suffuses other systems. In this paper, the comparison and contrast of pleasure in regards to happiness will be done in light of Mill’s utilitarian and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

Discussion

Although, there are many aspects of Mill and Aristotle's view on happiness and pleasure that might be different, with thorough research it can be said that there are some similarities as well. Let us start by getting one thing out of the way that Mill’s work might not have gotten translated but Aristotle’s was. Due to this fact, many differences were introduced between their works. Even though the Greek word eudaimonia is directly translated to have the meaning of happiness and both the philosophers believed the fact that happiness brought significant good, but there was a difference in the view. Mill believed the fact that happiness was an act which was partially associated with pleasure. On the contrary, Aristotle was in believe of the fact that happiness was a feeling that was closely associated with pleasure. On top of that, Aristotle's viewpoint of happiness is more associated with virtue than that of Mill's (Loizides, 302-321). A better translation of Eudaimonia would be flourishing. When Aristotle claims happiness to be the best good, he is not just saying that it is a feeling, he also sterns on the fact that it is an activity. It is said that eudaimonia is a feeling or act that is more long-term, a person is either eudaimon or not, so this term projects achievement and prosperity. Further, Aristotle also believed the fact that Eudaimonia is not associated with pleasure. While pleasure is good, but it cannot be said that it is "the good" like happiness. Most people term pleasure with happiness but not Aristotle, he had a completely different view of it. However, Aristotle does affiliate eudaimonia with Virtue and called it its core.

The views that Aristotle has of Eudaimonia are quite different from what Mill believes and has to say. Mill's conception of happiness is quite different, but he does deem it as a great good. However, even after calling it a great good Mill does not classify happiness as something which is long-term. Another contradiction from Aristotle's view is the fact that Mill believes that happiness is more related to pleasure than virtue (Loizides, 302-321). Mill also thinks that there is no other reality and all that is required is happiness. However, he believes the fact that happiness is a feeling, there can be moments when a person can experience it enormously, but it is not constant. Those moments when a person feels great happiness are of great enjoyment. Additionally, Mill also describes happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. This fact also makes it evident that there is a stronger connection of happiness with pleasure, which Aristotle is not willing to make. Due to these differences, Aristotle's eudaimonia and Mill's happiness cannot be seen as compatible, at least on the first view they cannot.

It is quite interesting to say that while there are many differences in the viewpoints of both the philosophers, there are some similarities as well. This fact gives strength to Mill's claim that his ideologies are present in other ethical systems. Both Mill and Aristotle believe the fact that happiness is inclusive of other ends chased for themselves. Additionally, even though Aristotle sterns on virtue more, but both him and Mill do believe the fact that happiness is somewhat related to virtue. Aristotle believed that eudaimonia is a road with many stops where one can stop for virtue, pleasure, understanding, and honor, no doubt that these are good too (Radicke, 1-21). Nonetheless, he believed that the greater good was at the end and the main destination being happiness. He believed that it is a fact that one desires the greatest good of all making happiness the end stop.

Mill also believes the fact that there are other goods as well that one would like to pursue, and happiness is great, but he also wanted to add to the fact that happiness has various ingredients as well. All the ingredients have their own place and they are pursued because of the desire that they hold, not just as a bonus to the real goal. This belief that Mill had projects that happiness does not just have an absence of pain and pleasure, it is also inclusive of goods like virtue, pleasure, music, and health. It is safe to say, that this view that he had is somewhat consistent with what Aristotle believed. However, both philosophers eventually have different points. Aristotle believes that other goods need certain quality, standard or intensity to make a mark, but happiness is something that is the ultimate good as it gives a person what they have been longing for. On the other hand, Mill believed the fact that other factors like pleasure, music, virtue, and health have intrinsic value, that is why they are part of happiness.

Due to the fact that Mill’s happiness is closely related to pleasure and Aristotle’s eudaimonia is not directly related to pleasure, Aristotle’s agreement on pleasure might get overlooked. Both Mill and Aristotle have three similar concepts when it comes to pleasure (Radicke, 1-21). Firstly, they both believe in the fact that pleasure carries great importance as a moral principle. Secondly, they both believe in diverse degrees of pleasure and the fact that these variations are a result of different purpose that creatures hold, this belief might have a different extent and diverse reason for both the philosophers, but the similarity is there. Lastly, both of them discuss the fact that why individuals might chase lower pleasure over the higher pleasures.

Conclusion

Looking at the contrast and comparison between Mill and Aristotle work can be a very enriching experience. Even though, judging by the surface work, one can only see differences but, once their work is compared intricately, interesting similarities can be seen. This concludes the fact that the ethical theories that both the philosophers gave are not as isolated as one would think they are. It can be easily seen above that the concepts of happiness and pleasure have certain similar features that are evident in both the philosopher’s theories. This makes it evident if people start focusing on the similarities more than the differences, a more authentic contrast can be made. Further, due to the lack of awareness some individuals might not talk about how Aristotle did not completely disagree with pleasure. The viewpoint was different from Mill, but his work did shed light on pleasure, hence proving figuring out similarities are as important as reckoning differences.

Work Cited

Loizides, Antis. "Mill on Happiness: A question of method." British Journal for the History of Philosophy 22.2 (2014): 302-321.

Radicke, Jan. "Aristotle on Happiness, Emotions, and Practical Wisdom–A Short Reading Guide." Practical Wisdom and Diversity. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2019. 1-21.

Where Does Your Own Identify Come From?

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Where does your own identity come from?

A famously known philosophical dilemma asks questions about the self-identity of a person and in this process, contrasts with other questions like,

“What am I?”

“When and how did I begin?” CITATION Cra19 \l 1033 (Titus)

“After I die, what will happen to me?”

The topic of self-identity is mainly discussed by philosophers under the domain of ‘self.’ At the very beginning of conception, the process of self-identity starts. This process entails that there is no hard and fast rule of whether the personal identity will change as the time passes or not. In the life of an individual, many different factors can be signified for bringing a change in the personal identity. It can be a physical change, for instance, a terrible accident which can render you crippled and dependent on others for minor tasks. Or it can be an environmental change and that environment can be associated with any element, political, socio-cultural, or economic. A psychological change can also alter the personal identity of an individual. For example, a veteran officer coming back from a war can suffer from the symptoms of Post-traumatic stress disorder, in which case his personal identity from a brave and courageous soldier will change into a man who has to face his past experiences on a daily basis and who is largely haunted by the things he has to encounter in the days gone by. The progression of life itself can also change the views of various segments of society on many different issues. The identity is significantly involved with these issues and is also shaped and reshaped by the daily activities. This can be comprehended from the fact that even when a person is involved in some activity, the exposure to different elements associated with that activity can also chiefly impact the current or prior identity of a person. In the body of an individual, their mind is the most important part which plays a pivotal role in the establishment of an identity as time passes. The importance of identity is self-evident and there are many philosophical arenas that have debated on this topic. This brings us to the prompt of this paper: Where does your own identity come from?

John Locke explained his theory of self-identity in a higher power and as opposed to scientific claims, Locke relied on religious beliefs and faith. Locke also asserted that humans are able to understand various phenomena by applying the universal theories and beliefs. It is also maintained that personal identity is a very complex phenomenon and not everyone can agree to a set definition. Many philosophers also advocate that the idea of a person resembles to that of a highly rational and intelligent being who exudes consciousness and particularly self-consciousness in a social setting. Whenever we think of an intelligent being who uses his grey matter to comprehend the everyday phenomena, a human beings comes to our imaginations.

A personal identity can also consist of a set of certain properties or characteristics that make that person as to what he or she is. These properties define who a person is and distinguish an individual from others. In many cases, the personal identity chiefly differs from the national or ethnic identity and when people tend to muddle up these two, it often results in an inevitable identity crisis.

Personal identity comes from the way I define myself or from a set of properties that I have attributed to my personality. This can change with time as I may see myself as a different person right now then what I was a decade or five years ago. Sometimes, a person can also perceive these properties differently and may not relate to his sense of self-identity. These instances can prove to be dangerous for an individual and may lead to adverse effects regarding self-awareness.

This leads to the interrogation of another prompt: Who am I? Or what does it mean to be me as opposed to ‘non-me’? What have I got that other people don’t have? My self-identity can also come from the characterization of persistence. This entails that I persisted from one point in time to another even though circumstances and other elements tried to stop me. These questions also arise because most of us hope to survive and remain in the pages of history even after we die. This is the exact motivation which leads us to maintain the sense of personal identity in ourselves. We go to great lengths so that our personal identity can be preserved and sustained.

Self-identity are the foundational blocks which drive an individual towards his or her destiny. When someone is unable to find even a shred of his identity, it can lead to despair and frustration. Identity is more often caught rather than being taught. Many people also struggle with their daily circumstances because they are unable to accept their identity and the fate which results as a direct outcome of it.

My self-identity comes from my past experiences, my dreams, my passions and goals that I have set for myself in the foreseeable future. The sense of self-identity which I am able to maintain is also because my surroundings do not go rapid changes on a regular basis and the people with whom I interact on a regular basis provide conducive and comfortable living conditions from me. These factors enable me to remain harmonious with my sense of self-identity.

Works Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY The Philosophy of Identity. Perf. Craig Titus. 2019. YouTube.

Where Values Come From Pertaining To Religion

Student’s Name

Instructor’s name

Course code

Date

Where Values come from about Religion

Thequestion of whether or not morality needs religion is both ancient and topical. For the last decade, the relationship between morality and religion has been a contentious issue. Morality is described as the conduct, which guide people’s behavior CITATION Whi15 \p 21 \l 1033 (Whitehouse and McKay 21). The concept of moralitycan be regaaarded as values and they are act as a benchmark to behavior. Research indicates that philosophers and religious leaders have had divergence opinions on morality, with philosophers arguing that morality exists as an independent entity and, therefore, can exist without God CITATION Whi15 \l 1033 (Whitehouse and McKay). It is strong believed among the early philosopher that morality could exit without God. Some philosophers argue that community, families, and the environment dictates the moral behavior of a person. Therefore, the state, community and family set the moral standard which is practiced. However, morality cannot exist without God. The moral standards are religious driven, and therefore, all aspects of morality being practiced in any society are religiously guided, and therefore, though the community, state, and other parties set the standard, these moral standards are borrowed from religious books and teachings, it is therefore evident that morality cannot exist without God.

Although the polemic investigation on the relationship between morality and religion have produced mixed results, studies have concluded that morality standards are borrowed from religious teachings. According to McKinon (7), morality is driven by religious ethics and values that guide most societies. Moral standards can be traced from the arc of Moses when Good gave Moses the Ten Commandments to give to the Israelites (Hare 21). It has been argued that it was the foundation of the moral laws. Therefore, the assumption that God gave the moral laws Moses could be true. Throughout the book of Exodus, we are told about Moses' Journey and the punishment which were given to Israelites for their immoral behavior. It is pointed out that the immoral act portrayed by the Israelites was due to lack of moral standards and therefore, the ten commandments were issued to set the standard. Though it has been argued that morals existed before the ten commandments and even non-believers have morals, all tbe morals are reflected from the bible and other religious books. Whitehouse and McKay(35) argued that atheists and non-believers agreed that nmorality has a foundation. Most of them believed that stealing, raping, and other immoral as decribed in the bible and other religious books are true. This is a confirmation that religion is the foundation of morals and therefore, without God, morality cannot exist.

Moral values come from religion. According to CITATION Loi45 \l 1033 (Larry) God commanded us to things we do because they are right. Therefore, because command us to things, then those things are right. God is the creator and cannot command us to do the wrong thing. The divine command theory states that Good would love to see us do the right things every day. It is pointed out that God as a creator, wants the best for us and, therefore, and he cannot command us to do wrong things. This is because God wants the best for us and would want to have harmony and peace. It is also pointed out that God ask us to do a thing with a purpose and God’s purpose cannot be wrong. It is also pointed out that God decides to command things because He believed those are the right things that we are supposed to do CITATION Whi15 \p 12 \l 1033 (Whitehouse and McKay 12). It is through a command that God shows us direction on what he requires us to do in life and remain peaceful and harmony. Thus the God’s command could not be wrong. God gives us direction on what to do and when to do it. In this aspect, we get God’s command more often to allow us to lead to a better life. Without getting God’s commands, it would be difficult to have a proper direction, and therefore, the behavior of people would be immorality wrong.

The divine command theory explained that right or wrong cannot be illustrated without God’s commands. All the facts on values and morals cannot be completed without the aspect of religion. According to the devine command theory, God commands help us to respond to objectively to nurture and other matters and therefore, God cannot command us to commit murder. But some philosophers against the divine command argue that if one commit murder, then that person is fulfilling the command of God CITATION JOH14 \p 21 \l 1033 (HARE 21). Therefore, in this case, murder is morally right. They further argue that the aspect of good or wright depends on whether God has issued the commandment and when a murder occurs, we believe God has issued a command for such to take place. In this case, it has been argued morality is based on several aspects whether driven by divine command, biblical or other forms, there is a unifying factors which is used to determine whether something is wrong or good. In this case, what makes something morally right is based on the believe, environment where people lived and the laws of the land.

As stated by Whitehouse and McKay(23), if the aspect of God and religions are removed, then morality would not exist. Whitehouse and McKay (24) argued that wrong or good are judged based on some benchmarks, and without God and religion, there would be no benchmark to use to determine whether someone as done wrong or good. The existence of Good provide a measurement of values, moral standards because it can be stated that killing is wrong in the eyes of God, and therefore, noone should commit murder. Though argument has been made that murder and other wrongful acts are written in the constitutions and the aspect of wrong or bad are committed against the state. It is vivid that most of the constitution from around the world are written based on certain religious practices. In Islam territories, the Quran is the principal reflections of wrong, and any wrong deeds are committd against the Quran CITATION Pet172 \p 25 \l 1033 (McKinon 25). However, regions dominated by Christians Bible are used as the references point. It shows clearly that constitutions and other written and unwritten laws used to provide guidance are written based on God’s teachings. It is evident that religion is the foundation of morality and it set the moral standards which are practiced in society and therefore, religion is the foundation of morality.

Phisophers have made different arguments and there are some who believed that morality and religion are, and therefore, without God, morality cannot exist. Socrates, one of the known philosophers of the early days, argued that goods love goodness, and therefore, it is good whether goodness whether good because God loves it. Though it is believed that morality is dictated by several factors, If God does not exist, then everything would be permitted. However, morality cannot exist without God because of the morals which are applied as guiding principals are reflected from religious teachings; therefore, values, morality come from are about religion. Plato made a fantastic argument regarding the morality. He pointed out that people love holy and holy love people and therefore, people believe in holy, and any command issue by holy is respected and must be done CITATION Whi15 \p 21 \l 1033 (Whitehouse and McKay 21). However, Plato went futher to ask if God selects us what to do because he loved us or we only love God because he is holy. Plato tends to disagree with the divine command theory regarding the fact God commands us to do things. It is argued that threats put some standard of goodness or holiness, and can it be argued that threats are acts of God or signs of holiness. Plato concludes that Good obligation depends on an individual standard of goodness, which is independent of God. But there is nothing which can be said about goodness.

In conclusion, morality cannot exist without Good and religion is the foundation of moral standards that we use in society. Though it has been argued that moral standard is set bu the state and other actors, the research betablished that the state and other actors depend on the religious practices and books to draft the laws of the land. It is also established that God’s commands are important and therefore, God gives us command because He wants us to succeed, be happy and harmy and therefore, morality is driven by God’s standards. It is also established that God guides us in making decisions and other areas which are morality guided. The principals of morality is therefore depended on the belief in an individual. It is also established that philosophers have divergence views on matters of morality and therefore, good or wrong depends on society.

Works Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY HARE, JOHN E. "Divine Command Theory and moral obligation." https://blog.oup.com/2016/02/divine-command-theory/ (2014): 2-35.

Larry, Loice Markson. "MORALITY AND RELIGION." https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/morality-and-religion (2-45): 2017.

McKinnon, Peter. "Moral Arguments for the Existence of God." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017): 2-15.

Whitehouse, Harvey and Ryan McKay. "Religion and Morality." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345965/ 21.4 (2015): 2-35.

Which One Is Pink Floyd?

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Which one is Pink Floyd?

On a periodic basis, we all have this argument heating up about the theory of identity and who ought to be the true face or the bearer of a specific identity. This paper also strives to compartmentalize or specify one out of the two lead guitarists and singers of the famous band, pink Floyd.

Many of the most central problems of philosophy have been with us since hundreds and thousands of years and one such philosophical problem is the problem or theory of identity associated with individual and specific beings. Philosophers in the contemporary era still believe that there is no general consensus regarding the solution of these problems which paves the way for further debate.

More often than not, there are no viable solutions for the philosophical dilemmas and paradoxes. It is also known that even if there is some solution, the problem always bears more significance than the solution and is considered relevant without being affected from the passage of time. This claim is important to comprehend because the problems of philosophy greatly assist us in understanding ourselves and the way we act in this world. These problems are in hindsight giving us a reflection of our behavior and about our place in this universe in relation to other beings and all those social members who surround us. Even if there are no solutions to a problem, a mere development in the understanding of that problem can be regarded as an advancement and can increase our chances to get well-versed with the problem in an efficient manner.

John Locke, a 17th century British philosopher made a similar kind of progress with a centuries old philosophical problem which entails the following question,

‘What makes us, us?’

Or when someone commits a crime or deviates from a socially acceptable behavior, he or she most often pleads in the court by stating that he or she was not in the right mind while committing the crime CITATION Cra19 \l 1033 (Titus). A philosophical thinking might wonder that if he or she was not committing the crime then who was it? Who should be held responsible?

Such questions led many thinkers and philosophers to pursue their quest and John Locke surpasses his contemporaries in answering this question to a reasonable extent.

In his very own account and narrative of original identity, he came forward with an insight which led to the emergence of this problem in a completely new light and opened new arenas in the philosophical research. Locke held ‘psychological continuity’ to be the fundamental basis for the adaptation and maintenance of personal identity for an individual. Locke asserted that this psychological continuity is solely based on mental consciousness and cannot be relied on the soul or physical substance of the body. Locke puts forward the assertion that worldwide views of personal identities should be classified as matters of subjective psychological continuity and that it entirely consists on individual abilities. But what are these abilities one might ask. These abilities entail that we must remember our thoughts and actions which were incurred in the past as our own. A person should be able to connect to his former self if he or she wants to maintain the personal identity.

This steers the direction of this paper towards the prompt: Which one is Pink Floyd?

Given the insight extracted from John Locke’s theory and the life journeys and relationships between the two, Roger Waters is the Pink Floyd. Although Gilmour is considered as the largest artist but Roger Waters has what it takes to bring out in big performers like the rest of the founding members of Pink Floyd. He had ideas which once executed into listenable pieces sold off like hot cakes and gave Pink Floyd a unique character. He could not play extremely well like David Gilmour but he knew what to say yes to and what to reject in the pursuit of good art. By most accounts, Roger Waters has stood the test of time and is chiefly regarded as an enigma. He is notorious for constantly being surly and demanding for almost all the years of his regime in the popular art. Waters’ rocky tenure started from 1965 when he co-founded the band with the other founding members of Pink Floyd. There always has been a defiant optimism and a sense of hope exuding from the individual and collective work of Roger Waters in spite of every obstacle that he had to face. Even if it was an internal feud, a clash between his moral compass and the society’s demand or manifestations of the public fiasco, Waters always remained hopeful about the future and specifically about his work. This kind of hope about the preservation of one’s art is only possible when one is confident about his or her psychological continuity and can relate his or her present actions with the pre-determined goals which were set in the past.

The emotion that radiated out of the rich history of music was embedded in the pieces that were carefully curated by Roger Waters. One of his finest, The Wall, connects with the audiences so deeply because it includes many painful and personal memories from Waters’ childhood along with many other historical references that were significantly loosely drawn. Through taking assistance from this imagery, Roger Waters has managed to delineate a mixture of cynicism and idealism and both these elements are vital for maintaining a personal identity.

Works Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY The Philosophy of Identity. Perf. Craig Titus. 2019. YouTube.

Which One Us The Beattles? Why?

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Which one is the Beatles? Why?

Many of the most central problems of philosophy have been with us since hundreds and thousands of years and one such philosophical problem is the problem or theory of identity associated with individual and specific beings. Philosophers in the contemporary era still believe that there is no general consensus regarding the solution of these problems which paves the way for further debate.

This paper strives to compartmentalize or specify that who identifies, in reality, The Beatles. Is it the original band or is it the Rain band who covered all the songs of The Beatles. On a periodic basis, we all have this argument heating up about the theory of identity and who ought to be the true face or the bearer of a specific identity.

More often than not, there are no viable solutions for the philosophical dilemmas and paradoxes. It is also known that even if there is some solution, the problem always bears more significance than the solution and is considered relevant without being affected from the passage of time. This claim is important to comprehend because the problems of philosophy greatly assist us in understanding ourselves and the way we act in this world. These problems are in hindsight giving us a reflection of our behavior and about our place in this universe in relation to other beings and all those social members who surround us. Even if there are no solutions to a problem, a mere development in the understanding of that problem can be regarded as an advancement and can increase our chances to get well-versed with the problem in an efficient manner.

Anthony Quinton, a famous British moral and political philosopher examined in his treatise, the nature of a substance and philosophically refined that what is denoted as the nature of everyday objects and subjects.

He gave a meticulously detailed account of universal truths and advanced a theory of value which was naturalistic in nature. The argument that whether a thing can be identified by virtue of its qualities or properties came out as very substantial and Quinton basically adopted an orthodox view that re-identification of physical objects in terms of mortal concepts is possible on many levels.

This steers the direction of this paper towards the prompt: Which one of the two is The Beatles?

Given the insight extracted from Antony Quinton’s theory and the experiences of The Beatles, it can be argued that the original band possesses the real identity.

As Bernstein quoted,

“Ringo- a lovely performer. George- a mystical unrealized talent. But John and Paul, Saints John and Paul, were, and made, and aureoled and beatifi ed and eternalized the concept that shall always be known, remembered and deeply loved as The Beatles.” -Leonard Bernstein

Even though there is a shift in their identity in the highs and lows of the musical journey of the band, but the original members of this band exude the real identity. There was a change from group-identity to a sense of self-identity and then of individualism which can be attributed as a factor leading towards their downfall. In spite of all these facts, there was something unique about the sound of The Beatles. Primarily, it was embedded and deeply rooted in a lot of classes of music ranging from Rock ‘n’ Roll to the finest versions of Psychedelic pop later in the years. The songs and pieces of this band had some unique ideals about the American progressive ideals and chiefly reflected the spirits of Declaration of Independence. Although Rain the band covered The Beatles and strived a lot to match almost all the elements with the original band but they can never attain the true identity.

Apart from Quinton’s theories, there are a lot of logical claims to back up this argument. The first one is that, The Beatles gained fame in a time and era where music was not promoted to such an extent as is done in the contemporary era. The Beatles can be attributed with inciting mass hysteria, collective delusional thinking, and led thousands of individuals and young adults to irreparable levels of stupefaction. The ‘Beatlemania’ if you will tend to affect everyone in sight and succeeded to hold the attention of the masses. The founding members and the band players help to trigger a new sense of male identity in the young males of the country and the lead players of the band were considered as the epitomes of male identity and the alpha male personalities.

The music of this band led to an emergence of fighting for some important social causes, for instance, war injustices and other social discriminations. This can be counted as an important factor why the Rain Band cannot be regarded as the true Beatles. The Beatles triggered the untapped potential of American youth in an unprecedented manner and whatever any band does to imitate them or disseminate their message, the effect can never be the same. The songs of The Beatles are regarded as anthems for public assembly and the transparent invitations to stand up and present a narrative against war. This music served to destroy all those ideals which were widely accepted and maintained in the society and they needed a thorough refinement. The Beatles gave many American Individuals a chance to stand up for their rights and this led them to seek after what they believed was right.

Works Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY The Philosophy of Identity. Perf. Craig Titus. 2019. YouTube.

Why Abortion Is Immoral According To John Marquis

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Why abortion is immortal?

The moral debate about induced abortion develops at different levels depending on the decision framework in which it is presented. On the individual discusses the moral quality of the act of interrupting a pregnancy; and at the social level the controversy revolves around what kind of public policy should be adopted with respect to practice and what should be the moral reasons that supports it. With respect to the morality of the act of abortion, they are traditionally two issues that have been established as the axis of the dispute: the status moral of the fetus and the possible conflict of rights.

Marquis establishes as an unquestionable moral principle that taking the life of an adult human being is immoral (Marquis, 183- 190). Marquis's argument against abortion, in general, fails to establish, as we have seen, necessarily, the immorality of abortion as a practice in general. The argument in favor, on the other hand, does seem to provide us with sufficient evidence to adopt the position in favor of the moral permissibility of abortion.

Marquis handles testimonies of terminally ill patients whose cause of pain and anguish is knowing that their illness will lead them to a premature end that will deprive them of many experiences to live. The same I would say, apparently, someone who is going to be killed, if we could ask him about it: the immoral thing that their lives are taken from them, is this deprivation of the future. From this, Marquis extrapolates this principle to the case of the fetuses, that they would also be deprived of what he calls "a future like ours." To escape an accusation of speciesism or anthropocentrism, Marquis says that it could even be immoral to take the life of an animal that has "A future like ours", if there is such an animal. The condition that it seems negative to us to lose our lives and to be deprived of the future, is that we are conscious

that we will have a future, that this could be positive for us and that if we end our lives, we lose those possibilities. While Marquis argues that what we consider negative to lose the possibility of experiencing a future life, is enough to assign value to the future, seems to be taking an unjustified step between what we consider valuable and what is valuable. Is the future intrinsically and objectively valuable? Can there be something valuable independent of the subject that values? At least, we know that there are those who do not consider their possible future experience valuable, and it is the case of those who decide to commit suicide or who request euthanasia.

In this way, the author establishes that the essential foundation of the immorality of abortion is that the human future is valuable in itself, because this is at the base of the initial principle that it is unquestionably immoral to take the life of an adult human being. It is immoral to harm animals by causing them suffering, it is not necessarily that extrapolate the concept of 'inhuman harm', but the moral judgment can be broader than the one related to extrapolated human suffering, that is to say: we could say without fear of being wrong that we judge it morally wrong to cause harm and suffering to a sensitive living being, without resorting to the aforementioned extrapolation. On the other hand, even if it were an extrapolation from an ethical evaluation regarding the damage to a human being to damage to animals, in this example the condition of evaluation is shared by humans and animals, that is, in both cases the criterion is the suffering that, in fact, both can suffer (Shirley, 79-80).

According to Marquis, "we think it is seriously wrong to kill people who have little desire to live or, certainly, do not want to live ", However, such affirmation also constitutes discussion bioethics, rather than an immovable principle: it is not clear that it is considered immoral, nor moral. When a fetus is unfeasible, in cases of anencephaly, his future life will probably not be so valuable, either for him or for his parents. But we not only limit ourselves to these cases: technically, when value is not given to the future life of a fetus, this life does not have value in itself, because neither the fetus nor a third party adjudicates it. Hence, we question who is responsible for assigning value to the life or future of the fetus, in order to propose the correction or moral incorrectness of practicing an abortion.

With which, Marquis falls into the same problematic of the classic arguments: when we grant rights and personality to the fetus or even to the gametes. In addition, the argumentof the valuable future suffers, as we have seen, of not being able to be based on anything other than subjective evaluation, because there is no other foundation available: When do we consider a future valuable? Why do we consider it valuable? Performing an abortion does not seem, in any case, to be a desirable experience, which makes it logical to think that, not being a legal practice, it will become a hyper-frequent practice, no more than it already is. In Uruguay, for example, not too long ago a law was passed allowing the abortion not only in exceptional cases.

Works Cited

Marquis, Don. "Why abortion is immoral." The Journal of Philosophy 86.4 (1989): 183-202.

Shirley, Edward S. "Marquis’ argument against abortion: a critique." Southwest Philosophy Review 11.1 (1995): 79-89.