Boethius

Boethius Philosophy in Prison and Exile

Submitted by

Affiliation

Date

The work ", Consolation by Philosophy," is written in the form of a conversation between the prisoner Boethius in prison and personified philosophy, and consists of poems and rhetorical, often poetic, but not at all pompous prose. Such a mixture makes a unique impression on the soul. It is expressing in verse mental states that cannot be expressed in prose, and even thoughts that conveniently expressed in a common language. Boethius falls into the lyrical mood of the spirit.

In the Boethius' book, a trace of the Christian element presented comfort that scientific philosophy can deliver to a person, regardless of any religion. The reasons for such an original view of the subject should not be sought in the form of the composition, inconsistent with Christian perspectives. Boethius alludes to the accusations that showered him with goodies than the ascetic era for the fact that he spends time, not in exercises of prayer, but studies of philosophy.

Boethius disposes of his consolations in such a way that he first lightens his soul. Forcing it to express grief and takes this opportunity to tell the story of his sufferings. As he stated that, “for there is no fear that any man should merit exile, if he be kept safe therein” (Boethius, 2000). And what he says about Ostrogothic rule in Italy fully reveals to us the sad situation of a country subordinate semi-Roman, semi-barbaric government. Then, through light consolations and ordinary ways of calming down, Boethius plunges the soul into deep reflection on the nature of the deity and man and the sources of peace of mind resulting from them. He reminds the sufferer of his merits, draws his attention to the hand of providence, to the fate of everything earthly. And to the various values ​​of human wealth and talks about what remains of the most precious thing in life after imprisonment. It is about the honor of his name, love to his noble wife and other eternal blessings.

Boethius does not tolerate familiar places and memories of the lost joy, which are usually reassured by the unfortunate, and laughs at such comforts. Instead, he first awakens in the reader of "Consolations of Philosophy" the idea of ​​human dignity and greatness of spirit, revealed in misfortune, and confirms it with great examples of some ancient Romans.

References

Boethius, A. M. S. (2000). The consolation of philosophy. Oxford University Press, USA.

Budda Attachments From The Dhammapada

Name

Name of Professor

Class

Date

Buddha Attachments from the Dhammapada

The concept of attachment in Buddhism is critically discussed by the author in the book, “The Dhammapada.” This piece of knowledge is recognized as the treasury of truth considering the valuable quotes and philosophical domains presented by Buddha. The broad idea of attachment is examined in the book of philosophy considering the perspectives of harmony and righteousness. Here the focus is to explore the domain of attachment in the context of Buddhism and provide a reflection on the main concept of Buddha attachment.

When it comes to the consideration of the philosophy of Buddhism than it greatly involves different aspects of spirituality. The idea of Buddha attachment closely related to the perspective of selflessness. The teaching of the idea of Buddha attachment reveals that it is important to never being selfish in the entire perspective of intimacy ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"u3Im6pEO","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Ghose)","plainCitation":"(Ghose)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":934,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/7Hi3kAOD/items/MI6RBJMM"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/7Hi3kAOD/items/MI6RBJMM"],"itemData":{"id":934,"type":"article-journal","title":"A study in Buddhist psychology: is Buddhism truly pro‐detachment and anti‐attachment?","container-title":"Contemporary Buddhism","page":"105-120","volume":"5","issue":"2","author":[{"family":"Ghose","given":"Lynken"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2004"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Ghose 112). People need to be actively and selflessly connected with other individuals. The basic perspective involves in the case of Buddha philosophy is that people need to give love freely and without any hidden agendas of selfishness. Nirvana is another major philosophical domain connected with the idea of Buddha attachment ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"EV8AToqj","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Fronsdal)","plainCitation":"(Fronsdal)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":933,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/7Hi3kAOD/items/3LQK6VPW"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/7Hi3kAOD/items/3LQK6VPW"],"itemData":{"id":933,"type":"book","title":"The Dhammapada: Teachings of the Buddha","publisher":"Shambhala","URL":"https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=p6O3kx3FCNoC","ISBN":"978-1-59030-606-2","author":[{"family":"Fronsdal","given":"G."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2008"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Fronsdal 36). This specific perspective revealed as the option of progression for the individual that no one can never progress until they understand their connection with the stuff. This form of realization further leads to the paradigm of enlightenment. Consideration of the perspective of attachment is ranked as one of the greatest truths of nature that require necessary attention.

In a nutshell, it is important to critically explore the practical implications of the concept of attachment presented by Buddha. Undoubtedly, it is interesting to consider the concept of attachment as the main aspect to critically understand the entire spiritual journey of Buddhism. The philosophy of attachment presented by Buddhism helps to explore the influence of attachment in someone’s approach of selflessness and spirituality.

Work Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Fronsdal, G. The Dhammapada: Teachings of the Buddha. Shambhala, 2008, https://books.google.com/books?id=p6O3kx3FCNoC.

Ghose, Lynken. “A Study in Buddhist Psychology: Is Buddhism Truly Pro‐detachment and Anti‐attachment?” Contemporary Buddhism, vol. 5, no. 2, 2004, pp. 105–20.

Buddhism

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Question 1

There is much in Buddhism that represents a reformation of Hinduism. For instance, the caste system is invalid because Buddha rejected its relativity towards salvation as his salvation denied the existence and actuality of the self. There is no superiority and inferiority among beings in Buddhism. In Hinduism, the salvation is considered by understanding that everything is one, everything is connected with Brahman, and the soul of an individual is similar to the universal soul. Buddhism teaches there is no self and there is no need to connect oneself with the Brahman. However, the teachings of Buddhism reflect many similarities in the vocabulary of Hindus. It can be explained by taking Dharma as an example which explains why are the things and why things should be. Whereas for Buddhists, Dharma can be referred to as the teachings of Buddha. Moreover, according to Hindus, karma is referred to as ritual action (puja and darshan), but in Buddhism, karma is always an ethical action.

In Buddhism, karma, an action that is good or bad, lies in the intention. According to Buddhism, Buddha does not emphasize Brahmanical rituals and made karma an ethical act, focusing on the intentions of being. Furthermore, the caste of Brahmin is not a privileged class in Buddhism who have direct access to gods through rituals according to Hinduism. In Buddhism, there is no such specificity, anyone who is the follower of the teachings of Buddha achieves salvation.

There is a discriminatory system in Hinduism which raises and lowers the standards of the being because of their caste system. Those who are inferior acnnot enjoy the life like the rests because according to Hinduism god has put curse on them and they are meant to stay low in the society. Buddhism is opposite of this concept and entirely rejects it.

Question no 2

“Emptiness” has essential dwelling in the Heart Sutra: “Form is emptiness; emptiness is form,” a phrase which is repeated for the four aggregates, which build the idea of one’s perception, consciousness, formations, and feeling. The Sutra continues to say that “emptiness is the nature of all things,” hence, it expands the psychological awareness that a person is basically empty of self, and to the inclusive metaphysical awareness that all the phenomena and occurrences are “empty” of self-nature.

Emptiness takes the inner self of the person to the level where there exist no thoughts at all. In other words, if the mind has no thoughts at all and it embraces the emptiness truly, thus it will pass what is upsetting it because there will be no thought at all. Buddhist practices like nirvana, meditation, and anatman, all three of them entirely dwell on the concept of emptiness. Anatman involves the concept that there is no self; it is the doctrine that there is no permanent fundamental substance which can be called the soul in humans. It involves impermanence, interdependence on things and individuals, and lack of essence, and this practice clearly reflects that it is an embodiment of emptiness. Similarly, in meditation one focuses on the enlightenment of the mind and breaks free from the suffering by clearing up and going far beyond what is causing the inner damages. This practice serves to control and relax the mind and help in vanishing all the thoughts that cause suffering and hence attaining “emptiness.”Moreover, when the mind of an individual breaks free of the thoughts, all type of thoughts, it reaches to the stage of nirvana and attains enlightenment and perfect wisdom. In this state there is no suffering, no sense of self or desire; the mind of an individual does not dwell them and embrace emptiness.

Butler’s Discussion About The “Face” Of The Other Person, What Response Should We Have To The Vulnerability Of The Other Person

Name

Professor name

Subject

June 13, 2019

The face of another person

Judith Butler in "Precarious Life" elaborates the response that must be provided to the vulnerability of another person. The author argues that violent measures adopted by states for taking vengeance against terrorist activities are wrong and unethical. Treating humans brutally is wrong irrespective of their engagement in criminal or offensive activities. The Iraq and Afghanistan war was initiated by America in an attempt to take revenge from the extremist organization. These violent measures created more complexities because it targeted not only terrorists but also affected millions of innocent. Revenge never leads to an effective solution for ending evil from the world.

I agree with Butler's views that violent measures like war and torture are not appropriate for ending terrorism or social evil. This can be understood by considering the ramifications and after effects of the Afghan war. America invested huge finances and maintained control over the territory of Afghanistan but the outcomes were negative. The war failed in achieving its purpose of eliminating terrorism CITATION Mar042 \l 1033 (Midgley). The criticism of Butler becomes more valid when one considers real-life scenarios. America’s agenda of initiating wars for targeting Taliban is still criticized all across the world because it caused more misery for the innocent than the culprits.

I agree with the concept of "dislocation from first world privileges" mentioned by Butler. She rightly claims that terrorist attacks cause fewer casualties than other disasters like car accidents and homicides. The state remains ignorant on the matter of controlling such social ills. Excessive use of force and torture is inhumane and against the philosophy of ethics. I accept the argument of Butler that in such deadly battles everyone loses and there is no winner. The criticism depicts the need for formulating better strategies for addressing the issue of terrorism.

Work Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY Butler, Judith. Precarious Life. Verso, 2004.

Midgley, Mary. Counting the cost of revenge. 2004. 13 06 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/jun/05/politics>.

Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment

Name of Student

Name of Professor

Name of Class

Day Month Year

Essay

Introduction

Capital punishment is the execution of an offender after being sentenced to death when the court declares him/her criminal, for committing a crime. It is also known as the death penalty. In other words, it could be said that it is a practice of executing someone for a specific crime after following a proper legal trial. Generally, it has been seen that offenders are punished for committing a crime like murder, fraud, rape, treason, arson, and adultery etc. By taking all the facts and ethics in considering, it has been seen that there are various perceptions build by different people as well as countries about Capital punishment. For some, ethically it is acceptable to punish people who commit a crime but according to some other people, it is unethical to punish people and end up their lives. Capital Punishment is treated as a tool to mitigate crime, taking into account that it is one of the approaches to control crime, provided it is against humanity and utilitarian view as well.

Discussion

By taking a look at its history, it could be found that Capital punishment or the death penalty started with American colonization. This fact cannot be denied that there are some countries that have raised serious questions against Capital punishment. It has become one of the controversial topics in the world. There could be seen many positive aspects of Capital punishment though it is understandable that it becomes difficult for the families to accept that their loved ones are being separated from them forever. Researches proved that after the implementation of Capital punishment, there has been witnessed a considerable decrease in the crime rates (Colucci,et,al,2019). According to a study that has been conducted in the 1960s, during the years of the abolishment of Capital punishment, an increase of 7% in the crime rates was observed. Contemporary it was analyzed that crime rate dropped when the criminals were executed in a death row each year. Proponents claim that facts and figures about Capital punishment clearly depict that efficacy of Death penalty/Capital punishment on deterring crimes. Experts found that the absence of Capital punishment is a synonym for an increase in crime rates. It has been witnessed that loopholes in the criminal justice system and leniency in the punishment are instigating criminals to commit crimes that add a lot in the number of crimes. According to me, Capital punishment arrives as a rescuer of these loopholes and control crime rates.

Another major reason why Capital punishment is favored is that it costs less to the government as compared to imprisoning the offenders. After being convicted by the court, the offender has to live in prison and all the expenses of the criminals (food, medicine, clothing) are managed by the government, so in order to lessen the burden of government most of the countries are supporting Capital punishment. One of the most important things that must be kept in mind is that Capital punishment is just the punishment of a crime that one has committed against others right to life, safety, and freedom.

All humans are same in the eye of law, religion and world. Being humans, they all deserve to be protected and all they should be provided with all basic needs of life. It is the basic right of every individual to live his/her life according to his own will and religious beliefs. Every individual is being given the right to live freely. It has been seen that crimes, murder, rape, and other such things, committed by perpetrators ruin other lives. Justice claims that perpetrators, as violates the laws and destroy other lives, should be punished and brought to justice (Kagan,et,al,2018). Perpetrators deserve the pain and suffering that they gave to others and Capital punishment is the only thing that could provide justice to sufferers.

In my opinion, people who think Capital punishment is the harshest and ultimate punish should reconsider their point and must think about the punishment that is being given to the victims and their families. People who are against Capital punishment and claims that forgiving criminals would cast positive effects on them that would make these human beings better person, but this claim is not sufficient as if other people start taking punishments for grant crime rate would increase (Sarat,et,al,2019). Opponents who are against Capital punishment failed to convince me that every individual have the right to do whatever he/she want to do and no government/authorities should have the rights to decide about their future. This thing must be kept in mind that if one is going to choose a way that would cast negative impacts on other’s life then at the end, that person would be answerable for his deeds as well.

It is rightly said that every action has a consequence and those who by their own free will choose their ways of action, could be constructive part of the society or the destructive par. Undoubtedly, destructive action would have unpredictable consequences at the end that would harm everyone (Tarlow,et,al,2018). People who are against the Capital punishment are of the view that it is a kind of revenge and nothing good comes out of hate, but here I would say that there could be seen something good out of it as Capitalism punishment symbolizes death of criminals and pushes them away from crime. Most of the time, opponents who does not agree with me, claims that it is inculcating in people feelings of hatred as they believe Capital punishment snatches the opportunity of reformation for those who want to make themselves a better person, but I don’t agree with their claim as it could be seen that if criminals are not going to be punished may be we would be saving present time criminals, but at the same time this social injustice would give birth to future criminals.

Conclusion

It has been observed that views presented by both proponents and opponents regarding Capital punishment makes it difficult to choose, which group is talking more logical. This fact cannot be denied that every individual has his/her own perception but being a part of the society, one must think about the things that would be more beneficial for the greater numbers of people. At the same time, it is better to promote things that would be accurate ethically and would not negate any of the ethical rules. So as a whole, it could be concluded that Capital punishment is supported in some countries while in others, this conception is discouraged. There are different viewpoints about it, but as far as my personal observations are concerned I would say Capital punishment is one of the finest ways of threatening the criminals that would ultimately reduce the rate of crime in the society. Most of the time, people oppose my perception about Capital punishment as for them supporting it is quite illogical and they also negate most of the things that I support about Capital punishment. Pieces of evidence should be used from real life examples as it was seen that abolishment of Capital punishment again increased the crime rate to a greater extent. This shows that the claim, Capital punishment being a cruel and unusual way of treating people flopped badly.

Work Cited:

Colucci, Alex R. Knowledge Production, Capital Punishment, and Political Economy. Diss. Kent State University, 2019.

Kagan, Shelly. Normative ethics. Routledge, 2018.

Sarat, Austin. The Death Penalty on the Ballot: American Democracy and the Fate of Capital Punishment. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Tarlow, Sarah, and Emma Battell Lowman. "Conclusions: Ethics, Bullet Points and Other Ways of Telling." Harnessing the Power of the Criminal Corpse. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2018. 239-268.

Causal Argument Paper

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Causal Argument Paper

The cost of medical care and health services incurred by an average American individual in the current year will be around $11,000. A significant portion of these costs are paid out from the pockets of the individuals via premiums and the remaining chunk is reimbursed through taxation or workplace insurances. An examination of the US healthcare system revealed that it is hugely profit-oriented and nearly dysfunctional CITATION Ben15 \l 1033 (Benson).

Bernie Sanders' speech draws attention towards dismal facts regarding healthcare in America. The outcomes are strikingly bleak in spite of high levels of healthcare expenditure. In 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, the US spent $8,616, $9,036, $9,507 and $9,892 respectively which makes up a major chunk of the GDP. In stark contrast, statistics show the least spending in the UK, disbursing $3,845, $3,989, $4,125 and $4,192 in these four years.

In her presidential campaign, Elizabeth Warren is making the most of her premise by announcing that she is striving to make the American economy work for the middle-class workers specifically. Still, this does not probe into the solutions revolving around the status quo and the alarmingly high levels of medical care costs. The questions raised by the public are fair and demand diligent answers. Warren's plan needs an initial amount of $2 trillion in form of government revenue to end private medical care, which is the highlight of the plan but does not add up because even if Warren gets half of this amount from the employers, the other half would not be available. The cost factor is the plan’s biggest weakness as many Americans are chiefly worried and anxious about their slow income growth ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"A7SESiet","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Leonhardt)","plainCitation":"(Leonhardt)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":56,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/R3lWGnc9/items/NBAMYGK3"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/R3lWGnc9/items/NBAMYGK3"],"itemData":{"id":56,"type":"article-newspaper","title":"Opinion | Warren Goes 1 for 2 on Medicare","container-title":"The New York Times","section":"Opinion","source":"NYTimes.com","abstract":"The revenue ideas are pretty good. The plan is still a problem.","URL":"https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/opinion/warren-medicare-for-all-2020.html","ISSN":"0362-4331","language":"en-US","author":[{"family":"Leonhardt","given":"David"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2019",11,3]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",11,7]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Leonhardt). Another drawback of this idea is that everyone in American population is being forced to adopt this plan.

This article is a strong appraisal of the presidential candidate's plan for health care in America and aligns with causal arguments. All the relevant information is also present, for instance, alternate plans by other presidential candidates and includes suggestions that reach a conclusion thus committing a post-hoc fallacy.

Works Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY Benson, T. W., & Snee, B. J. (Eds.). "Michael Moore and the rhetoric of documentary." SIU Press (2015).

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Leonhardt, David. “Opinion | Warren Goes 1 for 2 on Medicare.” The New York Times, 3 Nov. 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/opinion/warren-medicare-for-all-2020.html.

Chapter 1: THINKING ABOUT GOD: THE SEARCH FOR THE DIVINE

Your Name Name of ProfessorPhilosophy

Day Month Year THINKING ABOUT GOD: THE SEARCH FOR THE DIVINE My reflective essay will first discuss what religion is according to Reason and Religious Belief; then it will differentiate between reflective and unreflective engagement on the matter of questions related to religion. I will further debate the difference between religious "believers" and "non-believers” and discuss why and why not this distinction was useful. In the next part, I will include my personal reaction to the topic, and discuss why or how it is personally relevant for me today.

Definition of religion according to Reason and Religious Belief, is established on the set actions, beliefs, personal and collective experiences, structured around the idea of Ultimate Reality which requires or inspires worship, devotion, or a motivated and focused life orientation (Peterson, 2013). Religion is basically an organized practice that includes participation and belief of other people. It is the system of belief which is practiced by people who openly share the knowledge of standards of God. It is a significant part of the lives of so many people, to function on a day-to-day basis. It is even considered important by the people who are not that religious by nature. The oddest part is that there are many people who do not know about the clear meaning of religion. Moreover, there are many religions that have ethical elements that teach people the way they should live their lives. It reflects that the most significant thing is that the person believes on the teachings of a particular religion; on the other hand, in some cases, it is significant what a person does in his/her life than having believe only. Religion is the kind of belief system, but not all the belief systems are considered as a religion. Therefore it is clear to declare religion to grow the connecting elements teach religion as a belief. In the aspect of religion, what is belief? It is a powerful conviction, hope, feeling and expectancy in supernatural power or powers that manage, help and control a person’s life. According to the Reason and Religious Belief, to present purposes, there are five basic areas. First, when a person finds him/herself in difficulty. Second, when people need a solution to resolve the difficulty. Third, the existence of Ultimate Reality that is the goal of our existence or assists us. Four, this existence can be approached in a specified way (Peterson, 2013).. Five, we need to do something to achieve liberation and salvation. These beliefs are responsible for the experiences and actions that a particular religion endorses. When a group of people is involved in the network of actions, believes and experiences which are linked with Ultimate Reality which deserves things like devotion, change of the pattern of life and worship, then it is called as the instance of the religion (Peterson, 2013).

There are people who believe that everything regarding religion is made up and all religious people are into false lies. It is not compulsory for such people to worship some supernatural force to live a good patterned life with right-doings. Such people consider it because they believe that religion creates boundaries and snatches away freedom ("Views of Religious Similarities and Differences"). They do not believe that there is some mysterious force who is witnessing all that they do and they need to be careful about a certain thing in lives, and they can practice ethics and manners in their lives without being necessarily a part of any religion. Some of such people believe it does not matter how they spend their life, they are not going to hell or heaven for what they do, instead, they’ll be eaten by decomposers at the end. They question the existence of God and ask for a logical and experimental proof for everything that religious people believe in. On the other hand, people who believe in their respective religion ask for the proofs that how does God not exists, how is this whole universe running, everything has a creator, who created the entire universe and who is responsible for running daily matters of life etc. Moreover, every religion questions every other religion and argues about believes. Hence the criteria of believers and non-believers is complex and broader than it seems like. When people are intricate in the network of actions, believes and experiences which are linked with Ultimate Reality which deserves things like devotion, change of the pattern of life and worship, which is all unique from other religions, sets a place for a single religion. According to every religion, every person that does not have faith and practice that particular religion is a non-believer and the one who does is a believer ("Views of Religious Similarities and Differences"). On the basis of this, different religions are categorized and have a different representation from each other. This distinction is useful as it unites the people that have the same perspectives and beliefs and they feel bonded in a relationship because of their religion. On the other hand, it also leads to the disunity of many people as most of the people that belong from different religions think they are different, one specific religion is right, and all others are wrong, this is what creates clashes between different religious communities and it also affects the social relations of people ("Views of Religious Similarities and Differences").

I found it very thought-provoking when I read this chapter of book that with all the differences in worship styles, life patterns, belief in God or gods, or simply believing that everything is a lie, is it even necessary to create a boundary that defines every single person wrong and rejects every single belief other than what one personally believes on? Is it not wiser that we all respect each other’s beliefs, and give each other space to practice what we believe in? Today, with growing concerns of society, people of the entire world, whether they are religious or not, need to throw their clashes back, respect each other’s differences and fight together with the social evils like racism and terrorism etc. Moreover, being good or evil whether one believes that God is witnessing everything or not, needs to be taken as objective. Those who believe in the existence of God and those who do not, both need to be such part of the society in which they live with the message of peace, love and unity instead of picking up fights on the basis of dissimilarities.

There is a constant battle of evil and good inside every single person; religion is what helps one understand what is right and what is wrong or what is virtuous and what is evil. It can be taught by humanism too, but this way, most of the people do not care to keep up with ethics, and right-doings because they believe nothing will happen to them if they die anyway, such people choose to live life on their own terms. Maybe the only reason we are seeing a clear increase in horrible social issues like racism, sexism, bullying, and body shaming etc. is the increase of the concept that there exists no God and things like religion are made up. In most of the cases, people consider it senseless to care for small things when they believe they will simply end up in a hole; they do not take their freedom fairly. It’s not that all those who have no religion are expected to appear in society as spoiled personalities, but if it is seen according to the nature of human and psychology, then it makes it clearer why there is a constant need of religion for society. It is the religion that has been saving the human civilization from falling apart. With the fear of Ultimate Reality, people would have done enough damage to make this world nothing but a pile of dead bodies. Today, there are many religions in this world but they have common teaching about goodness, kindness and nobility such as every religion teaches a person to appear nice in society, and be kind with others and animals etc. Similarly, these religions are united against evil and wicked acts like terrorism and racism etc. People follow religion to get the outlook of life and a pathway that teaches how to live a life doing what’s right and avoid from doing what’s wrong. In my opinion, it does not matter from which religion or belief one belongs from; every individual should be given respect on his/her beliefs about religion, even if he/she has no religion at all, and focus on one main goal, that is making this world a better place. It’s simple those who believe in the existence of God and those who do not, both need to be such part of the society in which they live with the message of peace, love and unity instead of making each other’s differences a debate. We all need to look for the similarities and respect each other’s dissimilarities with goals that uplift the positivity and goodness in the society.

Work Cited"Views Of Religious Similarities And Differences." Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. N.p., 2019. Web. 5 Feb. 2019.

Chaves, Mark. "Secularization as declining religious authority." Social forces 72.3 (1994): 749-774.

Peterson, Michael, et al. Reason & Religious Belief. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013

Chapter 4

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Module 4: Professionalism, elitism and healthcare

Reading Comprehension

Professional codes of Physicians or Medical Societies

The professional codes of Physicians or Medical Societies are issued by professional societies and organizations. They are even issued by state authorities. These professional codes of Physicians and Medical societies are based on the marked emphasis on cures and goals for the health care sector. They are developed using the language which is more general and understandable by the majority. The generality of the language is linked with confusion and ambiguities. They are also based on the anticipation of changes in healthcare practice and organizational patterns. There are many differences in these codes. For example, they are not interlinked with each other and many times they even not cover all the dilemmas and situations.

The most pressing problem of such codes is that they come in conflict with professional requirements. These professional codes are not ethical because they tend to bring results. These codes are not ethical as they bind together many social groups and they deviate professionals from their core motivation. Some situations show the ethical nature of such codes. For example, these codes express motivations, desires and aspirations of some groups. They intend to promote harmony, dedication and principled behavior. The purpose of these ethical codes includes their application in actual situations, assign symbols to various professional organizations, removing inconsistency and conflicting nature of some ethical norms.

Models for the doctor-patient or scientist-subject relationship

The models for the doctor-patient and the scientist- subject relationship includes Code, Contract and Covenant. The models of these codes dates back to the medieval ages. From that time onwards, codes have served the purpose of regularizing the medical treatment throughout the times. These codes were made and officially announced by the governing authorities of that time. Contracts on other hands are different from what Codes are. They differ from one profession to another, and at times they come directly in opposition to each other. Finally, Covenants are totally in contrast to what codes and contract are. According to covenants, any physician who has received knowledge as a gift has to pay back it to other people by “healing and curing them”. Critical Thinking

Desirable and undesirable characteristics of each model

Code

The desirable characteristics of code include written form and official proclamations, traditional guides and mentioning of the exact rules for medical processes. These codes also include the exact knowledge and technical proficiency. Whereas, the undesirable characteristics of codes include the use of special languages which are in some cases not understandable by present time medical professionals. The obligation of secrecy associated with such code also accounts in the undesirable characteristics of this model. Ancient codes related to health care encompass flaws related to medical queries. For example, these codes may solve medical confusion at one time but remain silent on others.

Contract

The contract is related to some latest forms of medical principles. The desirable characteristics of the contract include the symmetrical notion. This symmetry is related to the services the medical professionals offer and for what they are paid for. Similarly, some other desirable characteristics of the contract include timely provision of medical facilities, proper health care structure and a kind of state supervision or regulation. There are some undesirable characteristics of the contract. For example, the medical professions in present times have become more deliberate. Individuals who get into the medical profession prefer carrying over an individual approach rather than being a state tool.

Covenant

Covenant is beneficial majorly. It reflects the true spirit of health care provision perceived by many individuals in the early history of mankind. The health care practitioner of these days takes this for granted. They consider this form of the model as unmanageable in the present times.

Christianity

Christianity

Question 1

Ten commandments are viewed as a kind of new constitution for the people who have been freed from slavery. There is significant relevance between religion and freedom of slaves. The Beatitudes present God as a Gentleman and merciful. God claims that he led people of Egypt out of slavery. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Exodus 20:2). This reflects the belief that God is against slavery and ordered to refrain for keeping slaves. Millions of people in Egypt were a slave and suffered the brutality of the kings. The role of Exodus depicts that he followed the order of God and accepted the responsibility of removing slavery. He stood against the king of Egypt and united people for demanding freedom. The history of Egypt provides a vivid example that proves the link between Beatitudes and the elimination of slavery.

In Beatitudes, it is mentioned "blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me". This reflects that God spoke in favour of slaves. There are many other incidents where God address the people and tells them to remain merciful to others and offer them help. The interpretation of the commandments depicts that at several places Bible advice people to avoid hurting others. this also reflects that God discouraged slavery or the use of force over other humans. the incident of Egypt proves that God has always discouraged slavery. This reflects that Jesus has stressed on the common good that means the elimination of evilness or inhumane practices. Jesus also taught the Christians to help other humans and avoid causing them harm. This can be linked to the themes of anti-slavery. the Bible of Jesus never encouraged humans to keep slaves or mistreat fellow humans. The comparison exhibits a similarity between the Ten Commandments and Beatitudes.

Question 3

Smith discussed that Christianity is more of a response to Jesus’s life that set of rituals followed by Judaism and Hinduism. The “Twenty-one Affirmations of the Manila Manifesto" signed by the evangelic Christians provides an example of such response. This is because most of the events mentioned in the Bible reflects the life of Jesus. It includes a collection of the life event experienced by Jesus. The manifesto accepts the role of Jesus as it mentions, "we affirm that God is calling the whole church to take the whole gospel to the whole world". This indicates that Jesus used the gospel for teaching the world about Christianity and its principles. The message is also related to the saying, “that their partnership in evangelization must be welcomed for the common good”. The manifesto promoted the belief that Jesus is the son of God and is sent on a mission of ending evil. Most of the events narrated by the manifesto include the struggles or contributions of Jesus. Smith used his beliefs of the church for promoting the ideology that Christianity revolves around Jesus.

The inclusion of evangelism and social responsibility builds a connection of the manifesto with the beliefs of Smith. The manifesto mentions, "we affirm our solidarity with those who suffer for the gospel, and will seek to prepare ourselves for the same possibility”. This reflects that they follow the same views as presented by Smith. The people signing the manifesto accepted to follow the footsteps of Jesus and his mission. The manifesto is referring to the events that were encountered by Jesus in his life.

Comparative Analysis Of Three Ethics

Comparative analysis of three ethics

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Comparative analysis of three ethics

Introduction

Ethics can also be regarded as morality. It is referred to as the concept of right or wrong. Ethics are the set of guiding principles that explains what should be incorporated when acting or performing an action. However, different philosophers had been focused on the different aspects of ethics. That is why there exist multiple frameworks for defining ethics and morality. However, this paper attempts to explain the differences in three frameworks of ethics, including Nicomachean, virtue ethics and utilitarianism. Moreover, the paper is also focused on providing the comparative analysis of these three frameworks, in order to analyze the similarities and differences in all the three approaches to ethics.

Nicomachean ethics

Nicomachean ethics are regarded as the philosophical investigation regarding the life of human beings for progressing a good life. The philosophical work was pioneered by the famous philosopher Aristotle. Hence, based on his work, he explains that there is an ultimate goal in order to meet the goal, all the human actions are taken as a step forward. Moreover, the necessary goal towards which the human’s actions are directed must be continuous as well as self-sufficient. Moreover, Aristotle also considered ultimate good as implicitly or explicitly aimed at happiness also named as "eudemonia." He further explained human happiness as something that consists of the activity of soul according to the reason also specified as intellect or rationale. Based on the highest human life for having human happiness, ethics consists of contemplation of greatest goods as well as the culmination of ethics. Considering the Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle also states about the noble actions, known as virtues that are performed deliberately. Hence, the noble action or ethical virtue is a virtue that enables human to determine the mean that is specific for every different situation. Hence, Aristotle supports the doctrine that the ultimate happiness in human life can be attained by following a path that is virtuous and lead to human happiness.

Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics is regarded as a philosophy that is proposed by Aristotle as well as some other Greek philosopher. This philosophy is based on the quest of living and understanding life, like a moral character. Hence, this philosophy entails that virtue ethics is in the person as compared to the action. It views the moral or virtue character of human who tends to carry out an action than that of performing an ethical duty or a consequence of an action. Moreover, virtue ethics are not concerned with the right or wrong of an individual and his actions, but it is focused on the guidance of behaviors as well as the characteristics that a good human will tend to achieve. In other words, virtue ethics considers the person’s whole life than that of considering the particular actions. Based on the proposed philosophy of the virtue ethics, virtue theorists provided a list of virtues, which are regarded as the set of virtues that will benefit all the humans if entailed. The traditional lists of these virtues contain bravery, prudence, temperance, justice, honor, and self-care. Furthermore, the basic principles of virtues that are considered important include; a person tends to act virtuously if they possess and live the virtues.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is another approach to ethics, also named as normative ethical theory. It tends to emphasize the concept of right and wrong is dependent on the choice of choosing one action over another. The major focus of this view is based on account of other's interest as compared to personal interest. Moreover, while considering this view regarding ethics, it entails the recognition of the role that pain and pleasure plays in one's life. Hence, consequences are the next thing that is important in this explanation of ethics. Also, it explains that both pain and pleasure are capable of being recorded or measured. Moreover, the principle of Utilitarianism ethics includes Act utilitarianism and Rule utilitarianism. The act utilitarianism is applied to the act of choice in the situation. Hence, considering the acting principle, right is referred to producing the best consequences. On the other hand, rule utilitarianism is applied to the validity of moral principles. According to the rule principle right and wrong are considered as following or breaking the rules.

Comparative Analysis

Considering all the three sets of ethical grounds, every philosophy highlights a different aspect based on the focus. Hence, considering the differences and similarities between these theories contains a lot of views. As ethics is based on its literal meanings it deal with morality or the identification of right or wrong related to something. However, the major crux of all these theories revolves around the concept of what is right and what is wrong, but the way this right and wrong is defined creates the line between all these theories.

The major aspect that is similar in all the theories is that ethics are of much importance for a person to attain happiness in life. However, the consequence of happiness is different in every theory. The importance of ethics can be seen from the proposed view of all the three theories whether it is Nicomachean, virtue ethics or it is utilitarianism.

Moreover, every ethic theory is based on the question that what are the major aspects:

That defines the person's moral character as good or bad?

What should be the focus of a person when making a choice based on the ethical aspect?

What should be prioritized whether a person's own self or the consequence?

However, all the major differences in the three theories are dependent on the approach that is taken towards the attempt of preference. Hence, the major difference in all the three aspect lies in the aspect that is preferred while considering the aspect of right or wrong. Moreover, this difference is evident from the distinct focus of every theory, for example; virtue theory defines the essence of right and wrong in the way of moral character that what a person should entail to contain ethical behavior and life.

However, the focus of the Nicomachean view of ethics is on the importance of a person's eternal happiness that makes him achieve his ultimate good or goal. Furthermore, the choice of ethical behavior that is the concept of right and wrong according to him tends to nurture the soul as compared to the character as supported by virtue and utilitarianism framework of ethics.

Moreover, according to Aristotle, the virtue of ethics is the source of pleasure along with the reason. In this way along with happiness, he asserts focus on the reason that tends to make soul happy and makes human to live by virtue. On the other hand, other frameworks, such as utilitarianism emphasize on maximizing the happiness of others, so that the character or moral of a human being is called ethical or moral. Also, the virtue ethical framework, stresses the traits and virtues that a person must contain to be presented as moral and ethical.

All the frameworks of ethics explained above provides some of the basic principles that tends to define the fundamental criteria for the ethical consideration of human beings. However, the major difference between the principle of all these three frameworks is based on the essence through which those principles are defined as the principles of virtue ethics focuses on the character, Nicomachean is based on the happiness of soul on the other hand, utilitarianism works through the principles of approval and consequences of actions as being wrong or right.

Every framework included shows a different aspect of ethics and moral development as well as a progression of humans in their lives. Hence, to be happy, successful and satisfied, ethics must be considered. Thus every framework be it Nicomachean, utilitarianism and virtue ethics, provides the underlying phenomena and importance of living by ethics. However, if considering the ethics along with the pleasure of the soul, the approval of work is also required when an action is performed. Because, we are living in a society and as Man is a social animal so along with one's own satisfaction and achievements, to an extent world view and consequences also consist of importance. In this way, the virtue ethics framework is preferred, as it is based on both one's own self as well as to an extent shows the importance of a setup or situation in which person is acting.

Conclusion

Different philosophers have taken a different approach towards defining and explaining the different aspects of ethics and morality. However, the focus of every philosopher is different from other. Based on these differences the frameworks are designed. This paper explained and compared three important frameworks of ethics. As based on the differences in the approach of viewing ethics, some focus happiness of the soul, some emphasize the traits and character however others focuses on the act, rule, and consequences of the person's behavior. However, every framework is important in the way of providing a distinct approach to weigh ethics. Moreover, based on this comparison the virtue ethics is preferred.

End Notes

Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What's the right thing to do?. Macmillan, 2010.

Comparative Religions Paper

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Comparative Religions Paper

Sexuality is the most common issue in all the religions. This paper compares the concept of sexuality in three of the religions such as Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. The relationship between religion and sexuality implies a sexual morality, understood not so much as part of the general moral or common to all, but as part of religious morality that implies restrictions or obligations to human sexual behavior (Jordanova,42-47). It varies enormously in time between one time and another, as well as between different civilizations. Social norms, the standards of conduct of societies in terms of sexuality, are usually linked to religious beliefs of one religion or another. Etymologically, religion is "what connects": it connects human beings first to other humans, but also to all of nature and in particular to the secret powers. Sexuality also connects us to the living forces of nature, to animal fertility, to plant fertility. Religion and sexuality thus have the same goal, and are inseparable: to make love is to participate in the vital energy of the world, it is to have one's mind that merges with divine spirits.

In Christianity, in spite of the varied variations among diverse Christian confessions, which usually contain different points of view on sexuality, it is likely to appeal a general image of the vision of sex in biblical doctrine. The foundations of several Christian opinions come from the impression that human sexuality was produced by God for the purpose of procreation and intimacy that provides a sexually active partner with an intimate, emotional and spiritual relationship, through intimacy physical relationship. In that way, sex should be restricted to a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman. The marriage is a commitment to an intimate and ongoing relationship as a basis on which to build a family stable. Given the emphasis on the reproductive function and the responsibility that involves sex, sexual relationships and sexual acts unrelated to the marital commitment are discouraged - or even forbidden - by some Christian confessions (Bouhdiba, 34).

According to the most widespread Christian doctrines and teachings, both among Catholics and Protestants, although with more emphasis among the so-called "fundamentalists" than among the so-called "moderates", sodomy is a sin, since it does not lead to procreation, and is considered contrary to God's intentions for sex. However, a small number of churches and Christian denominations consider homosexuality morally acceptable, such as those of the Lutheran international league, which are the state Protestant churches of Iceland , Denmark , Norway , Finland and the former state church of Sweden . Another example is the Episcopal Church, who in 2003 appointed the first gay reverend, Gene Robinson . Human sexuality is reserved for two people in an exclusive commitment relationship. However, the fundamental issue in which our churches may differ is that the purpose and objective of human sexuality can also be applied to same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships outside of marriage (Daniluk, 129-130).

Most of the evangelical churches, like the Baptists of the South, perceive homosexuality as a immorality. Sex outside marriage is rejected as unethical behavior by both the so-called "conservative" Christians and the so-called "fundamentalists" in their respective churches, sects and groups. The concrete position varies from the proposal of penitence to the total shunning of those who have incurred such practice. In general, Christianity promotes marriage, however sex outside of marriage and pleasure sex are recognized as a normal part of human behavior by some churches, sects and groups called "progressive".

The Islamic doctrine demands that man be governed in all his acts according to the commands and prohibitions of God and must classify his acts according to the Islamic parameters, that is, the lawful and the illicit. The lawful is what God has allowed and the unlawful is what God has forbidden. Legislation of the licit and illicit is obtained from the legal texts taken from the Holy Qur'an and the Sunna. Sexuality is lawful with state of marriage. It is prohibited without marriage. The Islam does not cover the celibacy as a spiritual preparation, and considers that the normal state of man is marriage. The Koran allows Muslims to marry women of other Abrahamic religions. Contemporary interpreters have maintained this rule, but many see mixed marriages as undesirable (since they consider that they lead to difficulties, such as the determination of the children's religion), even if they are legal.

The provisional matrimonial ( mut'a , conceived for a pre-established period) is not permitted by the mainstream of Sunni experts , but by the Shiites , its validity being a subject that continues to be debated. Some Sunnis perform in niqah Misyar , marriage contract that has no similarity to a temporary marriage as it is established without a limited time, however, lacks any foundation of the marriage contract either the guardian of the bride, the dowry, or the witnesses.

Unlike other faiths, in Hinduism the view of sensual morality differs extensively dependent on the particular branch. The Hindu sacred texts themselves are very unclear on the subject. There are shrines that openly show sexual action and sexual images is not sacrilege (for example, the lingam , phallic sign of Shivá ), however sexual self-containment (as in other features of life) is measured indispensable for the well-being and the dharmic / karmic duties of a Hindu.

The Tantric version of Hinduism is that in its sexual aspects has been seen with more morbid attention in its disclosure in the West, in what is called Neotantra. All those sexual practices that have been consensual and accepted by men can never be considered negative, in any of its aspects, such as homosexuality, and prostitution. The conception that Buddhism has of sex, is quite open, although it is necessary to differentiate within this, the current existing between the faithful and the monks, whose practices are much more restrictive. The monks believe that to reach nirvana it is necessary to eliminate all desire. Therefore, we can also see the existence of more restrictive Buddhist currents on the subject of sexuality.

In general Hindu society has been influenced by other religions since the Middle Ages, first by the Islamic minority and since the eighteenth century by the British colonizers (Christians), which reflected their much more restrictive attitudes on sexual matters. On the other hand, many present Hindus (especially in the big cities of India or between the emigrants and the second generations settled in developed countries) have accepted western sexual customs that in practice are more "liberal" than the traditional Hindus, like, for example, premarital relationships, marriages for love (the traditional Hindu marriage is arranged) and homosexuality and bisexuality. Among the more traditional elements of Hindu society, however, such concepts remain anathemas.

Most Hindus who have adopted Western culture adhere to the sexual standards of Victorian morality, which perceive extramarital and premarital sex as immoral and shameful. In religious doctrine, the prohibition against sex outside marriage is greatly related to the prescribed Hindu stages of life, which must be followed if one wants to attain moksha (a concept similar to Buddhist nirvana , or 'soul liberation'). Influenced by Islam and British civilization, Indian law considers any sexual relationship other than heterosexual monogamy illegal. Additionally, since there are no restrictions on any particular sexual activity, it is considered a strictly private matter. Most Hindus are extremely opposed to openly exposing issues related to sexuality, while public demonstrations of affection are considered in poor taste.

The Kama Sutra ('sex aphorisms') of Vātsyāyana , popularly taken by a manual of sexual postures, offers a look at the sexual customs, sexual morals and social rules that prevailed at the time of its composition ( Gupta period) , between the 1st century and the 6th century ). Shringara-ras ('sexual attraction: flavor') is one of the nine rasas ('flavors' or emotions). A drama in Sanskrit , the Shakuntalam of Kālidāsa , is cited as one of the best examples of shringara ras , narrations of the love story between Dushyantaand Shakuntalá .

Many philosophies try to organize their prescriptions that concern individual sexual behavior. Such codifications often become laws, which extend their application beyond the origin culture of such prescriptions, either to believers of other religions or of none or to the dissenters of the original religion. Most of the Islamic world has strict rules reinforced with violent punishments for the maintenance of Sharia (Islamic laws that include a moral code), including the sexual morality of its citizens, and they tend to try to impose themselves on the non-Muslims who live in those societies. The same extension occurred throughout history in European Christian societies, and today many Christians upkeep limitations on the isolated appearance of sexuality, from the prohibition of prostitution to limitations on verbal sex and sodomy. The Haredi Jews of Israel actively use the media to convince the rest of the Jews to follow the halakha (Jewish law) about sexuality.

Social, religions and cultural arrangements have frolicked a significant role in the account of mankind. Like psychological arrangements, they affect the means we observe the world around us and the standards ​​we receive or discard. Like social organizations, they provide a support network and a sense of belonging. In many cases, religions have become the basis of the power structures and have become intertwined with them. The remote and recent history is full of examples of "theocratic" states, whether Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews or otherwise. The parting among state and faith is still contemporary and only partially: there are sanctioned state faiths in Europe and certainly state religions.

Through spiritual history, several spiritual and social elements have been incorporated into the atmosphere where a specific religion is practiced, and are replicated in philosophy and government. Many of the pieces of poetry, literature, art and melody, dress cyphers and behaviors of organizing life composed have their origin in faiths. Faith has left a deep stamp in the field of philosophy, which can be understood, e.g., on days off, at parties, marriage rituals, funeral rites, journeys, the use of spiritual cyphers (for example in jewelry or dress programs), or in bodily modifications of the body, for example male circumcision.

To conclude, the effect of beliefs can be although tougher as states accept a faith of state or spiritual philosophy. In such circumstances, faith and religious influences can be disorganized by radical, financial or social ones. Today, religious leaders always give themselves the right to offer a teaching on sexuality, but two contradictory tendencies are disputed in the minds of the faithful: on the one hand, a desecration of sexuality, which considers it the same way than all other human pleasures, and leads to living it without taboos, in a society that privileges individual happiness; on the other hand, a rigorous, extremist will, refusing the pleasure, especially sexual, in this world, in favor of an eternal happiness in the Other World.

Works Cited

Bouhdiba, Abdelwahab. Sexuality in Islam. Routledge, (2013).

Daniluk, Judith C., and Nicolle Browne. "Traditional religious doctrine and women's sexuality: Reconciling the contradictions." Women & Therapy 31.1 (2008): 129-142.

Jordanova, Ludmilla J. "Natural facts: a historical perspective on science and sexuality." Nature, culture and gender (1980): 42-69.

Compare And Contrast Compatibilism And Incompatibilism About Free Will.

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Compare and Contrast Compatibilism and incompatibilism about free will

Introduction

Compatibilism is a belief that infers, determinism and free will are compatible with each other. It asserts the possibility of belief in both free will and determinism, without adhering to logical inconsistency. On the other hand, incompatibilism is a view that a deterministic universe is exactly at odds with the idea that humans have free will. It asserts that there is a dichotomy between free will and determinism, taking into account that an individual should choose one or the other. Incompatibilism is a view that is persuaded in three ways, libertarians negate the idea that universe is deterministic. Hard determinist negates the idea of free will and pessimistic incompatibilists deny that the universe is determined. Compatibilism and Incompatibilism of free will is a tie that negates each other adhering to dichotomy of determinism.

Discussion

The question of human existence is long debated. Humans have been discussing the essence of relationship between God and this world since Adam and Eve. There are several notions, associated with the idea, either “the divine action of Adam and Eve” was already determined or it was actually the product of certain drives? Questions addressing the idea of compatibility and incompatibility of determinism are the catchline of philosophy and theology, posing a continuous conflict. It is important to note that incompatibilism affirms three types of determinism, casual determinism highlight that everything in this world is caused by the impact of certain prior conditions, taking into account that it is impossible for anything else to happen. This type of determinism is usually illustrated by the thought experiment. Logical determinism infers the notion that all existing provisions in this world either past, present or future are either true or false. Logical determinism highlights the stance of "choices", taking into account the framework in which it is assumed that every future task is already determined. (Ekstrom, et, al. 2018). The same stance of theological determinism asserts that future is already determined, either by the creator deity that decree. In this case, the absence of content is questioned, how an action can be free if there is a being who has determined everything in advance.

On the other hand, compatibilism is a belief, stressing either freedom can be present in a situation or absent in a situation asserting that there is no connection with metaphysics. The notion of compatibilism is elaborated by many philosophers and theologians such as Alex Rosenberg who formulated an extrapolation of physical determinism as extracted by the behaviors. Compatibilism is treated as an interaction between unconscious and conscious brain activity. It is asserted that compatibilists think that freewill is a psychological state. It is asserted that freewill is entirely unpredictable much like instantaneous intentions of an entity that changes its decision with the passage of time and circumstances. The stance of unpredictability highlights “basic reasoning”, those well-defined things are “expectations”. (Willoughby, et, al. pp. 136-153). The model of physical mind is more like an illustration of the idea that compatibilist think that deterministic relationship is undiscoverable in the physical world. In accordance with various philosophers such as David Hume, free will is an illusion, while Rudolf Steiner considered it as a moral imagination. (Willoughby, et, al. pp. 136-153).

Compatibilism and incompatibilism are the two sides of the coin of determinism, taking into account that incompatibilities assert the existence of free will, taking into account the truth of determinism. It is highlighted that world is "deterministic", there is no agent in this world that has freewill. If one believes that man should have the right of free will, adhering to the moral responsibility of one’s action, then essence of incompatibility of free will and determinism assert the incompatibility of causal determinism and moral responsibility. (Byrd, et, al. 2019, pp. 1-18). Some of the incompatibilists are of view that determinism is the actual truth of this world, there is no agent that has power of decision. Such believers are named as hard determinists. While, other incompatibilists infers that world is not deterministic and there are few agents that have the right to decide, referred to as, "libertarians". Both, compatibilist and incompatibilists claims about possibility.

According to compatibilists, it is possible that a device can be both free and bound, on the other hand, incompatibilist believe that such states of existence is impossible. It is significant to note that incompatibilist asserts that first variety is rotates around the notion of having a free will, taking it as a matter of having an option, affirming that having a choice means having a genuine option of what one does. (Willoughby, et, al. pp. 136-153). The second argument laments the truth of determinism, questioning that we don’t cause our actions. The truth of determinism means that human doesn't recognize their action in a significant way, in other words, it evaluates the lack of ability of self-determinism. On the other hand, compatibilism is built on the baseline of "freedom required for moral responsibility". It shows that moral responsibility is compatible with the validity of determinism, asserting that free will is one of the basic requirements for moral responsibility. (Byrd, et, al. 2019, pp. 1-18).

Conclusion

It can be inferred that both compatibility and incompatibility of free will agree at some of the aspects of human conditions such outcomes of human actions, striking at the point of free will. Compatibilist assert that human is determined by some prior events while incompatibilist disagree and they think that free will is the capability to make certain choices regardless of certain influencing factors such as hereditary, desires and environments.

Work Cited

Byrd, Jeremy. "What Should We Believe About Free Will?." Erkenntnis (2019): 1-18.

Ekstrom, Laura. Free will. Routledge, 2018.

Willoughby, Emily A., et al. "Free will, determinism, and intuitive judgments about the heritability of behavior." Behavior Genetics 49.2 (2019): 136-153.

Confucianism And Taoism

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Confucianism and Taoism

Q1. Confucianism and Hindu Caste System

Confucianism was developed by Confucius who emerged as retransmitter and recodifier of the values and theologies inherited from the Zhou Dynasty and the Han Dynasty. Confucianism can be regarded as a religion, a way of life, a system of society, a philosophy, a tradition, a humanistic approach or merely a method to lead the life in a more rational way.

Confucius focused on many aspects of daily life and the various areas of society. He presented an elaborated way of life and how to live and behave in society. One of the significant contributions that he made was in the area of relationships. He laid great emphasis on the importance of relationships and how to build healthy and successful bondings.

Confucius was of the view that social harmony is a result of balanced relationships and with each person knowing his or her place in society. He stressed that every individual in the community should be aware of his or her roles in society and should perform them, responsibly. He introduced the five major types of relationships that exist in the society, i.e., father to son, ruler to ruled, husband to wife, friend to friend and elder brother to younger brother.

On the other hand, there exists another approach to life and society known as the Hindu caste system. Hindu caste system, as compared to the Confucian system of relationships, is a rigid and non-flexible approach. It consists of defining the relationships of the people and the social role of the individuals as they are born and they stick to it throughout their life. The Hindu caste system is similar to the Confucian relationship system in a way that both teach respect and humanity as the core values for the sustainability of the relationships.

Both the systems, Confucian system, and Hindu Caste system have a profound effect over the societies of China and India respectively. They deeply affect the way people behave in relationships and in society.

Q 2. Tao Te Ching’s Criticism over Confucian’s Values

Tao te Ching is a classical text written in the 6th century BC and is attributed to the famous ancient philosopher Laozi. Tao Te Ching provides n elaborated code of life that guides the human race to lead their lives in a proper way. Tao Te Ching is also followed as a religious script in China, and many people take it as a guiding light for the solutions of their daily life problems.

Tao te Ching’s teachings are in contrast to the guiding principles of Confucianism. Confucianism focuses greatly on being very kind and humble towards the society and not to look down upon anyone. On the other hand, Taoism encourages to keep the intelligent and cunning side of the reality in consideration as well and not to forget about the negative aspects of society. At one side, where Taoism is a way to led life or a complete code of life, Confucianism, at the other side, focuses only on the societal and relationship aspect of human life.

In the given excerpt, Tao Te Ching gives the same argument that not to run blindly into the matters and guides an individual to keep their eyes open. Although Tao Te Ching also puts great emphasis on human values and kindness, it also encourages a person to think more rationally and also keep in mind the other side of the world.

In my opinion, the teachings of Tao Te Ching provide a great oath to lead the life by and can be used as a guiding light to form opinions and ideas regarding various aspects of life.

Conspiracy Theories

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Conspiracy Theories

Climate Change deniers

Climate change is already affecting human beings, and it may continue to affect not only human beings, animals, and species would also affect by the drastic climate change. But there is a class of people who consistently deny this concept of Climate change, especially the one who challenges the evidence that human activities are the core reason why climate change happens in the first place. They are called denier who do not believe in any of the reasons that are related to human activities. They say that the scientific record on global warming means to produce manipulated data and the science behind climate change has been invented for financial reasons or for personal benefits. They dismiss the unwarranted doubts about the scientific agreements on global warming and label themselves as "climate change skeptics."

The testability of this theory can be recognized through the claim that there has been no increase in global warming since 1998 and the fact that the ice in Antarctica is growing supports their claim and proves global warming a hoax.

Climate change does not happen due to human activities; rather, it's the physics of climate change that is undeniably simple. It means that it is the greenhouse gases that trap outgoing radiations and therefore, the temperature of the atmosphere increases. What climate change supporters are neglecting is emissions because the increase in emissions will increase the temperature by 3-5 degrees by 2100. Instead of admitting the facts and seriousness of the issue, climate change supporters are playing the blame game by putting all the responsibility on the activities of human beings. 3-5 degrees. The traditionalist's view is that we are on the brink of severe climatic change that is due to human activities. Activities like deforestation and industrialization are affecting things like the intensity of hurricanes and rising sea levels.

Counter Argument To Thomas Aquinas's

Student Name:

PHI 1010: Introduction to Philosophy

Date: DATE \@ "yyyy-MM-dd" 2019-09-26

Why Thomas Aquinas is wrong

Saint Thomas Aquinas’s book “Summa Theologica” is the representation of his beliefs in the presence and existence of God. In his book, he presented four cosmological and one theological argument to prove the existence of God. The scope of this paper will cover the points presented in the book and then provide counter-arguments to those "5 ways" presented by Thomas Aquinas in general through philosophical and scientific reasoning.

Aquinas lived in a very unscientific time but the arguments he presented represents his understanding of physical evidence and science. In his first argument, he stated that everything in the universe is in the state of the motion and motion can only be caused by a mover that means something must have caused a motion in the first place. It is not possible for a thing to be both mover and moved at the same time, a motion must have a mover and there can’t be an infinite regress of movers. There has to be someone who started all the motion, the first mover is what everyone understands and call God ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"m8STMcgt","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Aquinas)","plainCitation":"(Aquinas)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":166,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/jpfyfVgo/items/GUTSF7NN"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/jpfyfVgo/items/GUTSF7NN"],"itemData":{"id":166,"type":"article-journal","title":"Summa theologica, vol. 1","container-title":"Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province). London: Burns & Oates","author":[{"family":"Aquinas","given":"Thomas"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1947"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Aquinas). His second argument is the argument of causation which also goes along his first arguments that for everything there must be a first causer who started this since nothing is caused by itself. His point is simple, that all effects have causes and if there isn't any cause there shouldn't be any effect of it ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"8ymRgM7k","properties":{"formattedCitation":"({\\i{}Aquinas & the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 - YouTube})","plainCitation":"(Aquinas & the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 - YouTube)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":167,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/jpfyfVgo/items/KM9USL6B"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/jpfyfVgo/items/KM9USL6B"],"itemData":{"id":167,"type":"webpage","title":"Aquinas & the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 - YouTube","URL":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",9,26]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Aquinas & the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 - YouTube). Most of Aquinas work is explained through infinite regression. The third argument is the argument of contingency, which also explains that for everything to exist there must also be something to create it because if it was not the case then there was also a possibility that nothing could have existed ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"0Yd9mXtq","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Aquinas)","plainCitation":"(Aquinas)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":166,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/jpfyfVgo/items/GUTSF7NN"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/jpfyfVgo/items/GUTSF7NN"],"itemData":{"id":166,"type":"article-journal","title":"Summa theologica, vol. 1","container-title":"Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province). London: Burns & Oates","author":[{"family":"Aquinas","given":"Thomas"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1947"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Aquinas). His fourth point is based on the argument of degrees, for him, there must be something perfect against which everything is measured and that perfect one is God. His fifth point is theological and is related to the governance of the world. He states that all natural bodies act for an end but since anything without intelligence cannot act on its own that means there must be something or someone to guide them and that someone or something is God ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"9T5UKhaZ","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Aquinas)","plainCitation":"(Aquinas)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":166,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/jpfyfVgo/items/GUTSF7NN"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/jpfyfVgo/items/GUTSF7NN"],"itemData":{"id":166,"type":"article-journal","title":"Summa theologica, vol. 1","container-title":"Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province). London: Burns & Oates","author":[{"family":"Aquinas","given":"Thomas"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1947"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Aquinas).

One can easily find flaws in his arguments, if a little consideration is made. These five arguments can be viewed in two ways i.e. philosophical consideration and scientific evaluation. The problem according to me lies in the points of itself. All the points presented are dependent on possibilities and not certainties and a possibility can go both ways. Aquinas’s arguments don’t points out towards the existence of any particular God. It can be anything a rock, an egg or anything else. Apart from that it also doesn’t point out towards the numbers of it. How can Thomas be certain that everything is caused by only thing? It can be two or three or any other number. One thing that Thomas said in his first two points is the starting point of all motions and causes. Aquinas’s starting fact is that, there is always a starting point. His arguments don't represent any assurances that effects and motions must always has a cause and mover. If this is true then how this law doesn't apply on God and why is he free from it. And if He isn't free from a certain exception then for His existence there should be a cause and a mover. What is the criteria that makes God immune to regression and time? If infinite regression is indeed possible then that means that Aquinas first two points are completely invalid. Then there are also the factors of emotions and love that comes into consideration when describing a God. Though in Aquinas point of view he discussed the existence of a God with his own understandings and knowledge. Yet how can that help us in believing that it is the same God who responds to our prayers, love, and emotions. Aquinas’s points only take us to unmoved movers and uncaused causers. Aquinas arguments also don’t rule out polytheism, so a case can be presented that there can be multiple someone’s who can be termed as Gods.

Let suppose that Aquinas points are correct and there is some outside source that doesn’t prove that God is the perfect and intelligent being. Then there is also the scientific point of view of looking at it from Big Bang theory and Darwinism. Which rejected his theory of regression and proved his points wrong by stating that life started from nothing. Though the response or issues that can be raised about my arguments is also that same that these are also based on hypothesis and assumptions and no historical or scientifically valid arguments are present to support it. Both Aquinas and my arguments are based on possibilities that can go in both directions. It can be wrong or right, depending upon the way one believes and look at them.

Conclusion

Aquinas five ways don't justify his views properly. There doesn't necessarily have to be a mover to move things and someone to cause an effect. His points don't justify one particular God, nor the God that theologians believe to cherish their needs or listen to their prayers and emotions. Scientifically it can be disregarded through Darwinism and Big Bang as well. In the end, it all depends on the individual nature of the interpreter and believer that how he sees these points and believe in them.

Work Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Aquinas & the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10 - YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY. Accessed 26 Sept. 2019.

Aquinas, Thomas. “Summa Theologica, Vol. 1.” Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province). London: Burns & Oates, 1947.

Creative Essay

Concept Of Freedom And Equality In Philosophy

Submitted by

Affiliation

Date

The selected article is from “The Atlantic, “ titled, “America Moved on From Its Gay-Rights Moment—And Left a Legal Mess Behind,” published on 17 August 2019. The House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a sweeping bill that would prohibit anti-LGBTQ discrimination in all aspects of public and commercial life, without any religious exemptions. Emma Green provides a point of view of both groups, and now it is n the hand of the senate to pass the bill or leave it.

At the initial stages of the development of human societies, the phenomenon of justice understood as universal equality. As an independent element of social life, it begins to be fixed by human consciousness with the development of the first hierarchical collectives. “It was manifested as a reaction of mythological consciousness to inequality in the distribution of vital goods that arose with the development of the initial structure of primitive society” (Chaffee, 2005). From this moment of human history and up to the present day, justice understood as the first virtue of human social life.

The moment has been repeatedly noted by the most authoritative authors. The phrase by the American researcher John Rawls is widely known, saying that “justice is the first virtue of social institutions, just like truth is the first virtue of thought systems. The theory, no matter how elegant and economical, should be rejected or revised if it is not true. In the same way, laws, and institutions, no matter how effective and successful they are, should be reformed or liquidated if they are unfair ”( Chaffee, 2005). This thesis, entirely accepted in different philosophical thought, is gradually beginning to exert its influence on domestic researchers. Today, there is no doubt about the fact that, in general, interest in issues related to the study of the phenomenon of justice is growing. Nevertheless, at the moment, it is necessary not only a gradual quantitative increase in the number of publications exploring the nature of justice but a definite qualitative leap: a general understanding of the importance of the phenomenon of justice.

The reflection of the phenomenon of equality was first observed in the culture of ancient Greece. The philosophers of this period: Aristotle, Heraclitus, Plato, Socrates, Chrysippus, are characterized by an understanding of justice as a kind of natural law of nature, a blessing, according to which a person must coordinate his own life. Another essential feature of this period is the orientation toward the whole (society) as the primary subject of social life. An understanding of the phenomenon of justice in this form (with one or another minor change) has been preserved in the teachings of most philosophers up to the New Age: Aurelius Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Cicero.

All the most significant existing models of justice can be divided based on whose benefit they consider as a priority. The family of holistic theories indicates the preference of the good of society as a whole. All rights and obligations in society are distributed based on the idea of ​​maximizing such a good. The individualist liberal theory emphasizes the dignity of a person to make his own choices and, accordingly, maximally limits the power of society over an individual; the benefit of the latter becomes primary. Utilitarianism is the first and most significant attempt to combine the indicated directions of philosophical thought into a single consistent whole.

The study of the issue allows us to conclude the priority of the use of the term "justice" in the meaning that gives priority to individual freedom, the human right to their own choice. Justice is the result of an honest, enforceable, and non-funeral (concluded freely and giving the benefit of each of the parties) agreement between individuals.

Most theories of social justice, in particular, the most famous version - the second principle of justice as J. Rawls's honesty, rely on the idea of ​​using political tools to determine the order, methods, and volume of redistribution of material goods. Meanwhile, legislative instruments, by their very nature, are unsuitable for achieving justice. Thus, using the idea of ​​the contractual kind of the phenomenon of truth, we can conclude that the concept of ​​social justice, which involves the participation of political power in its final definition in real life, would be recognized by individuals in a natural state as unfeasible. At the same time, social justice can be considered as a condition for the non-ability of a social contract.

All legal norms that exist in society can be divided into three groups: historical, political, and justice. Moreover, the first two categories (historical and political rules) do not appeal to judge as their justification. Political norms, being an expression of the idea of ​​the common good, limit individual freedom, and therefore, oppose justice. This classification involves the separation of sources of political norms and norms of justice. The body of adoption of the former should be parliament (as the highest representative body), and the source of the emergence of the latter is the judicial interpretation of legal norms.

"The Problem of Justice in Philosophy: An Inventory of Approaches," is devoted to an analysis of the main historically developed ways of studying and interpreting the phenomenon of justice. (Diener, 1997) The first paragraph, "Justice as a common good. Holism". The issues of justice of public institutions were first raised by philosophers of ancient Greece: Hesiod, Heraclitus, Socrates, sophists. However, the first to put the problem of justice at the center of his reasoning was Plato.

It is essential to say that Plato's theory of justice was, in a sense, a response to the relativistic-individualistic views of the sophists. The latter, having seen the anthropological origins of the phenomenon of justice, nevertheless, could not substantiate the value of individual freedom and, as a result, concluded that truth is what is suitable for the strongest. Meanwhile, the holistic-collectivist theory of Plato, among other things, had a value justification under it - a common good. It is this fact, as we believe, that enabled her to prevail in the historical struggle against the views of the sophists.

An essential characteristic of a just society of Plato is to bring the power of the whole over the individual to the absolute. An ideal state penetrates all spheres of life of each of its members, without leaving the latter the right to independent choice. Plato's model became the first utopia and at the same time, the early totalitarian society. At the same time, Plato became the first philosopher to justify the connection between justice and laws: in an ideal state, rules should be structured in such a way as to fully realize the idea of ​​justice.

Consideration of the idea of ​​justice was continued by the student of Plato, Aristotle. In the history of philosophy, the views of Plato and Aristotle are often opposed, which is due to their mostly opposite positions on common ontological problems. Moreover, Aristotle, often in his works on society, often criticized his teacher, in particular, pointed out the harm that would result in the abolition of private property, family, etc.

Strictly speaking, there is no doubt that Aristotle's teaching on a just society allows for greater freedom for individuals. Still, we should not forget that for Stagirite, an individual outside the organization is just an animal that is not capable of realizing human potential. Moreover, the state in the metaphysics of Aristotle is not just a mentor in business teaching their citizens the forms of the virtuous life and forcing them to such a way of life, developing a habit of it. (Morris, 2009).

Thus, it was evident that both Plato and Aristotle adhere to holistic views: they attach particular value to a society which, when arranged in a fair way, becomes something more than a simple collection of individuals. Moreover, the whole, acting on its parts, gives them new properties.

Another common ground between the views of Plato and Aristotle was the position on the role of legislation and the origins of justice. Both philosophers believed law (law) as a form of justice in the world, and they understood the norms of justice as natural and independent of the will of man. Cognition of truth, in turn, should be carried out by rational methods. The combination of these positions formed the basis of the first direction of legal understanding - the natural-legal doctrine, the founders of which were Plato and Aristotle.(O'Meara, 2015).

In its development, the ancient society, of course, stepped over the border of the traditional society (this becomes all the more obvious if we take into account the fact that the Renaissance, first of all, was guided by the ideals of antiquity; the very term "Renaissance" implied the revival of ancient culture ); however, it could not become non-traditional. We believe that it was the holistic language for describing the relations between the whole and the parts, as well as the idea of ​​the existence of the natural foundations of people's life together that did not allow the individual to build his life regardless of public opinion, if not the exhaustive reasons that prevented the antics from switching to an unconventional way of life, essential components for this outcome.

A peculiar modification of the views of the representatives of the ancient philosophy of the classical period was the political and legal ideas of the Stoics, in particular, Chrysippus. The origin of the Stoic school occurred during the period of decline in the polis organization of social life, which at the theoretical leveled to the replacement of the polis with another, much larger community - the world state. Meanwhile, despite the expansion of the scope of justice, its nature remains the same: "The just exists from nature, and not according to the establishment, as well as the law and faithful mind" (Morris, 2009).

Strictly speaking, utilitarianism, as set forth by I. Bentham, can be understood as one of the varieties of ancient Greek holistic theories, since in a similar way, society is considered as the fundamental ontological unit of social knowledge. The merit in giving utilitarianism qualitative differences from holism belongs to J.S. Mill. The British thinker suggested that the requirement to achieve benefits in the long-term calculation indicates the need to provide each member of society the maximum possible freedom, provided that it does not violate the freedom of other members of the society. However, a detailed analysis of the teachings proposed by J.S. Mill shows that the British author does not draw an equal sign between the categories of "maximum public benefit" and "individual freedom." (Diener, 1997). For example, the connection between freedom and benefit, according to J.S. Mill, acts only in those societies where individuals have reached a certain level of culture. For societies that are in an "infantile state," the best solution would be to obey the tyrant.

Moreover, the principle of maximum equal freedom does not always work in modern British author societies that have already reached the required level of culture. In particular, arguing about the best forms of electoral systems, J.S. Mill points out that specific categories of citizens (illiterate, bankrupt) should be deprived of voting rights, and, on the contrary, the most educated citizens should be given the right to double voting. Thus, in utilitarianism, J.S. Mill uses the term freedom as a fundamental principle of building public institutions. It becomes possible only when one's benefit is understood as inextricably linked with the public benefit. As a result, the justification of universal freedom by use became possible only after adjusting the term "freedom." (Chaffee, 2005).

Utilitarianism, having set a goal that is the priority over individual freedom, could not axiologically justify it by resorting to holistic values. On the contrary, paradoxically, the ideas of one of the main ideologists of the utilitarian doctrine, J.S. Mill, were aimed at the glorification of individualistic values. Moreover, the term "freedom" in liberal theory is understood in a negative sense, as freedom from coercion, which is another limitation from an overly broad interpretation of the idea of ​​conventionalism - as the justice of everything that was established by agreement. Thus, we see that if the truth is the central element, the "soul of law" at the domestic level, then, at the state level, the law does not contain such an item as justice in general, which means that in specific particular cases law is possible without judgment.

References

Chaffee, J. (2005). The philosopher's way: Thinking critically about profound ideas (p. 640).

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Diener, P. W. (1997). Religion and morality: An introduction. Westminster John Knox Press.

Green, E. (2019, August 18). America Moved On From Its Gay-Rights Moment-And Left a

Legal Mess Behind. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/lgbtq-rights-america-arent-resolved/596287/.

Morris, M. (2009). Social justice and communication: Mill, Marx, and Habermas. Social Justice

Research, 22(1), 134-155.

O’Meara, W. (2015). The Aristotelian Principle in Mill and Kant. Athens Journal of Humanities

and Arts.

Critical Analysis Of The Dalai Lama

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Critical Analysis of Dalai Lama

Introduction

Humans have long been looking for the purpose of their life. They have been plunging into the depths of the logic and spirituality to look for their reality. Religion and philosophy, both have proven to be great guiding lights for researchers in the search of God and the reality of life. Religion cannot be separated from spirituality and philosophy. There are various concepts and ideas that are presented by a number of philosophers, regarding the right path, the reality of life, the purpose of creation of mankind and ways to reach God.

The following paper will look into the details of various aspects of religious pluralism and the concept that John Hick has presented about it. In addition to this, this paper will look into the details that how the position presented by John Hick is correct regarding religious pluralism and it holds true in many areas with reference to reality. Moreover, the following piece of writing will also discuss the viewpoint presented by Buddhist Monk, Dalai Lama regarding the concept of religious pluralism or religious diversity and how it is in line with the idea presented by John Hick.

Discussion

The concept of religious pluralism or religious diversity presents the idea that more or less, all the contemporary religions, are loosely equal and lead towards the same destination. This idea was presented by one of the most famous and influential British philosopher, theologian and law student, John Hick. Although the concept of religious pluralism had started long ago in the 16th century, John Hick formally presented this idea in the second half of the twentieth century, 1989 (Hick). Hick considers his concepts and ideas as the fundamental and divine ultimate reality and has given the name “the Real” to them.

It’s a big world, and belief systems are quite diverse. There are many religions that are based upon strict exclusivism and believe in the finality of their own beliefs. They tend to believe that the concepts being followed by their own religions are the only way to believe and salvation. Most of these religions are followed in western cultures or are Abrahamic religions, like Christianity, Islam, and Jewish. However, the concept of religious diversity is becoming more and more popular and many people are now becoming religiously diverse.

Religious pluralism has also become common and widespread due to various factors like multiculturalism. The presence of multiculturalism in the twenty-first century has brought people from different areas, countries, religions, and cultures together. It has also reduced the differences and distances between people of different races, castes, colors, creeds, and nations and brought them together in order to achieve a common goal. This goal could be in the area of professionalism at the workplace or in the case of residence by living in the same area. Globalization also plays a vital role in this respect. Hence the religious values and concepts of the other faiths are widely accepted and the people religious diversity is promoted (Banchoff).

Buddhism, being a large belief or one of the largest religions of the world, present many views about religious acceptance of the religious practices that should be followed. There is a common tradition or custom followed in Buddhism, especially by the Buddhists of Tibetan region that a religious leader or a scholar leads the whole community. It is a practice followed by many Buddhists living all over the world, but the religious leader or scholar that leads the whole Buddhist community is mostly selected from the country of Tibet. That specific religious leader is known as ”Dalai Lama”. The current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, happens to be the 14th Buddhist religious scholar or Dalai Lama in a row. He has been in the news due to his revolutionary statements and views.

Recently, the 14th Dalai Lama gave a statement in an interview that he is a great supporter of religious pluralism and wants the whole world to follow it. This raised a huge amount of rage and controversy from a large number of people especially the Buddhist community. The reasons behind this outrage were multiple. Not only Buddhists but people belonging to almost every faith objected to these views and raised their voice against this statement. Dalai Lama, not only being a religious figure but also a political and international figure is famous all over the world. He has admirer from every religion and faith, which is why the level of this outrage was so huge.

Buddhism has many sects, as many large religions do, primarily Theravada and Mahayana, but regardless of the sect, the religion is not particularly exclusive. Parikalpita is, the idea that we live in a world of opposites, of false manifestations that keep us from truly seeing. So one of the aims of Buddhism, then, is to improve the inner sight of the people. Doing so may require detachment from false manifestations, but that includes nearly everything, not just other religions. So it’s an inside job, and as such, forays into various ventures in the world of manifested opposites are not disallowed, though perhaps not encouraged for those wishing to follow a path of detachment. This idea may not be prevalent across all sects.

Regardless, there are other religions that are not mutually exclusive. Many Native Americans adapted Christianity without dismantling their beliefs, not seeing the variant forms of worship as exclusive. Much the same took place in Haiti, where Christianity was incorporated into the practice of Voodoo that came to Haitian people from West Africa. Some Christians may view the religions as incompatible, as Christianity tends to be mutually exclusive, but Voodoo practitioners do not see it that way (Chaves). The Bahai faith has around five million adherents, and that faith is founded on the idea that all religions are correct, that they are tapping into one source. As a result, practitioners look to the truth of all religions. Hence, it can be established that Bahai faithy is based upon the idea of religious pluralism. Bahais completely or partially follow the concept presented by John hick, with respect to the religious pluralism.

In addition to this, many other religions or faiths follow the concept of religious pluralism. Some esoteric religions, as with the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and the many splinters it has spawned, such as Thelema, draw on multiple religious cultures, including heavy influence from Egyptian mythology. In Thelema, “Do as thou wilt is the whole of the law” allows incorporating other belief systems if one wishes, and the godheads are seen as literary conveniences that allow communing with a higher source.

Conclusion

Hence, in a nutshell, it can be concluded that religious pluralism or religious diversity is a concept that promotes peace harmony and positivity among the followers of different faiths. There are certainly many religions and religious beliefs that are based upon the core ideas of religious pluralism or John Hick’s ideas. The Western Cultures or the Abrahamic religions mostly rely upon the concept of exclusivism and believe in the finality of their own religious beliefs, the factors of globalization and multiculturism are playing their roles and obscuring the lines of this exclusivism and extremism. One of the major examples of this practice can be seen in the form of the current and 14th Dalai Lama of Buddhism who not only believes in religious diversity but also practices it on a huge level.

Works Cited

Banchoff, Thomas, ed. Religious pluralism, globalization, and world politics. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Chaves, Mark, and Philip S. Gorski. "Religious pluralism and religious participation." Annual review of sociology 27.1 (2001): 261-281.

Hick, John. John Hick: an autobiography. Oneworld Publications, 2014.

Critical Thinking Essay

Critical thinking Essay: Gay Marriage

In the 21st century, gay marriage has become a highly controversial debate in which its opponents are seen terming the practice, wrong, immoral or illogical. As a result, there is a certain stigma attached to homosexuality which naturally leads to controversy. In the U.S. the issue of Gay Marriage saw increased focus when the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes it as a right protected by the Constitution. My personal position on the issue is that Gay Marriage, or any homosexual union, is contrary to nature and should remain illegal. However, our minds often have pre-existing beliefs or hypothesis about a particular issue, which can lead us to experience different forms of bias that leads us to believe in favor of our pre-determined beliefs and ideas. I would, therefore, examine my biases in this paper, as a test case, in light of the Believing game.

Some of the key arguments which support my position firstly include the premise that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. It is considered so, in the traditions, beliefs, cultures, and sacred texts of an overwhelming majority of cultures historically. Moreover, the one who engages in it intuitively realizes its self-destructive, immoral and unnatural characteristics that can be observed from the way homosexuality is defended. Natural laws are universal values that are shared by humanity that have conventionally held sexual union to be between a man and a woman (ProCon, 3). Another argument that supports my position is that children have psychologically and socially disposed to needing a father and a mother to grow up healthily. Studies suggest that girls, for instance, have a higher tendency to engage in unsafe sexual behavior if they are raised away from their fathers, while those who live without their mother are deprived of the unique bond, advice, love, and security that only a mother can provide (ProCon, 3). That is why many children raised by same-sex couples experience greater difficulties in the normal functions of life than other children. Furthermore, gay marriages defy the very purpose and function of marriage, which is to procreate. Defining marriage’s purpose to be something other than procreation would limit its meaning only to adult gratification. This further defines the importance of sexual relations and its social value. Childbirth from the sexual union creates families in which children can be raised up by their father and mother, something same-sex couples can never achieve. Infertile couples are the exception rather than the norm, and medical advancements, have significantly reduced the likelihood of never being able to procreate.

Nevertheless, the three premises that oppose my position include: denying the right to same-sex marriage is discriminatory, benefits that arise from heterosexual marriage should extend to homosexual couples, and that Gay marriage is a civil right. These premises will be evaluated in light of the questions raised by the ‘Believing Game.' One of the interesting or helpful aspects about the premise that denying the right to same-sex marriage is discriminatory is the analogy between racial discrimination and denial of marriage rights to homosexual people since nearly everyone believes racism to be a vice. The view is trying to create empathy for homosexual people among those that disagree with their lifestyle. However, if I were to hold this view, I would become more considerate for people with certain defining characteristics than I was before in terms of the treatment they receive or deserve to receive, which may be true in the condition or sense that no one should be discriminated against in having fundamental rights such as the right to life, property, privacy, etc. (Elbow, 1, p.16).

Analyzing the second premise that benefits which arise from heterosexual marriage should extend to homosexual couples, the premise is helpful to in the sense that it seeks to extend the same protections, liabilities and financial benefits to same-sex couples that married couples have. If I held this view, I would notice that it would change my idea of a normal happy family that holds rights and responsibilities over one another. It could be true in the condition that these benefits be extended to people without the need of engaging in a same-sex marriage and hence be given outside of the institution of marriage. Furthermore, in the premise that gay marriage is an issue of civil rights, it is indeed helpful that it seeks to create sensitivity among people regarding the civil rights of many groups, communities and minorities have in the U.S., and if I were to have this view, it would definitely would strengthen my sensitivity with regards to other civil rights issues such as equal pay, equal employment, etc. However, this view can only be true on an individual basis independent of whether one engaged in a same-sex or heterosexual union, within marriage.

All human beings experience bias in one way or another. It basically refers to prejudice or inclination in favor or against one view, person, or group, which individuals may hold unconsciously towards one another. In turn, these influence our judgment of particular groups and people. Analyzing the opposing premises to my position, I did notice a hint of confirmation bias, which subconsciously led me to search for specific evidence that would support my pre-existing judgments against homosexual people (Lubin, 2). Another bias I experienced was the empathy gap, in which I would easily dismiss arguments that had to do with understanding the state of mind of homosexual groups and their advocates (Lubin & Lebowitz, 2). If I found the practice disgusting, I assume that others, and even homosexual people, would at some moment find the practice to be revolting and engaged in it only to seek thrill out of sexual deviance. In addition, socialization with the dominating culture, and conformity with in-group attitudes also perpetuate bias. My group identification as a conservative Republican also created a conformity bias in me, which produced in me a certain tendency to conform with the dominating beliefs of people belonging to my own political group (Turner, 4, p. 252).

To conclude, the exercise of evaluating opposing premises to my position on gay marriage helped me recognize that there are certain pre-existing notions I held, along with a tendency towards confirmation-bias and empathy bias. However, I still find the premises used to support the idea of Gay marriages to be weak in supporting the overall opposing argument. Nevertheless, the exercise profoundly instilled in me a desire and aspiration to hold highly informed opinions and to only disagree with a certain issue once I have carefully deliberated upon its evidence and counter-opinions.

Source List

1. Peter Elbow. 2006. The believing game and how to make conflicting opinions more fruitful. p. 16-25. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/context/peter_elbow/article/1001/

2. Gus Lubin. October 10, 2015. 58 cognitive biases that screw up everything we do. https://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-2015-10

3. ProCon. 2018. Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?. https://gaymarriage.procon.org/

4. Rhiannon Turner. 2010. Explaining the relationship between ingroup identification and intergroup bias following recategorization: A self-regulation theory analysis. P. 251-261. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1368430209351702

Critical Thinking Paper

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Critical Thinking Paper

The act of granting illegal immigrants the protection of immigration laws is known as amnesty. The US is known to have the most accepting laws regarding the immigration of people to America, whether legal or illegal. Therefore, the US government has decided to provide amnesty to illegal immigrants on the bases of various reasons. However, there are many controversies and opposite views regarding this issue and people have varying reactions to this law. The proponents think of the illegal immigrants' well being and protection from bias and unequal treatment by the government, law enforcement agencies and local people. On the contrary, the opponents have a viewpoint regarding the wellbeing of the country and the lawfulness. This paper will critically analyze the matter of amnesty for the illegal immigrants, as the threats, it will pose to the US and the benefits it will have for these illegal immigrants.

According to the report of the Department of Homeland security, around 12 million undocumented foreigners are living in America. Every year this number increases as 70,000 immigrants tend to grow since 2010. The U.S. Congress has constantly discovered various ways for unlawful immigrants, with amnesty being one of them. Whenever sanctioned, amnesty will give unapproved settlers a way to the legitimization and in the long runholder of the citizenship. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act initiated the amnesty idea for unlawful immigrants; hence, 2.7 million illegal immigrants got legal status during the Reagan government. With the migration strategy being challenged in Congress, an answer for unlawful movement through amnesty ought to be considered as it might profit the economy and workforce of the nation, control the deluge of migrants and give the chance to the illegal immigrants to end up like the genuine citizens of America.

Moreover, supporters of expanding legitimate movement contend that foreigners help the U.S. economy by buckling down, creating administrations, and settling government expenses. The present push to limit migration is only the most recent manifestation of the bigot, nativist kickback that has polluted movement strategy all through U.S. history. Fears that workers hurt U.S. specialists or weaken American culture are exaggerated, and the United States has a moral obligation to invite foreigners from all over the globe. Adversaries of expanding legitimate movement contend that foreigners hurt the U.S. economy by taking occupations and stifling wages with their ability to work for little pay. Congress, they fight, ought to limit legitimate movement, diminish chain relocation, and organize outsiders from nations that share American values. U.S. migration arrangement ought to ensure Americans first; they keep up, as opposed to gambling national security, what's more, flourishing by unpredictably conceding a huge number of individuals consistently.

By enacting the act or law of amnesty, it might provide an improvement to the deteriorating workforce in the US. As seen the plight of farmers according to the article by Ralph Nader, shows how workers who are illegal immigrants treated by their farmer due to no provision and protection of immigrant laws regarding the workforce. These labors are denied of any basic protection which is usually the right of citizens of America and they are provided under the law. But the opponents of amnesty act are naïve or ignorant to such matters as if they are able to see such plunders they would give in for the amnesty act.

There were a couple of Senators who effectively anticipated that the 1986 pardon would empower progressively unlawful movement. Previous Senator Jesse Helms (R– NC) contended that reprieve for the huge number of expatriates at present in these United States would build up a risky point of reference which could well support the extra unlawful movement. Past empowering progressively unlawful migration and in this way further debilitating the movement framework, absolution enactment is commonly a reason to defer other migration changes or improve implementation. Decency and uniformity under the law are essential American standards. Absolution proposition, be that as it may, compensate the individuals who have violated the law. Past boosting extra illicit movement, the reprieve is uncalled for to all reputable Americans, legitimate settlers, and those holding on to come lawfully to the U.S. Rather than casting off the standard of law with an acquittal,

The government didn't stop undocumented migration. Neither have the following 30 years of new authorization and limitations of a wide range of undocumented movement. Rather, such laws have made it about inconceivable for undocumented people to authorize their status, hence adding to the quantities of individuals who remain in America however live in the shadows. Indeed, even settlers who arrive lawfully and apply for lawful status are adequately transformed into crooks by the laws and administration. American movement strategy is currently for the sake of halting unlawful migration, we make all foreigners illicit.

President Trump has broadened this fixation on condemning settlers to displaced people and youngsters. Today, the two backers and rivals of migration pursue a similar content: organizing expanded spending on fringe security and expanded wrongdoing. On the off chance that they offer a way to legitimate status, it is so long and bureaucratic as to be useless. It's an ideal opportunity to flip that content. Make absolution, not outskirt security, the beginning stage on migration. The position ought to be: not one penny for authorization until having an act of amnesty that covers all the undocumented immigrants. The amnesty is an insightful arrangement for reasons that go past movement. The United States isn't simply on edge and energized now: It's out and out unforgiving.