Home >> Free Essays >> All Subjects >> Philosophy

Philosophy Examples and Topics

Essay 2

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Scientific and moral laws cannot be discovered and are open to interpretations

Immanuel Kant

Kant has worked over philosophy, biology, astronomy, and Metaphysics, He has presented to his readers with a very different perspective from all these fields. In doing so he has looked after too many areas in the spectrum of his research. He opines that everything has a different narrative when it comes to observing that aspect. For him, such an aspect is not observable to those who follow the blindness of their minds. It is because of this reason that it is said of Kant that failures are more important than success. He believes that after the failures, one becomes too fluent in going close to everything. This closeness Kant describes opens the way for success. As Kant has worked while being very close to both the sciences and the philosophy, therefore he had developed the ability to witness things in the most extra-p ordinary manner. He explains his experience of witnessing scientific inventions in a manner that scientific and moral laws cannot be discovered. He has held very differently his opinion about the sciences. Although he has contributed much to the field of sciences, it remains not clear as to why he is nullifying the moral and scientific laws.

Author’s Viewpoint

Immanuel Kant mentions that

Scientific and moral laws cannot be discovered

These laws are also open for the interpretation

He has argued this on any basis. For example, taking the example of the origins of the moral laws, there appears no solid origination of the moral laws. For him, the moral laws are not just differentiating between the bad and the goods. The moral laws according to Immanuel Kant are the one who makes anyone leave a position, which he or she is not willing to share with anyone. This position can be Respect (but largely remains undefined). He has cleared it in the very first instance that moral laws have no values, no empirical data to substantiate. Therefore there exists no reason to support the fact that morals can anywhere make the case for someone. Then comes the scientific laws. There is a basis for that. One has many reasons, as Kant opines to make hold the basis of the scientific laws, as they are tested and based on the empirical observation. Kant substantiates his opinion about the scientific laws on the presumption that scientific laws involve human reasoning as well ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"P3g6eCrR","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Kant)","plainCitation":"(Kant)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":297,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/CQ4Z7XQJ"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/CQ4Z7XQJ"],"itemData":{"id":297,"type":"article-journal","title":"The philosophy of Kant: Immanuel Kant's moral and political writings","source":"Google Scholar","title-short":"The philosophy of Kant","author":[{"family":"Kant","given":"Immanuel"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1949"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Kant).

He considers the scientific laws as the laws of man, which are open to criticism. He opines that whatever precision be made in the interpretation of the scientific phenomena, there will remain an element of suspicion on the thinking of the humans. He mentions that empirical data cannot always lead us to the result. Here he also takes another turn and brings the facet of reasoning to his interpretation of things. He opines that if there exist a reason for everything, a chain could be developed. There could then maintain an understanding of the events that there is some reason behind that. The other perspective he presents to the readers to support his stance is the factor of causality. The causes behind the unfolding of the mysteries. He opines that if there is a cause of anything, it will invite interpretation. Interpretation then makes the way for further research. That is how both the reasoning and causes set the basis for moral and scientific laws, and this is also the reason that this remains undiscovered. Kant has also added one more thing to his interpretation of the moral laws and natural laws. He opines that if there is the certainty of knowledge, there could be some reasons for opining about the truth or false in the moral and scientific laws ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"KZezLXHf","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Rachels et al.)","plainCitation":"(Rachels et al.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":298,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/8NGTFTG7"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/8NGTFTG7"],"itemData":{"id":298,"type":"book","title":"The right thing to do: Basic readings in moral philosophy","publisher":"McGraw-Hill Boston, MA","source":"Google Scholar","title-short":"The right thing to do","author":[{"family":"Rachels","given":"James"},{"family":"Rachels","given":"Stuart"},{"family":"Mackie","given":"John Leslie"},{"literal":"Aristotle"},{"family":"Thomas (Aquinas)","given":"Saint"},{"family":"Hobbes","given":"Thomas"},{"family":"Hume","given":"David"},{"family":"Mill","given":"John Stuart"},{"family":"Kant","given":"Immanuel"},{"family":"Marquis","given":"Don"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2003"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Rachels et al.). These are some reasons Kant has presented in favor of his argument.

My viewpoint

What I think about Immanuel Kant is that he has done nothing other than just redefining in a more complex manner the laws about nature and that of the sciences. Since the human existence on earth, there had remained some philosophical and scientific interpretation of things. At times people call the philosophical interpretation as the religious thoughts and the scientific interpretation as merely the new findings. How they have benefitted the world. In both cases, one can see that it has added something beneficial for human interpretation. Let’s suppose, the world today is widely based on the laws of physics, biology, chemistry and many other related disciplines. Similarly, every person living on the face of the earth has some philosophical and religious motivations. They follow someone. This is how the system of the world is going on and on. Similarly, many such discoveries have been made in sciences based on these laws, also people have written much about their religious interpretation that has added to the existing literature about religion. What if for a moment one thing, that everything was false, everything is objectionable as like Immanuel Kant opines. This all will come down with a blow. The discoveries will stop and people will become clueless in terms of their new inspirations. This is where everything turns in favor of my understanding of Kant's philosophy.

I believe that these inventions are proof that every law of nature and the discoveries of the science are in synchronization. Yes, there are some bad repercussions of human’s limitless discoveries but there will remain a point where humans can retract themselves back toward nature. Similar is true for philosophy or the religious interpretations of humans. As every religion has the ability that it can re- pure its followers any time in their lifetime if they truly turn back to their creator.

Conclusion

At the end one can opine that since Immanuel Kant was also a human being and he also interpreted the things in the manner they are interpreted now, therefore he is right in opining that these laws are open for interpretation. The reason one may differ from Kant is that, if there are such serious flaws with these morals, then why there are so many discoveries, and why people believe that following the religion will take them at some good place? People who criticize Kant believe that he has given a very social interpretation of the things, this they think is not good ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"aciyJYsG","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Pojman and Fieser)","plainCitation":"(Pojman and Fieser)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":296,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/82ZBZ6XL"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/82ZBZ6XL"],"itemData":{"id":296,"type":"book","title":"Ethical theory: Classical and contemporary readings","publisher":"Wadsworth Belmont, CA","source":"Google Scholar","title-short":"Ethical theory","author":[{"family":"Pojman","given":"Louis P."},{"family":"Fieser","given":"James"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1995"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Pojman and Fieser). The critiques of Immanuel Kant study the philosophy and science from two different perspectives. They believe that if they had a common base, things might be much different from how they are now. They also opine that philosophy and the sciences do have a connection but it does not mean that by any mean they are in clash with each other. Even there are places where the critiques of Immanuel Kant has proved that sciences and religion have a strong relation. Neither of them can live in isolation from the other. Considering these aspects discussed above one can opine that Immanuel Kant is not much right in its interpretation of things. This may also be the reason that Kant opines that laws are open for interpretation. Despite such criticism, there are still many reasons as to why Kant's philosophy remains viable to this day.

Work Cited:

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Kant, Immanuel. The Philosophy of Kant: Immanuel Kant’s Moral and Political Writings. 1949.

Pojman, Louis P., and James Fieser. Ethical Theory: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Wadsworth Belmont, CA, 1995.

Rachels, James, et al. The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Boston, MA, 2003.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 5 Words: 1500

Essay 2

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Essay 2

"Do animals have rights?" is an argument that remained in debate, research, and has great importance. According to the famous philosopher Carl Cohan, animals are not the bearers of rights and morality because rights are only essential for human beings. Individuals have their laws, rules, and regulations for themselves to protect their precious rights. However, there are animal rights that need to be protected by humans as they are also a part of our society and they also need care and attention along with justice. The main purpose of the essay is to analyze the argument of Carl Cohan who believed that animals do not have rights. It is crucial to understand because all living beings have morality to live in this world peacefully.

Carl believed that animals do not have rights because they do not systematically spend lives. A human develops societies and makes rules and regulations according to everyone's understanding of their roles, values, and right. However, Carl ignored the natural cycle that God had made. Everything is created for a purpose and every living being has a specific role in this world. For instance, just like humans animals also reproduce and take care of their babies. Some of them live in a group and follow a natural pattern for survival. Obligations and rights have correlations that help to understand that Carl was wrong about the animals' rights and they do deserve some basic rights in this world ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"SV8hUaJW","properties":{"formattedCitation":"({\\i{}Erfq23r0e0misihocgnmg05lr7---Carl-Cohen-.Pdf})","plainCitation":"(Erfq23r0e0misihocgnmg05lr7---Carl-Cohen-.Pdf)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":1000,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/rVaVAHaF/items/MVZXAP92"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/rVaVAHaF/items/MVZXAP92"],"itemData":{"id":1000,"type":"article","title":"erfq23r0e0misihocgnmg05lr7---Carl-Cohen-.pdf","URL":"https://www.docs.writing4money.com/uploads/orders/erfq23r0e0misihocgnmg05lr7---Carl-Cohen-.pdf","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,4]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Erfq23r0e0misihocgnmg05lr7---Carl-Cohen-.Pdf). For instance, parents pay for education of their children but no law is made that forces parents do so. However, it is the obligation of the parents to take care of their children. Similarly, animals show such obligation, therefore, if the human can get morality and rights then animals should also acquire it as not all obligations are entailed by rights.

Nazi doctors used Jews by soaking them in cold water and freezing them in refrigerators to learn about hypothermia that was not a traditional way to practice medicine, those people had rights. Carl is against such acts and called it brutality as according to him no one has the right to kill or give pain to the human. On the other side, various animals like monkeys and mice are used to do experiments for various medical researches. After decades we have learned how to make vaccines that cure deadly diseases due to those rats and monkeys on which these experiments were made. However, two opinions for the same situation raise the question that if the use of the human body for the experiment is cruelty then why animals do not get the same sympathy and morality. It is important to find a cure for various diseases but it is also important to take care of animals' feelings. It means if we cannot stop animals use for experiment then we can at least develop such experiments that can cause the least pain.

Another point on the basis of which Carl argued that animal does not have feelings is emotions and feelings. They feel pain, anger, and sorrow and show them to others. People can understand the feelings of others which make them eligible for rights and morality. For instance, if a person gets an injury or gets sick, he shows pain, sorrow, and will try to get rid of it. However, according to Carl animals cannot tell about their feelings. If we observe the behavior of animals it can be observed that they also acquire feelings. They feel pain, sorrow, anger, and happiness just like a human. They also react according to their emotions. For instance, a lioness hunting down a baby zebra to feed her cubs we think it is natural and we will not intervene but if the same event happened to a human baby. It shows that the same situation can be experienced by animals so they should also get rights just like a human.

Carl was against animal rights also because humans act more humanly while animals are considered as insane. However, this is not a complete truth. Humans also do mistakes, they also commit crimes and we act accordingly to those crimes, and if they have attempted the mistake unknowingly then it’s not his fault completely. If a human do crime or violence then it can be justified by giving punishment. Similarly, experiments indicate that animals do not attack or react unless they feel danger, anger or hunger just like a human. If the act of humans can be justified and still they acquire rights then there should be rights for animals as well. If the animal cannot live humanly then humans also perform acts that are totally insane. Therefore, Carl's argument that humans should have rights because of their human behavior then it is wrong and animals should also get rights.

Through arguments and examples, it can be concluded that Carl believes that animals do not have rights. However, most of the argument itself shows the animals' side which proves that animals acquire feelings, behavior and living pattern just like a human. Therefore, if a human can get rights due to their feelings, acts, rules, regulations, and obligations then animals should also get rights as they also acquire feelings of pain, sorrow, happiness, and follow natural life pattern. In the end, if people cannot eliminate the pain of animals for human benefits then at least they should try to minimize it.

Work Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Erfq23r0e0misihocgnmg05lr7---Carl-Cohen-.Pdf.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 3 Words: 900

Essay 3

Name

Instructor Name

Subject

Date

Essay

In Greek history, ethics were stressed a lot as a part of their religion, culture and political theories. Ethics contain the elements of morality, happiness and well being of human beings in general. Many Greek philosophers gave their idea of ethics and their counterparts for humanity.

Aristotle’s notion of a good life revolves around the question how men should lead their life and his philosophy answers this question that a good life should be a life of quality. According to his philosophy of ethics, a good life can only be attained through virtue which is a distinctive human value. He says that few people want to live life poorly whereas, people who live a good or virtuous life, flourish. Similarly, according to him, the main element which puts an end to a man’s good life is death. Humans have desires and these desires are based on good or bad conduct; Aristotle admits this as human nature to desire for objects. He distinguishes these desires as “Natural desires” and “acquired desires”. Natural desires are universal such as the need for food, clothing and shelter (Bett 45). However, acquired desires are created by man through his loss of control over his wishes and these wishes only appear good to a man. On the contrary, real good things become good desires because they are based on the essential needs of mankind. In short, Aristotle’s philosophy of life is based on the needs of the soul such as virtue and external good such as food and shelter.

He has divided virtue into two categories, moral virtue and intellectual virtue. The human trait such as kindness is a moral virtue and act of thinking is an intellectual virtue. For Aristotle, human happiness is based on the pursuit and act of rational activities because these activities induce eudaemonia (happiness) in a man and he flourishes through happiness. (Bett 47). Likewise, according to his philosophy, a man should live a virtuous life based on moral and intellectual virtues and by adopting courage as a moral value, a man should lead his life till his death.

Epicurus is another Greek philosopher and he places logic and realism at a high pedestal. Like Aristotle’s idea of morality and ethics, he too asserts that a good life is free of unnecessary desires and highly based on the idea of tranquility or “calmness”. He has used the term ataraxia for calmness and in his notion of “pleasure”, conversation based on man’s philosophical needs over his physical needs creates happiness (Bett 49). For instance, a conversation with one's peers over physical needs of life such as food, shelter, and sex. In contrast, his idea of death is concrete and not abstract. He says that for a living person, death carries no meaning and it is already worthless for the dead. His idea of desires also contradicts Aristotle's idea of natural and acquired desires states that necessary desires are linked with the principle of pleasure and pain. For instance, if a man suffers from pain and he gets relief, his necessary desire is fulfilled. He further states that by emptying one's mind from the thoughts of pleasure and pain, one can achieve, calmness or peace of mind. Epicurus's idea of goodness or virtue is similar to that of Aristotle's, according to the former, wisdom brings virtue.

American democratic culture and philosophy is highly inspired by the theories and philosophies of Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Epicurus. The American constitution is highly influenced by Aristotle’s idea of democracy and similarly, the idea of self-realization given by Epicurus serves as a general motivation for American people. The pursuit of happiness is given much importance because it is written in the U.S declaration of independence that their collective aim is of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (What the Declaration of Independence Really Means by ‘Pursuit of Happiness”). Similarly, the virtues of equality and equity also manifest itself in our culture and these values are highly stressed by Aristotle and Epicurus in their moral philosophies.

Works Cited:

Bett, Richard. “Nietzsche, the Greeks, and Happiness (with special reference to Aristotle and Epicurus).” Philosophical Topics 33.2 (2005): 45-70.

“What the Declaration of Independence Really Means by ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’” July 3, 2018. https://news.emory.edu/stories/2014/06/er_pursuit_of_happiness/campus.html.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 2 Words: 600

Essay On Love

Humans are Capable of Loving a Robot

Name

Affiliation

Date

Humans are Capable of Loving a Robot

Love has always been a very important aspect of the life of human beings. They have tried to explore more and more about the inception and functioning, as well as the absence of love in their life. With progress and technological shift of the society, the point of view of the human beings towards love and its research has changed greatly. One of the most important aspects of exploring love in modern time is to study the ability of robots to love human beings. The science and technology has made so much progress that now the robots are able to replace human beings while performing in a much better way than them. Although the robots are able to do the things and perform actions like the human beings, to the extent of replacing them, their ability to love the human beings as their partner is still a matter of suspicion for the scientists. On the other hand, the philosophers have a much clear idea about it, as they believe that robots are not capable of living human beings, however, human beings are capable of loving the robots. Sven Nyholm, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at the Eindhoven University of Technology, hypothesized that love possesses three qualities: the ability to choose your soul mate, the ability to value the unique qualities of your partner, and the ability to have a choice to commit to your partner. Therefore, I hypothesized that since a robot does not possess these abilities, it is incapable of love, but a human who possesses these qualities may be able to love and empathize with a robot.

One of the most important qualities of love is the ability to choose your soul mate. Human beings have this ability which makes them able to love and empathizes with another individual or even with a robot. On the other hand, the robots do not possess this quality, which makes them unable to love any other being, with it is some human or other robots as well. Human beings have the ability to choose their soul mate because they do not see all the other people from the same perspective. They observe and analyze the person according to his/ her positive and negative aspects while keeping in view the attitude of the person, as well as their understanding and compatibility. They are able to understand if a person is behaving negatively in a certain situation, there must be some reason behind that. On the other hand, the robots are made in a certain specific manner and they work according to the algorithms and logic fed to them. They do have the ability to think in a logical manner, however, they are unable to reason like human beings on the basis of emotions. The robots cannot understand the emotions of human beings according to the situation and react only to the emotions which are stored in their functioning systems. The ability to choose the soul mate depends on reading the emotions of the other person as well as assessing if they would be able to reciprocate their feelings while providing happiness and comfort to each other. The robots cannot choose their soul mates, because they do not have the ability to understand the emotions and feelings of the human beings, apart from the general feeling of happiness, sadness, anger, etc., which are stored in their functioning system (Ess, 2017).

Another important quality of love is the ability to value the unique qualities of your partner. Human beings are able to make a comparison of their partner with other individuals of society. They are able to identify the unique qualities of their partners and appreciate them as well. For example, in the case of a husband and wife, the husband would be able to see the unique quality of respecting his family and background, when she has the ability to act otherwise. The husband would appreciate her quality of respecting his family due to him. On the other hand, the robots are developed according to the same functioning system and they are made to think in a logical manner. They do not give some edge or benefit of favor to any individual on the basis of his or her attitude, so they would not be able to know the unique qualities of their partners. They see, analyze and judge the human beings from the same perspective, due to which they would not be able to see and appreciate the unique qualities of their partners thinking that all the human beings would react in the same way. Even if they know that all the other human beings would not react in the same way, they would question the action of their partner human beings, instead of appreciating the uniqueness of their partner (Borenstein, & Arkin, 2019).

Another important quality of love is the ability to have a choice to commit to your partner, which is missing in the robots. Robots are not developed to think and act differently according to the situation. They do not have the ability of thinking and acting on their own instincts, but according to their already stored thinking system, which is the major drawback that they do not have the choice. One of the most important aspects in this regard is that the heart of human beings plays an important role in the love affairs, as well as their attitude, perception, and understanding towards their partners. They do not just react on a specific code but utilize their reasoning on the basis of their emotions and understanding, due to which they are finally able to commit to their partners. The robots do not have the ability to commit to their partners because they are unable to acknowledge their difference from all the other human beings. On the other hand, the human beings have the potential of developing feelings for the robots and loving them because they are able to find their unique qualities, appreciate them, as well as commit to them. Human beings can love and empathize with the robots, as well as other human beings due to these qualities of love, which are a part of their functionality. While the same functionality is missing from the personality of the robots, so they cannot love human beings or robots.

Human beings are capable of loving and empathizing fellow human beings, because of their possession of the qualities of love. On the other hand, the robots are not able to love or empathize with other robots or human beings because of the fact that they do not possess the qualities of love. They cannot choose their soul mate, appreciate the unique qualities of their partner, as well as commit to them, due to which they are unable to satisfy the love needs of their partner, rendering them unable to reciprocate their feelings. They do not have a heart and emotions like human beings which can enable them to differentiate the people on the basis of their emotions towards them, thus treating all of them in the same manner.

References

Borenstein, J., & Arkin, R. (2019). Robots, ethics, and intimacy: the need for scientific research. On the Cognitive, Ethical, and Scientific Dimensions of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 299-309). Springer, Cham.

Ess, C. M. (2017). What’s love got to do with it? Robots, sexuality, and the arts of being human. In Social Robots (pp. 57-79). Routledge.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 4 Words: 1200

Ethical Egoism

Name of Student

Name of Professor

Name of Class

Day Month Year

Ethical Egoism

The moral doctrine of ethical egoism states that people ought to promote personal values and interest exclusively. Primarily, it asserts significance in the manner people should behave instead of how they behave inherently. Max Stirner and Ayn Rand were the staunchest advocates of ethical egoism. The theory harnesses the beliefs that self-interest should always be glorified irrespective of the circumstances. The fundamental principles of ethical egoism are often associated with selfishness and overlooking the interest of others. The theory was rejected by a wide range of scholars and theorists. I shall advance to argue that the paradigm of ethical theory is irrational and immoral as it delivers the selfish message that prioritizing the interest of others is unethical in absence of self-value of the action.

To begin, the paradigm of ethical theory highlights the significance of caring for self and the ones who are close to self. For instance, the treatment and goodwill subjected to friends and relatives ought to be offered to everyone. The strangers in this world are not worthy of being treated with compassion, courtesy and good will. However, the theory never implies that others should be harmed. The ethical theorists never manifest the actions of intervention. They harness the values of non-intervention in the life of others but are also devoid of intentions of goodwill. The crux of the ethical theory lies at the very heart of pursuing self-interest even at the cost of others interest ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"Uy3NfCnh","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Shaver)","plainCitation":"(Shaver)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":2243,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/H8YOvGFC/items/AB4VYUPS"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/H8YOvGFC/items/AB4VYUPS"],"itemData":{"id":2243,"type":"chapter","title":"Egoism","container-title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","publisher":"Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University","edition":"Spring 2019","source":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","abstract":"Egoism can be a descriptive or a normative position. Psychologicalegoism, the most famous descriptive position, claims that each personhas but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. Normative forms of egoismmake claims about what one ought to do, rather than describe what onedoes do. Ethical egoism claims I morally ought to perform some actionif and only if, and because, performing that action maximizes myself-interest. Rational egoism claims that I ought to perform someaction if and only if, and because, performing that action maximizesmy self-interest. (Here the “ought” is not restricted tothe moral “ought”.)","URL":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/egoism/","author":[{"family":"Shaver","given":"Robert"}],"editor":[{"family":"Zalta","given":"Edward N."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2019"]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",3,30]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Shaver). It can be classified into three distinct kinds: universal, personal and individual ethical egoist. The individual ethical egoist nurture the belief that people ought to strengthen his/her self-interest. The personal egoist assumes that he is only concerned about personal well-being and should not intervene in the matters of others. The universal ethical egoistic postulates every person must act in the manner which best serves their interest.

Besides, a critical appraisal of the ethical egoistic theory reflects that it overemphasizes the self-interest of an individual to such an extent that the rights and interest of others get desecrated. The egoist's will, regardless of circumstances, prefer their interest in true letter and spirits. This notion gives the cynics a potential ground for abashing the manifestations and objectives of the ethical egoistic theory. For instance, egoist will always proceed top consume maximum and excessive sources even when they are not required or scarce. The fundamental adversity the theory faces for acceptance is that it lacks the spirits associated with ethical theories. Its ramifications are largely divergent from the principles of the rest of the ethical theories. When ethical egoism is classified as the stance where it is always productive for the agents to strengthen their interest, several complexities begin to surface.

In addition, ethical egoists are faced with several ethical dilemmas and conflicts because of the glorification and influence of the self-interest of an individual. For instance, an oil company will burn fossil fuels as it best serves its interest. The paradigm of the theory holds that resources are absent to be contributed toward the mining company. It may appear rational and appropriate. However, the conflict of interest and the dilemma surfaces when the interest of other person clashes with the discussed case. For instance, eco-terrorist plans to destruct the wells of the oil company, shut down its business and terrorize the staff will also be valid. The terrorist is also pursuing the self-interest as per the principles and guidance of the ethical egoism. Such radical and confronting are the manifestations of conflicts of interest in the theory. It is a dramatic and explicit illustration of the incompetence of the theory to efficiently address ethical conflicts. Ultimately, the inferior is forced by the superior to concede because the cost of the critical conflict is too great.

Furthermore, the ethical egoism theory nurtures values which are entirely contradictory to the rest of the ethical theories. The moral theories as utilitarianism, common sense mortality and Kantianism require that the agent offers maximum weight to the interests of people. They also face instances where uncompensated sacrifices are imperative to be observed. All these values are essential for an ethical theory to be pursued and strengthened in society in true letter and spirits. The ethical egoism is inherently devoid of these standard values. Besides, the theory misinterprets the essence of altruism. For instance, Rand stipulates that the individuals who embrace altruism are prone to cultivate low self-esteem, radical existence of the world and an imprudent attitude towards society. Altruism is deemed a potential impediment to attain personal goals and ambitions. Such radical are the principles of ethical egoism and thus are radical and irrational.

Likewise, the prominent distinction made by the theory as self and others also nullifies the rationality in the ethical paradigm. The very conceptual construction of the theory is discriminatory and prejudiced toward other than self. The ethical egoists delineate that the world is classified into two groups as the rest and us. None can rationalize this violent classification of human beings and respective interests. Irrefutably, each human being ought to offer other members the autonomy and environment to accomplish their goals and desires. These instances substantiate the rejection of ethical egoists to a significant extent.

A critical appraisal of the deliberated argument above raises a contentious debate. The advocates of the ethical egoist theory may advance to postulate that the discussed argument lacks the empirical existence. Every other person must seek self-interest and pursue the principle of non-intervention. Consequently, each individual will successfully accomplish their goals and interest. The advocates can utilize this argument to confront the cynics of ethical egoists. Humans are inherently inclined toward acquisition and pursuit of ambitions and self-interest. When every person strives for this purpose, society witnesses prosperity.

Besides, the objection holds no water. Humans cannot pursuit self-interest without facing a conflict of interest. If every person strives to exercise self-interest at the cost of others, none can justify the rationality or the ethicality of the deeds. It desecrates the very fundamental objectives of the ethical paradigm. The ethical theories are aimed at constructing the argument and environment which creates a win-win situation and adheres to moral values. Nevertheless, the notion of self-interest in the theory violates the principles of good will. Non-intervention never implies it will not raise an ethical dilemma. The self-interest of different persons can clash and thus the theory becomes contentious. There does not exist an empirical illustration where the theory thoroughly offers a solution to the critical conflict. Thus, the theory of ethical egoism fails to be applied universally.

To conclude, it is proved through instances and argument that the ethical egoist theory is devoid of the rational and morality pertinent to the acquisition of the self-interest. The rise of conflict of interest, unavailability of the solution, the emergence of ethical dilemmas and the prominent divergence from the rest of the theories make the theory inapplicable to be exercised. Thus, the majority of theorists reject the principles and objectives of the theory. The number of advocates of the theory in the contemporary era is very small owing to the radical influence on the self-interest above everything.

Works Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Shaver, Robert. “Egoism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2019, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/egoism/.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 4 Words: 1200

Ethical Egoism

[Your Name]

[Instructor Name]

[Course Number]

[Date]

Ethical Egoism

Q.1

The central idea behind ethical egoism is that every person should exclusively seek to pursue their self-interest without any regard for others (Rachels and Rachels, 72). Furthermore, another idea behind ethical egoism is that an individual must not promote the interests of other persons in addition to the promotion of their interests. Additionally, ethical egoism presents a radical idea that the pursuance of self-interest is the obligation of an individual. On the other hand, ethical egoism does not direct the individuals not to help others. Ethical Egoism means an individual should do whatever serves their self-interest in the best possible ways (Rachels and Rachels, 72).

Q.2

There are numerous pros of ethical egoism. One of them is mentioned ahead. Ethical egoism provides an opportunity for better personal improvement (Rachels and Rachels, 82). For instance, a person who decides not to take up drugs would ultimately serve their interest and improve themselves significantly. There are several cons of ethical egoism that are discussed next. First con of ethical egoism is that everyone serving their own best interest would see the society becoming detached (Rachels and Rachels, 82). Another drawback of ethical egoism is that people do not view anything from the perspective of others. They only serve their self-interest only. The last shortcoming of ethical egoism is that it results in poor relationships.

Q.3

Psychological egoism narrates that the basis of all the human actions is self-interest that drives the actions (Rachels and Rachels, 80). Furthermore, psychological egoism is categorized as a descriptive theory . Moreover, psychological egoism states that even behind the actions of benevolence and altruism, there are self-interests that form the basis of those actions. Contrarily, ethical egoism describes that, no matter what, individuals should continuously seek to serve their self-interest (Rachels and Rachels, 80). Ethical egoism is a theory which is prescriptive in nature. This suggests that an individual should always seek to pursue self-interest. It must be noted that ethical egoism denies altruism altogether (Rachels and Rachels, 80).

Works Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY Rachels, James. and Rachels, Stuart. "Elements Of Moral Philosophy 9Th Edition

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 1 Words: 300

Ethical Relativism Response

In the article entitled, “Ethics and observation”, by Gilbert Harman explains that it is common in ethics to distinguish normative questions from questions of meta ethics. On the one hand, we can, for example, ask ourselves whether the extreme poverty that afflicts some countries is unfair or it is our duty to help people in the need. But we can also wonder what we do when we ask such questions or when we make moral judgments. Harman linked the concept of observation and ethics together.

This article makes a clear distinction between the ethics and observation. Observation plays an important part that it does not look to play in beliefs. The change is that a person need to create traditions almost particular physical evidences to clarify the incidence of the comments that provision a scientific theory. Gilbert Harman believes to be able to demonstrate the non-existence of traits of character. The fact that, in everyday life, we attribute character traits to individuals based, he said, on an error and should lead us to get rid of this the reference popular that creates more harm than good. It supports the intuit relating to the traits of character of individuals are as erroneous as those which, very often, the commons mortals when analyzing physical phenomena.

Harman invoke different factors specific to the situation among which are the difficulty of the subject of override the researcher's order to pursue and carry out his intent to put an end to experience; the difficulty of the subject to find a breakpoint rational during the experiment; and finally the fact that the more the experiment progress was made, the subject was less able to meaning to what he was doing. This reflects the psychological reality of being human being with regard to the reference as well as the everyday life of each individual.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 1 Words: 300

Ethics

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course

Date

Ethics

Introduction

Soren Kierkegaard is a 19th-century Danish philosopher is also considered the first Existentialist. He tried to reform Christianity by beautifying its core beliefs and proving them with logic and reason. He claims in his book Fear and Trembling (1843) that three stages occur in the life of a man: Aesthetic, Ethical, and Religious. He has proposed the theory of “Teleological Suspension of the Ethical”. It means that a man suspends his belief in ethical and retains his belief in religion. Kierkegaard claims that this suspension happens when a man knows that his belief in religion would cause no harm to the ethical.

Body

Kierkegaard claims that three stages occur in the life of a man as mentioned in the above paragraph. The first stage is the Aesthetic. The man does what he likes to do and what gives him pleasure and satisfaction. It could be anything or any work. The second stage is the Ethical. Here the man tries to conform to social codes, laws, and beliefs and attempts to do the things that would make him an acceptable person of society. The final stage is the Religious (Shihadeh, Ayman. N.p). This stage makes him conscious of all three stages but loyal to the third one.

Teleological suspension of the ethical comes in the third stage. Kierkegaard tells four versions of the Abrahamic story of sacrificing his son Isaac. He considers one version the most reliable and the rest of his book discusses this version that Abraham led Isaac to altar despite knowing that it is unethical because he knew that all the ethics are taught and proposed by the God and that the promoter of ethics would never let them be undermined or broken. He knew that it is wrong, but he also knew that God would not allow anything wrong to happen, so he moved to the altar.

Kierkegaard's theory can be applied to modern situations in a way that the modern human being follows God's teaching having a belief that he would not allow anything wrong to happen. In fact, this belief is getting acceptance in modern society under the shade of existentialism (Ward, Keith. N.p). The modern human being looks tired with material progress, and now he/she trying to soothe his/her soul in religion. Now, people are installing e-books of religion to their laptops and other devices. But modern philosophers have made things so difficult and complex that on one hand the existence of God is challenged with harsh words and on the other hand the man attempts to get refuge in the Bible.

Conclusion

Teleological suspension of the ethical means that a person suspends his/her belief in the rules and laws of society in order to show allegiance to religion. This term originates from the story of Abraham who intended to kill his son Isaac despite knowing that it was unethical for the sake of God's will. Kierkegaard believes that he did so because he knew that it will not do any harm to ethics. This is a kind of belief in religion after purifying one's soul. This stage rare occurs in a person's life when religion wants him/her to sacrifice something precious. And it is usually followed by a mistake as an expiation. The modern society has the weakest belief in God and teleological belief in religion is almost absent. But if the society follows the Bible and its commandments believing that God would not allow anything wrong to prevail, the society might grow spiritually collectively.

Works Cited

Shihadeh, Ayman. The Teleological Ethics of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi. Vol. 64. Рипол Классик, 2006.

Ward, Keith. "Kant's teleological ethics." The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-) 21.85 (1971): 337-351.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 2 Words: 600

Ethics

Ethics

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

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

Author Note

[Include any grant/funding information and a complete correspondence address.]

Ethics

Introduction

“The soul is healed by being with children”-Fyodor Dostoevsky. The desire for a child is genuine and almost every couple wants to have a child after marriage no matter what the cost. The under-study case discusses an American couple who wanted to have a child after having a happy married life. A complication occurred when the woman found that she had Huntington’s disease (HD) that would cost her her life in around 15-20 years. Additionally, they had another fear that the child might receive the symptoms of the disease from his mother. Fortunately, they found the solution to the second kind of fear in the form of Vitro Fertilization, and had a healthy child. It seems the development of Eugenics that people use the available technology to make their life happy. Some people might blame the mother for having a child despite being aware that she would die in around a score. We should also understand that mortality is companion to humanity and no one has a guaranteed life. Moreover, if the mother dies when the child is twenty years old, it might leave no serious effect upon the psyche of the child.

Eugenics and the Case Study

The practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits is called Eugenics, and the couple’s action also seems an offshoot of this field of study as they choose a healthy child secure from certain fatal diseases like Huntington’s Disease and Cancer, etc. Letting parents choose the sex of the child they want to have is condemnable in Christianity as the religion considers it the prerogative of God to decide what he intends to give to the parents, but the American constitution does not condemn such practice as it allows the citizens to do what they want for their contentment. The same is encouraged by the national decree but discouraged by the religious decree. If one aspires to decide it by reason, the national decree also seems prone to ethics if the divine decree cannot be undermined that easily. Christianity does not allow humans to tamper with the natural rules of divinity that are supported by some segments of Judaism and Christianity (Beauchamp, 2001). They compare it to human cloning and condemn the act of choosing the child’s sex all the same. The state, however, does not react that hardly.

Giving birth to an offspring is not unethical even if the mother knows that she would die after a score of years. The only unethical thing would appear if the parents intentionally attempt to have a born-sick child. This can result in a painful life but if the child is safe, then the desire of that woman should be valued who is aware that she would start her journey towards death after shortly (Agar, 1998). The mentioned case reveals that both parents agreed to have the child despite knowing about HD. It shows that the father was ready to look after the child if the woman lost her fight with the disease (Black, 2003). If one parent is there to look after the child, there is nothing unethical in the couple’s urge to fulfill their desires.

Conclusion

The case discussed seems a kind of Eugenics where the human race attempts to improve the descendent generations using latest available technology. The couple had a child as they desired, but they did not act irresponsibly. They consulted the specialists and availed the latest technology to give birth to a healthy child. They chose the sex of the child which is apparently odd, but letting parents choose the sex of the child they want to have is not unethical if it does not harm anyone, however, there would occur the need for reconsideration of this free-choice if the practice becomes a norm.

References

Agar, N. (1998). Liberal eugenics. Public Affairs Quarterly, 12(2), 137-155.

Black, E. (2003). War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York.

Beauchamp, T. L. (2001). Philosophical ethics: An introduction to moral philosophy.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 2 Words: 600

Ethics

Ethics

Student name

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

Case study

Keeping the threatening situation of this 27year man in consideration, it won't be wrong to say that it is ethical for CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) to force people to get vaccine since it would be for the greater good. Vaccinations not only provide direct benefit to people who will be vaccinated rather it can save the community at large. The present situation that CDC and New York City hospital is facing is not casual so here, in this case, it is not at all about personal autonomy and choice. This forcing attitude of CDC would save lives so it is forcing people to get vaccinated would be ethical as per deontological ethics which claims that not the action itself is right or wrong under certain rules rather an action should be judged based on its consequence.

This fact do not deny religious obligations and restrictions could not be challenged, also the state law supports her refusal of the vaccine as she has her own spiritual reasons. On other hand, the government is right as they cannot risk other lives only for her personal reasons, despite knowing that her religious opposition is justified. I think, her religious leaders should be contacted so that they could convince her for getting vaccinated as her approval for vaccine would produce the greatest good for the greatest number. All the religions stress on saving human lives so she should be convinced otherwise she must be quarantined.

It would be an unethical action to allow people to refuse vaccination even for common diseases like measles. When people would be allowed to refuse to get vaccinated (especially to their children), they would put more lives of risk of diseases or disabilities.

If people would refuse to get the vaccine and their refusal would harm other people who could not have the vaccine (i.e. AIDS patients) than on the basis of the consequence of their action they could be considered wrong ethically as they harm those who were dependent upon them for their safety.

No, it is not ethical for someone to refuse vaccination as one is just considering his/her own religious beliefs and philosophies rather than considering the greater good. This refusal may put many lives on risks and there is high chances of outbreak of contagious diseases.

Their refusal would be both ethical and unethical as there are two aspects involved in this particular scenario. They would prefer their citizens first and would provide them safety on priority so from this lens it would be ethical, but if I went to my local city and risk more lives than it would be unethical for them to refuse me from vaccinating.

Keeping utilitarianism in considering calling of citizens for mandatory quarantining of people who were directly exposed to the victim (people who live in his apartment, who work in ER and those who were with him in flight) is ethically justified. Maybe they wanted to save their loved ones so their demand is ethically justified.

It would be ethical to vaccinate even those who may not want to be vaccinated because there are high chances of transmission of smallpox virus, so for saving more lives, this forceful vaccination would be ethical. Personal autonomy and choices must not be served in the given study.

All the citizens must be vaccinated as virus transmit and causes destruction on a national level so citizens must be vaccinated especially healthcare workers must be vaccinated forceful as they are exposed to patients with different viruses so saving community at large both health and non-health workers must be vaccinated.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 2 Words: 600

Ethics And Moral Theory

Ethics and Moral theory

Ethics and moral theory

We are living in an age which is entirely different from our previous generations. This is a contrast between the life of ours and the life of theirs. They had different customs, different values and different living standards. We cannot even think of living a life like that. As people from previous generations had no interaction with technology, therefore they had to go long ways for even completing their small tasks. They had created some norms which were beneficial for their livelihood. As it is argued that in previous centuries, some couples will give birth to a child, once they have crossed the age of thirty-five. This child was the guarantee for providing that couple the social benefits, which otherwise will not be offered to them. I believe that this custom was equivalent to deliberately denying some basic living rights to some individuals. Following are two arguments which I present in support of my stance

Once the parents have died, what else he or she has in the life to care for? Since they were just supposed to look after their parents.

How they would have satisfied they humanly desire? As it is mentioned, that they were sometimes not allowed to marry.

The life of a human being is different from the life of each creature in the world. They are supposed to dugout resources to fulfil his or her appetite, they are supposed to care for their defence, they are supposed to find new things in the universe and finally, they are supposed to give birth to new people who will then take care of their leftovers. The desire for giving birth arises from one’s internal desires which become unable to control at some points of timein life. In another way, such feelings are a guarantee of human civilization.

As some old customs suggest that the old age child was supposed to take care of the parents, he or she would have lived a life close to them. This duty which was not bestowed to him by nature but by some customs in the physical world has limited the choice of options for him in life. He was not supposed to move away, to explore new lands, to make some inventions or to do some earnings. Such a limited choice of things would have made her life too narrow and there would have nothing for him other than looking at his parents. It is a natural fact that children outlive parents and they care for the belongings left by them. In this case, if an old age child has done nothing other than caring for his parents, what he or she is going to do when parents are no more. It will be a point in his life when he or she would have felt that there is no purpose in his life. It is the one way this custom has ruined a single life which will eventually die after making no additions to the world he lived in.

The cycle of human generation is dependent on human’s physical interaction. This guarantees the survival of mankind. Other than the custom prescribed above, there were laws which in times prohibited marrying the old age children. There is no doubt in this fact that denying the right of marrying is derogatory in all senses. It is the synonym of denying the very basic rights of life to a human being. If a person of that time was just supposed to live near his parents and was not allowed to interact with the opposite sexes, how come this would have guaranteed the fulfilment of his or sexual desire. It becomes much difficult for a person like this to spend a life with no spouse. As mentioned above, a child normally must spend a notable time after the death of his parents. In such circumstances, he needs a life partner with whom he can associate the pleasures of life or which can assure the survival of his generations. This is how this point proofs that if the old customs not allowed to marry the old age child, this would have negatively impacted his life.

The human civilization has remained dependent on values, norms and societal interaction. This all has guaranteed the survival of human generations. History has remained a proof of the fact that each custom or tradition has not complied with the natural needs of human life, but still, humans have managed to live and sustain the generation. Same is the case with the societal norms presented in the essay. The arguments presented in the first paragraph shows that when the parents of the old age child depart the world, there is nothing for him to do in the world. Similarly, it is necessary for a person to marry someone so that, he or she could satisfy the sexual desires. This satisfaction is necessary to ensure the coming of the next generation. These norm, therefore, prove that despite being an old age child it is not necessary to just care for the parents and act like a guarantee for their social survival, no one at anywhere bound other to live a life in a specific manner. As I have always believed that no human being on the life should be denied the basic rights of life, therefore, these arguments have helped me in proving my viewpoint that those customs were equivalent to deliberately denying the rights of life to many children of that times.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 3 Words: 900

Ethics Journal #2

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Ethics Journal #2

Subjectivism

Subjectivism, or more precisely said, ethical subjectivism holds that our opinions are merely a reflection of our sentiments or feelings, and there are no facts or truths of morality. People suggest what they feel. They only demonstrate their attitudes when they are sharing their opinions. There is no reason behind their ethical statements. In ‘The Elements of Moral Philosophy', the author gives evidence of how people change their opinions with changing social circumstances by stating that the number of opinions held in favor of homosexuality has increased significantly from 2001 to 2017. This implies that people do not give moral statements based on reason; instead, they only say what they feel about things.

Difference between Subjectivism and Emotivism

Emotivism is a modified version of ethical subjectivism. According to subjectivism, there is no moral conflict, as anyone who gives a moral statement is always right in what he says, because he says what he feels. There is no real disagreement of morality in subjectivism. Whereas, for emotivism, there is a real conflict of morality. Emotivism suggests that moral language is used for persuading and influencing others' behaviors and for expressing personal attitudes. Subjectivism gives the facts regarding one’s attitudes through the use of moral language, and emotivism entails using moral language for persuasion regarding the statements which cannot be categorized as true or false (Jacko).

Good Ethical Reasoning

Good ethical reasoning is evident from the term itself. Besides the two extremes of considering the moral values to be real or fake, there is another dimension to see the reality: ‘reasoning’. We can conclude that a moral statement is true if it is backed by enough reasoning. Proving the truth of a moral statement is not impossible. The only thing needed to prove the truth of an ethical statement is ethical reasoning, which is logically equivalent to the scientific reasoning. The ethical reasoning involves supporting a statement by reasons, establishing principles, and critically evaluating the arguments made for a particular issue.

References

Jacko, Jan Franciszek. Other Moral Theories: Subjectivism, Relativism, Emotivism, Intuitionism, Etc. 2019.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 1 Words: 300

Ethics: Violence

Name of Student

Name of Professor

Name of Class

Day Month Year

Ethics: Violence

The debate of violence assumes a contentious debate in the ethical paradigm. A wide range of researchers and philosophers have stipulated contrasting views pertinent to the morality, bases and justification of violence. The ultimate quest to comprehend the manifestations of violence requires a critical analysis of the views postulated by various philosophers. It is imperative to assimilate the nature of violence by considering it in a different dimension as violence in religion, gender-based violence and epistemology of violence. Essentially, Dale Jacquette draws the distinction between the metaphorical and literal violence by associating it with a kind of action performed by the agent. Besides, philosophers have advanced to both confront and commend the existence of violence in human nature. Violence is, irrefutably, morally wrong and problematic as it requires critical justifications rather than been termed morally permissible.

To begin, violence poses grave consequences for the study of ethics, rationality and rightfulness. The essence of ethics lies at the very heart of not affecting others regardless of the circumstances. For instance, if a human being is affected and subjected to violence because of a morally wrong act committed by him, it is deemed the person was treated rightfully. Meanwhile, it raises the critical question as forgiving others and refraining from spreading violence in the society is the principle which must be pursued under any circumstances. There exists a spirited disagreement related to the right and wrong nature of violence ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"OyF2WSNj","properties":{"formattedCitation":"({\\i{}Are Human Beings Naturally Violent And Warlike? | Issue 105 | Philosophy Now})","plainCitation":"(Are Human Beings Naturally Violent And Warlike? | Issue 105 | Philosophy Now)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":392,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/X2VVJEE4"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/X2VVJEE4"],"itemData":{"id":392,"type":"webpage","title":"Are Human Beings Naturally Violent And Warlike? | Issue 105 | Philosophy Now","URL":"https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/Are_Human_Beings_Naturally_Violent_And_Warlike","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,19]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Are Human Beings Naturally Violent And Warlike? | Issue 105 | Philosophy Now). Such contentious are the questions posed by violence in the paradigm of ethics.

Besides, Coady underpins three fundamental definitions of violence. Restricted, wide and legitimist are the three primary branches with further expand the assessment of violence. The restricted aspect refers to the individuals who always prefer to focus on the positive interpersonal acts of coercion generally comprising the infliction of physical harm. The second aspect, wide, highlights the individuals who deem violence an extension of the social inequalities and injustices. The element of physical force is abandoned and the instances of structural and institutional violence are glorified. The last element as legitimist stipulates violence to be irrational, discriminatory and tyrant in true letter and spirits ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"S9kYJu47","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Alfieri)","plainCitation":"(Alfieri)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":387,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/ZLGQ35MV"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/ZLGQ35MV"],"itemData":{"id":387,"type":"article-journal","title":"The Ethics of Violence: Necessity, Excess, and Opposition","container-title":"Columbia Law Review","page":"1721-1750","volume":"94","issue":"5","source":"JSTOR","DOI":"10.2307/1123163","ISSN":"0010-1958","shortTitle":"The Ethics of Violence","author":[{"family":"Alfieri","given":"Anthony V."}],"editor":[{"family":"Sarat","given":"Austin"},{"family":"Kearns","given":"Thomas R."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1994"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Alfieri). Since all acts of violence are inclined towards committing a violation, the very existence of violence is evil and unjustified. Violation, here, is stated as the significant element which is subjected to violence as a primary intention of transforming wrongful acts into violence. For instance, a person borrows a book from a library but fails to return it on time. The person has committed a wrong act but not each act can be violent similar to this case ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"KYrePEga","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Arguments for Liberty\\uc0\\u8221{})","plainCitation":"(“Arguments for Liberty”)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":394,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/ULJYDJJ5"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/ULJYDJJ5"],"itemData":{"id":394,"type":"webpage","title":"Arguments for Liberty: Utilitarianism","container-title":"Libertarianism.org","abstract":"Christopher Freiman joins us to talk about his Arguments for Liberty chapter on utilitarianism. What’s the utilitarian argument for libertarianism?","URL":"https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/arguments-liberty-utilitarianism","shortTitle":"Arguments for Liberty","language":"en","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,20]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Arguments for Liberty”). The wrongful treatment of the person never implies the act can be characterized as violent. In addition, Buffachi conceives a framework to sketch the intricacies of violence by blaming it for desecrating the fundamental spirits of integrity.

Furthermore, a critical appraisal of the matter states that violence is harmful and each harmful act is manifested in prima facie wrong. In several circumstances, violence is given a destructive nature and since destruction fuels harm, violence in essence is harmful and detrimental. However, not all acts of violence can be called harmful. If a person, for instance, who aims at punching the other person on the face but misses and fells on the ground, the other person will laugh and be amused ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"xhcSyK4d","properties":{"formattedCitation":"({\\i{}Defining Violence | Issue 66 | Philosophy Now})","plainCitation":"(Defining Violence | Issue 66 | Philosophy Now)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":390,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/VFNNXYG7"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/VFNNXYG7"],"itemData":{"id":390,"type":"webpage","title":"Defining Violence | Issue 66 | Philosophy Now","URL":"https://philosophynow.org/issues/66/Defining_Violence","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,19]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Defining Violence | Issue 66 | Philosophy Now). Hence, the act of violence did not inflict harm. There exist several other instances where violence can manifest in productivity. Suppose a person's legs need to be amputated with an ax in order to free him from the immense burden, violence as amputation is considered viable as it is the only choice.

In regards to various ethical theories, violence is critically assessed based on the outcomes and the needs of action. Utilitarianism, proposed by Jeremy Bentham, at its core examines the significance and moral of action by making comparison with the possible outcomes. The complexity of circumstances and violence must be committed if they cause a greater good for the vast majority of people. Utilitarianism condones violence but at the very heart of the theory lies a contentious debate. It postulates argument cannot be established on the existence and non-existence of violence when the greatest number is being benefited potentially. However, the philosophical structure of this theory lacks accuracy. During World War II, a wide range of Germans allied to combat the Germans and advanced to kill millions of Jews as it was the majority conceded to the action. In essence, the majority aimed at subjecting a ruthless genocide of innocent Jews that is utterly overlooked by Utilitarianism school of thought. Thus, Utilitarianism condones violence but struggles to maintain an equilibrium between the voices and rights of minority and majority. An intricate thought is derived from justification that the majority and minority are always experiencing a continuous change which causes the minority to become a part of the majority in later stages ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"5mojaZOO","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Thi and P)","plainCitation":"(Thi and P)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":388,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/3L4RN4SC"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/3L4RN4SC"],"itemData":{"id":388,"type":"article-journal","title":"Good Violence, Bad Violence: The Ethics of Competition in Multiplayer Games","URL":"http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/paper_39.pdf","shortTitle":"Good Violence, Bad Violence","author":[{"family":"Thi","given":"Nguyen C."},{"family":"P","given":"Zagal José"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2016"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Thi and P). The establishment of a new majority enhances the likelihood of previously prohibited actions to become rational. For instance, wars can be initiated and havoc can be wreaked under the acceptance of a majority regardless of the ramifications and adversities faced by the minority. The ethical theory of Utilitarianism condones violence by sanctioning the right and rationality of the radical actions to the majority while overlooking the harm and challenges posed by it to the minority and other groups of society.

In addition, the ethical theories other than Utilitarianism advance to assess violence by considering the implications of action as creating right or wrong in morality rather than examining the ramifications of the action. Kant's deontological ethical theory harnesses the essence of the action and if it is violent it may be nullified in the first place to exterminate the need of critically assessing the benefit or harm inflicted upon the minority or majority. The deliberated ethical paradigm of theories pertinent to violent offers a contentious debate on whether or not violence is justified. However, it is imperative to examine the root of violence manifested in human nature. Violence, inherently, is rooted in the nature of humans which can be viewed in the light of historical instances. Wars, crimes and injustices have remained a potential part of human history and provide an explicit illustration of the perceived reality that human evolution has breed violence. They have progressed to innovate and engage in warfare to perpetuate violence which is justified by their needs. Such critical are the manifestations of violence embedded in the inherent nature of humans.

To conclude, various ethical theories and philosophers have stipulated contrasting and contentious views on the need and justification of violence. The fundamental principle breeding violence is the provision of justification, productivity and the nature of human beings. However, these provisions cannot cultivate the existence of violence to be ethical or moral. Violence becomes, meanwhile, imperative in certain cases to save the other person from greater harm as amputating the leg of a person whose leg is stuck under an immense log that cannot be moved. The bottom line is that violence poses grave adversities for the study of ethics and eventually causes moral challenges.

Works Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Alfieri, Anthony V. “The Ethics of Violence: Necessity, Excess, and Opposition.” Columbia Law Review, edited by Austin Sarat and Thomas R. Kearns, vol. 94, no. 5, 1994, pp. 1721–50. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/1123163.

Are Human Beings Naturally Violent And Warlike? | Issue 105 | Philosophy Now. https://philosophynow.org/issues/105/Are_Human_Beings_Naturally_Violent_And_Warlike. Accessed 19 Apr. 2019.

“Arguments for Liberty: Utilitarianism.” Libertarianism.Org, https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/arguments-liberty-utilitarianism. Accessed 20 Apr. 2019.

Defining Violence | Issue 66 | Philosophy Now. https://philosophynow.org/issues/66/Defining_Violence. Accessed 19 Apr. 2019.

Thi, Nguyen C., and Zagal José P. Good Violence, Bad Violence: The Ethics of Competition in Multiplayer Games. 2016, http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/paper_39.pdf.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 4 Words: 1200

Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide

Student’s name

Course ID

Submitted to

Bioethics as a research direction of an interdisciplinary nature was formed in the late 60s - early 70s. The term “bioethics” was proposed by Potter in 1969. Its interpretation is very heterogeneous. First of all, they try to identify bioethics with biomedical ethics, limiting its content to the ethical problems of the doctor-patient relationship. There is also a broader understanding of bioethics, including. a number of axiological problems of professional activities related to medical, a number of social problems related to health systems and, finally, problems related to the attitude of humans to animals and plants. Thus, bioethics includes ethical regulative attitudes towards animals and the range of problems that previously belonged to environmental ethics (Emanuel, et.al. 1996). In addition, the term "bioethics" indicates that it focuses on the research of living beings, regardless of whether they find their use in therapies or not. In other words, bioethics focuses on the achievements of modern biology in justifying or solving moral collisions arising in the course of scientific research.

In countries that have legalized suicide with the help of a doctor and euthanasia, the legitimacy of the decision of the patient who intends to exercise his right to death is verified and evaluated by a committee appointed for this purpose or by counselors. This is contrary to the principle of patient autonomy. Opponents of legalization raise doubts: why only the principle of autonomy can replace the principle of the sanctity of life or acquire priority over the latter?

Moreover, it should be borne in mind that in death-related situations, the patient is the weaker party and therefore may suffer from abuse by third parties. Is it possible to refer to autonomy to lift the ban on euthanasia in cases where medicine can no longer offer any help? These grounds, however, are very weak, since the legalization of euthanasia on their basis will put people with serious and terminal diseases in a situation where they will have to justify their right to exist. Therefore, autonomy should not be regarded as an absolute value that surpasses other values, especially considering that the risk of abuse of this procedure is very high, while the number of those who cannot be treated is constitute a very small percentage of all cases. Legalization of euthanasia can lead to the fact that patients will be forced to die sooner than they should, which contradicts the human subjective nature and the uniqueness of life. The principle of the sanctity of life determines the possession of all other rights and freedoms, including autonomy. It must be borne in mind that we are dealing not only with a choice, but with a choice between existence and non-existence, that is, a state that we have not experienced before.

The priority of autonomy not only allows the patient to give up his right to life, but also makes it possible to deprive a sick person of such a right. This may lead to the fact that the fundamental right to life will become relative. Euthanasia and suicide with the help of a doctor are irreversible acts, and thus they destroy the ability of self-determination. The principle of autonomy of the individual does not give any justification for accelerating the moment of death in the form of euthanasia or suicide with the help of a doctor. In European jurisprudence there is resistance to sanctioning the priority of choosing death over life. The courts justify their position with a public interest, the goal of which is to preserve human life, placing such interest higher than the patient’s personal interest, and thus giving priority to the principle of the sanctity of life.

Proponents of the legalization of euthanasia emphasize that a person should have the right to choose the moment when his life ends, and this problem should be considered as a personal matter of the patient and doctor, and interference in this area of ​​the state should be minimized. In a free society, citizens themselves determine their fate; Neither members of parliament nor officials can do this for them. According to R. Dworkin, the desire for a quick and painless death does not mean a denial of the principle of the sacredness of life. Death can be an expression of greater respect for life than its unconditional protection. In certain situations, people may not benefit from the fact that their lives are supported, and the prohibition of euthanasia can be painful for many. Therefore, death does not always mean harm to the patient. The right to die, according to supporters of euthanasia, is one of the greatest values ​​. Voluntary euthanasia and suicide with the help of a doctor may be justified under certain circumstances; It is important to maintain a balance between profit and loss, especially if the patient is in pain that cannot be relieved. Of course, such a person may be offered hospice and palliative therapy, but in any case the patient himself must make the final decision. especially if the patient is in pain that cannot be relieved. Of course, such a person may be offered hospice and palliative therapy, but in any case the patient himself must make the final decision, especially if the patient is in pain that cannot be relieved. Of course, such a person may be offered hospice and palliative therapy, but in any case the patient himself must make the final decision.

With the modern development of medical technology, it is quite problematic to distinguish between euthanasia and suicide with the help of a doctor. The definition of euthanasia and suicide with the help of a doctor as an acceleration of the moment of death of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or end-stage disease may not be sufficient. The discussion about the permissibility of reducing human life has long ceased to concern only terminal diseases. The problem is much broader and concerns those people whose lifespan is extended through the use of advanced technologies used in medicine. The boundaries between natural death and death caused by external factors are becoming blurred. Those who support the legalization of euthanasia and suicide with the help of a doctor argue that, in essence, On the other hand, it is emphasized that there is a fundamental difference between the retention or termination of treatment at the request of the patient, on the one hand, and the active third-party assistance in the patient’s death at the request of the latter, on the other. There are other cases of controversy, such as withholding the supply of liquids and drinks during artificial feeding, providing a lethal dose of anesthetic or terminal sedation.

The health system crisis in country, which shifts to insurance medicine, exacerbates ethical and legal problems in medical science and practice, and value conflicts in the organization of health care, as well as in the behavior and consciousness of the individual. The methods of administrative control and regulation, on which the former health care system in our country was based, were complemented by paternalistic norms of deontology, which did not take into account at all, or rather, completely ignored the value orientations of various ethnic and religious groups, differently related to life and death, to health and diseases for childhood and old age. The development of bioethics in America can, in my opinion, help our society to adapt to the new system of insurance medicine, will allow us to develop personal value orientations that would correspond to human rights, life and dignity of citizens, the fundamental humanistic values ​​of humanity. The development of bioethics in our country presupposes an understanding of the traditions that existed in ethical thought in USA, an analysis of their philosophical foundations and the horizons that they open up in a person’s new relationship to life.

Bioethics focuses primarily on the analysis of individual cases, moral collisions, incidents that are difficult from a moral point of view for decision making. This interpretation of the tasks of bioethics, which, in essence, reduces it to the study and description of individual "incidents", is inextricably linked, in my opinion, with certain traditions of American culture, primarily with the special significance of legal institutions in American society. It must be said that the influence of law, legal system, legal consciousness on culture and its values, philosophy, methods of organizing disciplinary knowledge and scientific discourse as a whole has not been studied both in domestic and foreign literature. A simple statement that the scientific discourse unfolds not in a vacuum, but in a sociocultural system, which is a constellation of various force fields created by economics, management, political and legal institutions, and tension between different social groups, is not enough today. It is necessary to disclose the specific mechanisms of such mutual influence of scientific and legal discourse, to identify the correlations between them in different cultures.

Bioethics can be one of the clearest examples of this mutual influence of law and science, legal and scientific discourse, the legal system and philosophy. It is known that the US judicial system is based on the law of precedent, in which imperativeness, general compulsory rule of law and law are not allowed. The law does not consist of a system of generally binding norms, but of some legal acts-decisions for judicial purposes, which are reached in the dispute of various parties and which are obligatory for the lower courts, and for other courts are an example of a decision. The court’s decision is made by analogy, according to a certain pattern, and it does not serve the law, but only a source of legislative initiative and agreement in the opinion of various parties. The status of the law is different here.

From the very beginning of its emergence, bioethics is experiencing a tremendous impact both on the weight that is given in American society to the institution of law, and on the specificity of this system as a law of precedent. This is already revealed in the fact that bioethics focuses primarily on decision-making in situations where there are moral conflicts, problems and difficulties. Moreover, the procedure for making moral decisions is organized in the image of the American court. A system of so-called ethical committees, which exist in the vast majority of American hospitals, has been created to make decisions in the case of moral conflicts and collisions in the United States. In 1983, only 26% of hospitals had an institute of ethical committees, in 1985, already 60%, although the Americans themselves have noted the enormous differences between different hospitals. Thus, only 6% of US public hospitals have established ethical committees within themselves. The resolution of moral controversies and conflicts is achieved in the course of often hours-long discussions between committee members. The ethical committee usually includes the attending physician, representatives of the medical staff and administration, a priest, a professional ethic-philosopher, employees of social insurance and welfare services, etc. counter arguments "for" and "against" a particular decision, find out the motives of the proposed solutions, its possible consequences for the patient, his family, social status and position of the patient and etc. It must be said that the attitude of the patients themselves to ethical committees is far from ambiguous. 76% of them believe that ethical committees are useful, 4% deny such usefulness, 20% cannot say either one or the other.

There are large differences between patients and in defining the functions of ethical committees. 76% of those surveyed in 1983 thought that ethical committees should help with advice and advice, 12% thought that they had the right to make a final decision. Interestingly, 61% of patients surveyed insist that the final decision right should belong to the patient, only 9% for giving it to doctors, and only 6% for the family.

With all the ambiguity of the attitude of public opinion to ethical committees, with all the criticism of bureaucratization in them, with all the rejection of the overestimation of their powers and functions by members of ethical committees, emerging ethical conflicts within ethical committees, it should be said that the system of ethical committees created in the USA hospitals to the states, and up to the more recently existing Presidential Ethics Committee - fulfills its functions and above all contributes to finding a moral solution in difficult situations.

The specificity of bioethics developed in the United States is that it is conceived as a description and synthesis of individual cases in which there are difficulties in resolving ethically conflicting situations. A separate case, considered from the point of view of moral collisions, is presented not as an imperative, obligatory and compulsory rule for solving similar conflict situations, but only as a model, as a guide for making decisions by analogy (Yun, et.al. 2018).

On the basis of consensus reached during the discussion in the ethical committee, a decision is formed that does not have a statutory and binding nature, similar to how a consensus is reached between different parties during a court session and a decision is made that serves as a precedent for subsequent similar cases. It goes without saying that the moral decision found in any one case, individualized, because it deals with the vital problems for a person, in the literal sense of the word concerns his life and death. And this decision can only fulfill the function of a model for the moral decision of another case concerning the life and death of another person. The moral obligations of the physician and the patient cannot be derived from the sample solution.

For opponents of legalizing euthanasia and suicide with the help of a doctor, respecting another person is important here, regardless of his or her status, which should be a fundamental value in extreme situations on the verge of life and death. Human autonomy is undoubtedly important as the ability to make decisions, but this is just one of the values, not even the most important and definitely not final, so you should not use it as an excuse to speed up the moment of death (Sprung, et.al. 2018). The arguments about human autonomy are crucial in bioethical discourse. Neither of the parties to the dispute provides sufficient justification for prioritizing one of the opposing principles over the other. It should be noted that this dispute is not just a personal matter of a person; it also has a social dimension, since decisions made by specific people influence society and the changes taking place in it.

To conclude, the arguments about autonomy are used not only to dethrone and weaken the principle of the sanctity of life - these principles are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Without respect for the choice of the patient arising from autonomy, there would be no current doctor-patient relationship in which the patient becomes a partner in the therapeutic process. In a dispute about early reduction of life in the form of euthanasia or suicide with the help of a doctor, it remains open to which of the principles — the sanctity of life or autonomy — should be restricted in favor of another.

References

Emanuel, E. J., Daniels, E. R., Fairclough, D. L., & Clarridge, B. R. (1996). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: attitudes and experiences of oncology patients, oncologists, and the public. The Lancet, 347(9018), 1805-1810.

Sprung, C. L., Somerville, M. A., Radbruch, L., Collet, N. S., Duttge, G., Piva, J. P., ... & Ely, E. W. (2018). Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: emerging issues from a global perspective. Journal of palliative care, 33(4), 197-203.

Yun, Y. H., Kim, K. N., Sim, J. A., Yoo, S. H., Kim, M., Kim, Y. A., ... & Kwon, J. H. (2018). Comparison of attitudes towards five end-of-life care interventions (active pain control, withdrawal of futile life-sustaining treatment, passive euthanasia, active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide): a multicentred cross-sectional survey of Korean patients with cancer, their family caregivers, physicians and the general Korean population. BMJ open, 8(9), e020519.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 7 Words: 2100

Evaluating Resources

Website Evaluation

Authority

The website , I have selected for this assignment is “Visible Body”, https://www.visiblebody.com/. It is an intensive website about human physiology. About 12 years ago, two brothers Andrew and Matthew Bowditch started this website in 2007.

Purpose

According to the claim od this website their vision is “Visible Body makes learning and teaching anatomy and physiology visual and engaging” . They formulate apps that develop the way in which students can learn and as well as healthcare experts do practice. The purpose of this website is purely education and knowledge however it is commercial site, so they offer some basic information for free but charge money for model, animations and atlas etc.

Objectivity

This website is objective and only give information base on science and anatomy. However, it is not distinguished that who write which article and who made model or animation script. So this is a questionable thing because in this way reliability may comes under doubt.

Accuracy

The website claims that they have a team of inhouse experts ,who not only create this material but also available to answer any queries. The inhouse exert team included many reliable bio medics and visualize experts. Including many professors, health experts, sport experts and experts of visual technology. They have provided list of those experts and one can check it at : https://www.visiblebody.com/about#content.

Currency

Another important criterion for any website evaluation is currency. It was established in 2007 but it is updated time to time. Last it was updated in 2019. According to their claim they always in search of new technologies and update stuff when required.

Coverage

This website offer many apps , 3D models of human body, detailed atlas, illustrations , documentaries and animations. According to their claim they have a large number of satisfied clients who are interested in human biology including students, teachers, general audience, health professionals or parents.

References

Argosy Publishing, Inc. (2019). Visible Body - Virtual Anatomy to See Inside the Human Body. Retrieved from https://www.visiblebody.com/

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 1 Words: 300

Evidence-Based Argument

Evidence-Based Argument

Name

Affiliation

Date

To argue means to endorse the position with a series of reasons and evidence. It does not mean to affirm or dispute. The argument analysis methods are a vehicle to inquire, to try to discover or prove something. The execution of these methods is essential since it is the way to offer reasons and tests to defend the proposed theses. These methods must be used effectively to defend the thesis with arguments, the basic objective of these methods is to base theoretically and empirically the thesis. The argument has a fundamental role in the construction of knowledge, the solution of problems and the learning of the sciences, and arguing is a complex and demanding activity that the students perform with notable difficulties (Magstadt, 2016).

Diagramming the findings is very helpful as it offers a plethora of advantages, such as 1) they facilitate understanding of reasoning; 2) allow the identification of important problems; 3) encourage the development of critical thinking; 4) graphically express the student's thinking.

The diagramming of findings aids to detect the subject or the macrostructure of a discourse. Each argument is extracted from a sequence; then, it can be reduced to a concept that allows extracting the central theme or thesis of the discourse. It also allows subjecting a particular topic to a critical judgment based on the same reasons offered in the text (Harrell, 2016).

The findings can be diagrammed using flow charts. There are three types of arguments on a diagram: reasons, objections, and rebuttals. It is a method that divides the argument into its parts using lines, colors and boxes in an organized manner in which the conclusion appears up and down the argument. Conclusion means the main point that one wants to defend, then it is required to establish reasons to demonstrate that point. Each reason has at least two corresponds. So, it is an effective way to prove the argument (Harrell, 2016).

References

Harrell, M. (2016). What is the argument?. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.

Magstadt, T (2016). Understanding Politics Ideas, Institutions, and Issues (12th ed.).

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 1 Words: 300

Experience Machine And Hedonism

Experience machine and hedonism

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Introduction

It has been witnessed that there are always two groups; one that opposes a concept of idea and other one that argues in the support of that idea. In philosophy, it has been seen that there are two groups; one who does not have pretty serious thoughts about life and believe that they must seek pleasure from every moment of life. On the other hand, some philosophers and philosophies claim, there are other things as well in this world other than the merrymaking.

Discussion

There could be found various ideologies and philosophies that support the vision that life is not just seeking pleasure. A conflict has been witnessed between Robert Nozick’s idea of the experience machine and hedonism (Caruana, et al, 2019). One of the most famous philosophers, Robert Nozick, who proposed a thought experiment in 1974 has his most celebrated book “Anarchy, State and Utopia”. Robert Nozick’s idea that man is an experience machine directly argues against hedonism and refutes the claim being presented by hedonism. Hedonism is the school of thought that claims that primary goal of life is intrinsic goods and seeking pleasure. Robert’s philosophy of experience machine negates the idea of hedonism that every person has the right to do anything that makes him happy.

In philosophy, there are philosophers like Bentham who claims “pleasure and only pleasure is good”. Critical evaluation of hedonism shows that this philosophy believes that the main purpose of the human birth is to seek happiness as it is the only thing that would eliminate the pain of the human miseries (Löhr, et al, 2019). Hedonism is completely negated by Robert Nozick as he gives the idea of experience machine (a supposed machine that would take the people to give an experience that they wanted to have and would fulfill their desires). Robert claims that this experience machine can give the man any experience i.e. writing of a novel, making a friend, reading a book, etc. This machine by the help of the electrodes would be attached to a person's brain so that one could experience what he/she desires of.

Pre-programming of the life experience would be done so that one could enjoy anything that one wished to have. A hedonist is a person who wanted to have sensual pleasure but life is much more than just considering things that would make one happy. Robert claims that sitting in an experience machine and just imaging the things is not enough as man does not want to just experience, rather he/she wants to do certain things (KARADJOV, et al, 2019). It could be said that according to Robert, merrymaking, and pleasure-seeking is not the only purpose of life as if it was the case, people would love to plug in the experience machine but in fact, they wanted to experience their life is a combination of ups and downs. Without pain, essence of life could not be felt.

Conclusion

Taking a look at the above discussion, it could be concluded that hedonism (pleasure-seeking all the time) has been refuted by Robert as he gave a conception of experience machine that not happiness and fulfillment of the desire is the sole purpose of life. If it were the fact that people loved to plug in experience machine for experience joy of every kind; in reality they just don’t want to a feeling of experienced joy rather, they actually want to do certain things that would give them the actual pleasure (Silcox, et al, 2019). It could be said that most of the time, philosophers who wanted to refute hedonism use Robert's experience machine as a tool for providing evidence. So, it could be promulgated that Nozick's thought experience present problem for hedonism as it claims and proves that pleasure-seeking is only the sole purpose that people want to achieve rather what they want is the actual doing of certain things that would satisfy them.

References:

Caruana, R., Glozer, S., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2019). ‘Alternative Hedonism’: Exploring the Role of Pleasure in Moral Markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16.

KARADJOV, B. (2019). ECONOMIC FREEDOM, NEOLIBERALISM AND MORALITY: FROM JOHN LOCKE TO ROBERT NOZICK. Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(22), 115.

Löhr, G. (2019). The experience machine and the expertise defense. Philosophical Psychology, 32(2), 257-273.

Silcox, M. (2019). A Defense of Simulated Experience.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 2 Words: 600

Fallacies

Fallacies

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Fallacies

A display of faulty reasoning that makes an argument invalid is called a Logical Fallacy. Logical Fallacy has two categories like Formal Fallacy and Informal Fallacy. Both categories have many sub-categories. Each type of the both categories has been discussed below.

Straw-man Fallacy

The straw-man fallacy is an informal fallacy that refers to arguing against an opponent by misrepresenting its position. BBC News on-aired a speech of American President Donald Trump on June 1, 2017. President Trump announced in a speech the American withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate blaming it an unfair agreement for the US. This speech is a straw-man fallacy because the speaker misrepresents the Agreement's position (Rieppel, O. 1992). He says in the speech that the Agreement consumes billions of dollars, but the output is little because it will decrease the global temperature by only 1 degree till 2030. I consider it a fallacy because every member of the Agreement knew since day first that the accord was not meant to decrease the global temperature but to keep a check on it. This argument of Mr. President makes him fallacious in his speech.

Anecdotal Fallacy

When a person uses an isolated event or personal experience to reach a conclusion, it is called Anecdotal fallacy. It is a type of formal fallacy (Schoenberg, J. 1966). Andrea Abrams Rockville wrote a letter about “Abortion on Demand” to the editor of The Washington Post on November 23, 2019. She claims by quoting an incident that women do not want to have an abortion, but they do that due to the doctors' warnings. She notes that the doctor horrifies a woman by saying that her child is affected by either Microcephaly or any other irreparable heart disease. Rockville appears fallacious because she has generalized one or two incidents of “Abortion of Demand” that she observed. There is a significant number of abortion cases in America that happen on the demand of pregnant women although they know that the fetus is healthy.

References

Rieppel, O. (1992). Homology and logical fallacy. Journal of evolutionary biology, 5(4), 701-715.

Schoenberg, J. (1966). A note on the logical fallacy in the paradox of the unexpected examination. Mind, 75(297), 125-127.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 1 Words: 300

Feminism

Name of Student

Name of Professor

Name of Class

Day Month Year

Feminism

In the United States of America (USA), feminism highlights the paradigm of ideologies and movements aimed at establishing, defining, and defending equal political, social, cultural and economic rights for the women. There existed three prominent waves of feminism as the first, second and third wave. However, it also casts a significant impact on American society and political structure in the contemporary age. The women have advanced to cultivate the maximum potential from the principles of feminist ideology influenced by the provisions of equality and confrontation of misogyny. The values of feminism are deeply rooted in American society which dates back to the previous centuries. Primarily, it aims at changing the social structure and introducing an equilibrium in the liberal democracy to maintain equilibrium by removing the patriarchal norms.

To begin, the contemporary state of feminism in American can be deemed as the fourth wave of feminism. It is inspired by technological advancement and is lead on online platforms to harness the perks of globalization. The contemporary state is different from the previous movements as it encompasses a wide range of genders where women are not the only center of focus. Lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and transgender (LGBTs) have also advanced to raise voice for the acquisition of their rights. However, it is essential to comprehend the impact of feminism on the contemporary liberal democratic model of the United States to examine the intricacies of feminist ideologies on society.

Moreover, feminism calls for the incorporation of rights, values and objectives of women into the societal structure in true letter and spirits. It adheres to the sustainability of the liberal democracy to accomplish the goals. Feminism staunchly advocates for the spread of liberalization where women and other deprived genders are offered the opportunities and platforms to thrive in society side by side with the male counterpart ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"NbxjyChL","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Villegas)","plainCitation":"(Villegas)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":440,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/24MNTELH"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/24MNTELH"],"itemData":{"id":440,"type":"webpage","title":"The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government","container-title":"The Heritage Foundation","abstract":"Progressives and feminists alike largely advocate the goal of ensuring that men and women enjoy equal opportunity and treatment under the law, a goal that resonates overwhelmingly with the American public. Modern feminism, however, has strayed from this narrow mission, embracing instead a far more radical agenda.","URL":"/progressivism/report/the-modern-feminist-rejection-constitutional-government","language":"en","author":[{"family":"Villegas","given":"Christina"}],"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,29]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Villegas). However, the contemporary political model confronted with these values as depicted in the policies of the stakeholders. Internet and social networking platforms were consequently utilized as a potential tool for campaigning and raising voice against the injustices which is termed the fourth wave of feminism. The surge of women in the political domain is an explicit manifestation of the aspect. However, it is challenging to determine the extent to which the change in the sex ratio within democratic spheres translates into the political influence which redresses gender inequalities. Such critical are the implications of the integration of feminism into the contemporary political model.

Furthermore, a plethora of democratic elements has been established as the sustainability of civic organizations or the explicit institutionalization of governance mechanisms. Feminism, in essence, strives to create a potential change in these political dimensions which are a part of the liberal democratic model of the United States. It is key to assist women to advance their goals and fundamental rights to abrogate the existence of patriarchal society. Feminism lies at the very heart of social critique and identification of loopholes in the societal structure to address them ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"biuMae9y","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Gunn)","plainCitation":"(Gunn)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":442,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/B46SWS2Z"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/B46SWS2Z"],"itemData":{"id":442,"type":"webpage","title":"Annelise Orleck and the “New Face” of Contemporary Feminism","container-title":"Progressive.org","abstract":"A new worker struggle is building—and it's predominantly made up of women.","URL":"https://progressive.org/api/content/08903b5c-4ca3-11e8-be2a-12408cbff2b0/","language":"en-us","author":[{"family":"Gunn","given":"Erik"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2018",5,2]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,29]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Gunn). The rise of movements and campaigns are initiated by the persistent social critique which shapes the perceptions of the public and assists these movements. For instance, the identification of a contentious gender issue on social media platforms results in an immense amount of pubic abashing inequality and gender discrimination. It later transforms into a collective movement where feminists identify the loopholes to establish a collective response supplemented by the assistance of the general public.

In addition, a critical appraisal of the matter reveals it is imperative to assess the political effectiveness of women, their experiences, and association with informal arenas and civil society organizations to examine the impact of feminism on the political and societal structure. Since feminism has potentially occupied space in America society, women and LGBTs have accomplished the significant extent of public support in comparison to the past. The fourth wave of feminism is proving to be effective because of the integration of globalization ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"biuMae9y","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Gunn)","plainCitation":"(Gunn)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":442,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/B46SWS2Z"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/h6KbaPMu/items/B46SWS2Z"],"itemData":{"id":442,"type":"webpage","title":"Annelise Orleck and the “New Face” of Contemporary Feminism","container-title":"Progressive.org","abstract":"A new worker struggle is building—and it's predominantly made up of women.","URL":"https://progressive.org/api/content/08903b5c-4ca3-11e8-be2a-12408cbff2b0/","language":"en-us","author":[{"family":"Gunn","given":"Erik"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2018",5,2]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,29]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Gunn). A movement raised in the far corner of America is being heard, contemplated and supported across the world. It is an intriguing aspect and the previous movements were devoid of the persistent and immediate acknowledgment of the issue. All these movements and advancement are intended at changing the societal structure where identification and social critique play an instrumental role to accomplish the motive. Irrefutably, there exist forces which combat feminism and offer counter critique on the manifestations of the goals and flaws in these movements. The political domain is largely influenced by such forces which primarily confront the integration and accommodation of the fundamental rights and values of LGBTs.

To conclude, feminism calls for an effective, apparent and significant change in the contemporary liberal democratic model of the United States of America (USA). It supports the advancement of both liberal democracy and society to incorporate their goals and objectives in the societal structure without impediments. Women ought to be democratized by prudent political participation and establishing an innovative path, creating articulation across and beyond the contemporary democratic spaces and fostering learning. These are the essential values of feminism thriving to be accomplished by feminist in society. Besides, social critique remains an efficient tool to harness these values. Since feminism is a movement which is accomplished by the pervasive assistance of public social critique assumes a potential role to motivate the public and urge them to integrate feminist values.

Works Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Gunn, Erik. “Annelise Orleck and the ‘New Face’ of Contemporary Feminism.” Progressive.Org, 2 May 2018, https://progressive.org/api/content/08903b5c-4ca3-11e8-be2a-12408cbff2b0/.

Villegas, Christina. “The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government.” The Heritage Foundation, /progressivism/report/the-modern-feminist-rejection-constitutional-government. Accessed 29 Apr. 2019.

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 13 Words: 3900

Film Analysis

Author’s name

Instructor Name

Art 101

19 November 2018

Film Analysis: The Dark Knight

The dark knight is the second movie out of the trilogy of Batman movies released in the last decade. It is one of the few movies that, not only fulfill the normal expectation of a thriller but also give us some philosophical food for thought. In this paper, we will discuss the characters in the movie, along with their moral philosophies in detail while attempting to answer a few questions.

Question No 1.

According to the deontological theory of ethics, a person must adhere to his responsibilities to other individuals and society ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"9XkL0zOH","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Alexander & Moore, 2016)","plainCitation":"(Alexander & Moore, 2016)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":89,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/DTmO0ro3/items/DT9EJNBL"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/DTmO0ro3/items/DT9EJNBL"],"itemData":{"id":89,"type":"chapter","title":"Deontological Ethics","container-title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","publisher":"Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University","edition":"Winter 2016","source":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","abstract":"The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty(deon) and science (or study) of (logos). Incontemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds ofnormative theories regarding which choices are morally required,forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within thedomain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what weought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to those that guide andassess what kind of person we are and should be (aretaic [virtue]theories). And within the domain of moral theories that assess ourchoices, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontologicaltheories of morality—stand in opposition toconsequentialists.","URL":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-deontological/","author":[{"family":"Alexander","given":"Larry"},{"family":"Moore","given":"Michael"}],"editor":[{"family":"Zalta","given":"Edward N."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2016"]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",11,23]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Alexander & Moore, 2016). A person must not take the law into his own hands because being a vigilante is not considered ethically correct. A person following deontological theory of ethics will produce very consistent outcomes as they are based on an individual’s set of responsibilities. Therefore, Batman should not have taken the law into his own hands. He is also chased by the law enforcement agencies in Dark Knight because he did not respect the law. He would not have to go through this much trouble if he had complied with the rule of law. Gordon’s statement about Gotham’s finest officers having to chase Batman instead of criminals can be seen as a prime reason of why we should not take the law into our own hands.

Question No 2.

Batman has only one rule, “He does not kill”. Batman can not be considered as a deontologist because he does not follow an ethical set of laws in every problem which involves ethics. Apart from that, there have been times when it could be said that Batman broke that one law. At the end of Batman Begins, the villain Ra’s and Batman were having a fight on the top of a train and Gordon derailed the train and Batman said, “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you.” Similarly, we have confirmation from the Dark Knight Rises that at the end of Dark Knight, Harvey Dent was killed as a result of a fight with Batman. Thus, we can safely say that he does not follow the deontological theory of ethics. As far as consequentialism is concerned, he claims to have one rule, thus he does not believe that, “Ends justify the means”; the very core concept of consequentialism.

Question No 3.

Batman’s parents were killed in the streets of Gotham. It appears to be the origin of the only rule that he holds dear that he does not kill. Batman seems to think that the only “morally” wrong thing to do is to kill someone and that is why he strives to save the lives of the people of Gotham. He is not motivated by the fire of revenge as he does not seek to kill people thus one can justify his actions by the ethical theory of consequentialism. He ends up becoming a source of “greater good” for the society he lives in.

Question No 4.

Jim Gordon is a rule utilitarian in the movie. He has generalized the rules of honesty and bravery bringing about good even when they are perceived to be against the law. He had developed a set of rules with experience through which he sought to bring about greater good in the society ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"xRcxrbJM","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Brink, 2018)","plainCitation":"(Brink, 2018)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":91,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/DTmO0ro3/items/3FD9VZGD"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/DTmO0ro3/items/3FD9VZGD"],"itemData":{"id":91,"type":"chapter","title":"Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy","container-title":"The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","publisher":"Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University","edition":"Winter 2018","source":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","abstract":"John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was the most famous andinfluential British philosopher of the nineteenth century. He was oneof the last systematic philosophers, making significant contributionsin logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, andsocial theory. He was also an important public figure, articulating theliberal platform, pressing for various liberal reforms, and serving inParliament. During Mill’s lifetime, he was most widely admired for hiswork in theoretical philosophy and political economy. However, nowadaysMill’s greatest philosophical influence is in moral and politicalphilosophy, especially his articulation and defense of utilitarianismand liberalism (Nicholson 1998). This entry will examine Mill’scontributions to the utilitarian and liberal traditions. We willconcentrate on his two most popular and best known works,Utilitarianism (1861, cited as U) and OnLiberty (1859, cited as OL), drawing on other texts whenthis sheds light on his utilitarian and liberal principles. We willconclude by looking at how Mill applies these principles to issues ofpolitical and sexual equality in Considerations on RepresentativeGovernment (1859, cited as CRG), Principles ofPolitical Economy (1848, cited as PPE), and TheSubjection of Women (1869, cited as SW).","URL":"https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/mill-moral-political/","author":[{"family":"Brink","given":"David"}],"editor":[{"family":"Zalta","given":"Edward N."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2018"]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",11,23]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Brink, 2018). He did not always hate those who seem to take the law into their own hands as deduced from his relationship with Batman. A demonstration of this was when Gordon stood up to Commissioner Loeb at the time after Batman captured Carmine Falcone, a notorious crime lord.

A rule utilitarian, before applying a rule, thinks about the people who have been following that rule to conclude if they have caused good in the society. If that rule had induced good then they are more likely to follow that rule. On the other hand, act-utilitarianism implies that a person thinks about the consequences of his actions every time he is about to act.

Question No 5.

Yes, in my opinion, deontologists are right to think that “utility maximization” is not enough for an action to be considered moral. Consider the following example, if a truck is moving to kill 5 men on the road and can be stopped by throwing one fat person in front of it. Would it be a morally correct thing to do? In this example, “utility maximization” can be achieved, but it does not make the action of throwing a person under the truck “moral”.

Question No 6.

Hobbes idea of the state of nature consists of the notion of anarchy. The idea is that if there are no laws, there would be nothing to stop human beings from harming each other. The joker personifies Hobbes’s idea of state of nature because both of them believe that human beings are inherently evil and if they are left without laws, it would be total chaos. I believe that human beings are rational, sentient beings and that they have an inherent idea of morality embedded in them. In my opinion, it is not necessary for a law to be present to enforce a person to be kind, courteous, courageous and helpful in his actions.

Question No 7.

The joker believes that human beings are inherently evil and that morality among the masses is abandoned as soon as there is trouble. That is why he designed the experiment on the boat. He loads two boats leaving the city with explosives, then gave the passengers on each boat, the trigger for the other boat. One boat is full of prisoners while the other boat is full of civilians. He then informs them that one of the boats must blow up before midnight, or he will detonate both. The people of Gotham prove to be better, and decide against detonating the boats. The Golden rule of wanting for others, what you want for yourself, was in jeopardy along with the innate human feelings of compassion and love.

Works Cited:

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2016). Deontological Ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-deontological/

Brink, D. (2018). Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/mill-moral-political/

Subject: Philosophy

Pages: 3 Words: 900

Free Essays About Blog
info@freeessaywriter.net

If you have any queries please write to us

Invalid Email Address!
Thank you for joining our mailing list

Please note that some of the content on our website is generated using AI and it is thoroughly reviewed and verified by our team of experienced editors. The essays and papers we provide are intended for learning purposes only and should not be submitted as original work.