If I was to apply Kantian ethics to the trolley problem I would not even consider how I would feel when making the decision. My feeling should never play a part of an ethical decision (Waller, 2011). My actions have to stem from duty (of universal law) to be qualified to be considered moral or have moral worth ("philosophy.lander.edu," 2011). The Kantian approach would not be to flip the switch or throw another man
On the other hand, other coworkers would not report her so, they could have power over her by blackmailing but this action is against American Correctional Association Code of Ethics, as well. “Members shall treat every professional situation with concern for the welfare of the individuals involved and with no intent to personal gain,” suggesting they are not treating coworkers with respect but to only achieve ‘personal gain’. This action breaks the creed which every correction officer protects which is un-honorable. I believe the best decision is to report her this action will protect myself as well as her in future altercations legally or dealing with
Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
Typical words that could be said when in an argument are “that’s not fair”, “you are wrong” and “how’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”.The point Lewis is trying to make is that all humans, whether intentionally or not, follow some standard of behavior and expect others to follow it just as well. If there were no standard for right and wrong then Hitler’s actions would be considered acceptable behavior. Fault would be non-existent without a source of truth. In other words there cannot be wrong unless is a standard of rightness to compare one’s behavior to. Another point C.S Lewis makes when in The Law of Human Nature is that this law applies to all humans in all places and at all times.
If determinism is true, then we don’t have free will. Discuss. It can be argued that if determinism is true, then we do not have free will. However, this argument really depends on which stream of determinism is being referred to. The argument that supports this idea the most is the fatalism argument - the idea that everything is predetermined before we are born and our actions do not affect this.
To many accidents happen with trains and other vehicles for too many times that we can prevent. The guy mentioned that maybe if the person simply looked both ways to see the train, he would have never hit the vehicle and accidentally kill that person. What I noticed in the second video is that friends were there to help them make the right choices, usually the passenger or the friend leading the other one. It is good that the friend is their to help, but what will that person do when they are alone without the guidance and wisdom from their friends. They will become the one of many causalities that we could have prevented.
I think you're pointing out an inconsistency in this discussion that is very valid. I agree entirely and this is why I do not hold that abortion should be allowed in those cases. This really demonstrates how important the question of the human rights of the child is because it compels us to certain conclusions. It removes from us the liberty of making ad hoc decisions based on our emotions. We must approach this in a disciplined way as a transcendent human rights issue.
It also helps prevent “accumulation of all powers [...] in the same hands,”(B). For example someone cannot be president and a Justice at the same time because it will give that person to much power, because could pass law and declare them constitutional. There is also a system of checks and balances that prevent a tyranny of rising. This system is“to divide and arrange the several offices [...]to check on the other [...],”. This makes it so one branch can not be come to power full and overpower the other two.
According to hard determinism we are not free in the sense required for moral responsibility, and therefore, what happens cannot be affected by choices that are free in the sense. But what happens may nevertheless be caused by the decisions we chose and the choices we make. A reaction to hard determinism is that if it were true, we would have no reason to attempt to accomplish anything, to try and improve our lives because our decisions and choices would make no difference. If everything we do is pre determined then why try hard to achieve anything, if you are meant to do a certain something, it will happen, it is already determined for you, so the hard determinist would say. In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion.
Thoreau implies that as long as one moral person can stand up for himself, others will follow and eventually force change. Second, civil disobedience is a method of political engagement: its goal must be aimed at bringing the law into conformity with the requirements of justice. No civil state is perfect – all contracts have compromises and flaws. As a united people of a state, it must have its general will parallel to the path of justice to ensure freedom and equality. Therefore, the general will of the people requires that laws be amended to reflect morality and justice.