Least restrictive principle The ethos of the setting is important, we need to consider the rules (too many, too strict, no rules etc..) Do we give enough responsibility to children? Do they get enough freedom? Reinforcing positive behaviour Children are more influenced by positive reinforcement than by punishment. Good behaviour is more likely to be repeated if it is rewarded in some way. Timing is very important, we need to give a reward (praise, stickers, extra attention) straight after they have done something good, otherwise it will be forgotten by the child very quickly.
We would be in a better standing position if we can take advantage of the knowledge how our psychological immune system works, identify what kind of happiness we want to experience, and recognize that we cannot be always happy. By knowing when and how we trigger the psychological immune system, we will be able to make the
These changes will not drop down anytime soon, one must reach out and exert integrity. Experience different challenges, it will help improve one's social being and reenact those challenges. Conspiracies are just another illusionary fear that prevents a person trying something new. The only way a person can be free is happiness. This is the way to take down the system and relief from conspiracy theories which are all illusionary fear.
This is a strict requirement, as it demands too much from individuals to always be motivated to promote the general happiness. I will first analyse Singer’s argument, which defends utilitarianisms demandingness and then go onto Williams’ argument, which attacks utilitarianism for being too demanding. Towards the end of this paper it should be evident that consequentialist moral theories such as utilitarianism demand too much from moral agents and are only useful to look at as a utopia where utility is maximized. The following example demonstrates the basic idea of utilitarianism. If my £100 could maximize utility more efficiently when I donate it to famine relief rather than spending it on new shoes utilitarianism would argue that it is morally wrong to do anything other than what maximizes utility, therefore it is morally wrong for me to buy the shoes (Stanford Encyclopaedia, 2003).
Also, it shows that it’s only guiding the situationist, rather than telling them, as they should make the most loving decision, and there could be two options that could have the same amount of love in their outcome. In contrast though, it states that you “must” which isn’t guiding, but telling. The second presumption is relativism, which states that there is no absolute and so you should make the most loving decision, however, no decision is ultimately going to be the right one for everyone. This guides the situationist in the way that they are again making the decision on what they feel is the most loving thing to do. However, if someone following situation ethics wasn’t a Christian, then they would be forced to make a decision based on a religion that they don’t believe in; but it could be argued that Christian love is similar to religions all around the world.
Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175). That is, Singer is trying to establish that if a being is not sentient, the idea of extending moral consideration to it makes no sense. This negative argument is important, because one common criticism of Singer is that his criterion ends up excluding humans who are no longer sentient (like those in an irreversible coma); Singer is content to accept that consequence, but it is important that he show why the exclusion of some humans by his criterion is not problematic, given that he has criticized other criteria
As human beings we ought to help each other out to succeed in our own destiny. “Even people who claim no entitlements to happiness would likely be in favor of reducing human suffering in the world”(Falikowski, Egoistic Versus Altruistic Utilitarianism, 2005). We must take a look into what the morality of this issue to understand why it is right or wrong. We can refer to Jeremy Bentham’s view on Utilitarianism when discussing this topic. The principle of utility states that the quality of life matters when it comes to pleasure, and if we were to make the quality of a person’s life better, we must be useful and relieve that person from pain and suffering.
Whether you have thought about it, or it being true to your heart, one has to imagine the common good of one’s own life and what the future has to offer. However, perhaps people are too quick to dismiss torture
You must think about the point of life is to complete your goal so why let other thing get in your way. Having individualism will help this. It helps because you’re not comparing yourself to others. You feel that if you have respect for yourself and you like whatever you do you’ll be fine. If you don’t have individualism you will always want to have what she or he has or what they do.
I will analyze my argument through a utilitarian point of view and try to demonstrate why it should be legalized. First off, to be able to understand my argument one must be able to understand the point of view of that of a utilitarian. To make it short and simple for a utilitarian happiness is consequently the result of an action, and if that action produces the greatest pleasure then that action is morally right. Also if the driven action lessens pain and or lessens suffering, then that action is absolutely permissible (And if it is the action that results in the most happiness total, then it is not just permissible, but obligatory.). Knowing this, Cannabis causes millions of Americans pleasure, pain relief, and undeniably is a passed time to “Stoners.” So, why is Cannabis illegal if it is said to have so many benefits?