The listener should say what they are feeling only if it is beneficial to the relationship or to the person seeking help. When a listener displays this quality of being genuine it is most likely the seeker will become congruent as they have probably spent along time denying their feelings or not been allowed to say what they are feeling, to be congruent is to take responsibility acknowledge your feelings beware of them, then start to deal with stuff. Unconditional positive regard is respecting the help seeker as a unique being or anyone for that matter, to my believe, accepting them for who they are, this does not mean we have to agree with peoples behaviour or agree to their believes, just to accept the person; is being non-judgemental. Along with the show of genuineness and unconditional positive regard from the listener the seeker will feel comfortable within themselves, develop trust in the relationship and begin to open up, explore and start to move forward. The third quality required within this relationship is to be able to Empathise this is not to be confused with sympathy or pity, which would be to show sorrow or sadness, this would not help the seeker to progress and move on.
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. 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).
Unit 4222-212 Outcome 1 1. Explain the importance of a holistic approach to managing pain and discomfort. It's important because, if you look only at the pain itself and not other factors such as fear, you will miss the opportunity to address that fear and by addressing fear, you could potentially reduce the amount of pain relief the individual will require (avoiding some of the unpleasant side effects when taken in large doses). Similarly, a person may not speak up about just how much pain they are in because they don't want to be a 'nuisance' - pain is not just uncomfortable or distressing psychologically, pain and fear both have effects upon the heart, oxygen requirements as a person breathes faster etc - so it is important to address it from all angles and not just one. 2.
This gives him confidence and allows him to be able to work on the problem without feeling ashamed. Another reason why friendly arguments are good occasionally is that it allows us room to freely express ourselves. If you do not take time to freely express yourself you could get lost in what someone else wants you to be or how someone else wants you to think. You have to determine your self worth from time to time which isn’t always easy. This is where the arguments may kick in but in the end you will be more appreciated for being you and you in turn will be better understood.
A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them. (Doing drugs might be an example. It might seem satisfactory at the moment, but ultimately, it damages their body.) A person must only do what seems to be in their best interest. Under moral egoism, no moral duty exists to anyone other than self.
Or you may feel the greatest push when faced with complex and unfamiliar problems. Your exact preferences are determined by your other themes and experiences. But what is certain is that you enjoy bringing things back to life. It is a wonderful feeling to identify the undermining factor(s), eradicate them, and restore something to its true glory. Intuitively, you know that without your intervention, this thing—this machine, this technique, this person, this company—might have ceased to function.
While fringe members were more inclined to recognize that they had made fools of themselves and to put it down to experience, committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along. When someone is forced to do something they really don't want to do, dissonance is created between their cognition and their behavior. Forced compliance occurs when an individual performs an action that is inconsistent with his or her beliefs. The behavior can't be changed, since it is already in the past, so dissonance will need to be reduced by re-evaluating their attitude to what they have done. This prediction has been tested
Torts Outline Geistfeld—Spring 2005 1) Intentional Torts a) Battery: i) Elements (1) A acts, (2) Intending to cause (a) Harmful contact with P or (b) Contact with P that is offensive and (dignitary harm—not always recognized) (3) A’s act causes such contact. ii) Difference between battery and negligence—negligence is when the D has wrong the P by failing to take sufficient care to avoid harming her. iii) Intent: will have to rely on circumstantial evidence, since mental states are not observable. (1) First issue is motive, but it generally does not matter, since why you did it is not relevant. We’re thinking about rules that govern interactions—objective rather than subjective standard.
DaiQuest Casiano Phi206 Professor Zacharias 10/24/14 Nozick’s Characterization of the “We” I agree with Nozick’s beliefs about ‘we’ and what it really stands for. He stated that when you and another person become united they do not have to be together all the time and can feel differently about things. “We” to Nozick is when you and that person feel the same way about each other and you want good and only good for your significant other. When something bad happens to them, you also feel that pain. Also when something good happens to them, you enjoy that pleasure as well.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.