In my own opinion this causes many issues which can lead people to do immoral things and commit bad crimes, and be able to justify their actions by stating it was already determined for them to do it. With this idea you can’t be praised for doing good things or punished for doing bad as we did not choose to preform or commit these actions. Ted Honderich was a hard determinist and said all our choices, intentions and our actions are nothing more than effects from other past events that have already happened. David Hume would criticise this he argues against hard determinism and says we do have free will and moral responsibility, we are responsible for all our moral and non-moral actions regardless of whether they could have been determined by our past choices or values. John Hospers also thought all things were determined.
He says that by nature humans are not promising animals. Nietzsche knows that humans need values. Nietzsche’s “revaluation all values” conflicts with Kantian ethics. Many of Nietzsche's central concerns come from and involve the same traditions that shape current ethical thought; and so it is a welcome sight to see an increasing number of commentators joining his
Kristeva attempts to articulate an explanation of the abject in her seminal text, Powers of Horror. The abject is constantly shifting and different for everyone, but Kristeva asserts that without it, we would have no way to understand ourselves as fully formed subjects in the symbolic order (Kristeva 4). The abject is something so vile that I do not recognize it as a thing (Kristeva 2); I must violently reject it in order to assert myself as ‘I’, and ‘Not that’. Why is it important to understand the abject? I argue that it can help us to understand why we regard some things as disgusting and repulsive.
War is “armed battle between different nations or states or different groups of people.” So as long as there is a conflict between nations or groups, there will be war? War will always be a part of human nature because there will always be people that are trying to take advantage of other people and whenever you have these people, you need to have people that need to go in and remove them from their power. For every evil force, there must be a balancing good force. Considering an opposite view, most people do want peace. It is just those selfish, greedy people who decide that they want more than what is rightfully theirs.
I think the biggest thing I learned about myself was that I am truly concerned about the environment and I need to find ways to help. Knowing that I can’t save the world and the environment on my own but every little bit helps. The thing I learned about the world is how we are destroying it, one step at a time. I think we should quit treating the world like we own it and focus more on living as part of a living world. The biggest thing that I learned about learning is that there are many methods of learning and teaching.
The Obligation to Endure Rachel Carson challenges the progress that this world has taken and questions if it is truly progress at all. We as humans endanger and harm ourselves in ways that we are often unaware of. Carson persuades her audience, the progressive intellectuals, in her book, “Silent Spring”, that the use of chemicals is causing destruction and should be put to an end. She concentrates her ideas in the chapter “The Obligation to Endure”, where she goes against the horrible consequences of chemical use on pests. She elaborates on the issue of spraying chemicals and if it is increasing or decreasing the progress in the world.
The Tradition of Dissent Trying to find a balance between what should be kept held to in long standing values and what should be allowed to change is (and forever will be) a never ending battle. Comparable to the fictional devil on one's shoulder, rebellion is always present in human nature. Thomas Frank, author of the article Commodify Your Dissent, from the book Signs of life in the USA, by Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomn (Eds. ), quotes Jerry Rubin as saying, “Whenever we see a rule, we must break it[...]” (Frank, 165). This leads Thomas to insinuate that only by doing something that would be considered impulsive and tradition breaking are we able to figure out who we are and what we want out of life.
Many of them are about being aware of the impact of decisions on one’s own feeling of protection. It can be considered to be self-serving and callous. Because the problem with this is that his theory is overwhelmingly cruel. Throuhgout the text, it can easily be observed that he supports the regime of violence so as to maintain power. For example, according to Machiavelli, it may be necessary to be violent towards disobedient people and Machiavelli(1532) says “The prince should make himself feared in a such way that, if he is not loved, at least
No one is entitled to anything more than basic rights. We need love, we need peace and we need understanding. As of now the system we have isn’t working and we have a history of hate filled people controlling things. We need to remove the hate filled control, and replace it with the equality of human love. We need to wipe the slate clean, remove all the infectious bad mindsets we currently have.
If everyone begins to choose loyalty over justice, our society will turn into complete chaos with people breaking the law left right and centre. We do not want our culture turning into rubble, due to this conflicting decision people have to make about whether to choose loyalty or justice. It is a straight forward answer. Justice is far more important than loyalty if we wish to maintain a safe and secure society. In the novel ‘Montana 1948’ we see that Wesley Hayden is forced to choose between family loyalty and justice.