Elise Brewer 4th Period Honors Morals and Ethics Dr. Piel 5 March 2014 Worldview Points in Jurassic Park The character of John Hammond in Jurassic Park is presented in such a way that he does things without considering the consequences first. That’s what I originally thought when I first saw the movie. However it’s only because he sees the world in a totally different worldview perspective that he acts in such a way. While all the other characters have a naturalistic point of view, John shows the New Age worldview. I believe that both the author of the book Michael Crichton and the director of the movie Steven Spielberg wanted to critique the new age by using John Hammond’s personality.
Why should we not stereotype? Many people everyday stereotype a person whether it be a serious situation or not. Many joke with friends and find it fun. What they don’t know is that it could really hurt those friends’ feelings. I find myself stereotyping all the time.
Many people around the world in different cultures have grown to be ignorant and have allowed themselves to be heavily influenced by the media. Thus judging Arabs by the things they hear or see from the media without knowing the truth, knowing someone from the Arabic culture, or visiting the countries of Arab and Muslim majorities. Harsh Jokes, critical movies, condescending
Also, many people do not believe in God. Jung himself countered this argument by stating that atheism itself is a religion. It seems that he will not allow anything to counter his ideas. If his theory is not open to falsification, some would argue that it is meaningless. • Jung’s idea of religious experience – Martin Buber argues that an experience which takes place in the mind, rather than externally to the individual, is not a religious experience.
I may have an inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I cannot have respect for it, just for this reason, that it is an effect and not an energy of will. ” What you do out of duty does not include inclinations. Your good will cannot be judged by what you do, but why you did what you did. Inclinations are not respected, only acting out of duty can be respected. c) “Categorical Imperative: Those actions are right that conform to principles one can consistently will to be principles for everyone, and those actions wrong that are based on maxims that a rational creature could not will that all persons should follow” Kant says that an act is only right or moral if it is right for everyone.
For our purposes, theism will be defined as belief in the existence of God, as defined above. Atheism, then, is the “critique and denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism” (Nagel 168). These two views provide metaphysical arguments concerning the nature of man and God. A third commonly held belief about the existence of God is known as agnosticism. Agnosticism is the purely epistemological stance that sufficient evidence does not exist for or against theism therefore the best stance on the argument is no stance at all.
In the Dialogues of Concerning Natural Religion by David Hume, he explains his thoughts concerning God and the higher power that in his opinion should not be accepted. “There is no ground to suppose a plan of the world to be formed in the Divine mind…”(Hume, 714). From this we can concur Hume is no full hearted believer that he considers God knows and will know what has to come. From his distinctions, there is no good reason for a designer, and to think that God is an all-powerful being that also is subject to human like or materialistic traits should not be looked upon as valid. From his theories the only way we can know things for sure is through cause and effect.
This leads to conclusions that differ greatly from those who hold to absolute truth. They believe that Jim Leffel states that relativism says the truth isn't set by outside reality, but is decided by a group or individual for themselves. Truth isn't discovered but manufactured. Truth is ever changing not only in insignificant matters of taste or fashion, but in crucial matters of spirituality, morality and reality itself. Leading postmodern thinker John Caputo writes, "The cold, hermeneutic truth is that there is no truth, no master name which holds things captive."
I will try to show some logical contradictions that occur even if we ignore this is-ought problem. One maxim of moral relativism which will form the basis of the following arguments is “There is no “universal truth” in ethics—that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times” (Rachels 1986, p. 421). I will compare this claim to others made by relativists and attempt to show that this central claim of relativism is violated by the others. “The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.” (Rachels 1986, p. 421) This is the central claim of moral relativism, the single claim that sums it up best. It is a very interesting claim though, because it states what is right, not within a single society, but within all societies.
For some, this is inevitable given the subject; for others, it suggests that religious statements are in fact empty of meaning. There have been two main types of approach to these problems. Realists take as their starting point the idea that language corresponds to reality: for every statement we make there is a state of affairs that exists if that statement is true. This is called the correspondence theory. On the other hand, anti-realists consider reality fundamentally separate from language, and insist that meaning is a matter of coherence, not correspondence: a statement achieves meaning and truth through its relationship to other ideas or activities.