A benefit for my position would be that you don't have to do something just because some deity or someone says its right. You do something because you know its right. Also, you are not restricted in what you do by something. You can live your life how you want to. But a drawback would be that you wouldn't be living for goodness or for a deity, you would be living for yourself and this could seem selfish to some.
Dissect the four-part definition of “sacred” in terms of its strengths and weaknesses. Set apart-The strength is that the sacred is holy which I support and should not be mixed with worldly staff on the other hand its weak because all things set apart do not necessarily mean they are sacred. Beyond what human can violate-The strength is that human beings cannot affect the nature of it in terms of origin and birth. They cannot kill it because of the nature associated to it. On the other hand its weakness is that human can affect it in other aspects besides deathless and birth less nature but in definition they do not recognize that.
If one can remain completely honest their word would never be tarnished there by affording them more opportunities. An impeccable person demands your full trust. One of my personal beliefs is that there is never a real reason to lie. When one becomes perceived as a liar it becomes your human nature to protect yourself from them. However you may have felt about them before, you can’t help but distance yourself from them now.
A personal God is not an incorporeal being with a ledger, but someone whose help, or lack there of, has the power of life and death. In today’s society, the power of a personal God does not necessarily have to be so dramatic; it could be that of a mentor, a teacher, or, as it is in the novel, a parent. A personal God is, in short, someone who, when push comes to shove, will be whatever it is one needs them to
Working towards our moral sensibilities will reflect the fact that there is no distinction between dutiful acts and supererogatory acts. Supererogatory acts are something that is nice to do for others yet we are not obligated to do
When we fix others, we may not see their hidden wholeness or trust the integrity of the life in them. Fixers trust their own expertise. When we serve, we see the unborn wholeness in others; we collaborate with it and strengthen it. Others may then be able to see their wholeness for themselves for the first time.” Yes I would like to face with the moral dilemma that I chose because I want to show the world that one-person life is not important than thousands other. Preparing this assignment did not make me uncomfortable because I enjoy think and writing about this.
If one person’s happiness comes from something that I don’t believe in, I don’t believe it is my right to tell him/her it’s wrong. I have basic opinions of what I believe in regard to specific groups, like in politics or in faith, but I can’t say that one set of beliefs is the right one. I am not quick to judge others’ worldviews. I know that others think and act differently than me and I am very accepting of that. The things that make us differ from each other are healthy for our society because society is based off of the fact that each person is unique and can attribute something different to make it better.
To Maisel, that would be the smart thing to do, but I don’t agree with his opinion on the matter. I don’t need to stay within my intellectual boundaries. To achieve any of the goals I have for myself, I need to step out of my comfort zone. Sometimes that the only way you can figure out if a type of work is right for you. In Maisel’s own words he says “We are brighter on some days and duller on others.” With this in mind, proving that you can go beyond your native intelligence, is that much easier.
However, other people may disagree with this and believe that a deontological ethical system is not defensible because it cannot encourage human beings to act morally, as they will not gain enough satisfaction out of doing so, as they would in a teleological ethical system where the ultimate end or goal is human happiness. People may say that it can be hard to keep to deontological ethics when we cannot see how they will immediately benefit us, making teleology much more appealing. In my opinion deontology can be defended because deontologists do not judge actions by their consequences, this is a positive aspect of deontology because it does not allow people to do bad things to secure good consequences, if we really consider human happiness, at first it sounds appealing and simple. However, if all actions were done to secure human happiness then many evil deeds would be permitted, for example it may secure a psychopath with maximum happiness if he can rape and murder women and children. Therefore teleology would permit this as it would maximise the psychopaths happiness.
However, that does not mean one must follow every unwritten rule, tradition, belief, or what is acceptable to society, family, and friends. Disobeying rules from time to time, as long as it helps a greater cause, should not be viewed as wrong should it? Obeying rules does not always help an individual either. Right-doers sometimes suffer, while wrong-doers sometimes succeed. Who is that fair to, the one who