However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them. This creates a paradox. In order to explain this seemingly inescapable contradiction, Nagel uses the concept of two viewpoints that correlate to both sides of the argument. Depending on which viewpoint you take, either moral luck or the Control Principle can hold true for a certain situation. In this paper, I will argue that, though Nagel's theory makes sense, there are still holes in such an argument.
If this is an acceptable form of payment, how might you ensure that it is ethically sound and that no power differential exists between you and the client? According to licensing boards, Consumer protection agencies, risk management experts, and ethics committees, fair exchange bartering (all bartering for that matter) is largely frowned upon, as there is the potential to create power disparity (power differential) between the councilor and client (Zur, 2011). Moreover, there is a heightened potential for disclosure concerns, boundary
Open Roads Peter van Inwagen thinks a compatibilists position is confusing, considering that it should be reason and logic how “choices” of an individual will determine free will and how it is that they define free will and a physically possible choice may determine an outcome. It is not clear when free will and determinism are compatible. For this, Inwagen demonstrates two views to understand and clear the confusion about compatibilist position. He says the easiest view to understand is the first one that gives a clear idea about futures that do not have a physically possible connection with the present are “open” to and individual. Second view is more difficult because compatibilist talk about reasonable futures.
* Referent power – generally known as personal power or charisma and comes from the high regard the individual is held by others should this falter or wane then this form of power vanishes, but is often employed in conjunction with other sources. Other sources of power include knowledge and personal contacts and alliances. Power is not the same as leadership, nor is it the same as authority. Conducting an appraisal is fraught with dangers for both the appraiser and appraise. Key amongst these is a failure to recognise
There is definite value in her argument, but because she just scratches the surface of how emotions could be incorporated into the process of acquiring knowledge, there are a few areas of her theory that are problematic. For the sake of brevity, this paper will discuss what is, perhaps, the biggest flaw in the Jaggar reading—standpoint theories seem to be oblivious to differing experiences of particular individuals within groups and instead speaks of experiences of these groups as shared ones. Allison Jaggar asserts that theories that make the distinction between emotion and reason in association with acquiring knowledge are mistaken because they falsely assume that emotions are involuntary responses that can be separated from
Instrumentally rational action is when a goal is not desirable but an induvidual still works out the best way to reach it. Value rational action is when an individual works towards a goal although doesn't know what the outcome will be. Traditional action is a routine action which is done out of habit whilst affectual action is action which is expressed by emotion. Although Weber takes into account the individual choice and focuses on understanding (meanings) when explaining a persons behaviour the four catergories are hard to apply to real situations. Also as we are our own selves and cannot put ourselves in the shoes of someone else we can never really fully understand someone's actions.
A collaborative strategy occurs when either party shows extremely high concern for their own outcomes as well as the other party. This integrative approach involves detailed problem solving throughout the negotiation. Both sides want the maximum benefit to be mutual satisfying. A competitive strategy occurs when one of the two parties pursue their own objectives very strongly. They have little interest in the second party getting their way and no concern for maintaing a good relationship.
However, I appreciated the book’s objective as well as, a political statement regarding some realities that seemed stark and may threaten, or undermine, the economics of wellbeing, national security, as well as, the society unless they are addressed in a more effective manner. In his book, Peterson mentions Margaret Thatcher who says that it may be easy for the politicians to opt for the current gratification while they make other people pay the price for the future. However, that does not really change the reality that there is a price, since the price has a potential of being truly terrible. I do agree that the prospects of twin deficits, as mentioned by Peterson, have had some effect on the confidence, easiness, as well as on consumer and business behavior; although the effects have not yet been felt on the interest rates. The main reason for this is that the private demand for the investment capital is very weak.
separate the people from the problem Separating the people from the problem means separating relationship issues (or "people problems") from substantive issues, and dealing with them independently. People problems tend to involve problems of perception, emotion, and communication. Perceptions are important because they define the problem and the solution. While there is an "objective reality," that reality is interpreted differently by different people in different situations. When different parties have different understandings of their dispute effective negotiation may be very difficult to achieve.
They also struggled with understanding the difference between their ‘best alternative’ and the lens assigned ‘best alternative’. Ethical lenses adopted by individuals tend to influence decision making by affecting how problems and conflicts are approached. Your ethical lens of preference makes you ‘blind’ to the other approaches and makes it difficult to see the benefits of the other lenses and weaknesses of your own lens. This adds tension to groups because what seems like the best solution to a problem to a single team member might be completely inappropriate to another. The team found that these different approaches can create more issues within a team or group if you don’t understand that everyone has their own ‘right approach.’ To a rights and responsibilities lens approaching an issue head on and dealing with the conflict directly might not be fun, but it is necessary in order to move past the problem in the most efficient way possible.