Can it be real respect when we are not saying about others or pretend to not know? If we do, is that really for others or is it for ourselves? Don’t ask don’t tell policy can be the one of aggressive policy because ignorance can be more aggressive than physical violence. Now, we have to think again about ‘respect’. What should we do if we really respect others?
It seems clear that if one individual harms another, through whatever means, it makes it more difficult for the harmed individual to carry out parts of their “life-plan”. According to Mill, this is where intervention should occur. This is not a valid way of exercising your autonomy because you are putting the autonomy of other individuals at risk. This is what constitutes harm. However, the state or any other individual has no grounds to intervene if you’re not seen to harm others.
Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” Clifford does not agree with holding “beliefs on the basis of insufficient evidence.” He means by “the ethics of belief” that when people blindly believe something, with no evidence for this belief, they would not become “honourable men” simply because their belief ends up being right. “They would not be innocent, they would only be not found out.” Meaning, when one acquires a belief, with no right to believing it to be true, no matter the outcome he is in the wrong. He describes his argument that however convinced you are of the truth of your convictions, you are not to make public criticisms of another man’s case, without first examining both sides of evidence, with the same “patience and care.” One example he describes is when a shipowner is about to send to sea on a ship that is apparently incapable and unseaworthy. He decides to sail the ship, despite the fact that it was in need for repairs and was very old. While the shipowner had many doubts about taking the ship, he chose to anyways, justifying himself with the thoughts that “she (the ship) had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that is was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also.” Surly he was guilty for the death of those on the ship, even though he had made himself believe that it was okay to send the ship to sail, disregarding his doubts.
Political Correctness hasn’t gone far enough Today im here to talk to you about whether or not political correctness has gone far enough. There are a number of reasons why political correctness hasn’t gone far enough and it is because political correctness protects people that are from a different race, people who are seen different by society, such as disabled people and people’s religious beliefs. Political correctness breaks the barrier of putting people in different categories and instead people become one and they can respect each other’s differences without controversy. Firstly, I would like to argue the fact that people do not have the right to question and judge the identity others have created for themselves. Andrew Bolt, a writer to the Herald Sun writes, ‘Her father was Swiss, and her mother only part aboriginal.
Machiavelli displays his distrust of citizens in the passage, and that “because they [people] are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them”; therefore, he argues that it is unnecessary to be moralistically correct as opposed to appear so, stating that “a wise lord cannot, nor ought he to, keep faith when such observance may be turned against him,...but it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic”. He considers having good qualities “and always to observe them is injurious”, as these traits may get in the way of the leader. It is essential for a leader to disguise his true characteristics, as to appear “merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright” is useful when such characteristics are needed, but they could be discarded when time calls. Mirandolla, in contrast, feels that
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.
Because he feared losing his job, he did not defend his position with an explanation of his job description or scope of practice. By avoiding the situation, Rashad chose the passive aggressive form of communication. Effective communication is a win-win between two people. Aggressive communication is not an effective form of communication because only one person is talking. Robin overpowered Rashad with verbal assault rather than encouraging ownership, involvement, and teamwork.
People typically avoid situations that upset order, threaten their self-interests, increase stress or involve risk. When faced with changes to the status quo, people usually resist initially. The resistance continues and, in some cases increases, until they are able to recognize the benefits of change and perceive the gains to be worth more than the risk or threats to their self-interests. People resist change due to the fundamental human objection to having the will of others imposed upon them. Poor communication/consultations from the change initiators- The staff
This principal also doesn’t distinctions between whether a group or single person can do anything about the situation. Singer states “I admit that there is a psychological difference between the cases; one feels guilty about doing nothing if one can point to others, similarly placed, who have also done nothing. Yet this can make no real difference to our moral obligations” (Singer, 1972) If everyone does a little bit the situation can be resolved. Singer’s addresses some counter-arguments in his article. The first counter-argument is there shouldn’t be private contributor.
Mencius suggested that although our spontaneous reactions can reveal part of our goodness, it is not necessary best for us to follow the spontaneity. Just like the story of King Xuan and the ox (1A/7), King Xuan’s decision was inappropriate so it was better not to replace ox by sheep. Sometimes our spontaneity affects our behaviours, but it may not be appropriate and suitable. So we should not always follow our spontaneity and need to think twice before acting. Zhuangzi has an opposite view with Mencius.