It would be difficult to declare the statement entirely as false, as there are many examples that can support Anais's claim. Perception can teach us more than just how we see things, it can show others what kind of a person we are. For example, showing signs of emotions, such as love or happiness can be perceived in different ways. One child might grow up to believe that is mandatory to a healthy relationship, but another could see it as a sign of weakness and should never be shown to their partners. This way of thinking can go back to the way the person was raised and who raised them.
This is an example of social norms, It’s our responsibility to help those in need. Finally, we help based on our basic gene structure. We are hard wired to not self sacrifice because we would not survive in evolutionary competition. However, It’s been shown that parents will put their child's life before theres, but that’s because it makes it more likely to pass on their genes. All three of these theories come back to a selfish reason for helping, meaning that none of these are truly an act of true altruism.
The focus of the relationship shifts from “this is what I want, so I'll give everyone the same thing" to "let me first understand what they want and then I'll give that to them." It is a more considerate and sensitive moral guideline than its predecessor which ignores the wishes of the recipients in favour of imposing the giver's preferences onto others in a misguided attempt at kindness. The Platinum Rule, or at least its name, might be unfamiliar to most, but
Updike wrote this story to prove that doing what one believes is right won’t always end well for that person. One of the defining points of a person is what they believe to be right and wrong. Opinions may differ about whether or not what Sammy did was worth it or not, but that’s not something people should be debating. The lesson everyone should learn from this story is that doing something morally right may not always be the thing to do for yourself. Essentially, Updike is asking this question: Is it better to do what is morally right or do what’s in your best
Free will and unfree actions simply have different kinds of causes. We as human being have a conscious and we grow to learn right from and wrong, if we wanted to do right then we would and if and when we don’t do right then the consequences follow. Having common sense all ties this together, if you know that doing everything right then do just that to avoid the consequences that will surely follow if you
It would make no sense to say, I persuaded him, but he wouldn't come around to my way of thinking. Further, only when a receiver has freedom of choice, can we say that persuasion is being used instead of coercion. Although some would argue that the final goal of most persuaders is to change behavior rather than just mental states (Funkhouser & Parker, 1999), these changes are generally achieved through a person's mental state and, specifically, attitude. Directly controlling another's behavior is rarely appropriate in a democratic society. The existence of interpersonal communication is a given in persuasion research.
“Self Reliance” Critical Response Conformity is the act of abiding with social standards, attitudes, or practices, but why do people abide by these standards? Some believe that people conform with ideas because they do not endeavor to disagree, however I believe that people do wish to protest but wish to remain free from the repercussions of non-conformity until they have reached a point in which they can rise above. People do this because of the reason, as stated by Emerson in his essay called “Self Reliance”, “For non-conformity the world whips you with displeasure” (Emerson 5; par.11). Many people conform to someone else's view because they have none of their own. Others conform so that it is not necessary for them to fight a battle with someone who in their eyes is wiser.
“The Perils of Obedience” Obedience is defined as dutiful or submissive behavior with respect to another person or group of people. It is usually referred to as a positive aspect, but in the case of “The Perils of Obedience” by Stanley Milgram, in which obedience to authority causes other people harm, it can easily be argued as an extremely negative factor. In defense of her personal opinion about Milgram’s experiment, Diana Baumrind wrote “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience” to demonstrate that obedience is not always the right action to partake in. Although the sources have extremely different views of obedience, they both have several of the same subtopics, including validity, sympathy, and conformity. In “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram was trying to prove a point that shows how far someone will go to be obedient to the authority.
As the piece goes on, you can see thoughts of other philosophers as well. I believe the part that says ‘barbarity has taken place of gentleness’ is influenced by Thomas Hobbes because according to him humans were short, nasty and brutish. In other words, as humans it is our nature to act this way especially when it comes to accepting other religions. Later on in the paragraph Voltaire says ‘Observe what passes under your own eyes, and if you have a human heart, you will join your compassion to ours.’ This thought could be related to David Hume’s idea that we cannot judge others by our own standards because with different situation comes a shift in our morals. In this same section Voltaire begins to talk about how far religion can take you.
Nowadays, our society raises us to believe that obedience is good and disobedience is bad. We are taught that we should do all what we’re told and that disobedient people are mostly accused of being bad people. Society tells us this, but it is not true. Disobedience is sometimes a necessary transitional phase and it’s not always harmful as people claim. Could disobedience be the step to a prosperous future or to the end of human civilization?