Don’t bad people harm those whom they are closest to whereas good civilians or friends benefit from those whom they are closest to? His accuser agrees. Socrates continues his argument asking Meletus if there is a man on Earth that would prefer to be harmed rather than benefited from his friends. Socrates states several premises here which are
I try to avoid conflicts and protect the least advantaged without creating unnecessary hassles for the rest. One of my weaknesses is that I trust reasonable systems to solve most problems. Because of that I run the risk to be considered authoritarian and assuming that my way is best, which is not at all my intention. At some point I could become isolated because not everyone can guarantee equality. My obsession with justice could drive those I care about most away from me.
Thou shall not kill is a negative ethic. Negative ethics is the act of having clean hands, being decent, decency; these are descriptions of proactive actions. A negative ethic is essentially rules to live by; they do not necessarily describe an action that needs to be taken, rather and inaction. The prohibition of murder is just that; the action of not murdering is a positive ethic. Cruelty’s early definition is that of bloodshed, making one bleed, hurting a person or to give pain.
By using utilitarianism ethics it would seem the benefits of not airing the prank would be more beneficial. As this would be seen by the radio station as maintaining their professional integrity, it would avoid the possibility of impacting their relationships with multiple stakeholders negatively. From the positives and negatives discussed, it would seem under utilitarianism ethics the prank would not be ethical to broadcast. Kantian Ethics The decision to not air the prank would not be delayed under Kantian ethics. As the main issue at stake is the process of the matter; therefore the principle of duty must be followed.
His views on life tenure and judicial reviews were split upon the framers and intimidated anti federalist, but it is the most methodological way to deal with the separation of powers and prevent different branches from overpowering one another. Although I agree with his claims that the Judicial branch is the least dangerous, because the lack of direct involvement and inability to initiate a change, I believe that without the Judicial branch, the separation of powers would be missing a key feature to prevent a tyranny. Without the Judiciary, it would be easy for the government to take advantage of their powers and overrule the
I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have. For example, a blind man cannot help another blind man to cross the road. It is very important to note here that before you help anyone, you must be capable of helping. In short, Peter Singer’s analysis that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” is uncompromisingly convincing and the pragmatic use of this conclusion would help have better human relations.
Best ways to deal with prejudice: Prejudice is a fixed opinion about a certain group without examining the facts fairly and rationally. Prejudices about ethnicity, sexuality, religion, class and gender have occurred since the beginning of civilisation and still occur to this very day. History has shown that prejudice can be a dangerous thing. So what is the best way to deal with it? Legal action and social integration, with is very diplomatic as oppose to negative actions such as forcing change through violence.
Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them.
One explanation states that certain individuals feel that violence is relatively harmless, and therefore feel no remorse in performing violent acts. This explanation incorporates classical historical texts, which imply that violence is an essential element of life. Another explanation states that certain individuals feel that violent acts are justified as a means of propagating faith. This explanation points out that survival and expansion of religion through violent acts is acceptable. These two rationalizations help explain how such violence can exist between religious dictation and the actual be practiced by individuals in
Oddly enough, with this theory, it is prohibited to tell lies or commit suicide because that is morally wrong within itself and does not support the universal good of a rational decision, but if people acted in line with their duty to the universal law of their society, the results were of no consequence (Butts & Rich, 2008, Chapter 1). Kant stated that a person should act without emotion and with a complete sense of duty to serve the morally universal law of society and that the intention is of more importance than the result – consequences of the actions do not matter (Jasper, 1962). The theory of deontology follows this thought by setting demands that humans act at all times as though their actions would be universally accepted into an overall rule for society. He believed that duty and law are always one unit and cannot be separated and that with this duty to law, we shape our world. My criticism of this theory is that thought processes without emotions make our decisions too concrete.