This can be interpreted as self interest is part of, or is, morality, which can lead to justifying actions which go against the consensus of society e.g. lying, stealing and killing. For this reason Kant believes it is better to live according to reason as opposed to desire. For example, if you wanted to buy something which was more expensive than you could afford your reason would tell you it wasn’t possible to have it, not desire as it cannot realise this. Kant sees this as similar to making moral decisions as the moral choice is not always the desired choice and therefore not in your self interest.
In other words before people were to take revenge, they would try and think about the situation first to decide whether taking revenge would be just. Retribution lead to another ideology that was adapted during this time period called self-government. Self-government is the idea that when public justice fails it is the power of the people’s time to step in and take action. When the government failed to take action in certain circumstances the people began to have this mentality that they need to step in and take action. These acts of revenge or what we call retribution were done to basically self-govern themselves.
The Discourse of Political Correctness Political correctness is an attack on free speech, clear thinking, and discussion. It involves the revision of language - to amend alleged discrimination, or to avoid offense to others, and typically used by the ‘left’ in politics as a cover for their flawed ideology. One of the purposes behind this type of deliberate manipulation of language is to prevent the exclusion of people based upon differences or handicaps. Political correctness criticizes the cohesive elements of a society on the grounds that they are repressive and need liberalizing; it strives for equality, but will never quite achieve it all the time there is a double standard in existence. For example, if white Europeans had television channels, religions, restaurants, or school scholarships set up purely for their use, it would be considered extremely racist.
On that alone I was willing to support his perspective, but needed to critically evaluate it as a credible argument. I wanted to prove that through Fulbright’s argument there was an alternative to involvement in conflict. I learned in my critical evaluation that even though it is desirable not to get involved in war, and not sacrifice American lives, that Fulbright does not provide a reasonable alternative. It was a difficult conclusion to reach. I had to overcome my own bias on the issue and examine objectively each aspect and implication of Fulbright’s argument.
Some authors argue that this presents a conflict of rights between liberty and liberty: freedom of expression versus the liberty that comes from public peace. (PAGE 39) others hold that calling this a 'conflict of rights' ignores the character of fundamental rights: it assumes that the right of the majority is a competing right that must be balanced against the rights of the individuals. according to Dworkin this is a confusion that threatens to destroy the concept of individual rights. Nevertheless, public order can still be regarded as an important interest that many overrule freedom of expression in particular instances. (PAGE 40) A danger with the 'harm to public order' argument is that states tend to interpret it very broadly and thus restrict many types of speech, including criticism of the government.
Normative moral cultural relativism (referred to in this essay as ‘moral relativism’ or ‘cultural relativism’) raises many questions in terms of both definition and logic to anyone who studies it, and herein I will try to demonstrate just one problem with the claims of relativists, namely that their premises create a contradiction when it comes to the claim of non-universal moral rules. James Rachels correctly points out that moral relativists make an invalid logical jump, claiming that what is is what ought to be. He then goes on to talk about the effects of moral relativism even if we ignore this problem. My analysis will differ from his in that he focuses on consequences of moral relativism that go against our instinctual beliefs, or that simply don’t seem to sit well with people. I will try to show some logical contradictions that occur even if we ignore this is-ought problem.
How would the world be different if we desired fewer material things? With reference to the teachings found in The Four Noble Truths, what would be the Buddhist view on this? In this discussion I want to discover how the world might change if all of us desired fewer material things, according to the teachings found in the four noble truths. There are different arguments that could be fought over this question. Some believe that if we desired fewer material things the world would be a better place, although others may disagree, stating that if we desire fewer material things the human race might never progress or develop, and could revert back to its original, ignorant origins.
Is There a Duty to Obey the Law, by Christopher Wellman and A. John Simmons’ is a for-and-against style examination and attempt to answer this age old question. Christopher Wellman, a self-avowed statist argues that we do have a moral duty to obey just laws of a legitimate regime. While, Christopher A. John Simmons argues that we do not have a moral duty to obey even just laws of a legitimate regime. In general the authors of both sections tend to devout most of their time not defended their stated belief, but either defending the philosophical school of thought that aligns with said position or by attempting to refute other contradictory philosophies. Wellman devotes the bulk of his essay using and justifying Samaritanism as the means to require the moral duty.
Fromm’s literary article mainly analyzes the concepts of obedience and disobedience as well as their effects on humanity. He also argues that human evolution would come to an end without achieving freedoms through the acts of disobedience. In the first paragraph of this article, Fromm states that disobedience requires the courage to be alone against authority and the courage to bring freedom; it is what started the
humanism vs religion Humanism VS Religion Humanism is a system of thought which rejects the supernatural, any belief in a God, etc, but holds that human interests and the human mind are paramount, that human are capable of solving the problems of the world and deciding what is or is not correct moral behavior (credo reference). The article I found from the opposing view points resource center are “Secular Humanism Is Harmful” by Tim LaHaye and “Secular Humanism Should Be Promoted” by Robert F. Morse. Both of these articles explain their point of view thoroughly and thoughtfully. After reading these articles it was hard for me to decide what I actually support. As mentioned by Tim LaHaye, “secular humanism is a dangerous worldview that exalts man’s knowledge rather than God’s wisdom” (1).