The genuine definition of individualism, however, is not the issue of debate. Instead, it is the level of importance placed upon individuality and the roll that individualism should assume in society. Various opinions have been presented on this topic over the course of the term. The weakness of Emerson’s argument is that in his essay, “Self-Reliance”, is that he stresses the role of the individualism to an unreasonable degree. Emerson takes the stance that in order to live life to the fullest, one should reject the rules forced upon the individual by
It is fine to argue with a person about his actions, but not to force him. The harm principle basically narrows down to the state having the power to coerce a person only if it can thereby prevent harm to others. I think this principle depends crucially on what we understand and agree on to what extent something or someone can be “harmful”. If any sort of negative effect on a person may be considered as harm, the Harm Principle will fail in protecting individual liberty. Mill claims it is not all things considered harmful but rather ones that are the most serious.
In Berlin’s essay, he argues “It is one thing to say I may be coerced for my own good which I am too blind to see… with the greatest desperation.” In this specific passage from his essay, he is asking himself if he is ‘free’ or ‘truly free’ in his decision making. Berlin believed in human freedom, and defended the negative idea of freedom. He believed negative freedom was simpler and was a better way to gain personal freedom as an individual. With positive freedom comes limits to full liberty because positive freedom meant individuals worked together to reach their overall goals, which meant there were set equalities amongst everyone. The very idea of sharing meant he could not be ‘truly’ free in a sense where his personal freedom was compromised.
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.
It is because no one has made a big deal about it. What makes a slur worse than another could perhaps also be because of an edict of an authoritative figure, or even recalling the past and who exactly introduced it. The prohibition of these slurs seems to be what gives these words their power. However, even when a word is not necessarily prohibited, such as “loser” or “nerd,” one could still classify it as a slur because of its implications of the group a person may or may not belong to. There are also slurs that members of targeted groups themselves are not always offended by.
The characters do not question this but in real life it would not work this smoothly. A utopia would need to be free of discrimination, violence, and negative events. Utopia is a difficult concept in itself, and I do not think utopia is really possible. Anything humans can create will be a dystopia- but as we have seen in The Giver, maybe a dystopia is not so bad. Some concepts, such as "Release", have huge moral issues.
Schneier shows this to prove that doing nothing can lead to trouble with blackmail or abuse with surveillance information. Schneier says that “that privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance” (paragraph 5). This is a strong point of his argument because he wants the people to know that the government can find a way to change nothing into something. The only flaw of Schneier’s argument is that his facts are repeated and this doesn’t help because without more facts there isn’t any proof to show that the people of privacy don’t need to have constant surveillance. Now if we look to the other side we can find many aspects of what Cillizza has to say about security.
However, it could be his good days. For that person, it seems that nothing can go wrong and nobody wants to bet against him. This is not a valid application of inductive reasoning. The idea of a lucky strike is an illusion. It does not mean that now we have to reject the idea of all inductive reasoning.
I feel that I am more than capable of shouldering my responsibilities, as well as the consequences along with it. I don’t consider myself as a risk-taker because I never really had the courage to take the step in doing something that I am not certain of. I never had the urge to explore and approach unfamiliar situations and uncertainties. If you look through it, not being a risktaker isn’t really that bad because it makes me make sure and double-check everything that I am doing. I do it carefully and seek answers and information first before doing anything, which also makes me inquisitive.
None. In my opinion a successful policy should be one that is beneficial to all citizens and not be viewed by some as hostile, for it is said to discriminate against sections of the population, yet in other instances it is beneficial to selected groups. Due to the policy being unsettling, needles and discriminatory on the one hand, while others argue it corrects past injustices, in the end, past divisions are set to continue. 3. In your view, why did the South African government choose to implemented the Affirmative Action policy and Act, and was it ever justifiable?