According to hard determinism we are not free in the sense required for moral responsibility, and therefore, what happens cannot be affected by choices that are free in the sense. But what happens may nevertheless be caused by the decisions we chose and the choices we make. A reaction to hard determinism is that if it were true, we would have no reason to attempt to accomplish anything, to try and improve our lives because our decisions and choices would make no difference. If everything we do is pre determined then why try hard to achieve anything, if you are meant to do a certain something, it will happen, it is already determined for you, so the hard determinist would say. In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion.
Are they merely expressing opinions or stating matters of fact? Can we really tell right from wrong? Many people would answer this by stating that what is believed to be right or wrong is essential for any discussion about our behavior. If this is the case then we could never have a meaningful discussion about morality. Ethical statements are not just about observable facts, but are often statements about what we believe should happen and so are not very easy to establish as true or false, as they are expressions of points of view not shared be everyone.
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.
If a person believes that political doctrines are void of content, that person will be quite content to see political debates go on, but won’t expect anything useful to come from them. If we consider the other case, that there is a patriotic justification for a political belief, then what? If the belief is that a specific political position is true, then one ought to be intolerant of all other political beliefs, since each political “position” must be held to be false relative to the belief one has. And since each political position holds out the promise of reward for any probability of its fixing social problems, however small, that makes it seem rational to choose it over its alternatives. The trouble, of course, is that the people who have other political doctrines may hold theirs just as strongly, making strength of belief itself invalid as a way to determine the rightness of a political
Dissoi Logoi contains opposing arguments that can be argued either way. Its relevance to Rhetoric is that it allows us as readers to see that no argument can be made both bad and good, just and unjust, seemly and shameless. In our own minds we know right versus wrong, but not everyone has the same vision of what is right and what is wrong. What is wrong to one can be right to another and vice versa which appeals to the logos aspect of rhetoric. These notion of contradiction within this writing are rhetoric.
In this essay I’ll explore the reasons why someone would disagree with her about her two models. Kathryn Schulz’s two models of wrongness is binary, only having two polar opposite sides; one end being optimistic and the other being pessimistic. Optimism requires the thought that all doors have handles and can be opened and to also never look at the glass as being half empty but half full. By looking at the glass being half full would be having a good outlook on life no matter what negativity comes your way. Optimism is to believe that you’ll always overcome adversity, and never let negativity triumph over positivity.
Baby steps such as legalizing gay marriage and racial profiling would eventually lead up to more direct laws to protect people against prejudice. And because the law applies to everyone and enforced, it cannot be ignored therefore will eventually be accepted society, removing prejudice from the picture. Any resistance against the law will be passing... fleeting and when people see it as a loss of freedom, it is not. As it liberates us from restrains such as discrimination that constantly holds us back. Initial rebellion and arguments against such laws will not last long and is a short term pain for a long term gain.
To Think Is To Be Free “Don’t You Think It’s Time To Start Thinking,” by Northrop Frye is about Frye’s critical beliefs that society is unable to properly think. He believes that a person can’t just come up with an idea in there head and call it thinking. They have to analyze that so called “thought” and put it into proper terminology for it to then be considered thinking. In my opinion Frye is way too critical; thinking is a form of expression that is not public for anyone to criticize. There are people such as inspiring scholars and poets who come up with wonderful ideas on a daily basis and then put their ideas into context in a way that others don’t understand, they know how to think.
Humanists believe that human nature is mostly positive. This essay will demonstrate although no singular definition exists for existential-humanistic approach, it incorporates values, beliefs and practices from both traditions. Main themes will be shown to collaborate adequately within the person-centered counselling model of Rogers. An essay on the existential-humanistic approach Central to the understanding of the integrated values, beliefs and practices of the combined existential-humanistic approach, a familiarity of the main themes around the existential and humanistic approach, ought to be acquired independently of each other. This papers aims to break down and make simpler some of the concepts around the existential-humanistic approach.
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.