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.
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.
There are several studies, books, and articles that back and support my opinion and prove this to be true. Whether or not people agree with me or not, it is a proven fact in some cases. I do spank my children when I feel they have done wrong and no other punishments seem to work. I find it makes children more respectful toward their elders and mind what their parents say. I have witnessed other children who do not have proper discipline act out and embarrass their parents because they do not have anything to be afraid of or loose.
It is an irrefutable fact that we should help each. However sometimes help to others poses some danger to either us or others. Thus Peter Singer’s argument that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” in my view is a better school of thought or a sound moral law. We shall find out how he arrives at this conclusion and how convincing he is. Singer begins his argument by outlining some very important facts about human beings.
Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in. These ideas seem to make sense because we as a culture understand that the judgments people make in a different culture will differ from ours whether we choose to support it or not. Our culture has different moral judgments as well and does not look at something like killing someone for stealing as morally right since our culture values human life above theft. Cultural relativism does not exist because some principles are universal and not relative only to culture. People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view.
Living in physical pain can cause one to have a negative attitude towards life in general, and can change one’s personality and can turn one into a person no one ever thought one would be. Physical and emotional pain feed off of each other and can cause a recipe for destruction that can cripple the strongest of willing and determined people. From that moment on, I have been dependent on opiates because of my pain. I would use opiates to treat my physical pain and the emotional pain that came with not being able to do what I enjoyed. Taking opiates would release the same endorphins in my brain that I would feel when I was physically active in sports, and would cause the same high feeling that I would naturally get from winning and being in the moment on the basketball court.
Indulgence often brings an insulation that keeps children from undertaking the expected challenges of childhood. Learning from varied experiences of success, failure, and frustration are the basis for emotional growth. Children who don’t have the opportunity to learn firsthand usually give up easily when they meet with difficulty. In conclusion, this mythical disease is curable, but it comes with lots of steps in order for it to be fully cured. First, parents shouldn’t substitute their time with their children with gifts.
Words like “distinct” help us understand what Mill is trying to get at. He is opposed to customs because he believes that if a person practices customs, they will not develop their own unique personality. He also uses words like “educate or develop” to show that he values the individuals education, development, and their distinct qualities. I agree with Mill’s position on the need for individual development and education, because it is important for us to make our own decisions to develop according to our own needs and not be dependent or reliant on other people. Mill wants us to make our own choices.
We have to learn from our mistake, do better and make sure it does not happen to us ever again. Making a bad or wrong choice has a solution of going through depression or regret later on in life. Especially, if you are a crazy, reckless and careless teen that is just worried about being popular, partying, and wasting a perfectly good life. Us, teens have been told that we are the future of this country and that our daily actions and choices can help us or destroy us in many ways. I tend to notice a lot about people’s life and I see their struggles with everything they choose to do without thinking it through.
To allow human beings to be human, meaning the capability of humans to choose what they do and do not do and strive for whatever personal endeavors they aspire for, necessitates that the fundamental liberties be protected and held equal. These liberties are not to be influenced, changed, or tinkered with by economical, financial, or any other circumstances; all persons are entitled to these liberties regardless of status or wealth. Although the first principle is priority over the second principle and other potential conflicts, it does however still have its limits. Certain liberties not listed above, such as freedom of contract, are not protected or granted by the first principle since they are not basic liberties. The second principle of justice declares, “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, and (b)