Lao Tzu only cares about the people not hating their leader because that will cause troubles so he decides not to take their money and give them whatever they need. This is not a good idea. It will not help the people learn that they need to work for it themselves. They are just given everything. War was also a big topic in both of their views.
The reader also sees Bartleby through the narrator's eyes. In the Boss' eyes, Bartleby is against him and everyone else. This is what makes Bartleby the antagonist of the story. Bartleby does represent a force beyond himself as an individual because of his stubborn and resistant ways of responding to people. He also keeps to himself and refuses to reveal his life story to the Boss.
Confucianism doesn’t believe in punishments, instead it they believed that the sense of shame will turn any man over to the good side, people are naturally good, and that leaders should lead by example. Well on the other hand Legalism is the exact opposite, believing that only through strict punishments and laws that people can be in order, people are naturally bad, and a ruler should be firm and use punishments and rewards to govern the people. Confucius would evaluate the nature of zero tolerance policies to be bad/disagree/legalist as it believes that humans must be controlled by strict laws and punishments and that people are naturally bad. But Han Fei would evaluate it as good as the strict laws and punishments, are much like to his form of Legalism, but he might want to add rewards into the policy. Confucius would disagree with Zero Tolerance policies as he dislikes punishments, believe that people are naturally good, leaders should lead by example, and instead of actual punishment, make them feel ashamed.
They might discover that the world is not perfect. Books lead to understanding of life, and their society does not want them to know those truths. Montag illustrates his desire for intellectual companionship: "Nobody listens anymore. I can't talk to the walls because they're yelling at me. I can't talk to my wife; she listens to the walls.
a) Explain the concept of relativist ethics. (25 marks) b) ‘Relativist Ethics are unfair’ Discuss. (10 marks) a) Relativist ethics can be described as the belief that nothing is objectively right or wrong and that the definitions of right or wrong depend upon the prevailing view of a particular individual, culture, or even the politics of the area. People do not always agree on what ‘s right and what’s wrong. For example, in some cultures it may be acceptable for a man to have more than one wife, while in other cultures this would be seen to be immoral, and even a crime.
The basic philosophy of Utilitarianism, the idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount, is one of the basic building blocks of the democratic system. If a person lives on the principles of Utilitarianism, they disregard the motives involved in an action. Utilitarians try to separate the action from the actor, and look at the bigger picture over the individual. Followers of Kant (among others) disagree with this approach, and claim that in this system, minorities and individuals are often overlooked and brushed aside. Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral.
Paul’s problems make him hide who he is from everyone. He hides himself in the costumes he wears to project a different view of himself. He lies to everyone because he doesn’t want people to see that he has no true beauty to him. The problems he faces make him socially unaware. Paul tries to eliminate his problems by drinking, and believes there is no pain and his life.
“The authority of government is still an impure one, which I also believe that government is best which governs not all.” This statement suggests Thoreau recognizes that the government is not liable to revolutionize. In spite of this, he constructs a disgraceful representation of the reader, and presents it. Annihilating
Because of America’s history. If we didn’t have unequal treatment we would not have to deal with things such as Affirmative Action. It is a shame that A.A. has to be enforced. It is also a shame that we down a minority because of his or her ethnicity, and say that he or she is not capable of what everyone else is. Therefore it is only fair and good that we have Affirmative Action because of past issues denying someone of something because they’re a different nationality.
Rather, he believed his truest identity would be found in differentiating himself from the common herd of humanity, which he saw as mediocre, morally lazy, and cowardly. He was an individualist; he held that each person’s responsibility is to follow the highest leadings of personal conscience. Ultimate moral authority emanates from individual judgment, and getting “out of its way” is one of the most important things a just government can do. Civil law and the power of the democratic majority are secondary to the higher moral law as it is discerned by the individual. In cases in which civil government conflicts with personal conscience, Thoreau advocates withdrawing all support from that government immediately, without waiting to