2. The individual being discriminated against may: be excluded from or miss opportunities and not fulfil their potential, be excluded from certain roles, commit self-harm, have low self-wroth, a confused identity, fear of rejection, have low self-esteem and dampen their motivation to learn. This all means they don’t reach their full potential and are unable to give their full contribution to society as an adult. Those who inflict discrimination are also harmed as their prejudice makes them believe some people are inferior to them, giving them a distorted view on the world. The families and friends of individuals who are discriminated against can be affected in many ways.
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
So, oppressed people can not win the respect of oppressor. He believes in this way the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor because acquiescence is the easier way to encounter oppression, also it is not the moral way. In Dr. King’s opinion, the second way is resorting to physical violence and corroding hatred. He believes violence not only brings impermanent results, but also is impractical and immoral. According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding.
468a 23. So having power over people isn’t good, if misjudgement leads to a worse
Socially it can effect an individual as they can be made to feel like they don’t belong and nobody wants to be their friend and they are excluded. Having no friends can lead to emotional damage. It can also isolate an individual and they can feel worthless and feel different from others. It can be extremely difficult for children and adults with special needs as it can be harder for them to fit into a mainstream setting as they can be made to feel very different and it may be unintentional but can be very cruel. 1.3.
A Lacking World Two wrongs can actually make a right. Egoistic by definition means limited to or caring only about yourself and your own needs. The definition of stubborn is having or showing dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of good arguments or reasons. These two characteristics combined with Howard Roarks other notable qualities essentially combine to make one remarkable character. Furthermore with the addition of characters such a Stephen Mallory who lacks confidence in his originality, Dominique Francon with her refusal to allow herself to be content and Gail Wynand’s inability to be satisfied thrown into the mix, it is like the contrast between Advil and morphine.
Criticisms from supervisors and peers often are met with emotional listening resistance. We hear only the negatives and do not attend to offers of help or ways to improve our performance. We are over stimulated and do not accurately receive messages that could help us grow and develop. Barrier Three: Criticizing Personal Style Rather Than Messages. We often find ourselves criticizing the way a message is presented and ignoring its content or value.
Thomas Nagel’s “Moral Luck” Nagel begins his argument by explaining the problem with moral judgment upon individuals is that it does not take into consideration the actions that are not within one’s control, or is not their fault. That when we place the moral judgment upon a person as an object, independent of the external forces involved, and whether the outcome is good or bad, this would be considered ‘moral luck’. This brings in to question the validity of any moral judgment, because the more one looks into the given situation and what factors were outside the control of the person being judged, the more one sees that any moral responsibility is diminished. And with this statement, the addition that even our system of belief that we use to make these moral judgments is also largely based upon things, internal and external, that are beyond our control. Nagel’s basic thesis of this issue
The examples provided are supported and represent unethical acts by people. Through the view of morality and relativism, these examples cannot be validated. There are instances within our society, which are go against relativism because they cannot be justified or acceptable because they do not benefit anyone in society and are simply
Empowerment of the individual may be either beneficial to society or threatening. How have your studied texts shaped your understanding of individuality and its place with the broader social discourse? The refusal of the individual to yield to the repressive values imposed on them by authority characterizes the insignificance of individuality within the broader social discourse. While the figure representative of authority refuses to ethically uphold its obligations of maintaining order, the individual renounces authority’s power and in doing so rejects their attempts to subdue individual freedom. Such is evident in the actions of messianic protagonist, McMurphy in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”.