According to Machiavelli, being praised mustn’t concern a prince who wishes to continue ruling. In the book The Prince, Machiavelli noted that “A man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good”(40). A successful prince has two kinds of traits- praiseworthy and despicable, the latter of the two must not cause him hatred. The prince must present himself as an honest man, while using his vices. A good example of a modern day Machiavellian prince is America’s 43rd president, George W Bush, from the moment that Bush decided to run for President, his staff has fabricated an image of George W as a successful CEO, an avid Christian, effective governor, and all-around nice guy.
I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have. For example, a blind man cannot help another blind man to cross the road. It is very important to note here that before you help anyone, you must be capable of helping. In short, Peter Singer’s analysis that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” is uncompromisingly convincing and the pragmatic use of this conclusion would help have better human relations.
As the main issue at stake is the process of the matter; therefore the principle of duty must be followed. The ethical expert would advise “2 Day FM’s Hot 30” to exercise self-restraint and act ethically as it is their duty. Despite the temptation to please audiences and to achieve high ratings and revenues by humorous pranks, duty must prevail and the prank must not be aired. Furthermore, individuals in and outside the business universally should be treated with respect and should not be treated as a means to an end. To not air such pranks; this can be easily accepted universally, which is in compliance with Kantian ethics.
He wanted them to be able to fix their problems themselves and let the government do more important jobs and have to worry about them less. He wanted them to become strong, independent people, but when America’s situation was as bad as it was nothing the people did could get them out of that situation. The government needed to step in and help them get out of the hole because they were too far in to pull themselves out. This concept had good intentions, but failed miserably. FDR’s Liberal ideas set new ground rules for the coming presidents to follow and his spirit and work ethic were going to be the top bar the next Presidents would have to compete with, even still
(Solomon, Higgins, 2010:235) Soft determinism maintains that we possess the freedom required for moral responsibility, and that this is compatible with determinism, even though determinism is true a person can still be deserving of blame if they perform a wrongful act. (Pereboom, 2009:308) The immense issue I have with soft determinism is that how can you have free will if everything is determined, this contradicts
These Guardians would practice self-selection of successors and would appear at the top of Plato’s ideal societal class, thus creating an aura of untouchable supremacy. In western democratic society today, many citizens would refute this Platonic ideal by stating that democracy is the best form of government. However, when Plato considers a democracy he focuses his attention towards the citizens of a democracy, referring to them as ‘drones’. He exclaims that the, “drones [of the democratic society] buzz with unnecessary appetites, and desires” and suggests that, “the worst among these drones soon become leaders” (18L). This statement is a rather generalized one; to consider that all citizens in a democracy live off desires is foolish.
A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them. (Doing drugs might be an example. It might seem satisfactory at the moment, but ultimately, it damages their body.) A person must only do what seems to be in their best interest. Under moral egoism, no moral duty exists to anyone other than self.
We lie to people we think would misuse the truth in unfair or dangerous ways. Keeping the truth secret or deceiving people is only effective when those people believe we are providing them with the truth. Lies only work if we lie infrequently enough, to be believed and relied on when we do lie. Honesty is about keeping promises to tell the truth. Accepting our promise to tell the truth puts someone is a relationship with us.
If one can remain completely honest their word would never be tarnished there by affording them more opportunities. An impeccable person demands your full trust. One of my personal beliefs is that there is never a real reason to lie. When one becomes perceived as a liar it becomes your human nature to protect yourself from them. However you may have felt about them before, you can’t help but distance yourself from them now.
December, 7, 10 Political Science 201: Politics & Power Instructor: Bill Hughes Final Some people think that being free to do as we please and not having to answer or pay any dues to “the MAN” would be the good life and that everything would be so nice and dandy. These people are wrong. We need to have some sort of government to be in charge, because without any authority there would be no order in society and our country as we know it would fall apart and turn to shit. Although we can’t have totally liberty the government still has to give us a just form of freedom because without that we would be slaves to the government and have no purpose in life but to serve the head of the regime. In order to run a society for the people we would have to give everyone the right and opportunity to make what they want of themselves unless of