Simpler questions would be “Is Dr. Smith’s intentional practise of omitting important information relevant to his client’s treatment ethical?” or “Is Dr. Smith’s failure to report his client’s actions to the authorities morally justifiable?” Both would be good questions, but I believe the question the study guide asks us to consider embrace both of these questions. The possible answers to the question are “yes” or “no”. I will be using rule-based utilitarianism and Kantian deontology to analyse this case study. There is not enough information to consider act-based utilitarianism: Act-based utilitarianism essentially says that one should perform that act which will bring about the greatest amount of good (“happiness”) over bad for everyone affected by the act. Each situation and each person must be assessed on their own merits (Thiroux, 2004, p. 42).
Identify and discuss possible problems with the Stoic notion of fate? Stoics learned that our lives are not entirely our own. The complain about what they could not control. The Stoics chose to master what they could – their own minds. They also believed that serenity comes to those whose will is in according with the World reason, the Logos.
While providing his overall purpose and what he hopes his reader do as result of reading Freakonomics. “It has to do with thinking sensibly about how people behave in the real world… You might become more skeptical of the conventional wisdom; you may begin looking for hints as to how things aren’t quite what they seem... You may find yourself asking a lot f questions” (209 -210). Here, Levitt simply want people to behave correctly with common sense. He also wants the reader to question things and to search for their own answers. Levitts’ purpose is to allow the reader to attack the world and their problems with smarts and their own ideas.
Chuang Tzu believed that how we perceive things are directly related to each of our separate pasts, or our “paths”. Also, that we need to realized that our conclusions and dispositions would be completely different had we experienced another past, even possibly just one single instance. Confucius believed that all things are naturally good. It is only if you haven’t pursued the way that you can turn out evil. He also believed that the most important characteristic of our personalities is created by how we treat others.
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). That is, Singer is trying to establish that if a being is not sentient, the idea of extending moral consideration to it makes no sense. This negative argument is important, because one common criticism of Singer is that his criterion ends up excluding humans who are no longer sentient (like those in an irreversible coma); Singer is content to accept that consequence, but it is important that he show why the exclusion of some humans by his criterion is not problematic, given that he has criticized other criteria
It varies from place to place. Humans are humans, and so we should view things the same. But there are outside influences in cultures that make us see the discussed views differently. There is no truth in defining what is just and unjust but we are persuaded by believing what is in our morals by following the evidence, logic and reasoning behind each argument made. The author says “and one ought to bring up the question whether it is those who are sane or those who are demented who speak at the right moment”.
An Interpretation Of Morals Morality, in a simplified definition, is conformity to the rules of right conduct. Why then, do humans differ and struggle on acting upon and defining different morals? And why does it seem nearly impossible to find where morals came from? Well in Steven Pinker’s writing of “The Morality Instinct,” he shares with the audience that morality has developed into a sixth sense and that this sense of morality greatly affects the way us as humans make decisions. More importantly however, are auxiliary sources that further extended the arguments that Pinker makes throughout the rhetoric.
I think that we are driven by emotions. We don’t like to take blame so in
The difference is that compliance is when someone conforms out loud with the views or behaviour but secretly disagrees. In this situation their personal views on the subject do not change. An example of compliance is not stating your own opinion on a subject, because the majority has stated a different opinion leading you to agree with them. Whereas in internalisation, a person is so persuaded by the argument that their opinions begin to change both publically and privately. People internalise the views of others when they are persuaded/convinced the arguments make sense.
In the rant called “The Smart Gap,” Eric Maisel explains his personal opinion on brain power of individuals. Grit, however, isn’t something that he believes will help people find success. Although some may not agree with what was stated, Maisel brings up many persuaded key points to help get his point across. Throughout Eric Maisel’s rant, many key points are brought up. First, he explains that we will experience emotional pain when we recognize that the work we would love to do might just be unavailable enough to make us doubt that we can proceed.