From this we owe no special duties to our fellow citizens over those on the other side of the world. I believe that one defense of special obligations to our fellow citizens is a practical one regarding efficiency which rejects the concept of impartiality, arguing instead that we have special duties to those people with whom we have some special relation, such as family. It is in effect the argument that “charity begins at home”. This view poses a challenge to the Singer Principal as to give aid abroad to those most needy will ignore the plight of some of our fellow citizens, thus sacrificing something morally important. If justice is conceived of as being about what individuals would choose were they unaware of who they are (Singer) then people would surely chose an impartial universalist approach to redistributive justice as advocated by Singer if they did not know whether they were a citizen of the USA or Europe.
Conclusion -> draw together main ideas/arguments An outsider does not fit into society and they will do what they see to be right. Although the legal system is meant to be fair, it is only fair to society. If some one is different society tries to outcast them. More often than not, justice does not reach as far as the outsider. Justice is what is seen to be right and just by society and this means that society is catered for.
American essayist and social critic H. L. Mencken wrote, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe. ” However, his opinion is not absolutely correct, because an average man doesn’t always sacrifice his freedom for safety. What people really aspire is to a better life, and for this they make sacrifices, sometimes of freedom and others of stability. Safety is important for human’s need, but it doesn’t mean average people would always choose to be safe rather than freedom.
Desire vs. Destiny: Can Humans Control Their Fate? The K’ung Shang-Jen and Alexander Pope reveal that humans have the means to live virtuously; but, they do not possess the means to control their fate. In The Peach Blossom Fan K’ung Shang-Jen explains that Hou and the Fragrant Princess have the agency to maintain virtuous lives but they lack the means to preserve their relationship. Through the various phases of the peach blossom fan, K’ung Shang-Jen depicts the couple’s temporal happiness, distress, and how providence ultimately determines their fate. In “An Essay on Man” Pope delineates the importance of living according to God’s plan, or the Great Chain of Being.
Thesis Statement: In The Allegory of the Cave, Socrates outlined a program that would make sure Athens had good rulers and a good government, which would have worked for Socrates time, but not in the present. The program would have benefits. Philosophers would make better leaders than normal people. No one would take office because of personal ambitions. Things would run better with no competition for office.
People don’t usually decide to help the needy, but they choose to, according to their free will due to psychological biases. According to Trout, free will comes as a primitive feeling; it is a product of the actions that was ought to happen, but due to environmental conditions and other biases, it may have shifted. Therefore, according to the author, an individual is not as free as they think they are, rather free will comes into action when it clashes with the individual’s source of happiness. This leads to right and wrong choices. Individuals must identify and correct such biases in order to make wise, empathetic
For one reason owning private property breaks down the state of equity where no one person as more than another. And if mankind has a right to their own preservation do they need the consent of every man in order to appropriate, can he not enclose property without the consent of his fellow commoners. But when God gave man reason to make to make use of nature to the best advantages of life and convenience that made reason for the use and need of private property, therefore not needing the consent of his fellow commoners. If humans fail to use nature to the best advantage we as humans are committing a sin. Even if the state of equity is broken down it is up to each individual to inquire what he needs it is not up to all of mankind to provide for each other.
On the other hand its weakness is that human can affect it in other aspects besides deathless and birth less nature but in definition they do not recognize that. Prominence over human welfare and determinative nature regarding human experience –since both deal with human then they can be combined. The strength is that it when we put our lives according to the sacred we are likely to live a life free of problem associated to ungodliness. On the other hand it is important to perceive the true reality that underlies our religion .If we don’t do so we are likely to suffer and destroy what is already positive about our religion hence suffering. In that case religion will be the dividing factor instead of a bonding factor as it should
Alexandra Loza Eng 101-042 Corissa Eisenman The Myth of Universal Love Universal Love is impossible because the love between families is a natural human instinct, rather than a decision, and also because we are raised by family that teaches cultural traditions and customs that will carry on throughout our lives. Asma’s opinion of universal love was that it was a good idea because “Helping a stranger in need makes you feel better about yourself” but in reality it would not do anything because there’s no guarantee that a stranger would do the same thing back for another stranger. “The Myth of Universal Love” by Stephen Asma deals with this argument stating the advantages and disadvantages of choosing either
Instead of trying to understand why Dax was acting the way he was, the doctors instead insisted that he was acting like a child and was unable to make the decision for himself. Even Dr. Larson went against Dax’s psychiatrist Dr. White in his words stating that Dax was sane in his judgments. They lacked any morality and the main focus of this relationship was not to adhere to Dax’s needs. These among other reasons that I have previously stated are factors as to why the treatment given to Dax was not ethically permissible in the sense of Dax’s autonomy. The patient’s beliefs and values should never come into question with this mutual relationship, which is exactly the opposite of what happened