According to hard determinism we are not free in the sense required for moral responsibility, and therefore, what happens cannot be affected by choices that are free in the sense. But what happens may nevertheless be caused by the decisions we chose and the choices we make. A reaction to hard determinism is that if it were true, we would have no reason to attempt to accomplish anything, to try and improve our lives because our decisions and choices would make no difference. If everything we do is pre determined then why try hard to achieve anything, if you are meant to do a certain something, it will happen, it is already determined for you, so the hard determinist would say. In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion.
If you are being governed than you are not truly independent. In my belief to be truly independent you must be able to do what you want when you want and have nobody tell you what you can or can not do. The only true way to have independence is to make your own decisions instead of basing your decision on what society thinks. How can a person be truly independent if they have to do what other people think is the right thing to do? The answer to that question is that they can not be independent.
All these are exceptions of the exclusionary rule do have good points. I do think that these exceptions should be allowed only if they are used correctly. These exceptions are not fully going against the person’s rights, but they are on the boarder of possible doing so. Even though I am for the exclusionary rule and the Fourth Amendment, these exceptions serve as a purpose and I believe they should be allowed. It may be hard for people to understand, but I believe that these exceptions are not abusing the system or the defendant’s
Words like “distinct” help us understand what Mill is trying to get at. He is opposed to customs because he believes that if a person practices customs, they will not develop their own unique personality. He also uses words like “educate or develop” to show that he values the individuals education, development, and their distinct qualities. I agree with Mill’s position on the need for individual development and education, because it is important for us to make our own decisions to develop according to our own needs and not be dependent or reliant on other people. Mill wants us to make our own choices.
Therefore this is saying that they in fact conflict in situations and that they should not but that impartiality should come before our personal ties. However it is not saying we cannot have personal relationship but that only up to a certain point can we extend the love for those. Rachel’s view is not completely nonsense. Its significant point is that impartiality is vital to our understanding of morality and something deeply important we should not give up. Impartiality in morality for e.g.
I wouldn’t say I would totally distance myself from this particular type of individuals; but it would be very difficult for me to relate to them. Based just on their values, symbols, and norms I would be better off staying on my own side of
Hence when the purpose is not met then there is definitely a need for corrective measures. And this cannot be met if laws were meant to be rigid or fixed. The basic ultimatum of a law is to ensure that under all circumstances it serves its basic purpose. when a law does not seek to know the circumstance or the situation under which it has been over ruled, it cannot determine if a certain case has been found guilty. The reason being human activities are very much dependant on what he or she was subjected to at that instance.
For him knowing and understanding one’s self and one’s duty was very important. He believed that “if we do either more or less than is required of us we can be held accountable for the consequences, but not otherwise - not if we do only what is required, neither more nor less. If all the good that we do is just what is required and no more, the consequences of our actions cannot be adjudged to our credit” (Kant, 59). In this quote from Kant, he basically tells us that if we only do what are duties requires us to do, then that is the only thing that we can be held responsible for. However, the most important duty for Kant was the duty to one’s self.
Without knowing one’s vocation, effective self-leadership is not possible. We best lead ourselves when we lead with a purpose. Otherwise, we run the risk of leading aimlessly. To effectively self-lead, one must define their purpose and how that purpose is to drive them in their leadership of self. It is the leader’s choice whether they are going to lead with their purpose.