(D) Because Stewie did not appreciate the danger posed by the koi pond, Stewie will prevail. 1. Answer (B) is correct. Most likely, the koi pond qualifies as an "attractive nuisance" because it is reasonably foreseeable that it 'will attract young children who will not appreciate the dangers and who, because of their age, are unlikely to be able to protect themselves from those dangers. (Note that many disfavor this term - be careful if you choose to use it.")
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
By using utilitarianism ethics it would seem the benefits of not airing the prank would be more beneficial. As this would be seen by the radio station as maintaining their professional integrity, it would avoid the possibility of impacting their relationships with multiple stakeholders negatively. From the positives and negatives discussed, it would seem under utilitarianism ethics the prank would not be ethical to broadcast. Kantian Ethics The decision to not air the prank would not be delayed under Kantian ethics. As the main issue at stake is the process of the matter; therefore the principle of duty must be followed.
‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’. The third imperative says that we as humans should all live moral lives; we cannot depend on anyone or anything else. "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." An important strength of Kant’s ethical system is that Kant does not specifically set any deontological rules. Kant talks about the Summon Bonum, ‘’the real object of our will’’, he says that we cannot achieve this without our own morality entering into the equation for making decisions.
This further reinforces that we have no choice or influence on our lives and the events that happen, so therefore God will know the ethical decisions we will make as he has already predestined them in our lives. Hard determinism is the teaching that denies humanity has free will and believes that all actions have a prior cause. It removes moral responsibility for our actions. Hard determinists would therefore agree with the statement above, and will believe that God does infact know what ethical decisions we will make as he has already perceived it. This idea links to predestination in the fact that it believes everything in the universe- even human action- has a cause which precedes it.
However, to say that insistence is the “only” way that social change happens would be presumptuous and naive. Today’s society is like water in that it always seems to take the path of least resistance. If there is any obstruction it will simply go around. Most people don’t want their lives interrupted by pressing issues like gay or civil rights. They are viewed as obstructions.
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.
Furthermore, Taoism is based on a life principle called the art of wu-wei. This principle advised that the best way to conduct oneself in life was through inaction. One does not need to be aggressive to make things happen or to win battles. On the other hand Confucianism is a philosophical, religious, movement with an emphasis on studying and scholarship. It also teaches the Tao of Heaven and provides moral training that is quite religious.
The essence of the message of the Analects is the key concept that individuals should think independently, and he strived to define concepts in an abstract, universal manner in which they could be applied to multiple cultures could understand them. When it came to interpersonal relations, Confucius believed in humanity and it’s ability to learn from one another. An example of this is 7.28 where he says, “Maybe there are people who can act without knowledge, but I am not one of them. Hear much, pick the best and follow it, see much, and keep a record of it: this is the best substitute for innate knowledge.” (p. 32). Confucius’ idea of the role of a gentle man was that a man is nothing unless he is a gentleman.
A moral relativist would believe that there is no definite set of rules that apply universally. Instead they believe that all decisions should be made upon circumstances at the time and more importantly why the action was made. This is called cultural relativism. The theory of relativist morality was first established by Protagoras who asked questions such as, “what is good for you?” He did not believe that our knowledge was all fixed or that it extended depending on our experiences, as Plato did being a moral absolutist. He stated, “Man is the measure of all things”.