He condemns anyone who finds ugliness where there is beauty as « corrupt ». He states that a book can be neither moral or immoral. Wilde warns against reading too much into any work of art by saying that « Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril ». The preface ends with a strange statement : « All art is quite useless ». The preface also establishes many of the novel’s themes.
Question # 1: In section 7 of “The four great errors”, Nietzsche discusses the error of free will, he argues that men are not responsible for their actions, and that creating that misconception was only to find justification for punishment. He says, “…Wherever responsibilities are sought, what tends to be doing the seeking is the instinct of wanting to punish and rule.” He claims that we are not responsible for our actions, and that “human beings were thought to be free so that they could be ruled, so that they could be punished.” These claims relate to his discussions of the four great errors in the previous sections in many ways. First, relating the error of free will to the error of confusing cause and effect: In the first error, Nietzsche claims that we confuse the cause of a happening with the effect of it, so he uses the example of a man who claims that his amazing diet is what gave him a longer life. Nietzsche says that this is false, and that because of the very slow metabolism of that man, he had the long life he claims to have. Imagine a boy who eats too much ice cream that he ruins his body and health, the church would say that the boy was tempted by the vice and luxury he found in the ice cream, and that because of that, he’s guilty.
(D.H. Lawrence, "Morality and the Novel") Aesthetically, the fiction which reveals a truth by explicit sermonising rather than as a natural conclusion drawn from the relationships and events it presents, is displeasing, even "immoral." Indeed, Martel's statement is likely to have the opposite effect on his reader, provoking a determined counter-reaction not to succumb to a didactic religious agenda. Surely enough, Life of Pi fails to meet its ambition. As he travels through its pages, apparently on the Damascun road to enlightenment, the reader will not, atheist or already committed follower, experience some major revelation to the spirit, coming to, or restoring, a belief in God. Nor, despite Martel's explicit but deceptive statement, is he intended to.
To him creativity is “[s]piritual possessions [that] cannot be taken in this way.” (Russell 9) By creativity he means an emotion or originality, which usually lies inside someone. Russell explains how “[y]ou may kill an artist or a thinker, but you cannot acquire his art or his thought.” (Russell 9) In no way or form can this be taken away because it is not tangible. The reason a man’s creativity it is not tangible is because it lies “[o]ver himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” (Mill 9) Even John Stuart Mill in his piece On the Liberty he would agree that creativity is intangible. Unfortunately, our society has very little time for creativity. Our lives are ruled by institutions that can be harmful to the soul.
For Wordsworth, the structured, book-based education is destructive for the sake of knowledge; a trait he finds reprehensible. William refers to this tendency as a “meddling intellect” that “Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things” (The Tables Turned, 26-27). William calls Matthew to abandon the books on which he bases his knowledge for the more noble and free education provided by nature. In Shelley’s novel, Victor and his Creature are the two main, moral examples of education and the havoc it can impose on the student.
Machiavelli says it is better to be feared the loved. As for that statement, I strongly disagree. He does have means for saying that, but his morals are wrong. Machiavelli shows himself to be a person who does not understand the importance of love and acceptance, for him all that is important is power and conquering. First, he says “A prince should make himself feared in such a way that, though he does not gain he love, he escapes hatred.” Clearly, Machiavelli does not understand the importance of love and respect.
They believed that the rules of Confucianism were a human creation and didn’t follow nature. My first reason I think Daoism would be helpful for North is because it doesn’t set rules. Although, some may think not having rules would be bad, I think this idea is good because it would filter all those
Humans are naturally emotional, and it seems like we would deny our very nature to ignore this when making any ethical decisions. The idea of ignoring emotion entirely weakens the argument. Another stipulation of any ethical theory being reasonable is that it prevents actions commonly accepted as being immoral. Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative would prohibit these immoral actions, but can we really argue that this is a strength, when most ethical theories, and even most people, would agree that these actions are wrong. Would we really need to implement an entirely new system in order to prevent these problems?
James Hardie attempted to avoid paying compensation by delaying and exploiting legal loopholes to avoid liability (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, p263). According to Kantian Ethics, humans should never be used as a means to an end and instead they should be treated with respect due to their inherent worth (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, p75). James Hardie Industries’ decision to continuously use asbestos as raw material for its products has breached moral rights because they were already aware of the hazardous properties asbestos possess (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, p263). Instead of stopping the usage of asbestos when its potential hazards were discovered in 1939, they continued using asbestos for the next 20 years at the expense of the health of employees and consumers (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, p263). This shows a total disregard of human lives and welfare.
By suppressing false opinions, the “true” opinion is never contested, and people accept the “true” opinion as dead dogma. Mill’s provides a somewhat rash reasoning for why suppression of opinion is harmful, even if the suppressed idea is false, “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race, posterity as well as the existing