Instead of holding the traits of honesty, trustworthiness and leniency, Machiavelli told one make it only look as though did instead, and when the time came, they could be corrupt, sly and merciless. “It is good to appear clement [merciful] (sic), trustworthy, humane, religious, and honest, and also to be so, but always with the mind so disposed that, when the occasion arises not to be so, you can become the opposite...he must see to all who see and hear him a model of piety, loyalty, integrity, humanity, and religion.” (Machiavelli, ❡6-7). To give false sincerity to someone, it ruins the ideal image of that person when discovered they are not as they seem. As a leader, the population one had loyalty from could be reversed. The power that one had worked hard to acquire would fall from their grasp, and they would be portrayed as a liar and a disgrace to society after the discovery of their dishonesty to the people they
The hardest part is being able to recognize the kindness in an enemy. Once we acknowledge the ignorance and misunderstanding, we realize our enemy is not so bad and we are no longer in capable of hating them. “...Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you…” (Matthew 5:45-45, pg 47). Although it seems as if this task makes you a coward or is impossible to achieve, it actually builds your character and makes you a stronger individual. We are accountable to evaporate this idea of evil and replace it with love, even if these people are evil towards
Hobbes says, “And the same are the bonds by which men are bound and obliged, bonds that have their strength not from their own nature...but from fear of some evil consequences upon the rupture” (81). People are motivated to preserve bonds through passion for life, aversion to hurt, and reasoning the consequences of a broken bond. Through recognizing that bonds are purely symbolic, it becomes apparent that the sovereign must always stand for strength and authority in order to rule successfully. Man is then willing to restrain his appetite for the sake of
For instance, when lying is the only option to save someone’s life, still we shall not lie for it is morally wrong to lie. Kant introduced categorical imperative which states that people ought to do something regardless of the consequences. Moreover, categorical imperative is a formal principle that provides a framework for deriving moral maxims, such as ‘honor your parents’, ‘do not steal’ or ‘do not lie’. However, there is another class of philosophers called rule deontologists who differ from Kant in denying that moral rules can be deduced from higher principle. These rule deontologists believe that rules must be known directly by intuition.
The writer’s purpose is that we must respect and understand our elders and that any wisdom we acquire comes with a cost. Our need for spiritual salvation is exemplified as the Mariner begs God for mercy and willingly accepts his punishment. The fact that the Mariner received such a dramatic punishment, yet dealt with it willingly proves that Coleridge was advocating for environmentalism. Why does Coleridge write such a poem and what does he hope that the world will gain from it? As David Jasper explains, “There is a contrasting assumption that, by structuring one's life upon simple 'orthodox' religious formulations, society and the self appear to be self-creating and self-sustaining, paying lip-service to an imagined deity by a suitably respectable code of conduct.” (Jasper) Coleridge hopes to help people understand that they must pay for their sins, and that if they are willing to do so, they will be able to live with their Father again.
You should always put yourself above them, which will allow you to remain distant from their trap. You should never react on their emotional stories, and only give advice based on the actual facts. 3. Never Forget Difficult people keep coming to you with the same problems, and make it difficult for you to function around them. You need to learn to forgive them for their mistakes, but always remember the issue.
He anticipates that as an obligation, a deal that bounded with another deal, which is a responsibility that needs to follow through. Hence, he notes frequently by quoting the phrase as, “ ‘I-love-you’ is a language reminding us of the insignificance of language, language that destroys language. It is language without alternatives, without subtlety, like a gunshot or the morning alarm.” He often describes this phrase will make him vulnerable, making his partner ask for his commitments and loyalty to stay true in the relationship. Perhaps I cannot understand any better than the author himself, but I will support his statement on the contradiction of this evergreen phrase. I might as be asking myself, what is the purpose of stating “I-Love-You” if you always need to perform your full responsibility on it?
The argument that we would put our own safety in jeopardy for the person we love can be argued with Hobbes’ idea that, “[w]hat you do not want done to you, do not do to another” (127). If we would risk our lives for the one we love, we know that they would do the same. This is why the strength of romantic love is strong and vital to human existence. Hobbes writes that, “The desires and other passions of man are in themselves no sin. No more are the actions that proceed from those passions till they know a law that forbids them” (124).
All in all, Burbank believes that risks are necessary to progress in the life, and that we have to be willing to look like fools to eventually become a hero. McCandless, for
Alinsky also teaches to never adopt a strategy that you would not want your opponents to use against you (Pg. 46). This is a good philosophy that helps maintain justice. I also like how Jesus teaches us to give the oppressor an unusual, creative reaction and forces him or her to believe in your power and recognize your humanity (Pg. 40).
He further insists on the importance of distinguishing between avoiding injury and bringing aid as these are the most critical factors in discerning the moral grounds of numerous cases that leave us in a dilemma (pa Foot, 2010, 170). The Author is not for or against the doctrine of double effect but rather he attempts to shade light on a controversy that surrounds this principle. He criticizes the theory and shows how it can be applied in a meaningful way and also how it can be
However, we mustn 't become calloused to the evil actions in these ambiguous situations, if we do, then the loving-correction needed to move past perpetration may never be accomplished. Jesus displays the forgiveness and the call to action beautifully "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more" (John 8: 11b), so in highly ambiguous perpetrator/victim situations, we must love them through friendship in order to address their and our wrongdoings, in order to live out and obey Jesus 's