It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction. One response is to suggest that the harm principle can be defined in a less stringent manner than Mill 's formulation. This is a complicated issue that I cannot delve into here except to say that Mill does not seem to be significantly concerned with the potential dangers of psychological harm.
We hardly see people say or think is this the right thing to do, we tend to see people do things out of there own free will not thinking if it’s the right thing of wrong thing to do. In certain situations, the differences between right and wrong is clear in all problems we face. Some may be hard to figure out but in reality there is always going to be one solution better than the other. We sometimes think about our options in the short term instead of the long run, so some options might seem better in the end but in reality we might have made a
One should wonder then, whether having sight is a gift or a curse, for it not only allows, but also tempts one to misuse its power to commit sinful acts. Perhaps it is then better to never possess so many senses so as to limit the ways in which one can do wrong. Yes, one must see oneself before one starts to build opinions of others, but if nobody can see, there will not be a difference that anyone is aware of. The eyes are doors that open one’s inner being, but perhaps they are also doors which are meant to be kept
Just like Juliet, people don’t notice the freedom they have until something righteous or miserable has occurred. One choice can be detrimental to one’s life. Nevertheless, it is hard to conceptualize the whole concept of free will, due to different perspectives and opinions. Despite the fact that free will may be inconclusive and controversial to readers, every effect has its cause and it can guide you into a position you never contemplated being
I was oblivious to my own action because of attributional biases. Although I tried to reason his behavior I still failed to recall my own actions. This paper has made me understand the reasons to why I judged the man in a certain way, and also made me see that people can be oblivious towards their own actions and can project a situation in a way that does not hurt the self but it can also be seen that through introspection self action can be salient. In conclusion, situational factor can have a tremendous effect on a person, we must not fail to realized this and the fact that we might be the person causing the
we neglect our own perfection. While there are additional duties that make us better moral persons, it is difficult to analyze them under C1 or C2 because of the uniqueness of these duties which focus on improving our capacity to act dutifully. Given that there are no duties to self derivable from C1 alone in the Doctrines of Virtues, when we turn to a discussion of duties to others we face even more complications. All the duties of love (and likewise benevolence) are loosely derived from C1. While we might consider other’ ends, we may not give practical assistance to others, such as neighbor who is in bad circumstance.
It is important to remember that other’s can see thing we cannot, especially children as they have a perspective we may have forgotten through the years. Now it is important to differentiate critique and the common misuse of criticism; though these are synonymous, they seem to be misused. Criticism, in today’s world, is seen as judgement, whereas critique is a constructive analysis. We can grow through actively accepting constructive critique and criticism (the correct use of the word), because the reality is that we do not understand just how valuable it truly is. Elon Musk, an innovator and a proactive citizen of our society, said “A well thought out critique of whatever you’re doing is as valuable as gold.” So the question becomes just how much do you value
Absolutism states that truths or values transcend time, and are not limited to social or cultural frameworks. Monism states that there is only one right answer per topic or subject, whereas relativism allows for multiple validities to a topic. Many philosophers also approach relativism with the hidden parameter definition: “a truth, idea, or justification may have an implicit, maybe even unnoticed relationship to a parameter or domain.” This means that there may be a general idea, or action thought to be either moral or immoral decided by who’s moral code is being used. For example, you may say that it is wrong to punish someone for killing in self defense based on YOUR moral code. However, you may also say that it is right to punish someone for killing in self defense based on MY moral code.
Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high
To be virtuous you have to make choices for the right reason, the choices that are made have to follow the components to virtue to be considered virtuous. Aristotle voiced, “Also, we are angry and frightened without choice, but the virtues are certain kinds of choices, or not present without choice” (1106a 2-4). Not all choices are going to be virtuous ones because of the choices that are made. Not all choices have a good outcome and they could potentially not become a virtuous person. Aristotle deemed, “And for these reasons, the virtues and vices are not predispositions either, since we are not called good or bad, nor are we praised or blamed, simply for being predisposed to feel something” (1106a 7-9).