Master morality takes a subjective view of the world contrary to Empiricism and Rationalism that view the world objectively. Respect among equals, self greatness and a sense of “fullness” are central elements to the philosophy of master morality (Kraut, 2013) . There are varying views on the relationship between master and slave. Even the focus on the good and the bad varies among different views where others focus on the philosophy while others focus on the equality. Equality is seen as an ideal the master should strive to obtain although the approaches also differ.
Rousseau would argue that as the general will is the collected will of the community, and by following the general will each individual will be following himself. The individual would not be following a third party, but following his own will. In this way, by obeying the law enacted by the general will an individual would be truly free. In Rousseau’s opinion one can only be free in a society by following the general will. It will not be an unabated freedom like that of the state of nature, but it will be a civil liberty, a moral freedom.
“Realm of Ends” formulation of the categorical imperative, states that we must “act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for merely possible kingdom of ends.” (4:439) It acts as a social contract. Kant further explains it that “a rational being belongs as a member of the kingdom of ends when he gives universal laws in it but is also himself subject to those laws.” (4:434) Being subject to a law does not contradict with the concept of a rational being as an end in itself, because it is not like a slavery since it is not subject to arbitrary will. Just the opposite, since it draws central points from the first and second formulation, “the will of a member could regard itself as at the same time giving universal law through its maxim” (4:434) and no member will see another member as a mere mean. On the other hand, autonomy is not equal to self-mastery. For Kant, it is essentially social.
Fair use is a significant term in copyright field, which means any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work can be done without permission from the copyright owner. The creation of intellectual works are not isolated, but usually based on the outstanding achievements of predecessors, so that protection of intellectual rights are not absolute protection as ordinary property, however, the public interests should also be taken into consideration, which enabling society can share the achievement of creations under some conditions. So that fair use is the central rules to keep the balance between authors, publishers, and the users of the copyrighted materials. Fair use doctrine originated from UK copyright law. In 1710, in order to encourage authors and publishers to invest in publishing, and create more works, United Kingdom enacted the world 's first copyright law-- Statute of Anne.
Therefore, Lord Devlin based on consensual morality has focused more on the enforcement of morality according to the general concept of society. To understand the relationship between law and morality, Lord Devlin has proposed a set of rules. Firstly, the requirement of general sense of right and wrong in a society which is known as common morality as it is a right-minded value that should be maintained by the law. Secondly, there may be bad laws, bad morals or bad societies due to the reason that the law might not serve the society but destroy it even though it is a valid law and provides profit to some people in the
The freedom of will refers to our ability to make choices in life. This challenges the notion of pan-determinism, the idea that our behaviour is a result of biological and social conditions, a concept that characterises many theories of man. Although it is important to note that freedom of will refers to the freedom of human will, which does not involve freedom from conditions but instead a freedom to choose how you respond to the conditions that you face. In other words, although we may be constrained by factors out of our control, we are free to shape our own lives in how we face such conditions. (Will to meaning book: https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fMxbBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=logotherapy&ots=s4koORgIoJ&sig=4MtPpXdxXVRhiG35mdo5isBopHc#v=onepage&q=logotherapy&f=false)
The concept of “individual” refers to “indivisibility”, that means that the individual can 't be divided into several parts (for example, the id, ego and super-ego of Freud 's structural model). That 's why this theory is also called Holistic Theory, in which social and cultural factors are of special importance. Alfred not only differs from Freud in his holistic position but also in his idea of teleology: for Sigmund Freud, the present is determined by our past experiences; nevertheless, from Adler 's point of view, our behavior is motivated towards a goal, that is, we are driven towards our purposes and ideals. The conscious and unconscious work together in order to achieve a certain aim, while Freud distinguished
Rights also limit the permissible actions the government may take to interfere with the actions of individuals. A Classical Liberal and an Existentialist both speak of individual responsibility and its meaning; however, they are referring to very different concepts. A classical liberal refers to individual responsibility as self-interest whereas an existentialist refers to individual responsibility as the individual in charge of their own destiny and who they become of themselves. When a classical liberal, such as John Stewart Mill, speaks of individual
In this regard, Hobbes believed that by their nature, people were selfish but the perspective of Locke was different. He believed that the human beings are good by nature and reasonable and therefore they can self-regulate themselves. However, as a result of these differences, these two philosophers have different outlooks regarding what should be an ideal government. But despite these differences, both of these philosophers had a significant impact on the modern society and has held in changing the world.
This principle is drawn from the deontological ethical theory of Kant (1724-1804) based on the respect for persons principle that persons should be treated as ends and never only as means. This implies that the corporation must treat its stakeholders as rational beings with a right to purpose their own interests without undue interference. Criticisms of Stakeholder Theory According to some, however, stakeholder theory ‘has been advanced and justified in the management literature on the basis of its descriptive accuracy, instrumental power and normative validity’ (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1995). Stakeholder theory has acquired opponents from various sides of the ideological divide, critiques from right and left, from friend to foe (Philips et al., 2003). Derived from classical Friedman principles, writers such as Sternberg (1997) have argued that the principles of stakeholder theory undermine the property rights of the owners of the company, comprise the mechanisms of the free market, destabilise the operations of government and changes the very nature of capitalism.