Frederick had the courage to say no, so surely Werner had it too. The courage to say no, to say nichts, is what ensures good prevails over evil in the world. Werner’s story taught us there will always be evil, but as long as there is courage and community, good will prevail. By making the choices that align with our morals, by utilizing our free will, we can ensure the outcome. Werner asks himself and the reader, “Is it right to do something only because everyone else is doing it?” (Doerr 246).
Unlike Marx who views Multiculturalism from the theory heading downwards Dalrymple views multiculturalism from the ground going up. His day to day experiences prove that "not all cultural values are compatible or can be reconciled by the enunciation of platitudes." This means that although multiculturalists support the idea that people should embrace different cultures, there are many challenges that make implementation difficult. Dalrymple argues that the idea that we can co-exist in a society whereby the law doesn't favor one culture at the expense of another one is a lie. In short, the author's main argument is that some cultural values will always be superior to others in every society and the idea that all cultural values can be compatible with every ethnic group makes no
Herein lies the ultimate departure from Confucianism, and the reason Legalists deem such thought unforgiveable. Whereas Confucius would emphasize that the goal of the state would be the removal of litigations entirely, Legalists pursue the notion that law is necessary at all times (Chan p. 88). Fundamental opposition prevents many comparisons between the two schools, with the differences far outweighing the
According to Galen Strawson, moral responsibility to punish some of us with eternal torment (hell) and rewards others with eternal bliss (heaven). I am going to argue that we cannot be morally responsible for our actions which is also Strawson’s argument. He has a basic argument that claims you perform the action that you perform because of the way you are, in particular mental respects. To be truly morally responsible for your action, you must be truly morally responsible for your character, personality, and motivational structure or in other words, who you are. We are born with determined predispositions that we are not responsible for and we are exposed to certain influences that we are not responsible for.
Walsch clarifies we must practice extreme judgment in order to determine right from wrong. God explains he would not keep an individual from creating, experiencing and knowing the truth. He explains that he does not implement rules for his follows to obey because that would place a limitation. If Walsch’s free will theodicy was not valid, there would be rules and consequences for how we live our lives. He heavily relies on the idea of self.
Harrison Bergeron – Equality The idea of equality throughout Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut Jr, is what makes the story so interesting. Equality is typically talked about as a treatment, and in this short story, were able to see that completely treating people as an equal will away be a problem. Weather it’s a lack of, or too much equality. Perfect equality’s is practically impossible. Someone will always posses stronger or better characteristics then someone else does, simply because people don’t all excel in the same areas.
In chapter three we discovered that Rawlsian fairness requires that we give up our surplus to provide what others lack. This impartial perspective can only be achieved, however, under what Rawls terms a ‘veil of ignorance’ experienced by an autonomous legislator or an impartial spectator, respectively. Actually, Rawls argues at great length why we should accept the difference principle, namely because no one knows behind the veil of ignorance if he might end up as the least well-off, giving him a reason to adopt a risk-avoiding strategy, i.e. implementing the difference principle. It is prima facie unfair, according to Rawls, to allow the least-well-off to starve to death simply because of their own bad luck, which merely appears to point to ‘formal impartiality’ as ‘formally concerning for all’.
For instance, Raphael Cohen-Almador asserts that the media need not stay neutral when values and institutions of democracy are threatened and attacked (Cohen-Almador, 2008). He believes that a person can combine his or her civil position and professional journalism. Simultaneously this statement is debatable and denies the main rules of impartial journalism. Nevertheless, David Brewer from Media helping Media would not agree with such view. In one of his articles for International journalists’ network he says that journalists should “keep their own opinions firmly under wraps” (Brewer,
Why not leave behind those we view as not good or find irrelevant and borrow from others those that buttress us to be stronger? Are other cultures borrowing from us as much as we are from them? If not, is it because we do not have anything to offer them? Again, the dark side rings loudly. Are we afraid of the unknown that we cannot see?
She is a clear supporter of individualism, meaning that she thinks you are only responsible for your own happiness and should not have to help anybody else. The novels illusion of a perfect society greatly objects to Ayn Rand’s beliefs. Equality 7-2521 rights in his notebook “And if you are not needed by your brother men, there is no reason for you to burden the earth with your bodies”. (pg20) This shows how contrasting each other both beliefs are and how the people in control of Equality's society believe that all people should be equal. Propaganda is used strongly to convince citizens that the world they live in is perfect and the way it supposed to be.