Only is humankind can maintain equilibrium between both intellect and emotion, they; then, have a chance to be generally content in life. If humans sustain or put more effort into one force then the other, it deprives the essential interaction within the human soul and leaves it unequal and discontented. Several brilliant minds of the Enlightenment argue mostly for the continuous perfection of reason.
They will not consider themselves as individuals, however as serfs of the elitist. Those will more freedom compared to others, won’t considers themselves as individuals. They will depict themselves as elitists, above everyone else. Which defeats the purpose of unlimited freedom, in its every
The important in Aristotle life is the mind and soul is the first intelechy of the body because it is main course ‘cause and principle’ of the body, the realization of the body. So can might put it like this , “The mind is the purposeful functioning of the nervous system. In this topic quiet different strand in the fabric of Aristotle skill thinking, and supplements what we can learn about him from his will. In addition, the good things that what we enjoy is Aristotle like to care wealth and health because have no value if our soul is not good. By experiencing the same emotion of audience is sort of ‘cleansing of the soul’ can through communication of emotion in the work of art.
Consequentialism refers to the principle that “an act’s rightness or wrongness should be judged by its consequences.”10 This guided us during decision-making that we should choose an action which can maximize good consequences. 1 Utilitarianism, which represents the most well-known form of consequentialism, stated that we should make our choices with the one produces the maximum pleasure for the largest number of people.2 This theory has long been subject to criticism for failing to do the moral rightness. In this essay, I shall discuss three main criticisms of consequentialist approach to decision making addressed in class and how we can respond to tthem. 1) Failure to respect individuals’ rights As per Bernard Williams, “Utilitarianism fails to respect the fundamental integrity of a person”.3 As long as the majority are satisfied, minorities can be abused. As discussed in the frictional example of ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’, by living in a Omelas society where utilitarianism prevails, our wellbeing is said to be built on the misery of others.4 However, every coin has two sides.
Utilitarianism is a normative moral theory based on consequentialism-its fundamental idea is that “do what produces the best consequence”. In more detail the theory dictates that actions are only right if they promote happiness and produce the greatest amount of happiness; “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.”(Mill 1863) http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm Utilitarianism states that pleasure and happiness are intrinsically valuable and that pain and suffering are intrinsically invaluable and that every action that has value should either promote happiness or impede suffering. This emphasis on happiness or pleasure as a guide to making moral decisions, makes it a type of hedonism known as Hedonistic Utilitarianism and thus it can be criticized in a similar way to hedonism. (Luke Mastin,2008http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_utilitarianism.html.
However she warns us of adhering ourselves to such groups especially when we abandon our own critical thinking processes and accept a group's set of morals to be the universal truth. As Simone de Beauvoir writes in The Second Sex ““No group ever sets itself up as the One without at once setting up the Other over against itself.” (44) ‘They’ can’t belong in our group because ‘we’ don’t belong in their group. This is how the notion of the Other is established. Didion condemns this as she says a person's actions does not “confer upon anyone any ipso facto virtue.” Applying “good vs. evil” as a measurement to form an opinion on others could be seen as the equivalent of using the similar vs. different dichotomy to deduce the value of another person or culture. In Montaigne “On Cannibals” he claims “Each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice” elucidating to some subconscious suitability we all have of deeming whatever is different or out of the norm to be bad (7).
I am referring to the old sayings such as; show don 't tell and to never repeat the same word in the same sentence. To others I suggest to not follow all the rules that are said to come with writing so they have the opportunity to enjoy the process more than they thought they would. It 's so fun to discover how easy it is to express your thoughts when you do things your own
Freedom of assembly and petition gives every individual the privilege to be anywhere at any time as long as it doesn’t cause violence on public property. All people have the right to practice the freedom but it shouldn’t lead to more problems. Freedom of religion is a major issue in our country today that has became a threat. Two clauses under freedom of religion, “establishment” and “free exercise” isn’t under the freedom until Thomas Jefferson was a president. Some court cases that address the freedom of religion had to deal with
„Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one’s definition of your life, but define yourself” (“goodreads”). This quote by Harvey Fierstein emphasises the importance of having the freedom to define one’s own identity. A fundamental right in our society nowadays and since we are moving towards a more and more individualistic culture very crucial.
„Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one’s definition of your life, but define yourself” (“goodreads”). This quote by Harvey Fierstein emphasises the importance of having the freedom to define one’s own identity. A fundamental right in our society nowadays and since we are moving towards a more and more individualistic culture exceedingly crucial.
Our society has a rule and regulation for every single thing associated with the human body, physically and psychologically. I wish the human body and how we interact with the environment and people around us was completely untouched by human perspective. In this case, I feel that how humans were truly supposed to be and interact would be clear, and all of this hardship due to what society says about us would be nonexistent and minute. We as humans were not created to nit pick one another through what we wear and how we act, we were made to advance the world with our complex minds, and really break limits on what is possible for mankind. Yet, as long as we hold these guidelines and limitations in place, we will continue to set boundaries as to what is possible for
John Stuart Mill is a utilitarian. He believes that all sentient creators are psychologically hedonistic; that we naturally seek out pleasures and avoid pains (Pg. 88). As a utilitarian, he focuses on ethical hedonism, the idea that we ought to maximize our happiness. To Mill, the right actions to take are those that promote happiness, the wrong actions to take are those that promote pain (Pg.