Social unity and harmony, as Schwartz explains, requires agreement on a general note. To tolerate something is "to allow what is not actually approved", according its dictionary definition. However, there is a strongly negative connotation to the term when it is directed in this manner. Schwartz explains that because of this connotation, while we as individuals are allowing a thought or viewpoint the capability of being viable, “we are being judgmental - we are being disapproving.” (Schwartz, 1996) In that case, then, would it be plausible to argue that while one may be tolerable of other religious beliefs, hobbies, or lifestyles, they are all inferior in comparison to one’s own religious beliefs, hobbies or lifestyles? Schwartz argues that this is not the case, but rather that tolerance is simply another form of acceptance, and in some cases,
In this case, the instrumental good is pain, although it is rather absurd to call it as such. Epicurean philosophy considers pain worse for us than pleasure is good for us, even in equal amounts. Several hedonistic utilitarians follow this viewpoint and thus concluded that reducing pain should be seen as more important than increasing pleasure”. The physical pain inflicted by self-harmers on themselves drowns out the distress they mentally and emotionally feel and although it may seem to people who don’t engage in the act that the pain adds up so they feel worse inside, the total pain is diminished by the pleasure they acquire through
In the modern day we would say that a number of different qualities contribute to beauty, such as, shape, colour or form that please the aesthetic senses. However these things that most would attribute to ‘beauty’ are subjective and can be dependent on state of mind. Therefore, in my opinion, beauty cannot be restricted to any of these properties. Socrates develops his thought process and tries to get Hippias’ own process to reach a new level and delve further into the subject. He is not asking: “What things are beautiful” but rather what beauty is itself.
Utilitarianism only considers one normative factor, the maximization of overall happiness, consequently, it often conflicts with our common-sense morality and permits immoral actions as well as great individual deviation from social norms. For instance, utilitarianism permits immoral practices such as sadism by implying that sadistic acts are the right acts to perform if the sadist derives more pleasure from this practice than their victims derive pain. This is because they would be maximizing the overall amount of happiness/well-being. This belief conflicts with the existing moral intuitions of many who believe that the torturing of innocent people for pleasure is by no means acceptable, let alone the right action to perform. An example that demonstrates instances where utilitarianism can give us the morally wrong answer as to which act we ought to perform, involves a surgeon who is faced with the decision of killing one healthy patient, harvesting their organs and transplanting them into five patients who are dying in order to save their lives or doing nothing and allowing the five sick patients to die.
Happiness was just not felt by the doer but also by everyone affected by the action and vice versa for the wrong action. Bentham "An action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the sum total of utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total of utilities produced by any other act the agent could have performed in its place." However, whereby other ethical theories make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent, with the Utilitarian theory bad actions or motives can produce right outcomes as sometimes the best consequences are produced from actions. It is best then that for every action that we take, consider choosing the actions that produces the greatest net benefits or the lowest net costs. With this theory, moral conduct is rated and regarded very highly as the measure of consequences of alternative acts comes into
Socrates and Aristotle, despite being related through Plato, are in fact very different people and have many differing theories. Socrates outlook on life was that we 're all inherently good, but we will do bad things on accident. For example, when talking about ignorance, Socrates believes that we do not willingly do anything wrong. We instead have two branches of ignorance: not knowing something and knowing that you don 't know, or not knowing but you think that you do know (Plato, P.561). Aristotle on the other hand, claims that there is a different outlook on the model of ignorance.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are opposite viewpoints of one subject, culture. When a culture tries to evaluate another culture based on a singular viewpoint it is known as ethnocentrism. But cultures can be evaluated using individual standards since there is not one set of standards that culture fits into. I realize that most people agree with the concept of cultural relativism but there are some problems. According to an article by Henry H. Bagish entitled Confessions of a Former Cultural Relativist, states that cultural relativism can cause people to justify immoral and unjustifiable actions.
Copleston in one of his books, A History of Philosophy opines that, it is really difficult for one to totally reject all the old values or binding force of what is customarily called morality. This is because, one who attempts this, may degenerate himself as to destroy himself morally, since the traditional morality has put into cognizance, the values that enhance the dignity of the human person, morally and likewise. Then it becomes questionable, as to why Nietzsche calls the old morality the slave morality, even when he retains some of the values in his master morality. Nietzsche’s outright condemnation and rejection of conventional morality in favour of subjective morality, is for me not a true response to the reality of the human society. Owing to the fact that man lives in the society presupposes or demands that there be a certain objective standard of morality by which actions are assessed.
Whilst utilitarianism supports democracy and encourages people to act selflessly, it is due to the intuitive dislike that utilitarianism prompts in the minds of many, that it has been subject to several criticisms. In this essay, I will use both moral intuitions and examples in attempt to outline three of the strongest objections to utilitarianism. I will furthermore attempt to illustrate how such objections ultimately show utilitarianism to be unsuccessful. To achieve this it is, however, necessary that I discuss the concept of utilitarianism, as well as how such a theory influences the decisions and actions of moral agents. Utilitarianism is a moral, consequentialist theory that holds that the right action to perform is that which produces
1.0) ABSTRACT The use of creative accounting has become a debatable issue since there are parties each in favour and against the utilization of creative accounting. Whereas the management has its own opinion in favour of creative accounting, the use of the practices of creative Accounting, its critics are of various opinions and have apprehensions relating to its use. Though it is a debatable topic still studies reveal that the practices of creative accounting will be wisely applied with moral concerns. The current paper makes an attempt to focus on the benefits and drawbacks of creative accounting by listing its importance to numerous interest teams. The study reveals that creative accounting helps to resolve several issues that are faced