As humans, we frequently desire for every moment of our lives to be filled with pure joy and happiness. Without reasoning, we seek happiness in order to rid ourselves of any negative interactions and stimuli. We constantly cling to the fruits of elation while actively trying to evade our nihilistic experiences. Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher, would perhaps agree that the existence of human nature generates an active pursuit of positive and fulfilling interactions rather than negative ones. More importantly, he would argue that this pursuit of happiness becomes tiresome by nature and ultimately impossible to obtain.
In the world of human beings, the answer is no. Imperfection provides variety, unpredictability, and the capacity for progress. The need for imperfection is subconsciously built deep inside inside us, found only through the complexity of our minds. In a world of unpredictability, constant improvement is what brings triumph. Such a chance for improvement only exists in a world of imperfection; therefore, the complexity of our minds is exactly what makes humanity strive for progress.
What Matters to Us? Ethical Hedonism explores the maximization of our pleasure and happiness as a fundamental obligation for morality; but Nozick’s experiment demonstrates that pleasure and happiness doesn’t only matter to us. This essay argues that Nozick’s thought experiment, the “experience machine” exemplifies the weaknesses of Ethical Hedonism, as perfecting the machine illustrates that to truly live our lives; we must value other matters besides pleasure. Firstly, this essay will discuss Nozick’s thought experiment “the experience machine” and what the experiment reveals. Secondly, reasonable objections to why I wouldn’t enter a machine that promises me maximal pleasure as Nozick identifies several issues exposed by the thought experiment.
The Lord of Death is the adherent and the advocate of the ground realities of life. Human world and God’s world (he argues), are intractable. They are altogether two separate entities. No relation, whatsoever, is there between the two. The unreceptive nature of man-the limitation of the human mind, is largely responsible for this impasse, “If Mind is all, renounce the hope of bliss /For Mind can never touch the body of Truth” (10.4.172-173).
Know the world better Through all these times, humans are always looking for the right way of knowing the world. Different societies tried different ways. Some of them are objective while others are subjective. For instance, Enlightenment and Romanticism have each made their society extremely objective and subjective, which neither made a good influence. In the circumstances of the destructiveness of both Enlightenment and Romanticism Worldview as they reach to the extremes, a balanced worldview between them, which seeks the truth with reason and strives to live life with moderate humanity, should become the right way for human beings to know the world.
Conclusion: -It is morally permissible to lie to a friend in order to preserve his/her happiness or well-being. Friendship is an integral part of our live, that fact is predetermined and undebatable. Where honesty stands only as a moral virtue, consideration of which is just a matter of your personal preference and level of your intelligence. Therefore friendship is a more important value than honesty. Intelligent relationships with other individuals is an essential criteria of any civilized society, so it’s important to understand what the accepted definition of friendship is, and what are its supporting virtues.
I argue that every society is bound1 by culture. Although, I believe we must distinguish the difference between a “social group” (in its loose definition, and not in the definition provided by Chinoy in Society and Culture) and society. Let me expound. Animals can have social groups. However, animals do not organize themselves into societies2.
He gives the example of the burning house in which you have only time to saving either the human or the dog-iron that are in the cage. The natural human reaction is to rescue the human. He maintains that under Rawl’s contractualism animals would not have moral rights as they do not count as rational number agentive role. Those that argue that under contractualism animals would be assigned rights under the humeral veil of ignorance argument would be invalid. This would lead to animals have full rights, such as the right to own place.
As the novel progresses, it becomes very clear that something is amiss. Beneath the seemingly perfect surface, The Giver actually portraits a dystopian society. Jonas’ the protagonist community appears to be a utopia, but in reality it is a dystopia. Jonas gains an insight to what the people have willingly given up-their freedoms and individuality- for the so called common good of the people is ahead, it becomes evident that the community is a bad place to live in. Reader can relate this to the disbelief and horror Jonas feels when he realizes that that his community is hypocrisy, a society based o false ideals of goodness and conformity.
This reliance on passion is reflected by the rhetoric Hobbes employs throughout Leviathan. Dramatic phrases such as the claim that man’s life will be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbes 82) are used to elicit a fearful reaction that causes readers to accept Hobbes’ argument on their passion alone. Since man’s decision to enter into a commonwealth basically depends on fear, reason and rationality should play no role in Hobbes’ political theory. Man would act completely on his passions and be no different than an