While Confucius would emphasize the good of the old sage-kings, Han Feizi emphasized that it was not virtue that allowed any sage-king (which the Legalists hardly believed in to begin with) but rather a combination of “timeliness of seasons, the hearts of the people, skills and talents, and position of power” (Chan p. 254). Without these attributes, no amount of virtue can resolve disorder. Legalists, rather than focus on resolving disorder with virtue and filial piety, would therefore look at a leader’s ability to enact law and enforce statecraft. Han Feizi writes “if the ruler has no statecraft, he will be ruined . .
However, Feinberg articulated that ‘legal moralism’ and paternalism are insufficient grounds for criminalising conduct . He convincingly argued that under a liberal scheme for criminalisation, ‘the Harm and Offence Principles’ diminish the good reasons (critical moral justifications) for criminal prohibitions . The exposition of harm principle is provided by J.S Mill, stating the state can only exercise its power over any state members when its purpose is to prevent harm to others . The harm principle has negative and positive thrusts, negative thrust limits state’s power to punish, it gives political priority to individual freedom from coercion rather than collective goods such as morality or welfare, self-harm is insufficient to become a crime . While positive thrust justifies state’s coercion, it supports harm prevention .
Both authors use it as a means to justify their respective ends: for Locke, to justify a type of proto-capitalism and the need for government and for Swift, to critique modernity and its turn away from morals in the direction of focusing more on quantifiable science. Swift was skeptical of Locke’s views because he felt that if humans were to act out of self-interest, it would not serve the common good, but only themselves as evidenced through the character of Lemuel Gulliver. Ultimately, it neither Swift’s nor Locke’s main focus, and as such the concept was not of the utmost importance to either of
Humanity 's complex consciousness is not seen elsewhere in nature. This is a major problem for evolutionists; as a result, they ignore it. In spite of evolution 's folly, it is the only hypothesis for the universe 's origin that can even hold a candle to creationism in terms of plausibility. Therefore, as Ham (1987) states, "If evolution is not true, the only alternative is creation. That is why they will cling to the evolutionary philosophy even if the evidence is totally contradictory."
By refusing to accept socio-demographics of its actants and treating human and non-human actors impartially, it avoids essentialism and the lack of heterogeneity. It offers advantages over other research methodologies in situations where political correctness is relevant. The actor network theory studies the connections of all the components of modern computing, which it considers as co-equal actants in the assemblage. By focusing on the connections between these actants, the actor network theory has proven that the actants in modern computing do not act in
Its limits in political science are by oversimplifying of the political landscape to an idealised version where all agents are rational whilst also ignoring political culture. The theory, in practice, also fails to recognize non-economic and/or non-egoistic motives, someone donating to charity mas be seen as altruistic or selfish, this cannot be falsified. Furthermore, the notion that all decisions must be considered rational, regardless of whether the decision seems irrational, the decision must be rational otherwise it would not have been made. The theory is only able to provide useful models in particular situations where the idealised assumptions are limited and can be accurately measured to a point they can be proven correct. It focuses on generality but fails to consider certain socio-economic features and therefore is significantly limited in explaining real world behaviour of decision makers.
The idea of the world represented in the novel, is exactly the world that Orwell did not wish the future to be. However in terms of the control mechanisms that have occurred due to the rule of a single party, Orwell’s best attempt to create awareness for this imperfect future was to create one where the privacy and freedom of humans is placed in jeopardy and in actual fact non-existent. Newspeak probably is the key component, while it does not immediately silence the idea of rebellion and freedom, it does narrow the thoughts of society into a single minded one. Some may call it hypnosis; others call it conforming to a normal. Newspeak refers to the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell.
Clinical and forensic psychiatrist Rossiter, L, H (2005), states: “The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.” “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” In the interests of fairness, I have tried to find a professional psychiatric critique of the above, without success. The world is littered with the mass graves of those liberal believers who thought government could produce a utopia and the ones who finally realised that State control was in fact a dictatorship were the first in them. There has never existed an equal society; workers have never held the wealth of nations, no one has yet been able to feed the world and both Moore and Gore didn’t manage to change the earth’s climate, but became overnight millionaires convincing people to believe they
(2016) that the definitions of I-C are rather simple and insufficient and cannot be applied without consideration on any culture, which shows inclinations towards collectivism. Consequently, established methods cannot be used as a measurement, therefore an improvement of current system is necessary. Han et al. that even within collectivism strong individualistic behavioural traits may exist, at least in preserving one’s self. Therefore, the self is not as interdependent as it was claimed in the past by for example Markus and Kitayama (1991).
The individualist does not favour any philosophy that requires the sacrifice of the self-interest of the individual for higher social causes. Political individualism is a consequence of secularisation. It comes from the individual desire to protect their freedom against the obligations imposed on them by the state or by religious organisations. Liberalism stems from this political individualism, Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established