As long as you upheld your moral duty by helping him, then you should be considered a good person. Part of that reason is mainly because I feel that it is not for us to judge whether we are good or evil, but for other people to do so, and if other people cannot see the intent behind your actions, then there is no way for them to know whether you are good or evil. In my opinion, the intent behind your action is an irrelevant distraction, that is, it is
It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our policy is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. Therefore, we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses, but the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to our capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper reason that the defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty. Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for human self-control, but this approach will not wash.
Garcin’s choice to stay entrapped is a foolish, and nonviable solution. When facing entrapment it is best to leave the situation and continue your ordinary life. Ordinary life to Garcin is proving that he is not a coward, so maybe this was a perfect option for him, but I don 't think it is a psychologically healthy option for anyone, and it can lead to further mental health
3. Therefore, the most ideal course of action to escape destruction would be to stay peaceful and cooperate with the people around you. Hobbes’ argument for leaving the state of nature is flawed because people are nonviolent due to their own self-interest, not for the prosperity of others- which can easily lead to corruption and disunity. This flaw is damaging to Hobbes’ argument because not everybody is willing to give up their free will or follow the obligations of the social contract to protect the
I think we need to do better than that in our justice system because no life should be taking away in other prove justice. As they always say, two wrongs do not make a right. Nevertheless, I like the example that you give at the end.
With this being said, an informed individual may be less driven to help another person due to the fact that they want to avoid a run in with the law themselves. When it comes to morality, it is not contingent upon ones religious background or the laws that govern the state or province in which they live, rather ones morality is contingent upon the guiding principles that govern said individuals life. For example, when it comes to the scenario described above, ones morals may tell them that intervening and placing themselves in harms way is not justifiable and surpasses practicability. Whereas another individuals morals may tell them to adhere to the ideal of universalizability, which means that they a lot the same action to another that they would want done onto them and thusly they would get involved. With all of these things in mind, ones morality is not strictly limited to their religion or laws but rather what they find to be permissible and
One who does the minimum in order to move on sounds like immediate gratification. Rather than trying to make a different the easiest option is to keep status quo. Status quo is a great bias to be aware, people tend to make choices that do not cause anything to change ("Wise Geek," n.d.). Being aware of these bias my cause necessary change in one 's life that may not have happened
We need protection and the only way to do that is with conformity. Without conformity our society would be chaos and there would be no order. We need to ask ourselves, is this rational? Conforming is based on morals. Do not base it on society norms, but instead base it on personal morals or believes.
They shouldn’t assume that their choice is right and the rest choices are wrong. They have no reason to underestimate how valid your input is. Your opinion might even be helpful, but just because they are most likely stubborn when it
However, even if the action can be said to be a moral good, that is not enough for a description. More evidence is required to identify the point of a specific thing. The act of justice must be connected to the behavior of human beings. Just because someone likes something, that does not qualify that specific thing or action to be morally good. If something is to be termed as good, then it has to cause a positive effect on someone’s life.