Human nature is irrational; and to force individuals who’ve been bound to rationalism to let go of rational actions and seek personal freedom is only going to create mass suffering for those who cannot think in the same selfish and righteous way of Equality. Equality has good meaning in his ideals; however it is easy to subjectively ignore that there is possibility that others may from even actions intended to free them to seek happiness. Ideally a world would exist where all could live together in peace, where all could respect one another’s happiness; but due to the inherently subjective way humans interact with the surrounding world, it is merely impossible for such a world to exist. Rules only seek to try to build such a world; but it’s impossible for
In addition, if a person feels ashamed of their unhappiness, then they may be afraid to share their feelings. If one is afraid to discuss their feelings, then they may never seek help if they need it. In a way, our society has stigmatized negative emotions. This stigma has also resulted in the notion that it is looked down upon to seek therapy and counseling. Instead of enforcing the categorization of our emotions, we should learn to openly accept that all emotions are natural.
For example, happiness is a common, yet vital characteristic that people lack in this type of environment. The result of happiness being removed causes people to fear making any choice, as these individuals are aware of possible consequences. In a society that eliminates happiness, also does not allow anyone to leave a state of unhappiness. This concept is shown in Fahrenheit 451, where author Ray Bradbury warns and messages to the reader that censorship of knowledge among a society leads to destruction of individual thoughts and individual beliefs, which will ultimately cause unhappiness and a lack of progress. This message is represented throughout the entire story of Fahrenheit 451, especially in the setting, characters and conflict, and relevance.
Greitens is in a defensive position so any response would be risky but would likely not hurt him more than he has already been hurt. Greitens and his team are not following Ivy Lee’s standards as well because in Lee’s book the best thing to do is to have institutional openness, find positive angles and be straight. By staying silent, the Greitens team is not being transparent, positive or straight forward with what’s going on and leaving many confused and curious as to what may come. Overall, by using both the dialogic theory and Ivy Lee’s standards, it would be more beneficial to Greitens to respond to the crisis than it would for him to remain
Although it may be reasonable not to kill Lennie, it can be argued that he should be killed. Lennie should not be killed, he has not done anything wrong. He has a mental disorder and has a tough time understanding certain situations. However, the men would not have taken that into consideration in the heat of that moment. They just wanted to get it over with so that Lennie would not have been in any sort of pain anymore.
If people realize the wrongness of infliction on animal, so infliction on animal is prima facie impermissible. (Marquis, 1987). Kant and Hence have the arguments that people do not have the duty for considering animal, but their theory is hard to explain is that possible for men would do harm on people because of hurting animal or some people do not inflict animals so that they will not do it on human. The alternative arguments on wrongness of the wanton infliction which considers more on the reader or some people themselves in the situation which the animals may face, so this is plausible. The wrongness of infliction on animals is approved, and the structure to prove this argument is similar with considering the lost of future on adult or young children for abortion, so the arguments which states that abortion is impermissible is powered by the analyze of why infliction of animal is wrong.
This theory acts under the assertion that individuals should only do things if they expect all individuals to make the same decision and perform the same action if presented with the same situation (Beauchamp & Kahn, 2014). Since either situation is morally wrong as they both will result in the loss of life, making a decision to change the course of the trolley would actually be more immoral because the individual would be consciously making the effort to change the trolley’s course. By taking no action they would not be responsible for the consequences of what happens, but by changing the trajectory of the trolley they would be acting against the principle of not killing an innocent person as they would have played a part in the individual’s
Individuals will compare the cost and reward of their decision by which scenario benefits them more and cost them less. Now, one key element in rational choice theory is the belief that all action is fundamentally "rational " in character. (thoughtco.com) This differentiates it from other theories because it denies the essences of any other actions other than rational. So in all I would say that the dramaturgy theory complements the exchange theory, and would disagree with the rational choice theory. Even though, they are very close in ideal principles, rational choice doesn 't quite fit the theory of dramaturgy as well as exchange theory.
It is a controversial topic as some people argue that it is unnatural - thus unethical. Assuming that all that is against the nature is wrong, would it not mean that saving a person is also unnatural. Inaction in this case would be natural way, therefore ethical thing to do. The practice shows that it is unethical to be inactive when a person is in a danger, otherwise there would not have been a law that punishes for inaction. It does not mean that inaction is wrong, but only it question where the boundaries should lie.
Moreover, those points are just not persuasive enough for people to really believe in themselves. Even though we can act with virtue while knowing about it, we can still practice it to make the world a better place. We can act virtuously to lead by example for society so that others will try to be more virtuous also. What I mean by this is that we can try to make people better people that will make them happy. People being naturally conceded also is not persuasive because everyone has different personalities, meaning that nobody is truly the same.