Thomas More’s Utopia and The Prince by Machiavelli are clearly different texts, especially in their approach towards political and governmental reform. This distinction is made apparent through More’s idealism versus Machiavelli’s pragmatism. More’s political reform suggests a utopian, ideal, and almost perfect society governed by an equally good governmental system which is based on high moral standards and human happiness. On the other hand, Machiavelli suggests a government where those in power take advantage of the circumstances, manipulate society, and take advantage of their power in order to ensure security, peace, and well-being. Although Machiavelli’s approach does not meet the Utopian moral standards and seems to be unethical, I think
It is impossible to exist as nothing but one can exist in nothingness. Thurman wrote, “‘Realizing your selflessness’ does not mean that you become a nobody, it means that you became the type of somebody who is a viable, useful somebody, not a frigid fixated, I’m-the-center-of-the-universe, isolated-from-others somebody. You become the type of somebody who is over the idea of a conceptually fixated and self-created ‘self,’ a pseudo-self. You become the type of somebody who is content never to be quite that sure of who you are always free to be someone new, somebody more” (Thurman 443). In order for one to become aware of oneself, one must first realize that he or she is just one other person that the universe will not stop over.
He was faced with making decisions that did not favor him, regardless of which one he made. He could have led the prisoner to complete safety and risked legal action himself or taken the prisoner to jail and have that weigh on his conscience. But, evidently, neither of those decisions would end up having a positive ending, as he faced the wrath of the prisoner’s unruly acquaintances, even though he never wanted anything to do with the situation from the beginning. Many times in life, people will have to make decisions or undertake actions they do not necessarily want to do. And the decisions a person has to make will not always favor him or her or the rest of society.
There is no room for revolt and the sovereign is absolute so that there are no fractures or splitting within the government or state. This is dangerous because if the government turns out to be or becomes corrupt, there is no way to fight this corruption. In the Leviathan, no matter the case people must submit to the State. If they do not abide, they risk harsh punishment. It is Hobbes’ belief that the State’s responsibility is to ensure peace and to protect its citizens and that it will follow through with that whether its power is attained through force, which he calls a “Common-wealth by Acquisition”, or by by agreement, which he calls a “Common-wealth by Institution”.
Rama and Vibishina provide codes to live by in one’s society; Ravana shows the consequences of breaking the codes. Rama and Vibishina demonstrate how to live well, not only by their actions, but for being non-violent, respectful, and merciful characters. Rama and Vibishina guide society on how to live well. To demonstrate,
Dark Water. Then there’s Taoism, which, as Boey puts it, advocates “holistic balance through minimal action”. It offers no problem solution whatsoever and advocates patience. Its lack of punishment encourages the existence of grudge and vengeance in the Asian society. “Taoism offers no concrete solutions to those who have been wronged”.
In its simplest form, consequentialism requires that one maximizes the overall well being of any situation whenever possible. Consequentialism also promotes impartiality and moral flexibility. In other words, consequentialism treats everyone as equals and allows for more wiggle room when it comes to breaking certain moral rules as long as the means justify the ends. Although there is no exact way to calculate the overall well being, John Stuart Mill suggested that we focus on “the greatest good for the greatest number” (Shafer-Landau 122). On the surface, consequentialism may seem like a viable moral theory.
It is not dependent on the greatest outcome because not all right decisions leads to the greatest utility. If one is a virtuous person they will always have good intentions when making any decisions so therefore, with virtue theory there is no primary rule that one should follow or that tells us what to do or not
I am utterly confident that no one would want a Constitution that would jeopardize their rights. Even so, the Federalists have the impression that the Bill of Rights isn't needed, and that the government has only a limited amount of power to do certain things. These certain things play important factors, even if it is little. Although they say they have a
The virtue of good engineer includes creativity, good understanding of culture, morality, and capability of communication. In utilitarian and Kantian view of ethics, such virtuous values are not taken into consideration. This short paper suggests how future engineers should apply the virtues and excellences in their fields and why virtuous engineers are more likely to contribute to society and make it better. In Aristotle’s view, virtue(arête) is defined as an essential factor to achieve happiness of an individual, while happiness(eudaimonia) is defined as an ultimate objective of human-being. Aristotle insisted that the order of priority may decide whether one’s goal should be considered as a means or the goal itself.