In many cases, the objective theory is better because it is not dependent on only one factor. So, if we use this theory with regards to the refusing patient, it can be reasonably argued that saving the patient would allow them to continue a life making autonomous decisions. I agree that this would produce a better outcome than respecting the patient’s wishes of letting them die unnecessarily. However, I don’t believe this to be true for all cases. I believe that this argument is dependent upon the case because sometimes respecting a patient’s wishes can produce a better outcome than not respecting
Would a life lived without forecasting errors be a richer life? (ll.100-101) “To Loewenstein, who is especially attendant to the friction between his emotional and deliberative processes, a life without forecasting errors would most likely be a better, happier life.” (ll. 108-110) I agree with Loewenstein, that it probably be better in some cases. If we knew about how our decisions would affect our lives we might make better decisions. He also says that we might try to find more time making friends instead of making money.
However, even if initially people are making attributions to someone’s internal state, they can change this way of thinking and recognize outside situations. Only if someone is not distracted, because it involves a conscious effort to change these thoughts. Gilbert’s theory argues often people do not get to situational attributions if they are not able to cognitively because of distractions or they do not have the information to infer a situation affected the behavior. However, many people, as Wallace states, may not get to this step in the model because they simply do not care to see outside themselves at that moment. It can be extremely difficult for people to see past their own situation in the first place, especially in irritating situations like heavy traffic or a busy grocery store.
The author will usually rely on his examples to prove is arguments. He does not explain the claims he makes, which decrease the strength of his arguments. For example, he mentions that a high-five is “not the mutual appreciation of achievement, but the feeling we get upon the achievement of mutual appreciation”. This statement is arguable, some people perform the high-five to actually show appreciation of achievement rather than of trying. The author does not signify whatsoever why the high-five does not mean “job well-done”.
I agree with Blum’s proposal that in some sense moral excellence is not within our control, or within our will. It is the dimension of morality that is not up to us; some refer to it as moral luck. Part of the purpose of her paper was to provide the readers an appropriate understanding of the supreme value of moral excellence and why it is worthy of our highest admiration. I don’t believe she claims that we cannot reasonably aim to be like heroes or saints, but if one does aim to become a moral exemplar, one may not always succeed. In the chapter Emulating Moral Exemplars she states that while one might naturally be inclined to wish to become a moral exemplar, it is important to accept that for most persons this could not be accomplished.
On the other hand, if I do something for the right reasons, such as I tried to helped my friend to fix the car because I wanted to help, but the problem was not resolved at the end, my action would still be moral because although the result is bad, it started with a good reason. It is important for one to act with good intentions since one may “lives according to duty, but not from duty” because one might be acting for “a selfish purpose” (Kant 8). In other words, one’s actions may seem moral because they seem to follow one’s duty, but in reality it is not since it is for self-interests. For instance, if I know that I can escape the time loop by helping others, I would help people like how Phil helps the town people, but for the purpose of breaking the time loop, hence my actions are immoral, seeing that I am just trying to fulfill my self-interest. On the whole, I should always act with a right reason when being forced to relive the same day, because they are what determines the morality of my
I blamed why I kept falling on a lack of control, but this was not completely true. It was more of a lack of confidence. I was not confident in my ability to slow my self down or stop myself if I was going to fast. Or my ability to turn myself away from obstacles that I may encounter. These were all things that I had proven to poses the skills to do, but my lack of confidence did my allow myself to trust these skills.
In my experience, what Martin Luther King Jr. calls “thinking intensively and critically” is very different from what my high school teachers called “critical thinking”, most especially by the way Dr. King links intelligence and learning to the development of character, that is, growth as a person. Too often in my past, teachers mentioned critical thinking only as a mental activity of seeing through stereotypes, evaluating both sides of issues and understanding and accepting differences. As worthwhile as these are, I have found that high level thinking without having a more enlightened character is simply inadequate. That was a recent, very positive experience with two very nice people of different faiths. As much as we had been taught in class about prejudice, the recent terrorists attacks across the world bred a good deal of ill-will in