Arjuna interrogates Krishna. He seems to be uncertain or does not know the relevancy and legality of the war itself. This is because Arjuna is worried and continues asking. How can too much killing and bloodshed facilitated toward a self-sacrificing cause, he asks Krishna. Also, Arjuna did not acknowledge how the enterprise and facilitators of war might lead to a fundamental change and liberation of people from the worldly existence.
This reflects the idea that humans do not have free will because if people were genuinely and consistently capable of benevolence, they would freely decide to make the ‘right’ decisions. In order for free will free will to be tangible, an individual would have to have control over his or her actions regardless of any external factors. It can be argued that the inevitability of
Ethics of Gattaca In recent discussions of the film Gattaca by Andrew Niccol, a controversial issue has been whether pre-implantation genetic diagnosis which is diagnosing a persons diseases before they are born using their genetics is ethical. On the one hand, some argue that the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is unethical. From this perspective, to discard babies who's lives would be greatly effected and much harder than others due to diseases that could be diagnosed before birth is unethical. Humans should not be able to “play God” or in other words decide another human’s fate no matter what. On the other hand, however, others argue that it is unethical not to use technology such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis because
In everyday life we make decisions, which in some way affect those around us, but should those decisions benefit us as an individual, or should they benefit the “greater good”? Utilitarianism, based on utility, states that we should, in fact, act for the greater good of the greater majority, rather than what we consider to be best for ourselves. The ethical theory of Utilitarianism was proposed by John Stuart Mills from a qualitative hedonistic view which states that there is only “one foundational good” (Burnor and Raley). Because Utilitarianism states that there is only one right moral standard, it falls under the view of Objectivism, in which there is only one universal moral standard. According to Utilitarianism, Popular Relativism
The idea of existence, or existentialism, to use the proper term, usually is related to the factor that deals with a human being’s life and their freedom. The reason this idea is studied is the same reason that defines the difference between a living thing and a non-living thing: human beings can function according to their own will and have freedom, ideas, and identity of their own, unlike non-living things. Human beings have the power to define a non-living thing but the vice versa cannot be true. Human beings, in fact, define themselves, hence giving them the power to decide their own freedom and existence. Existentialism, as a concept,
Dr. Simon Clarke published an article called Mill, Liberty & Euthanasia in which his thesis states that, “deciding when to die is a matter of individuality” (Clarke 1). Dr. Clarke backs up his thesis by using some of the rationalities behind John Stuart Mill’s Liberty Principle. According to the Liberty Principle, people should be free to pursue their greatest good as long as it does not cause harm for the community. Secondly, the principle argues that when people are free they have the ability to seek their “individuality” therefore liberty benefits the person. For example, a person develops their individuality by developing their skills, personality, values, and potential.
In other words, myths allow us to think that we have control over our destiny and we should not be afraid of anything because no matter how much we try to hide, it is impossible to avoid death because all things come to end. The cruelty of the world can seem too much to bear, however, myths helps us face our morality by providing a sense of control, hope and
In the hypothetical commonwealth, subjects have particularly restricted liberty and have to follow several strict commandments (Hobbes 98-104). One commandment in particular is quite bothersome to me, as it states that subjects cannot speak out negatively against their government (the sovereign) (Hobbes 100). Furthermore, if a subject was to violate the law they could even face death (Hobbes 100). This type of censorship of different political ideologies seems similar to that of corrupt regimes in contemporary society. The idea of having to live in a society in which I would have to fear critiquing those in power because doing so would endanger my life is deeply unnerving.
Sedgwick sounds like she is trying to teach a lesson throughout the whole story, and that lesson is that animal cruelty is wrong, and the goodness trumps genius. The informative tone really helps to show that Sedgwick is trying to make a lasting impression on her audience, “But, my children, we ought to be very glad to see the art of man employed on any other powers in dogs than the power of destruction. How much pains have been taken to train this interesting and useful animal to pursue and destroy other animals” (Sedgwick, P.34). Sedgwick is being informative to her audience of children and trying to teach a lesson. She wants the children to understand that man has been terrible to dogs and used them to destroy other animals.
We are told that we are born with basic rights and that we have the freedom to believe in whatever we desire, however, the chains that bind us are morality and justice. People’s opinion of us stops us from having complete freedom. A person with strong morality would feel guilty if they were given the choice to commit an injustice against another, and thus decide not to do so in the first place, even if they are given the opportunity to do what they want with no harm done to the other person. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates only cares about truth, therefore, for him to escape prison would be considered an injustice. He will be breaking the law, confirming his accuser’s statements about him being a criminal despite the fact that their claims are untrue.