The first is that “without freedom there can be no morality.“this is also used as justification for his view that only action can have a moral judgement associated with it. The second is that morality is an innate function of humans “we have it within ourselves”. Jung also heavily implies that the collective unconciuos is a force of good and that styling our actions in accordance with its “wishes” we can find the “right” path. This is not the same as trying to be “normal” which Jung calls “a hell of sterility and hopelessness” but rather the act of conforming to the moral ideal of society. The third is that the“shadow“is necessary for moral behaviour which coincides with his belief that for good to exist there must be evil.
The voice of conscience acts as a moral sensor, which is triggered whenever we face an ethical behaviour and fires the alarm once the morality is breached. Utterly, It is up to our will whether to listen irresistibly to the voice that is what Kant calls it “moral predisposition” or mute it which consequently leading to immoral behaviour. The previous argument explains the moral law imposed by Kant. Furthermore, he emphasised that people are rational beings act according to their morals, he considers people as a moral agent and ought to act morally and willingly motivated by the
According to Dr. Dudely (1994:7-9) a positive and negative outcome is lies within the way individuals deal with conflict. Therefore a positive outcome is a direct result of a positive way of dealing with conflict; however this can only become a reality when one’s view of conflict is one that is positive rather than negative. Dr. Dudely Weeks also states that it is important for ones view of conflict to change; he believes that it is the negative assumptions that we hold of conflict that cause people to ineffectively manage
Wolf proposes the sane deep-self view states that for an individual to be morally responsible for some action they have committed, if and only if (1) this individual is able to control that action by their desires, as well as such desires are governed by their deep selves, and (2) the individual’s deep self is sane. Consequently, Wolf’s proposal evidently proves why JoJo cannot be held responsible for his actions committed. Hence, JoJo is an insane individual. For one to be considered sane, Wolf claims one must have an idea of what one is doing and to have beliefs/values that correctly correspond with the way the state of the world is. JoJo’s beliefs and values essentially do not match up with how the state of the world is and thus he is considered insane and is suffering
The acceptance of the accused’s version of his state of mind is described as “too-ready”. Navsa JA emphasized that the accused’s evidence for his ipse dixit should be tested against (a) his “prior and subsequent conduct” and (b) “the court’s experience of human behavior and social interaction”. Thus, the court must look to the surrounding circumstances and societal norms to determine whether the accused lacked capacity, or not at all. This will support the court to not accept the ipse dixit too readily, and the subjective test does not fall away, but there is merely added to
The theory of Deontology has its flaws as well and this essay will present three criticisms of deontology namely that deontology relies on moral absolutes, allows acts that make the world a worse place, two permissible duties that are right can conflict with each other and will demonstrate these flaws with relevant case studies and dilemmas. To begin with, this theory relies on moral absolutes which can be defined as actions that are entirely right or entirely wrong. Deontologists cannot consider the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences of a particular action bring about more harm than the act itself. Deontology theory says that certain types of actions are either absolutely right or wrong, but provides no way in which to distinguish which action may be right or wrong and thus duties and principles can conflict (Preston, 2007). For instance,
The article exploited the man’s empathy and used his empathy to influence his beliefs. Having empathy is a liability when taking moral action rather than a guide because having empathy leads to bias, a lack of reason, and confusion between empathy and compassion. One’s empathy is a hindrance because having empathy can lead to being unfairly biased for or against a certain cause, idea, or person. An example of this
In order for something to be logically valid, its negation must be contradictory. As a consequence, to doubt that one is doubting would be like to think that one is not thinking, and this would lead to a contradiction. Since the action of thinking requires a thinker, Descartes was able to deduce that he must exist. Therefore, this proves the validity of Descartes’ reasoning and makes us come to the part where Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I am” is brought into being. After applying the aforementioned method, Descartes relies on reasonable doubt as a foundation for true knowledge, keeping in mind that there is one thing that reason forbids him to doubt and that is his own activity, the activity of thinking.
These harms are: (a) harms to certain individuals which consist in their coming to have false beliefs as a result of those acts of expression; (b) harmful consequences of acts performed as a result of those acts of expression, where the connection between the acts of expression and the subsequent harmful act consists merely in the fact that the act of expression led the agents to believe (or increased their tendency to believe) these acts to be worth performing” (Scanlon. 213). We can see the influence of Mill’s Harm Principle which states that the only justification for intervening or restricting the actions of an individual is to prevent harm to others (Mill. 94). Another important concept is Scanlon’s description of the interests of the various stakeholders in the right to expression; these incudes participant interests which is to speak to and bring something to the attention of a wide audience, audience interests include
In logic, solipsism consequently amounts to a refusal to acknowledge our sound judgment experience of the world as substantial. In the second of his Meditations, Descartes examines a bit of wax. In spite of the fact that Descartes' point is a skeptical one, it raises a fascinating point. On what premise do we assert knowledge of the internal experiences of other individuals? From one perspective, our experience of ourselves is the most certain thing as Descartes himself would concur.