Actually, when it comes the moment of truth, people without a democratic mentality will reject the simple public advocacy of certain ideas considering them improper, and they will carefully avoid voting on them, even if they may have a guarantee of winning. What these people do not want is the spirit of others being contaminated by ideas they may consider as dangerous. Perhaps, deep down they are afraid to be wrong, but it costs too much to admit it. People’s Epistemic Limitations on Democracy The previous analysed aspects are closely related to the epistemic foundations of democracy. As some experts put it, democracy can be considered at the same time as a wonderful epistemic device, but also the most profound and disturbing mark of our epistemic limitations, disturbing specifically for those people who lack epistemic humility.
The difference between the two is that egoism focuses on self-interest, while utilitarianism addresses maximum happiness to everyone (Sansbury, Barry and Shaw, 2013). On the other hand, Kantianism claims that an action is moral if it’s done under the sense of duty (Vlach, n.d.). Virtue ethics looks at the character rather than the duties of act itself and its consequences (Sansbury, Barry and Shaw, 2013). Some other theories covered are: Ethics of Capitalism, Ethics of Consumption, Ethics and Globalization and Ethics at workplace. Although they are all related to the individual and business ethics, I am going
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
With that, I also feel that examining how online criticism impacts peoples’ self-esteem will be beneficial to seeing how much Dramaturgical Theory comes into play. For instance, Jurgita Sriubaitė, a professor at the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences describes that a person’s frontstage face can be threatened, but it is maintained when the one giving the criticism says something positive, then giving the criticism while still showing respect
Happiness was just not felt by the doer but also by everyone affected by the action and vice versa for the wrong action. Bentham "An action is right from an ethical point of view if and only if the sum total of utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total of utilities produced by any other act the agent could have performed in its place." However, whereby other ethical theories make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive of the agent, with the Utilitarian theory bad actions or motives can produce right outcomes as sometimes the best consequences are produced from actions. It is best then that for every action that we take, consider choosing the actions that produces the greatest net benefits or the lowest net costs. With this theory, moral conduct is rated and regarded very highly as the measure of consequences of alternative acts comes into
Any plausible connection between mental states and behaviour will have to invoke many mental states in explaining the behaviour It is relatively easy to see how teachers might use these i deas for what we tend to think of as behavioural issues. The challenge is for a teacher to work out what constitutes reinforcement and punishment for each child and then very specifically to target desirable and undesirable behaviour. Skinner highlighted the importance of generalised reinforces such as praise, stars and points. He also said that punishment should be avoided; extinction i.e. ignoring is the way to remove inappropriate behaviour.
So our actions depend on the happiness of others not because we care about their happiness, but because we care about how we are viewed by others. In addition, Mill proposes his own principle of morality, which also disagrees with Kant view, that he calls the “Utilitarian Principle” that states: “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” According to this principle, we look at the consequences of our actions and judge, whether they bring about more happiness than
Firstly, reviewed academic literature often lacks data support to verify its arguments. Namely, when trying to reveal which theory has the best explanatory power in terms of the problem of social change, Morrison incorporates mainly logical assumption and provides very little data support. The arguments of the author would be much stronger if he described the findings of different researches on social change that were conducted with the application of habitus, structuration and complexity theories. The same problem refers to the Leydesdorff’s attempt to compare structuration theory with self-organization
Once everything is defined, one must now weigh their options, and evaluate the outcome of the actions. Finally, one must choose the option that permits the greatest balance of good overall, so to choose any other action would be considered immoral. That being said, a utilitarian does not always have to choose the option that benefits the most people, since the goal is to bring about the least amount of misery; besides, the benefit of helping the majority may bring a greater cost of well-being to the minority. Additionally, utilitarianism is associated with consequentialism, as they both concur that the results of one 's actions signify whether it was morally right or wrong. In doing so, they must consider the effects to as far as they go into the future.
our mindset differs and individual differences have consequences on our perceptions of pleasure. There is no such thing as universal pleasure, what is pleasurable for me can be painful for you and vice versa, even in the narrow context of necessary pleasures. The same goes for the most valuable pleasures. One can argue that prudence will lead to the most valuable pleasure, but prudence is only a tool, a handy instrument that can help me to avoid the pain. My opinion is that Epicurus’ theory is based on the assumption that all people share the same or relatively similar personalities and that consequently react in a similar way to both internal and external stimuli.
Conclusively, the ‘Experience Machine’ has illustrated an intriguing counter-argument to the hedonistic claims. By illustrating the concerns and problems of the machine Nozick in turn reveals flaws in the belief that the maximisation of pleasure and minimisation of pain is all that is required for one 's wellbeing. However, it is (arguably) equally as easy to find flaws in some of Nozick’s claims too. In this way, the ‘Experience Machine’ can be considered effective in the sense that it questions the hedonist and the concept of pleasure as holding the most intrinsic value yet still not fully convincing enough to fully dismiss the
In order for me to understand the concepts behind Epictetus stoic philosophies, a brief description of his handbook would be the guidance to answer accordingly to these questions. Conversely, According to Epictetus, things that are in our power give us the authority to judge right from wrong without overwhelming our character. Therefore, some things are up to us to decide while others are not. For example, we have the power over our minds, but not the power over our reputations because this is usually decided by what people may think of us. We do not hold the power over our possessions because this could be under the power of an intentional thief.