Although very few would argue that the terminological jungle set forth by other philosophers like Bentham and Kant can be characterized as simple, the two set forth theories of morality that seem to ignore the complexity of most multi-faceted decisions. Bentham’s utilitarianism distills moral decisions into a seemingly mathematical net measurement of pain and pleasure, advocating for decisions that maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The Kantian conception of a “categorical imperative” creates a universal binding set of right and wrong decisions that is not subject to changes in an individual’s whims or differing situations. For instance, if lying is considered morally wrong, telling a lie that may benefit another person is still morally inexcusable. However, whereas these approaches seem rational and practical, they are not applicable to real-world decisions.
He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.” This influences the story because it seems that because they are so equal, even if they just only try they still get credit for it. A main similarity is that people who are astute wear (0:0) handicaps and those who were idiotic didnt have to wear handicaps. This impacts the story because it shows you how different 2081 is compared to 2017 people are now expected to be equal and no one can be who they want to be, if they express themselves without following the rules they are required to have handicaps on or if they’re naturally smart, and pretty they threaten the rule of being “equal.”
But we have seen that the stories of Daniel and Jozef support the decision to act upon the desire for revenge and appear intended to discourage its mere expression. Diamond’s conclusion, though unsupported by his evidence, is not unreasonable. In fact, I agree that revenge is a natural emotion that needs to be expressed rather than repressed, but this can be done more efficiently and effectively through socially acceptable means, such as small comments and actions, rather than the large, virulent, melodramatic declarations Diamond seemingly recommends. This new conclusion can be applied to many other socially repugnant emotions like greed, envy, and sloth. Though Diamond’s evidence is independently enlightening, the conclusion he draws from it provides the reader with the broader opportunity to reconsider current philosophies about how we can best express common emotions within
Empson produces his information in a way where it is easy to understand and comprehend without adding in personal bias. He explains that, if anything, Iago is true to himself about his own desires. He knows what he wants and he is not afraid to put in work to get his desired results. When he is twisting the truth, “the feeling is genuine but not the sense it may imply”(180). Iago tells people variations of the truth but has such conviction and belief in his words that it would be difficult not to believe him.
(Hebdige 17). Dominant groups will not be satisfied with the power that is already in their possession. However, they will thrive for more, maintaining these overshadowing ideologies. Those who share similar outlook utilize hegemony the most. The dominant group is then influenced by these ideals to see the negativity in their subordinates for they have different standards.
Socrates does not make sound arguments because although his premises are logical, they sometimes have nothing to do with the original argument. In Plato’s Euthyphro, the Euthyphro dilemma argument states whether the Gods love the pious because it is pious or it is pious because the Gods love it. In order to support this distinction, Socrates’ first premise in supporting this conclusion is the example of being carried. Socrates claims that there is a difference between something that is already in the state of being carried because it is carried or if something is carried because it is in the state of being carried.
But we shall see that Hume is not justified to judge the truth of all events only by the manner in which it is reported, because we can have a true but badly presented
I thought that this chapter was interesting because I think in a similar way. He believed that for one to be moral, they need to have an appropriate motive for undertaking a task. It cannot be based on selfish reasons and it does not have to appease the public. You do something because it is right. He also states that we often mistake ideas for our own because of conformity.
I think that he meant being an outsider will pass, but you will never forget what you learned from experiencing it. However, you can’t just remember what you learned, you have to take what you learned, and let it make you a better
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.
From both these readings one can conclude that both of these men had great intentions. In my humble opinion one can’t contrast the conclusions, as the conclusion in both these scenarios is justice, there’s no denying that. But the reader can contrast the way both MLK and Socrates used just obedience to arrive at the conclusion of justice. Socrates seems to be more of an individualistic character, as he had no one group behind him that he was fighting for. He uses his words and his honesty to achieve his justice, he takes every advantage of this one true opportunity he has before the council to voice his opinion.
Socrates believes that justice is the best life to live, but Glaucon is not satisfied by this answer and instead creates an improved defense of Thrasymachus’ argument that life of injustice is better than living a life of justice. Glaucon argues that people are just because it is convenient, it is a title that people have been taught to be, however, it is much easier to be unjust than just. Justice is set up like a competition in which the result is merely a compromise of the best and worst of a group of individuals. What constitutes something as just or not lies in the consequence. Justice is merely a system which is instrumentally valuable.