Discoveries fundamentally further an individual’s understanding of themselves and the world around them, as these discoveries define who we are. Thus, individual transformations and discoveries coincide as corresponding catalysts, formulating an individual’s transformed identity through their dynamic perceptions. This is conceptually explored within Shakespeare’s 1611 tragicomedy ‘The Tempest,’ and William Golding’s 1954 novel ‘Lord of the Flies,’ through the ramification of disrupting natural order, which elicits personal transformations that prompts newfound discoveries. Consequently, both texts explore the implications of an individual’s morality and perception of the human condition as these discoveries are foundation upon which an individual’s
While technology is constantly advancing and evolving its usages, we as a society may be devolving and impeding our growth and development as a synergizing nation. Ray Bradbury’s fictional novel, Fahrenheit 451, uniquely focuses on the concern that technology is overwhelmingly taking over the lives of people while subconsciously warning the reader to stay cautious of its prevalence. Bradbury demonstrates this idea through the introduction of “parlor walls”, and the strain on Montag’s relationship with Mildred. With the introduction of parlor walls, Bradbury broadly explains its revolutionary design and focuses on the invention’s purpose. Peering into the functionalities, parlor walls have a variety of uses.
With this conceptualization, Kaldor has brought a new way of thinking about war and opened up more possibilities for the theorization and comprehension of wars. Kaldor’s concept of ‘New Wars’ is very relevant to the International Relations field and specially the human security approach as she has not been only stimulated a theoretical debate among scholars but has also had a tangible effect in practical aspects, such as the European Union’s indirect adoption of the human security approach (which has been influenced by the new wars
How can moral judgement be passed if the concept (a subjective construct) responsibility and morality is detached from any objectivity? Furthermore, objectivity cannot be restricted by binaries such as good and evil. With that said, it seems life negating to pass moral judgement on a peer based on a code of morals without an objective foot to stand on. Nietzsche is also concerned with another leg of the traditional concept of responsibility: Causality. Nietzsche maintains that: Firstly, free will and unfree will does not exist and an actor does not act out of free will.
“The defence of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity. It implies a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the rights of persons belonging to minorities and those of indigenous peoples. No one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law, nor to limit their scope". In other words, UNESCO believes that the guarantee of human rights should be a pre-condition in any cultural practice. In the scenario where a cultural practice infringes upon human rights, that practice is invalid and should not be respected.
Now that technology is evolving at a rapid pace, it is natural to compare these technological advancements with humans. As discussed in The Machine Question, David J. Gunkel challenges his readers to understand the fundamental questions that relate to our perspectives on smart machines and artificial intelligence (Gunkel #). He addresses machines as moral agents, and whether or not they deserve to have ethical consideration. On the contrary, in Frankenstein,
In my point of view having freewill is the source of rights. Because we only have the use and benefits of rights when we have freewill. Explaining this argument, there is no logic of giving rights to a creature or person which cannot grasp or having need to use those rights and giving rights to that living is pointless. Furthermore I disagree with Locke`s view that rights protect men from the force of others (1). Rights are ethical principles and moral values we have in our lives.
Batman and the League of Shadows reject the philosophy of humanism which is based on the ability of humans to rationalize against the constraints of nature and uphold a common human nature. Batman and the League of Shadows are the self-proclaimed custodians who try to overpower the emancipation of humankind by setting themselves as their icon to save them from their doom. They are anti-humanist in their approach as they do not believe in the egalitarian and the reasoning human. They condemn the Universalist and essentialist conception of man. Both Batman and League of Shadows try to surpass the notion of man in their attempt to provide justice.
With no doubt, the most important intellectual task of the present, within the global cultural perspective, is the establishment, implementation and practicing of a new kind of humanism. Current global conflicts in politics, economics, social, culture and religion demand strongly for defining and strengthening a global culture of values, morals, ethics, and humanity. Thus, a new role of humanity in the context of human belief system needs to be redefined. Extremism, fundamentalism, and terrorism in all aspects of human life (religious in particular) as well as hunger, poverty and misery, and economic disparity between rich and poor globally provide sufficient evidence for the necessity of redefining humanity. With no equilibrium system in world
The theory of cultural relativism is criticized and questioned by many; it is considered as one of the weakest arguments pertaining to human rights. This is because it is established that human rights are needed not for life but for a life of dignity. Furthermore, human rights should be universal, fundamental, and inalienable, and thus they cannot and should not be overridden by cultural relativism. Arguments presented by cultural relativism against human rights tend to be contradictory in nature. This is attributed to the fact that cultures first and foremost need human rights to even exist.
The focus has primarily centred around the concepts of Gnosticism and utopia linked with technology in relation to resistance. Erik Davis has written a comprehensive book on the topic, emphasising both the dangers and opportunities of technological development, and related the quest for knowledge in gnostic thinking that can lead to visions of technological utopias. The resistance to this world and pursuit for progress and evolution is explored extensively, illustrated by the creation of the alphabet, the first video game and the evolution of cyberspace. “TechGnosis” is engaging and original, and highlights important issues that should be considered carefully even today, with the extreme addiction to social media and serious discussions of surveillance and
But there is no such independent standard; every standard is culture bound.” Rachels stating that our standards are culturally bounded contradicts the fact that he states that our standards are from “cultural codes” or ‘moral codes” that we have which are basically the moral codes of our society. Our standard of
Human Cloning Controversy “The moral issues posed by human cloning are profound and have implications for today and for future generations. Today 's overwhelming and bipartisan House action to prohibit human cloning is a strong ethical statement, which I commend. We must advance the promise and cause of science, but must do so in a way that honors and respects life” (Muhlrad, P. J., A., D. S., Cole-Turner, R., Lewis, R., BlakeMore, C., & Kuhar, M. J. 2008). Human cloning offers a lot of potential for our society, both positive or negative.
As Parfit states, “Since these two choices will be worse for no one, we need to explain why we have a moral reason not to make these choices. This problem arises because, in different outcomes, different people would exist. I therefore call this the Non-Identity Problem” (Parfit, 378). One of the caveats that exists for the Non-Identity Problem is that we cannot appeal to these future people’s rights for different reasons. For example, we cannot appeal to the rights of future people because there is no way we can communicate with them.