From the time we were little, humans have been taught logic that will define us to be “humane”. Like everything, these human characteristics have limits. We have grown up to believe that the good of many dominates the good of few; but when does the good of few surpass the good of many? This situation can take place when a numerous amount of people don’t bring the happiness and security that a few people do. In addition, the importance of few is looked at as a priority compared to many others when those few are entitled to security/protection and care. The novel, The Martian by Andy Weir, illustrates a perfect example for when the good of few is more important than the good of many when the few should receive protection and care. The main
In today’s world, one could figuratively say that it takes an act of congress for the president to go anywhere. Today the secret service is highly trained to keep the president safe from any possible threat, but the level of security for the 20th president was nowhere near where it is for the 45th president. In the 1880’s, the president was looked at as “one of the people”, so security was not considered to be as important as it is today. This proves to be evident in chapters 10 and 11 when the shooting takes
...es the world today, these people always choose ignorance over reason. Most people choose ignorance as a defence mechanism to stop thinking about these problems, they don’t realize that by doing that they are becoming more indifferent and they lose one of the most important traits that makes them human, compassion. Without compassion humans would become animals and the world we live in would become a jungle. As Edmund Burke warned “all that is needed for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing”, he warns the whole world that if they do not stand up for evil, it will win. Elie Weisle also explains “ The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference”, meaning that if the world does not stop their ignorance, and start to show compassion to one another , they might as well say goodbye to their precious world because it’s not going to be around for very long.
Using seemingly sound steps of logic, David Parfit has come to the “Repugnant Conclusion” that a world of very many people with very good lives is worse than a world of vastly more people with lives that are barely worth living. I shall outline his argument and conclusion, and then explain how we may evade such a counter-intuitive notion by reconsidering the way we measure and compare people’s wellbeing. I argue that all people inherently deserve a certain amount of welfare that exceeds that in a life that is just barely worth living, and that cannot be compensated for by an increase in number of people.
Norman Schwarzkopf Jr, a famous war soldier once said, "The truth of the matter is you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it." Although society has the potential to help others in need they restrict themselves from doing the right thing. But when society is challenged with a problem only some step up against to the odds to make a difference. Throughout history, during times of devastation and separation there are people that show a ray of light that gives people hope during the darkest times.
Henry Hazlitt discusses how some economists and government officials only consider the immediate benefits for specific groups of people rather than fully assessing a decision to determine potential detriments that can occur in the future. People in society may feel that they need to help the lower socioeconomic population. Helping others can be a positive thing, but are we as a nation putting too much emphasis on helping specific groups in society?
To sacrifice oneself and save others is what we've known as human love, and we have also learned that we should respect those who could perform that in any situation, but in reality, the numbers of those people who don't care about what others do seems much greater than the number of those who do. In Stephen Crane's story, "The Monsters", Henry Johnson who sacrifices himself into the fire in order to save a little boy gets treated like a monster just because his face has "burned away"(84). This is very serious problem because it's not what happens only in the book, but also in our present lives.
Human persons are fundamentally equal in their worth and dignity. A person’s worth is not dependent on their lineage, how they fit in some utopian scheme, how much they produce or consume, their autonomy or independence, or their race, intelligence, age, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. Human worth is innate and cannot be forfeited. And it is equal in each person.
Another key theme that is linked to both the Dignity of The Human Person and The Common Good is the theme of Subsidiarity. This theme ...
It is not easy to always practice love and compassion to everyone. This is why similarly to Miller, I believe it is our human nature to favour those we are closest to, such as family and friends. We create special bonds and relationships with particular people and they become our main concern. These relationships may cause us to become self driven. However, this does not change the fact that we are all human beings and hold the same value as one another. We must continuously remind ourselves that others have it worse off, and that we have the means to help them. So why would we choose not to? It is important to help those in need, they do not deserve anything less than wealthier nations do. Therefore, wealthier nations should be obligated to dedicate a percentage of their resources and income to ensuring the wellbeing of individuals in other
Numerous cases in history show that identification with a particular group can lead to dreadful outcomes. Together, with historical evidence, classic psychological studies tell a very powerful story. Decent people can take on oppressive roles and succumb to oppressive leaders. However, people often resist tyranny, and their resistance tends to be most effective when it is collective.
Over the years, human beings have not made the right conclusions when it comes to benevolence. In considering when a decision should be made regarding a fellow human being in need, trivial conditions are used as excuses such as distance, magnitude, and how well you know someone. Considerably wealthy countries have given money but it amounts to a fraction of the costs of their own development of transportation and entertainment. The morality of the situation is skewed in order to coddle the conscience of the inactive. As much as people and governments would like to, they cannot deny what is happening in the world around them. The position taken by Singer is that the way people in wealthier countries respond to situations in which others around them need help due to some man made or natural disaster is unjustifiable. Singer argues that many thinks need to be redesigned—namely, what shapes and affects our definition of morality and our way of life that we tend to take for granted.
We should treat those who are close to us better than a stranger because it is the logical thing to do. Family and friends who stick their neck out for you deserve to be treated better than a stranger who you don’t even know. Why would you give someone random the same love as say your brother? Michael and Lincoln Scofield would agree with my philosophy of family is everything. Just as I would, both the brothers would give up everything to help those we love. Those who follow the Gita closely wouldn’t even be able to argue that family isn’t important and that we shouldn’t be selfless towards the one we love. In the Gospel of Mark one of core principles is to “Love your neighbor as yourself. “ The same we Jesus died on the cross and sacrificed himself for us, In God’s commands he told us to do as he did on earth and do the same for our neighbors. This not only includes family and friends but all people. All these views would agree that their philosophies are being upheld when it comes to sacrifice. Sacrifice has one core concept which is giving up ones comforts for the wellbeing of another. As long as this is being fulfilled, sacrifice is being made. The result of this sacrifice is almost always positive. This is why we should sacrifice. We are making a positive impact in the lives of others or ourselves. The more we have the courage to sacrifice the more we are making the world a better place.
Individualism is rampant in our world. More and more people are concerned with what they want, when they want it and how they want it. They put blinders on and go about their work, convinced that “looking out for number one” is the only way to succeed and find happiness. If everyone were to adopt this way of thinking and living, the world would become violently competitive, gloomy, and callous. However, if we open our lives and give service to those less fortunate than ourselves, we allow our hearts to receive immeasurable happiness. There are countless members of society, who make service and ultimately self-sacrifice a part of their everyday lives. One of the greatest examples the world has of a self-sacrificing person is Mother Teresa. She said, “In this life we cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love… It is not the magnitude of our actions but the amount of love that is put into them that matters.” Doctors Without Borders is a powerful humanitarian organization that was most recently volunteering in Haiti. Part of their mission statement reads, “…We unite direct medical care with a commitment to bearing witness and speaking out against the underlying causes of suffering. Our aid workers and staff protest violations of humanitarian law on behalf of populations who have no voice, and bring the concerns of their patients to public forums…” These are just two mainstream examples of people and organizations that live and work for others, to improve the quality of their lives.
People are often blinded by the situation in which they are in, and by their personal motives which drive them to act. Humans, by nature, have faults and vices that are potentially harmful. It is the responsibility of society to anticipate harm, whether to oneself or to others. Once dangerous patterns and habits are recognized, it is imperative to anticipate and prevent injury from reoccurring. To allow any individual to be inflicted harm forces citizens to lose trust in the government, thus unraveling the fabric of society.... ...
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we