While Machiavelli keeps the need for a leader to have independence, seriousness, loyalty, and intellect; he rejects the necessity of generosity, mercy, and honesty, in favor of the outward appearance of these virtues. While Machiavelli’s viewpoint differs from the common ideology of his time and of classical antiquity, he does not disagree with all of the virtues. One such virtue is independence. Machiavelli spends the beginning of his treatise discussing principalities and defending them. A wise and successful leader, he says, should not use auxiliaries or mercenaries, as they will always lack unity and their true loyalty is always uncertain.
Basically, the rightness or wrongness of an action is contingent on whether it is obligatory or prohibited by an ideal set of rules. An ideal set of... ... middle of paper ... ...l sources of utility or consequences, but about his moral identity and integrity. Jim is presented with a situation that challenges to who he is, and not just simply what he should do. Granted, is tricky to decide on the “right” action in this case because by not partaking in the deal, Jim is staying true to his personal moral beliefs; yet he is still left with the burden of knowing that all twenty of the Indians would be killed without his interference. One could also argue that Jim would only be contributing to the problem if he too committed such acts against these innocent people and it is his duty as a moral being to not partake.
Throughout Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein the question of morality is often demonstrated through the knowledge of existence. The knowledge of existence has a major effect on the monster in his attempts to discover who he is through approval and acceptance. In today’s world our morality and values system is very prevalent, and as shown through Shelley’s writing these morals and values are a result of our religious perceptions and humanistic relationships. It can be concluded that Frankenstein depicts the ability to develop spiritually and morally by eliminating a deity in order to reach a sense of self realization. Moral conflict often arises today and one is left questioning purpose and what is considered to be right or wrong.
One such moral psychologists, Jonathan Haidt, is theorizing the possibility of evolution causing ones morality. Haidt is a moral psychologist at the Universtiy of Virgina further believes that complex social structures such as religion and politics as well as our need for social structures affect one's personal structure of morals. Haidt is serious about testing his theories, and has traveled across the planet to India to conduct further research. Personally, I have a great interest in philosophy and ethics, and the theory that evolution over time has affected morality today is one theory I have not read about at all. One idea of great interest to Haidt that prompted much of his research was the concept of moral dumbfounding.
This is a rational proposal but one which faces much objection because of the moral issues raised, specifically the belief that it is wrong to kill and the importance of human life. This essay will argue that it is reasonable to suggest that a proposal that saves lives is desirable, and that killing one to save three or four is arguably the doctors duty or moral responsibility. Despite all of this, human beings will never accept this scheme either as a loss of liberty or because valuable resources could potentially be wasted on those undeserving of them. John Harris visualises a world where transplant operations are faultless and that anyone who needs a transplant can have the operation successfully providing that there are the suitable organs accessible, if not the doctor would have to let them die. Y and Z refuse to accept this inevitable death and argue on utilitarian grounds that it is better if one human dies and donates his organ... ... middle of paper ... ...this in itself produces less happiness.
Thus, ... ... middle of paper ... ...true happiness should not be confused with the superficial one. For example, a person who wants to go on a suicide mission appears to decline happiness, but in reality may have great inner happiness from the service he gives to the society, and might suffer guilt for the rest of his life (be unhappy) had he declined the mission. The apparent conflict between human rights and actions of God is based on misunderstanding about the justification of human rights. Human rights and justice are not important when taken in abstract and by themselves. However, fundamental rights must always be protected to prevent grave dangers to the society.
Next we have to universalize the statement; do I want someone to push me? The answer is probably no, leading to a failed test, which means that you are morally obligated to just stand there and let things happen. Last is virtue ethics, which is the trickiest to simulate because decisions are based on your role model as the example for the way you choose. If Jesus was our role model then that means we would probably let it happen because one of the Ten Commandments is about not killing others so you may just stand there. Or maybe if Spock from Star Trek was your role model you would push the guy because “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the
They portray society and strict adherence to rules laid out by authority. The second group consists of Pap, the King, and the Duke. They represent outliers of society who have chosen to alienate themselves from civilized life and follow no rules. While these characters all extremely important in Huck’s moral development, perhaps the most significant character is Jim, who is both a fatherly figure to Huck as well as his parallel as far as limited power and desire to escape. Even though by the end of the novel, Huck still does not want to be a part of society, he has made a many choices for himself concerning morality.
He always gives his patients the opportunity to not go through with it, stating that it will not hurt his feelings if they decide to stop but his patients use their power of free choice to decide what is best for themselves. Those that argued against Dr. Kevorkian could try to use ethical relativism by Loius Pojman to argue that they are right. Ethical Relativism states that there are no universal moral principles but there are moral principles based on culture and individual choice. Skeptics could argue that since most people in the United States believed that what Dr. Kevorkian was doing was unethical and not morally okay then he should be
Fats rules out the rest of the world in his philosophy and his actions seem to be an act of senseless rebellion towards his parents and what is expected of him. There isn’t much harm in being inauthentic, not to the point where one needs to meticulously judge one’s every action, to find the root of their intentions. Fats rebellion seems to stem from his feeling of not fitting into his family. This type of thinking leads Fats to disregard his friend Andrew’s feeling when he chooses to make out with Gaia which ends their friendship. Fats also is so caught up in his own desires he is partly responsible for Robbie’s death.