My Sister's Keeper

My Sister’s Keeper

[Author Name(s), First M. Last, Omit Titles and Degrees]

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

Author Note

[Include any grant/funding information and a complete correspondence address.]

My Sister’s Keeper

In the film, My Sister’s Keeper, ethics and morality are the central themes which are presented in layered texts and contextual settings. These two also enjoy a significant niche as topics of discourse in the domains of philosophy. The focus of the narrative revolves around the ethics and morality of the lawyers, the Fitzgerald family, and the hospital staff. Tensions playing out in the family as a result of practicing different codes of ethics mainly comprise the plot of the film and in this paper, deeper attention would be paid to the entire idea of feminine morality and the greater good.

My Sister’s Keeper is a story that poses many questions: what should be the line when it comes to choices? What determines whether a decision is right or wrong? What should be the end of family sacrifice, love, and moral obligations? Is it moral to create a child so that his organs and vital body parts can be donated to another child or his / her ailing sibling?

In the movie, the protagonist, Anna, sues her parents, Sarah and Brian because they primarily forced her to take medical decisions that did not involve her consent. Anna’s elder sister, Kate battled with Leukemia for most of her life and after all the family members tested negative for a bone marrow transplant match for Kate, a genetically matched embryo was created and implanted into Sarah’s womb, which resulted in Anna’s birth. In a short span of 13 years, Anna has already gone through multiple injuries and bore numerous needle pricks in repeated attempts of blood donation to her sister. Anna and Kate’s parents displayed extra-ordinary concern for their elder daughter and in this process, the emotions and desires of Anna went into the backdrop. Years passed and continual suffering at the hands of doctors and physicians led Anna to sue her parents with the help of a lawyer Campbell Alexander. The story concludes with Anna dying in a road crash while her organs are transplanted to Kate.

The first example which indicates an ethical issue is the existence of Anna. She was borne based on the idea of a savior sibling which is highly questionable as far as ethics are concerned. Does the primary question interrogate whether it is ethical for a doctor to suggest genetically engineered reproduction in an attempt to save another’s life? In the film, Anna’s parents nearly maltreated the genetic diagnosis and the process of preimplantation. They conceived a child so that it could only serve to be a donor. This shows that the initial intentions were crammed with devaluating and lowering the quality of life of Anna. According to the ethics of care, no one can doubt the intentions of parents, but one should also think about the emotional traumas and contradicting pressures faced by the savior siblings CITATION Mic19 \l 1033 (Michailidou, 2019). This film catalyzes this debate with much rigor and makes the audiences think about the inherent nature of ethics and morality in medicine and how it changes with time and circumstances. One of the central objects of heated debates is the controversy of using science and the medical advancement of creating a ‘designer baby’, which implies that physical traits of the baby are selected by the parents. The creation of Anna was intended by Sara and Brian to save Kate. The categorical imperative advocated by Kant clearly maintains that it is totally wrong to use a person as a means to an end CITATION Wal17 \l 1033 (Walker, 2017). The movie reflects upon the different actions of Sara and Brian and there are many ways to gauge the righteousness of their actions.

The second example comprises the rights of the savior sibling in the movie, Anna. As it turns out, Anna sues her parents and claims that she has been denied rights on her body. Early in the movie, Anna hires an attorney as her entire existence is used as a means to an end. It is this state of affairs when towards the end, the court trial reveals that Kate persuaded Anna to seek legal emancipation. This instance indicates feminine morality exhibited by Kate as she didn’t want to get in the way of Anna’s desires and life ambitions. Theorists, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham, maintain that human beings do everything in order to maximize their pleasure but Kate’s action directs the readers and audience towards feminine morality CITATION Raz17 \l 1033 (Raz, 2017). By keeping Kate’s secret, Anna faces a lot of backlash specifically from her mother but this is the true affirmation of Anna’s virtuosity. In the eyes of the reader, Anna becomes a martyr and even after winning the case against her parents, Anna dies on her way to the hospital where Kate is still admitted. Anna did not want to sacrifice her body when she was alive but she was sacrificed all the same.

The third example which fully points towards utilitarianism is Kate’s choice to accept the fatality of her disease and die. Any believer of utilitarianism would assert that Anna should not be concerned with further medical procedures of Kate because Kate wants to die. As almost all the characters in the movie wanted Kate to be happy, therefore, a utilitarian can probe into the underlying wishes and desires of Kate. As the plot unfolded, Kate also said that she believes Anna’s death was her fault. To preserve every living memory of Anna, Kate works as a dance teacher and feels that Anna is a part of her.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY Michailidou, A. (2019). “A designer baby? Yeah, right.” In-vitro fertilization in Jodi Picoult's My Sister's Keeper. Women's Studies International Forum, 102298.

Raz, A. S.-S. (2017). Saving or Subordinating Life? Popular Views in Israel and Germany of Donor Siblings Created through PGD. Journal of Medical Humanities, 191-207.

Walker, P. &. (2017). raditional Approaches to Ethical Decision Making. Life and Death Decisions in the Clinical Setting, 11-26.

Negative Rights

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Negative Rights

The political thinkers who basically classify distinct categories of rights, negative rights are those rights which are basically entitled to a person to be let alone in one or another manner. In this scenario, if a person has a negative right that person has full freedom to do some action or even if the person doesn't want to do anything then it is also completely in his hands. So the negative right's emphasis on the basic rights of the citizens to nonintervention on the part of the government. Negative rights may include but they are not limited to on what a person should do for a living, whether to own a luxurious car or not or even the right to purchase or sell a specific property, the right to freedom of speech and also the right to make his/her own decisions ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"Pv8nngGx","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Capone)","plainCitation":"(Capone)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":1260,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/456YZM44"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/456YZM44"],"itemData":{"id":1260,"type":"chapter","title":"Negative Rights","container-title":"Encyclopedia of Global Justice","publisher":"Springer Netherlands","publisher-place":"Dordrecht","page":"749-750","source":"Springer Link","event-place":"Dordrecht","URL":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_338","ISBN":"978-1-4020-9160-5","note":"DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_338","language":"en","author":[{"family":"Capone","given":"Stephen F."}],"editor":[{"family":"Chatterjee","given":"Deen K."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2011"]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Capone). On the other hand, positive rights require others, for instance, the government to provide an individual with a specific service or a good. The positive rights include the right to employment and also right to avail basic healthcare facilities. So it is safe to say that the positive rights place a positive duty on other people. It is important to note here that on a social level the positive and also negative rights are incompatible. For example, an individual cannot have the right to be free while still being forced to work for others.

In today's time, all government organizations and the United Nations as well have a combination of both positive and negative rights of freedom in their human rights. Built on negative rights, positive rights can exist within a society but this can exist in the form of voluntary solutions, for instance if an individual has health insurance then he/she is liable to medical care. Although the protection of negative rights is the priority responsibility of the state because without these rights the citizens will not understand that they are the true citizens of the country and also the government is serious in protecting their basic rights. Negative rights for instance, free speech is quite significant in a democratic country and without this, it will be easy for the stat to oppress the people because those who are in power can easily control the information, and most people do not want to be oppressed. In a society that has elections the groups that are in power can easily change over time. So if one political party suppress this basic rights then there are chances that the party will come into power and will repeat the same thing to the previous ruling power ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"2PTnqOYd","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Brennan)","plainCitation":"(Brennan)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":1261,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/BQVSEFQC"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/BQVSEFQC"],"itemData":{"id":1261,"type":"article-journal","title":"State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights","container-title":"Harvard Law Review","page":"489-504","volume":"90","issue":"3","source":"JSTOR","archive":"JSTOR","abstract":"[During the 1960's, as the Supreme Court expanded the measure of federal protection for individual rights, there was little need for litigants to rest their claims, or judges their decisions, on state constitutional grounds. In this Article, Mr. Justice Brennan argues that the trend of recent Supreme Court civil liberties decisions should prompt a reappraisal of that strategy. He particularly notes the numerous state courts which have already extended to their citizens, via state constitutions, greater protections than the Supreme Court has held are applicable under the federal Bill of Rights. Finally, he discusses, and applauds, the implications of this new state court activism for the structure of American federalism.]","DOI":"10.2307/1340334","ISSN":"0017-811X","author":[{"family":"Brennan","given":"William J."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1977"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Brennan). So that means that in any country protecting other people’s free speech is like protecting your own free speech. Also the by protecting the negative rights of the people the government is taking their confidence that even if their speech is against them, the government is always there to protect their rights and this boosts the confidence of their citizens on the stat.

Another reason why the government should protect the negative rights of a given society is that the people who cannot exercise their own basic rights often become rebels and they prefer to go against the government rather than being suppressed by the government. Which further leads to violence and as a result innocent lives are lost, business and homes of individuals get destroyed and the lives of the people uprooted. So by protecting everyone’s rights help to maintain peace, and keeping peace means that people have the freedom and also the ability to live their own life without their rights being violated by anyone. The protection of negative rights of a society and also its people makes the government capable to gain the confidence of its people and as a result, it will be able to govern the country even after completion of its term. Although protecting the negative rights should be a priority of government but it does not mean that the government should only protect the negative rights and do nothing about the positive rights. Because the negative rights of individuals provide a basis for the positive rights of society.

Positive rights like healthcare, education, providing employment opportunities are some of the rights which can be protected only by the government it is only in the hands and control of a government to provide all these opportunities to its people ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"QNH67UCw","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Fisher)","plainCitation":"(Fisher)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":1262,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/8KNK35LF"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/4C6u8dIT/items/8KNK35LF"],"itemData":{"id":1262,"type":"book","title":"Congress: Protecting Individual Rights","publisher":"University Press of Kansas","source":"JSTOR","archive":"JSTOR","abstract":"When asked which branch of government protects citizens' rights, we tend to think of the Supreme Court-stepping in to defend gay rights, for example, in the recent same-sex marriage case. But as constitutional scholar Louis Fisher reveals in his new book, this would be a mistake-and not just because a decision like the gay marriage ruling can be decided by the opinion of a single justice. Rather, we tend to judge the executive and judicial branches idealistically, while taking a more realistic view of the legislative, with its necessarily messier and more transparent workings. In <i>Congress</i> , Fisher highlights these biases as he measures the record of the three branches in protecting individual rights--and finds that Congress, far more than the president or the Supreme Court, has defended the rights of blacks, women, children, Native Americans, and religious liberty.After reviewing the constitutional principles that apply to all three branches of government, Fisher conducts us through a history of struggles over individual rights, showing how the court has frequently failed at many critical junctures where Congress has acted to protect rights. He identifies changes in the balance of power over time-a post-World War II transformation that has undermined the system of checks and balances the Framers designed to protect individuals in their aspiration for self-government. Without a strong, independent Congress, this book reminds us, our system would operate with two elected officers in the executive branch and none in the judiciary, a form of government best described as elitist-and one no one would deem democratic.In light of the history that unfolds here-and in view of a Congress widely decried as dysfunctional-Fisher proposes reforms that would strengthen not only the legislative branch's role in protecting individual rights under the Constitution, but also its standing in the democracy it serves.","URL":"https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1b4cx2q","ISBN":"978-0-7006-2211-5","shortTitle":"Congress","author":[{"family":"Fisher","given":"Louis"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2016"]]},"accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",4,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Fisher). Lets suppose if a government is taking all the basic initiatives to protect the negative rights of its people like it is protecting their right to live their life, to own properties or cars but after protecting all these rights if the government is failed to provide the healthcare facilities then the population will suffer or if it fails to provide them education then the nation will be unable to develop because the state is unable to provide them with the quality education and as a result that country will be unable to compete with other countries and it will stay behind. Without enacting a law for positive rights it will be impossible to move forward as a nation. In order to fully develop as a nation, it is important to protect both positive and negative rights. Both of these rights are the fundamental basis for the development of a country although it is important to design laws in order to protect the negative rights but that is not enough, to fully develop as a nation it is also important to enact laws for the protection of the positive laws because both are important to make the people feel that they are equally important in their country and the government is taking all the important initiatives to protect their rights either they are positive or negative.

Work Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Brennan, William J. “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 90, no. 3, 1977, pp. 489–504. JSTOR, JSTOR, doi:10.2307/1340334.

Capone, Stephen F. “Negative Rights.” Encyclopedia of Global Justice, edited by Deen K. Chatterjee, Springer Netherlands, 2011, pp. 749–50. Springer Link, doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_338.

Fisher, Louis. Congress: Protecting Individual Rights. University Press of Kansas, 2016. JSTOR, JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1b4cx2q.

Nicromachean Ethics



ETHICS Contemporary Readings by Harry J.Gensler, Earl W.Spurgin, and James C.Swindal - Response

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

ETHICS Contemporary Readings by Harry J.Gensler, Earl W.Spurgin, and James C.Swindal - Response

Harry Gensler has talked about the principle of moral philosophy in this chapter. For him, the reason for the everyday problems of our society is hidden in our negative attitude toward moral philosophy. In this section of the book, Cultural relativism, ethical claims and the laws of morality are present. The reading of this part of the book present to you ample ideas about the connection of noble thoughts with that of our moral responses toward any phenomena. Specifically, the most appealing factor of this reading is that it presents to the readers, the ideas that existed in many thinkers- which were lesser known to the people of America. After a thorough reading of the first part of this section of the book, it becomes apparent that the author is building his claims for studying morality by cultural relativism, claims of ethics, and the moral laws.

The author supports his point of view, in the first part, by putting forward "supernaturalism in Love." For example, he refers to some specific part of the Bible. If one thinks critically here, some answers here remains unquestionable. Such as

Is the Bible understandable throughout the world?

Will everyone will be able to devolve his worldly love as per the standards of respect in the Bible?

Is anyone’s love in the world could be that much sacred, as how much a holy love of nature can be?

The next section of this part of the book is about met ethical views. Irreducible Ethical Truths by E. Moores is part of this specific section. Here the author mentions about ethics and emotions. For him, these are interconnected, but not are they. For instance, if they are interconnected, are they generally accepted in the World. The answer is no, because as the world population is covered in religious covers that differently defines the perception of things. This difference of opinions, therefore, gives a different sense of ethics everywhere. A good idea is not generally accepted well in all over the world.

The third part of this section is about ethical methodology. The basics of ethics have been discussed here. The author has presented the views of different authors about the basis of ethics- which is a use full thing, but it somehow makes it difficult to abstract out what are the fundamentals of ethics by all. On what point they all agree? This is not mentioned. When the author refers to the methodology of ethics, there appears no methodology- if it’s taken in the sense of a social science reading.

No Title

Name

Instructors’ Name

Course Title and Code

Date

Matrix One Movie

Question 1:

Morpheus represents Socrates in the film because he stressed on knowing oneself. He motivated neo to not get blinded by artificial reality, but try to find the actual reality. The example from the film includes the point when Morpheus explains the matrix to neo. Another example is the point where, instead of relying on neo to save human beings, Morpheus takes action on his own, to ensure the safety of all.

Question 2:

Morpheus’s remark that matrix can only be believed after seeing it validates empiricism. Empiricists believe only in that reality which can be experienced. It is true that we can only be convinced of the true nature of reality if we can experience it because experiencing the reality validates the feelings and erases the chances of doubt. Rationalist would not support the point as they believe in reasoning and not experiencing (Wachowski et al.).

Question 3:

Morpheus and his crew knew about the real world through reasoning and knowledge. The electric signals were not the thing which made them know that the real world is not a further simulation. The statement lends support to the rationalist perspective because it prefers reasoning over experience. It is not based on empiricist's claim of experience and feeling.

Question 4:

Plato’s allegory of cave represents the enlightenment of the prisoners who spent their whole life in caves. It is similar to that of Neo, as he spent his life in the matrix and was not aware of the reality. The example from the film is that like the prisoners Neo tried to negate the reality. He preferred his false belief as reality, however, was awakened by Morpheus (Wachowski et al.).

Question 5:

Trinity represents Cartesian skepticism by doubting the reality which actually leads her to the conclusion. She is skeptical if Neo is the one who would save them. She resolves her doubt by taking part in the defense. In the end, she saves Neo's life believing that he would save them.

Question 6:

Mouse asks how the machines really know what "tasty wheat" really tastes like. It represents Aristotle and Descartes' notions of primary and secondary substances. Aristotle believed that substances can only be distinguished based on their species. While Descartes believed that substances can be classified into primary and secondary on the basis of their attributed principle (Wachowski et al.).

Question 7:

Cypher’s reaction represent Plato's intuition as he is hesitant to believe the reality and live with it. Cypher’s attitude towards reality reflects nihilism as he rejects the belief that life is meaningless. His dissatisfaction with discovering the true nature of reality is itself a perfect reflection of philosophy. It is so because he wants to live life in matrix knowing that it is not real.

Question 8:

Knowing oneself represents Descartes' notion about rationally justifying reality. It motivates the person to explore the scenario by doubting the things. Doubting provides the chance of reasoning. Reasoning further leads to truth and knowing reality.

Question 9:

The Matrix represents Descartes' dream argument. The dream argument of Descartes states that dreamers believe that they are waking but in reality, they are dreaming and vice versa. Example from the film includes that Neo was waking but he believed that he was dreaming. He was brought into the conscious world by Morpheus (Wachowski et al.).

Question 10:

The film represents the theme of freeing the mind and the mind's ability to affect the body. It demonstrates Cartesian Dualism that material body and immaterial mind interact. The specific example is the move provides the insight that mind and body cannot exist separately. It shows through the character of Neo that the interaction of mind and body is inevitable.

Work Cited

Wachowski, Andy, et al. Matrix. Burbank: Warner Home Video, 1999.

No Title

Name

Instructors’ Name

Course Title and Code

Date

Philosophy

Kant’s categorical imperative states that an individual should act and treat others in the same way that he desires to be treated. The actions of a person should not harm the other individual in any way. The society will only become better, and it would also become the universal laws if the individuals of the society keep a check on their actions and ensure they do not cause any harm. In the case of cyclist named Cohen, he used to cross the red lights, while riding the bicycle. He is of the view that he only crosses the signal when there is no person on the crosswalk, as well as ensuring that no vehicle is heading towards the intersection. The cyclist also included the description in his article that each and every individual of the society breaks the traffic laws while endangering the lives of others. He also breaks the law, as well as gets the tickets, fines and other punishments in return, however, he breaks the law, only after ensuring that it would not cause any harm to any individual (Cohen). Although no individual gets physically hurt due to his disobedience of the law, his habit does annoy a lot of people on the roads. He was of the view that he obeys all the other traffic laws, except staying still on the red light when the path is clear, and there is no person on the crosswalks. He also shared his concern that the laws of traffic and the timing of the traffic signals are only formulated, keeping in view the heavy vehicles and not the bicycles.

The author of the article has claimed that his reasoning is according to the standards of Kant’s categorical imperative. I think that Kant would agree with the reasoning of Cohen because of the fact that his actions are not causing any harm to society. Moreover, he is not trying to tease any person. He wants to be treated in the same way by the rest of society. Due to his disobedience towards the law, he is trying to highlight the fact that the traffic laws have not been formulated keeping in view every kind of vehicle on the roads, which also include bicycles. Moreover, in the area, where he breaks the rules, there are no separate pathways for the bicyclists, and he has to ride along with the rest of the traffic (Robinson).

According to the principle of utility, an action is only right when it brings happiness, and it is wrong in the case it causes any pain or unhappiness to the other individual. In the case of Cohen’s cycling habits, I think that a utilitarian would not agree with the point of view of Cohen. Although, he breaks the laws by ensuring the fact that it does not cause any physical injury to any other individual. However, his actions annoy a great number of people, becoming the reason for their unhappiness (Hirsh, Lu, and Galinsky). So, in reality, he is becoming the source of unhappiness of a great majority of the society, due to which his action cannot be justified as right action. A utilitarian would never agree with the concept and ideology of Cohen and would consider the greater unhappiness, as the sole impact of the wrongdoing of Cohen. If the whole society acts in the same way and nobody gets annoyed by the actions of Cohen, only then the utilitarian would consider the cat of Cohen as a good deed.

Works Cited

Cohen, Randy. “If Kant Were a New York Cyclist.” The New York Times. 2012. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/if-kant-were-a-new-york-cyclist.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article

Hirsh, Jacob B., Jackson G. Lu, and Adam D. Galinsky. "Moral Utility Theory: Understanding the motivation to behave (un) ethically." Research in Organizational Behavior (2018).

Robinson, Richard M. "Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Moral Duties." Imperfect Duties of Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019. 11-38.

Observation

Observation

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Observation-Misuse of Power

Power is the ability of a person to influence others. There are many forms of power. People with power exercise their power in different ways. Some people use their power for evil and unjust practices, which is a threat to humanity. However, power can also be used to bring a positive change or utilize it for the humanistic purposes to empower and assist. The misuse of power is known as abuse of power. Abuse of power is not limited to offices, businesses, and government. People at any level can misuse their power, and at the same time, they have their justifications for it. There are so many examples from society. Even within a family, the dominant member of the family uses his or her power to manipulate others.

The example I am sharing here is from my neighborhood. Following the social, ethical norms, I will not disclose the names or the place they came from. The family I am talking about is an immigrant family, and there are four members in the family; father, mother, and two siblings. One of the kid plays with me when his father is not around. We use to share many things and talk about specific topics. Few days before I saw bruises on his face, on asking he got nervous and did not respond. I did not further investigate. On the other day, it was quite shocking for me to see my friend and his sister scolded and slapped by his father. I could not resist myself and reached the spot. Then, I saw their father using harsh and abusive language for their mother. Upon my interference, his father warned me to stay away and said that I do not know anything. He was roaring that if I did not keep them under control, they would start behaving like others. It is for their own safety and wellbeing. They need to learn that society can spoil them. However, I have not seen any misconduct or offensive behavior of any one of them. I had heard of patriarchal system but I was experiencing it for them first time.

Observation

Essay Response 1 I observed my staff members were having “ego” issues, so I decided to share my personal experience with them. I told them how my business partner betrayed me, how he took all my money cleverly in a way that I couldn’t even file the case against him. It hurt me a lot. I hated him much, and I even slapped and kicked him right in the face so many times in my head. But I realized, I was only hurting myself, and no harm was happening to him, that is when I found that I am more than that; my power and my standard is higher. I decided I’ll build up my empire once again and fly because I am worth it. I let go of all the negativity, and it made me nothing but happy and peaceful. Last month I received an email from my bank that someone delivered a heavy amount in my account. I was all shocked that who did that until I received an apology mail from my business partner in which he mentioned that he has realized that it was very low of him to do that. And here I am, with my successful career and happy life. All a person needs is to be motivated towards goal and forgive those who bother.Essay Response 2 The Internet is poisoning the roots democracy. Its venom works when it spreads false news to the public. Today, people don’t know the truth about even a single politician as the internet has successfully found multiple ways to change the perceptions of people against them. Many fake posts against the government and politicians are uploaded just for the sake of visitors on websites and engagement on social media platforms. Politician’s scandals and dark sides whether they are true or not, have broken the trust of people. Most of the people do not like to vote in elections just because they think no politician is worth giving one. Moreover, democracy has also been played as a toy by politicians who make themselves famous over the internet by paying different websites to write noble and good about them; it changes the perception of people too. In short, the internet is no good for democracy.

Oppression

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Question: Explain the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed, as described by Freire. Then use his ideas to evaluate yourself. Are you an oppressor? Are you oppressed? Both? Neither? Explain. (Freire)

Answer:

Introduction: Paulo Freire has remained influential in presenting new ideas in critical pedagogy. His work has inspired educationist, which aimed at bringing real changes through education. The primary purpose of his philosophy remained to eradicate the menace of illiteracy from the countries or the continents which have remained colonized. He believed that the children of the slaves do not have the thinking abilities like that of the free children. His philosophies have helped in changing the living conditions of the oppressed classes.

Paulo Freire's best-known work is his description of the role of oppressed or the oppressor. He has worked on elaborating this role in his famous work ‘The Pedagogy of the Oppressed’. This work of him invited much criticism and faced serious setbacks, as it was legally banned in many countries to be taught as the textbook. He has divided his work into four parts. His primary argument throughout the book remains that how the oppressor and the oppressed are living in a relation, which is just benefitting for the oppressor and not for the oppressed ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"pOeZAtoM","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Freire)","plainCitation":"(Freire)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":435,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/QUTVAB73"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/QUTVAB73"],"itemData":{"id":435,"type":"article-journal","title":"Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised)","container-title":"New York: Continuum","source":"Google Scholar","author":[{"family":"Freire","given":"Paolo"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1996"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Freire). He has also talked about the liberation, which he believes is a mutual process. He has also criticized the education system which he mentions as a kind of the banking system. The last chapter of this book is about how unity can help in liberating the oppressed classes.

Paulo Freire’s description of the relation between the oppressed and the oppressor has remained quite debatable. This essay is therefore designed to analyze the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed. Considering the ideas presented by Paulo Freire, it will be thoroughly analyzed that what finally makes the oppressed to stand against the oppressor’s policies. Since Freire’s major work is about the adverse conditions of the oppressed, therefore it becomes apparent that the degraded situations in which the oppressors are forced to live in are never the final destinies.

Analysis: Freire has covered many aspects of how education can help in changing the living conditions of the oppressed classes. He argues that it is by no means the right of the elite to secure the best opportunities for themselves. He mentions that this is injustice which then leads towards social destruction. In his work, he has taken some inspirations from the ideas of Marxism, although he has not directly referred to it in the whole book. Freire has analyzed the conditions of the oppressed classes in Brazil. He opined that in Brazil there were limited opportunities for the people of lower classes to enroll their children’s in job oriented courses, such conditions then resulted in accumulating opportunities by the rich ones. Freire then worked on exploring the conditions what resulted for the poor students for being oppressed. He remained passionate in his writing for making the educational injustices which he believed is an issue.

The thesis he has suggested in his first chapter is that the dehumanizing conditions in which the humans lives are not the final destinies. The author has presented the two extremes of a society. He opens that the working conditions of the poor and the rich are different. The rich people are able to grasp the opportunities depending upon the knowledge they have. Fiere argues that since the poor (or the oppressed) lacks the knowledge, he therefore remains unable to make things in his favor. These timely responses by the rich makes him behave as the oppressor. This sense of oppressor remains same in every facet of life. Fiere has also used a metaphor in describing about how knowledge is being imparted into the children. For describing this he has used an example of the Banking system. He argues that in a bank the money is being invested by some classes, this is true also in the form of educational institutes also. Since the students are the passive receivers of knowledge therefore, they then act in a kind of designed way. He has mentioned teachers as depositors and the schools as providing the administrative setups. In this metaphor, he has finally presented money in the form of knowledge. He finally concludes his metaphor by mentioning that as like the Banks preserves a social class for some few people, similarly the schools provide such administrative infrastructure for students.

Fiere has presented much broadly his views about why there exist injustices in the education system, or why the society is divided between the oppressors and the oppressed. There is some criticism over his presentation of ideas. Giroux argues that neither the banks and nor the school creates an unjust society ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"hGR0aQVS","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Giroux)","plainCitation":"(Giroux)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":432,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/T9GAW9F4"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/T9GAW9F4"],"itemData":{"id":432,"type":"article-journal","title":"Paulo Freire and the politics of postcolonialism","container-title":"Journal of Advanced Composition","page":"15–26","source":"Google Scholar","author":[{"family":"Giroux","given":"Henry A."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1992"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Giroux). Although Giroux has remained too critical about Fiere's work and has straightaway rejected the idea of Fiere that educational system is inherently responsible for the unjust society. An unbiased analysis of Fiere’s debate of oppressor and oppressed suggests that since it is true that the society was unjust at the time Fiere had compiled his book, but his presentation of ideas lack justifications. For example, the oppressed are not always the ones who have been deprived of the educational facilities, some people also lack the chance to get to the right opportunities. This is how exactly the oppressor takes away the opportunities from the oppressed class. The oppress in Fiere’s work lacks elaboration. As it is not always that the oppressor has the possession of money. There could be some other disagreements with the ideas suggested by Fiere. For example, he has not also complete presented as what according to him the destiny as. Destiny cannot always be the possession of knowledge, some people had other goals also. For example, the desire for wealth. The desire for wealth can also be achieved by not being educated. These are some ways how one can differentiate with Paulo Fiere.

Conclusion: Paulo Fiere has remained stick to one aspect of the relation between the oppressor and the oppressed. This is the primary reason his work has invited criticism. He has touched the very basic reasons why society is unjust towards many people. He has also remained too narrow while describing what exactly is between the oppressor and the oppressed. According to him, the final destiny is achieving something that the oppressed class has not achieved in history. He has basically challenged the status- This is where this analysis challenges the ideas presented by Paulo Fiere. The final destiny of an oppressed person can never be coming out of the conditions, he or she had been living in. The final destination is always designed after experiencing certain things in life. This is where every day a person changes his goals and his ideas about life. Paulo Fiere's work could have been true for the times he had written this book, but at present, the notion of life and its destinies have been changed. In this world of today, the oppressors are of many types, similarly, there is numerous way of challenging them. Anyone that is hardworking and has the real idea about how to change his life, can reach to the glory. This is why Paulo could have been more elaborative in describing his thoughts about life.

Works Cited:

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Freire, Paolo. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Revised).” New York: Continuum, 1996.

Giroux, Henry A. “Paulo Freire and the Politics of Postcolonialism.” Journal of Advanced Composition, 1992, pp. 15–26.

Oppression Classmate Respond

Oppression

[Author Name(s), First M. Last, Omit Titles and Degrees]

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

Author Note

[Include any grant/funding information and a complete correspondence address.]

Oppression

Response 1

Understanding oppression is important, and oppression means the process in which an individual is limited boundaries, and certain experiences, while experiences may include sexual orientations, women, race, and ethnicities. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"ZzC4u2XU","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Frye, 1983)","plainCitation":"(Frye, 1983)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":111,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/smYQhi21/items/ZGC9PP66"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/smYQhi21/items/ZGC9PP66"],"itemData":{"id":111,"type":"book","title":"Oppression","publisher":"na","number-of-pages":"1-16","author":[{"family":"Frye","given":"Marilyn"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1983"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} Frye (1983) states that women are oppressed and the author highlights the harassment cases, precisely, the sexually oriented activities which limit their expressions in their families. Unwanted pregnancies, health issues, and psychological imbalances are the issues that women hide from their families. Individuals are categorized to their personalities, and they are stereotyped to particular roles, as women should only make clothes, and if a man does the same then he is labeled with names. Opinions regarding politics by men and women are not appreciated in the workplace. Women are judged based on their decisions, emotions and they are viewed by men as vulnerable, so women living in this era are oppressed.

Response 2

Wages paid to men and women are different for the same job and task, women earn lesser and they are not given the equal amount for the same job, and there are skills and working hours that are ignored. There is a huge wage difference between women and men, and this discourages the inclusion and participation of women to be efficient and work. The representation of women in the government sector and other representations, women are not given enough chances of representation, and they are not treated equally. Women are not allowed to vote and have a representation in the offices, and they are only limited to house chores. Few men believe that women should stay at home, and they should avoid going to jobs, they should only take care of their kids, husbands, and cook and clean. The products in the market are expensive for women for example shampoo, woman’s products would be at higher prices in comparison with the products of men.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Frye, M. (1983). Oppression. pp 1-16.na.

Part 2: Criticism And Analysis

Name

Instructor’s Name

Course Title and Code

Date

Why Abortion is Immoral - Don Marquis

In this essay, I will analyze and criticize an article which is entitled “Why Abortion is Immoral.” The article is written by Don Marquis and was published in the year 1989. The author has argued about the abortion debate, while mainly holding the position that abortion is immoral because of the fact that the fetus holds the position of a potential human being and it is not morally rights to take away that right of living. Marquis has included the point of view of the people who claim that there is nothing wrong in aborting a fetus and the mother-to-be has the right of making the decision according to her choice. The author has tried to present the arguments of both of the sides while trying to make it clear that killing of the fetus is immoral and cannot be justified in any way. The strengths and weakness of the arguments of Marquis will be highlighted in this paper through the utilization of analysis and critique.

One of the greatest strength of the point of view and article of Marquis is that the premises of his arguments are reasonable. An example of this is that Marquis has nullified the claim of the supports of abortion that the fetus is not human beings because it is not conscious and cannot feel the pain. The author has responded to it in the way that fetus is aware of its boundaries and has the sense of seeking protection by confining in its boundary, which is enough to remark its consciousness. The author has provided the good evidence of his key claims by mentioning that fetus has the potential future of a human being ahead of it and taking away that right cannot be justified in any manner (Marquis, 190).

The evidence provided by the author supports the conclusion in a conclusive manner. On the other hand, there is a little weakness in the argumentation of the author. The supporters of the abortion debate have made the argumentation that the fetus is not a human being but just the collection of few human cells, which is no different than the cancer cells in the human body. If killing the fetus is immoral because it has the potential future, then the cancer cells also have a potential future and should not be killed. However, cancer cells cannot be allowed the right to that future. So there should be no problem in taking the life of the fetus as well. The weakness of the argument of Marquis is that he has regarded this point as the ethical matter, however, he should have argued that cancel cells brought the destruction and demise of the human beings, therefore, it is right to get rid of them, however, fetus does not cause any harm to the human life, so it is not rights to get rid of it. In the case it is causing a threat to the life of mother-to-be, then it is a matter of concern (Marquis, 195).

Someone from the opposing view would find the arguments plausible because they are supported by logical claims and evidence. The background assumptions of the arguments are that the fetus is a potential human being which has the right to live and which should not be taken from it. The author has not presupposed things without evidence, which can cause concern to the people of the opposite point of view.

The author has presented his point of view in quite a logical manner, by providing the support and possible evidence of his claims. The strength of his claims is the logical presentation, while the only weakness of one of his claims is that he has tried to address it through the ethical perspective and not utilized the logical argumentation about it. However, the article has shed light on the immorality of abortion, while stressing the claims that it cannot be justified in any case.

Taking Life

The Embryo and Fetus - Peter Singer

In this essay, I will analyze and criticize the article “Taking Life, The Embryo and Fetus.” The article is written by “Peter Singer” and was published in the year 1993. The author has argued about the status of embryo or fetus. One of the greatest issues in the debate of abortion is the status of embryo and fetus, in order to determine that fetus and embryo are human beings or not. The author has shed light on the claims of the conservatives, as well as the liberal side about the status of the embryo and fetus in a detailed manner. The author has shared his stance on the matter while arguing about the fetus being sentient, the potential life of the fetus and the issue of infanticide. The author has presented his arguments in a logical manner, by providing the support of his claims. The strengths and weakness of the arguments of Singer will be highlighted in this paper through the utilization of analysis and critique.

The strength of the article of Singer is that the premise of his arguments is reasonable. The author has also used good evidence to support the key premises. One of the greatest strengths of his article is that he has presented the point of the view of the conservative and liberals on the matter in an effective manner. He has not let his personal views or biases to portray either side in a positive or negative manner. He has just shed light on their point of view in a neutral manner. On the other hand, he has shared his stance on the matter in the later section of his article (Singer, 170).

Singer has provided the evidence of his claims which conclusively support his claims. It is evident from the fact that he has argued that the fetus has a well-developed mind and nervous system, which proves its consciousness, although it is not self-consciousness. Moreover, the fetus has the sense of its boundaries and seeking protection, which is enough to claim that the fetus is a potential human being, having a future ahead of him, which should not be killed (Singer, 165).

Someone from the opposing views would consider the logic of the claims presented by Singer, and would not be able to refute them. They would find the premises plausible and the evidence of the claims would also appear compelling to them, as Singer has argued in his article that the fetus cannot be distinguished from a developed child, therefore, it is morally wrong to kill them. The mind of the fetus is well developed until the eighth week of conception, so it is a potential human being at that time, which should not be killed. The background assumption of the author is that fetus or embryo cannot be distinguished from a developed child, due to their continuous developments, which is the main reason it cannot be killed on the claims of a mere collection of human cells. The author has not presupposed things without evidence that someone from the opposing view would reject.

The article by Singer has a number of strengths, as the author has presented his claims in a logical manner. There are no weaknesses in the article of the author because he has shared the logical support and evidence of his claims, which does not leave any space for the opposing side to raise any conflict. He has perfectly shed light on the status of embryo and fetus by claiming them to be the potential human beings which have the right to live.

Works Cited

Marquis, Don. "Why abortion is immoral." The Journal of Philosophy 86.4 (1989): 183-202.

Singer, Peter. "Taking life: The embryo and the fetus." Practical Ethics (1993): 135-174.

PEER Response

RESPONSE 1

I agree that many politicians are misusing the power. In the start, they claim that they will change the existing system and solve all the problems of the public, but when they are given the authority, they contribute in the same problems, do not bother to fulfill demands of public and disappoint everyone. Moreover, I agree that we are the ones who give rise to these people who remain unjust with us. In reality, it is the public who chooses the leader; it has become a fashion now that people choose hypocrites. There needs to be a standard for picking true and worthy leaders instead of choosing double-faced politicians for the government.

Response 2

If someone is at a higher position, that means there is even more responsibility on one’s shoulder. This attitude of a manager is like a nightmare for an organization. Every single employee deserves to be respected; she has no right to address her colleagues like that. I am wondering that what good it is in for the company that they are allowing her to do all this. Every single member of the staff needs to file a complaint against her. Response 3

It is true that every nation has to prove itself socially as well as economically. There are three types of the economic system, i.e., Socialism, capitalism, and mixed economy. American politician claim that they believe in capitalism while there act shows that they give priority to socialism. It can be true because in this world every individual, firm, or government try to maximize their profit and they make their strategies according to the will of that profit maximization. In the case of American government, they verbally promote capitalism, but their policies sometimes act on the basis of socialism. In other words, we can say that America is running on a mixed economy system.Response 4 I agree that it sounds harsh when parents tell their children not to open their eyes before Christmas, else Santa would spit or give no presents to them. They think it is a noble lie and it is good for their children to assume it that way. I strongly disagree with that; when kids grow up and find out none of this is real, it breaks their trust. Moreover, it does not make sense at all when parents tell their children that babies are delivered by storks, just because they find it uncomfortable to share the truth with their children. Instead, they need to be told the truth because children are smart, they can observe how the body of the mother is changing and raise so many other questions, which leads to so many other lies and it gets even more difficult for parents to justify.

Personhood Over Time

Personhood over Time

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Personhood over Time

Introduction

Human being is the most prestigious creation of God. It has been created as the most superior creature in the universe and has been blessed with the most number of abilities among all the creation in this universe. The most important and the most powerful ability, with which, the humans have been blessed is the wist or wisdom. Every person has been blessed with a separate identity. He or she has their own characteristics, their own traits, their own qualities. No two individuals are the same. This difference or uniqueness is known as "personhood" (Graham, 2016).

Scientist, experts, and researchers have done a great amount of work on the subject have discovered the various aspects of personal identity on the basis of the concept of personhood. The experts in the area philosophy have laid special emphasis on the subject and many great philosophers have present notable pieces of research and theories on the topic of personhood. Some of the most prominent names among these philosophers were John Locke and Thomas Reid.

Discussion

The concept of “personhood” is very controversial in not only in the avenues of philosophy but in the field of law as well. The term “personhood” refers to the state of being a person, a complete, breathing, person with the ability to think rationally and possessing complete rights (Noonan, 2019). The definition of "personhood" is closely linked to the concepts of legal and political ideas of citizenship, liberty, and equality. In the eyes of the law, only a person possessing the status of a natural person or a legal personality is entitled to have rights, privileges, protections, legal, liabilities, and responsibilities.

Fundamental to the concept of personhood (at least in the philosophical sense) is thought, and most likely consciousness. Philosopher John Locke, whose ideas inspired the American Declaration of Independence (The Influence of John Locke's Works), describes in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1984) a person as a "thinking intelligent being". Essential to this thinking is self-consciousness - the ability of "perceiving that [one] does perceive". Hence, the fundamental criterion for any entity to be considered a person, according to Locke, is that the entity is aware of itself and its actions (Reid, 1975).

An alternative approach is Bundle Theory, supported by David Hume. Bundle Theorists reject the notion of personhood altogether or regard it solely a grammatical concept. Instead, they focus on the mind and what defines it. Hume described the mind as being "a heap or collection of different perceptions, united together by certain relations" (A Treatise of Human Nature, 1956), these relations being ones of resemblance and causation. A single mind is one where thoughts and perceptions are connected in time and affect each other. Arguably, the Bundle Theorists' idea of the mind is less restricted than Locke's of personhood. Therefore, minds (with this definition) can be possessed by many other organisms than humans.

In short, animals, extraterrestrial life and computers could, and might with regards to Bundle Theory already, satisfy philosophical criteria for personhood. If and how these entities are granted human rights, I do not know, but it is a question I would gladly read more about. A person (opposed to people or a human being) is an entity to carry rights and duties. To have a right, you need to be able to make a decision about that right and carry the consequences of that decision.

So, a person needs to have something inside itself (not meant dehumanizing to human persons) being able to make decisions. So for an adult healthy human, it is easy. We have a working brain. But also a company can be considered a person (often called a legal person) Here the board of directors can do the decision. This is important because otherwise, a company couldn't own property. So humans have a big working brain able to make rational decisions. This distinguishes us humans from other animals (there are people, who think humans can be single-celled organisms, a completely illogical idea). Here personhood is easily defined.

A bit more complicated are cases where the human is still in development or damaged somehow, so that brain function is limited. The answer is, that society usually limits the scope of personhood. If you can't be expected to properly make that decision and carry the consequences, you don't get that right. This goes down to details, like licensing, where you increase your personhood, by getting the right to do a special job or so. The basic (human) person rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is true worldwide. But even these three are limited for children (Schouls, 2018). Even life is not to be decided by the little ones, as small children might kill themselves if they are not taken care of. Life includes also health, do you consider it a good idea to ask an infant if he or she wants to be vaccinated?

Conclusion

Hence, there is personhood, be able to make a decision and carry the consequences. Philosophers, psychologists, legal experts, and researchers have long been debating over this controversial issue and have given different theories about the perspective of being a person. John Locke and Thomas Reid have also contributed a significant amount of work to the subject and have presented contrasting views over the theory. Locke treats the personal identity as an integral part of the personality, while Reid treats the “personhood” of a person in a sense of episodic memory.

References

Graham, E. L. (2016). Making the difference: Gender, personhood, and theology. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Noonan, H. W. (2019). Personal identity. Routledge.

Reid, T. (1975). Of Mr. Locke’s account of our personal identity. Personal identity, 113-118.

Schouls, P. A. (2018). Reasoned freedom: John Locke and enlightenment. Cornell University Press.

Phadeo And Socrates Death, How Does He Die And Do You Agree With What He Says Is A Good Death

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[English]

[Date]

Phaedo and Socrates’ death

The Phaedo is one of the famous dialogues of Socrates that are written in “Five Dialogues” by Plato. Phaedo means, “On soul”. The crux of Phaedo highlights the death of Socrates and his ideology of good death. He infers that death is a separation of soul and body. Socrates deciphers the idea that the human soul is immortal, a day before his execution. He was executed by drinking hemlock in accordance with the orders of the Athenian jury, as he did not believe in the Gods of state. There are three arguments that are presented in order to describe death. They are, the cyclical arguments, the argument of recollection and affinity. (Plato). Socrates’ ideology of death is agreeable because he negates the idea of suicide that is a highly immoral act. It is believable to assert that there is a superpower that has the potential to direct human life and human actions. Along with philosophers, even every man should be ready for death because it is a journey from one world to another. In reality, there are a number of circumstances and cases in which death is more like a blessing because it detaches a human being from a continuous torment such as severe ailment or any disability. Also, death is a controller of actions because it directs materialism to humanity, because in the end man will be left with nothing except his actions. It would not be wrong to say that Socrates has laid the foundation of an ideal death that serves as a lifeboat for survivors, a hope for those who are struggling and support for those who are fed up. Moreover, the negation of suicide is equally affirming because anything that interferes with natural conduct is destructive, and suicide defies balance between nature and human beings.

Work Cited

"Plato: Phaedo | Internet Encyclopedia Of Philosophy." Iep.utm.edu. N. p., 2019.

Plato: Five Dialogues." https://www.google.com/search?biw=1680&bih=788&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei= HwCXYrfBYr0-gSG77rYDQ&q=plato+five+dialogues&oq=plato+five+&gs l=img.3.0.35i39j0i30j0i24l8.25672.26406..27310...0.0..0.140.774.0j6......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i67j0.e8IJjoz4ij8#imgrc=p6tFxG03uWk3MM:

Phi

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Racism

Class

Institution

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Racism

Introduction

This paper is aimed at contemplating and exploring Appiah’s beliefs about Racism and making distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic racism. Arguments would be developed and supported using relevant literature and it would be explained either racialism is nature-supported or nurture plays equally significant on its expression. In the end, prospective remedies, if any, would be presented. In a nutshell, this essay will allow the reader gaining thorough insight about the problem subject in the light of preexisting literature.

Main body

Kwame Anthony Appiah is a British- Ghanaian novelist, cultural theorist and philosopher who was born in May 8, 1954. His major interests included the philosophy of mind and language, politics, moral theories and African Intellectual History. He was in view that racism is although a macro- level issue yet we need to contemplate factors incorporated at micro- level for gaining clearer understanding about racism because society as a whole is made up of discrete and distinct individuals having unique perceptions, feelings, thought patterns, emotions, decision-making abilities, orientations, outlooks, beliefs, problem solving abilities, coping skills, personality and intelligence which coupled with the environmental experiences determines the way through which human beings operate in their environment and develop particular attitudes towards other members of the society (Appiah, 1990).

Appiah takes a stricter look at the structure of beliefs held by racists and focuses on gathering counterevidence for dissuading racists from sticking to these beliefs in theory. In order to break the unfavorable beliefs of racists; Appiah attempts to divide them down into three discrete doctrines; intrinsic racism, extrinsic racism and racialism (Appiah, 1990). Racialism is the central notion proposed by Appiah that human beings possess certain inheritable characteristics that allow them to be divided into smaller and discrete sets of races. Hence, those who deny realism indirectly attempt to deny racism because by denying racialism we mean that there are no genetic predispositions in humans and no animal is superior or inferior to other animals in any sense (Appiah, 1990). Hence, realism is the crux of racism because these ‘so called” inheritable characteristics act as “racial essences.” It must be noted that these characteristics are both moral and morphological in nature and are not shared between races. He believes that as long as equitable distribution of moral characteristics is ensured, morphological factors are not necessarily problematic. However, when moral characteristics are distributed unevenly, morphological idea makes a great problem.

We can confirm the above mentioned scenario by putting some real life example concerning American culture. In the United States today, Whites hold basic human rights almost exclusively regarding all positive “moral” qualities whereas individuals of other colors are narrated with negative moral attributes (Gordon, 1995). As we can see White Americans as educated, stable and safe whereas black people are perceived completely differently and it confirms that in American society, moral qualities are distributed unevenly that creates immense problem for the unprivileged races. Although it is quite challenging to determine the benchmark of “equal” distribution of moral characteristics in society yet we can say that if certain positive traits and values become more evident and valued than others, equality can be attained (Appiah, 1990). To Appiah, racialism is a false doctrine.

Extrinsic racism is referred to as a belief that an insight of race allows individuals to treat the members of his race differently than others. Those who are extrinsic racists believe that real or perceived differences among different races warrant “racial” treatment. For example, if an individual is extrinsic racist, he would treat all white and black people differently i.e., considering all white people as honest and black people as disloyal and less credible (Gordon, 1995). Interestingly, it is quite easy to eliminate extrinsic racism because evidence and theory would be enough for him to question his beliefs (Appiah, 1990). For example, a person who believes that white and black people fall differently at honesty continuum would be shown the list of crimes committed by both white and black people equally. In this way, he would come to know that moral make-up of whites and blacks is quite similar and physical features no longer determine the behaviors of individuals and hold no moral relevance in practice. Appiah further stated that if a person does not change his beliefs in the light of evidences; he is certainly not a sincere extrinsic racist.

On the other hand, an insincere extrinsic racist is an insincere intrinsic racist too. Appiah stated that the fact that one person belongs to a certain race affects his behavior towards the individuals of same race; in other words, he might prefer some individuals over others because they belong to similar or different races. In this scenario, a white person who is intrinsic racist would see all white people as integral part of larger family and is least interested in the verified and original behavioral predispositions (Gordon, 1995). Under this influence, white intrinsic racists will always treat their fellow whites preferably and would entertain them with special treatment and would not grant this “privilege” to the individuals of other races. It must be noted that extrinsic and intrinsic racism are somewhat overlapping in nature, for that matter, it is quite hard to estimate which doctrine exists by nature (Appiah, 1990). He also believed that intrinsic racism is cannot be eliminated because person believes that he is not providing any harm to other races and his behavior towards his own race members is predominately involuntary in nature. So, they would undoubtedly not entertain any counterevidence.

A bulk of literature indicates that both intrinsic and extrinsic racists feel unreasonable with respect to their beliefs about races and prefer clinging to their personal perspective rather than encountering and accepting any counter argument. Another definition of racism presented by Appiah is that racism is something much more than just “feeling” overwhelmingly good about one’s own dominance. Under this feeling, apparently they deem more concerned about their own happiness rather than others’ moral, social, economical and political destruction (Appiah, 1990). This feeling of contentment and superiority makes a great difference particularly when we talk about political and economic systems because we might have people with similar racial beliefs in our political lodges.

In my view, racism is mainly resulted from “nurture” experiences because at the time when we are born, we do not find others inferior particularly with reference to their color. Social Learning Theory of Albert Bandura best explains the nurture aspect of racism. With the passing time, our social system i.e., family members, teachers, peer groups, friends, relatives and other members of the community enables us acquiring certain beliefs that become too rigid with the passage of time and we cannot help ourselves practicing the same. Notably, we can learn racism through our own experiences and through observing our models (Frantz, 1986). Both ways are highly consequences-based in nature i.e., if one gets positive consequences after committing any racist act, he will continue to do so whereas if he encounters criticism by parents and teachers upon executing such immoral behavior; he would obviously feel discouraged to commit it again. With the passage of time, constant practice would develop his personality accordingly.

Conclusion

This paper was aimed at contemplating and exploring Appiah’s beliefs about Racism and making distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic racism. He believed that both intrinsic and extrinsic racism results from irrational beliefs about races however extrinsic racism can be eliminated using counter-evidence. Moreover, environmental, social or cultural factors are more weighty determinants of racism as compared to the genetic predispositions.

References

Appiah, A. (1990). Racisms In David T. Goldberg, ed., The Anatomy of Racism, University of Minnesota Press.

Gordon, L. R. (1995). Bad Faith and Anti-black Racism. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities. Print.

Frantz, F., (1986). Black Skin, White Masks. London: Pluto, Print

PHI

Name

Professor name

Subject

July 13, 2019

PHI

Question 1

Ethical principles of bioethics can be used for responding to Ginny’s situation. The newborn is suffering from the disease of epidermolysis bullosa, a genetic disease involving the blistering and sloughing off of the skin and mucous membranes. The doctors suggested that there is no cure for the disease and the child will continue to suffer. The lining of Ginny’s mouth is severely damaged that is preventing her from drinking. I think that the bioethics suggests that the right decision is to act in the best interest of the newborn. The decision of ending the life of Ginny can be justified by applying the popular case of Baby Doe. The Baby Doe Rule suggested choosing what is in the best interest of the child, based on family’s considerations CITATION Phi092 \l 1033 (Pecorino).

Question 2

The video reveals the treatment adopted for the severely damaged newborns. Treating such children only prolongs their misery as there is no permanent cure. Solomoon Smith was born prematurely and was damaged. The doctors can keep him alive but only that will allow him to live a retarded life. Throughout his life he would be dependent on machines and would be unable to walk. The mother has asked the doctors to use every technology to keep her son alive. In such situation it would be unethical to end the life of Solomon because the bioethics suggests taking consent from the parents. A non-concequetionalist theory of ethics supports the decision of keeping the baby alive. It states that the value of rightness or wrongness depends on the actions not the outcomes CITATION Phi092 \l 1033 (Pecorino).

Question 3

The infant of Mrs. Roth was severely deformed and was unable to develop legs, skull or face. Mrs. Roth was upset with the condition of the child so she mixed a lethal dose with the tranquilizer that caused her death. She also accepted that she had killed her child. I think there must be laws against this kind of infanticides because it is unethical to kill a child like this. According to the non-concequetioanlist view it is immoral to kill anyone irrespective of the outcomes. Allowing such kind of killings will promote negative culture as more parents will kill unwanted child. The utilitarian rule states that the ethical action to choose the decision that is in the best interest for the greatest number of people. By killing infants like Mrs. Roth a larger population will be influenced to kill their unwanted infants illegally.

Question 4

The video reveals that many infants are born in severely deformed manner. Killing such kids is ethical according to the consequential and non-consequential views. The outcome of such act is ethical according to the utilitarian approach because the newborn will get relief from the pain and suffering. Jeremy Bentham states that, “the action is the best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number” CITATION Phi092 \l 1033 (Pecorino). According to this view it is ethical to kill the deformed baby like Solomon because it will lead to the greatest good for the parents and the medical staff.

Question 5

The act of Mr. McKay is unethical and illegal because he intentionally killed the baby irrespective of the hospital’s policy. Dr. McKay smashed the infant?s head against the floor several times, splattering the wall and floor with brain tissue and blood. The ethical principle of distributive justice suggests that every individual has equal rights to live in the world. The act of Mr. McKay can be considered as unethical because it sets wrong example for the society according to the Utilitarian philosophy. Taking my position as a bioethical advisor I would suggest better alternatives such as discussing the matter with hospital authorities and findings better treatment. Even killing through dosage was better that than brutal act.

Question 6

The video reveals that there are children who are born with Down’s Syndrome and spend their lifetime in the retarded condition. They are unable to walk or participate in life like normal human beings. I think adopting proper methods for ending lives if such children is ethical because treatment only prolong pain and suffering. The ethical principles of consequentialism stresses on the outcomes. This reflects that the outcomes of ending the lives of newborn is better who are about to live a miserable life. This decision can be supported by Utilitarian philosophy.

Question 7

Medical futility case brings parents to a situation where they need to choose between what is ethical right or wrong. The video depicts that in many states it is legal to kill newborns or infants where there are no chances of recovery from treatment. According to the deontological approach it would be unethical to kill a child because every individual have certain obligations to perform. It would be wrong to kill a child because it is against humanity.

Question 8

I think that the decision of killing or saving a severely damaged newborn depends on the moral philosophy chosen by the defender. There is need for using these philosophies and ethical principles for finding better solution for dealing with such cases.

Question 9

The material and exercises in the module allowed me to understand different viewpoints about this critical issues of ending the lives of severely deformed infants. These materials are linked to my life because I personally encountered such case when my aunt gave birth to a newborn who was diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome. It allowed me change my way of thinking because I always used to think it is unethical to kill an infant irrespective of the disease.

Reference

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pecorino, Philip A. Medical Ethics . The City University of New York , 2009.

PHI

Your NAME:

CASE TITLE: 

DESCRIPTION of the case by student:

July 15, 2019

Care of dying

Part A

Reading comprehension

The ethical philosophies of Rule Utilitarian and Natural Law present different views on the case of Mr. Box. According to the Rule Utilitarian principles it is ethical to think about the greatest number of people rather than a single person. This philosophy suggests to “expand beyond the idea of pleasure to that of satisfying the interests of people” CITATION Phi092 \l 1033 (Pecorino). This reflects that in Mr. Box’s case it would be ethical to avoid operation and let him die because it will be in the best interest of others. By avoiding operation it is possible to save Box from mental coherence and pain.

The ethical theory of Natural law states that “people cannot live moral lives unless they follow God’s moral teachings” CITATION Phi092 \l 1033 (Pecorino). According to this philosophy it would be unethical to deny operation to Mr. Box because it is equivalent to the act of killing. According to the moral teachings it is obligatory for the doctor to save the life of Mr. Box. Natural Law theory also claims that morality cannot be attained until a person have belief in supernatural entity (God). This states that God prevents humans from causing harm to others or killing them. The decision of denying operation is unethical because it is intentional killing of Mr. Box.

Critical thinking

Position: I will defend the case by suggesting ending the life of Mr. Box. My decision of denying operation relies on the ethical theory of Rule Utilitarianism.

Reasons: Keeping in view the medical condition of Mr. Box it is evident that the operation will be of no good to him. He will become mentally incoherent after operation. Rule Utilitarian philosophy can bee applied in this case that suggests choosing the course of action that leads to the best interest of the majority. Keeping Mr. Box alive in mentally incoherent condition will be more unpleasant for the healthcare provider and family of Mr. Box. Keeping him alive in such condition will also prevent hospital from using resources for other patients in case of high turnover. This will also cause financial pressure on the entity who is paying for the health cost of Mr. Box. I believe that ending the life of Mr. Box is ethical because it will lead to the pleasure of greatest number of people. Rule Utilitarian theory supports my decision of denying operation to him.

Reasons of flawed positions: I think that the Natural Law philosophy is not appropriate in justifying the decision of keeping Mr. Box alive. This is because the theory relies on the moral obligation but not on the outcome of choice.

Criticism: The followers of natural law theory believes that it is unethical and immoral to kill a person irrespective of the outcomes. It is a moral obligation of the doctors to save the lives of patients. Outcomes are not important and morality is decided on thee basis of action.

Rebuttal: I believe that the criticism raised by Natural Law theory is ineffective and weak because it is important to consider the outcomes of the situation.

Part B

Materials concerning internet

https://www.dyingmatters.org/gp_page/dr-peter-nightingale-my-experience

https://www.dyingmatters.org/gp_page/dr-catherine-millington-sanders-my-experience

https://www.dyingmatters.org/gp_page/professor-mayur-lakhani-my-experience

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170216103931.htm

Viewpoints of analysts and ethicists

Dr. Sweis an Assistant Professor of Neurology and Dr. Biller a Professor of Neurology claims that patients with spinal chord injury are unable to live an active or healthy life. In many cases the patient is only living a miserable life because he is unable to perform even the simple functions CITATION Roc17 \l 1033 (Sweis and Biller). According to their analysis patients dying from care must not be operated when it only adds to suffering and pain while the chances of recovery from paralysis are zero.

Dr. Peter Nightingale explains the bioethical philosophy behind ending life of older patients. He encountered a case of 82-years old patient who was retired diabetic teacher. He was admitted after convulsion caused by hypernatremia. The patient expressed his desire of receiving no resuscitation. He agreed to sign the care planning documentation and Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) form. He returned to the hospital after having it discussed with the facility. Nightingale considers this act of ending life of patient as ethical that resulted in high dignified death. His views states that it is better to let an older patient die who wants to end suffering CITATION GP18 \l 1033 (GP).

Dr. Catharine Millington holds adequate experience of dealing with the patients of palliative care. She explains her encounter with an elderly cancer patient who was receiving care for many years and was dependent on his wife. He decided to receive care at home and die there. He also stated receiving no resuscitation because he had mentioned that it will only prolong suffering. Millington comments supports the act of ending life of patients who are living a retarded life and wants to get rid of pain CITATION Dai19 \l 1033 (Daily).

Professor Mayur Lakhani also supports ending life of the patients who are undergoing severe pain at older age. The patient was 82 years old and suffered from acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive disease. He was unable to perform normal body functions and decided to sign the Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) form. According to Lakhanii ending life of the patient in such situation is ethical if patient gives consent CITATION Dai18 \l 1033 (Daily).

Work Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY Daily. Dr Catherine Millington-Sanders: my experience . 2019. 15 07 2019 <https://www.dyingmatters.org/gp_page/dr-catherine-millington-sanders-my-experience>.

—. Professor Mayur Lakhani: my experience . 2018. 15 07 2019 <https://www.dyingmatters.org/gp_page/professor-mayur-lakhani-my-experience>.

GP. Dr Peter Nightingale: my experience . 2018. 15 07 2019 <https://www.dyingmatters.org/gp_page/dr-peter-nightingale-my-experience>.

Pecorino, Philip A. Medical Ethics . The City University of New York , 2009.

Sweis, Rochelle and José Biller. " Systemic Complications of Spinal Cord Injury." Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 17.2 (2017).

Phil

PHIL 101

20 questions Please follow the instruction.

Part One. Instructions: Choose the letter of the best answer. 5 points for each correct answer. On your exam paper, list your answers like this:

1. A 2. B 3. C [no, these aren’t the real answers!] 4. … etc., to the end

1. Socrates rejects Thrasymachus’s definition of justice because:

a. It is never just to divide the city into one’s friends, and one’s enemies.

b. It cannot be just to give what is owed to someone if it is not good for that person.

c. It cannot be just to let the strongest rule for their own benefit.

d. None of the above.

2. In the ideal city of Socrates, the young people assigned to the military are:

a. looking for a good career.

b. seeking the glory and honor that soldiers get.

c. eager to fight against the hated enemy.

d. showing strong signs of courage and loyalty.

3. According to Socrates, which type of justice should be the goal of a country’s leaders?

a. procedural justice.

b. social justice.

c. retributive justice.

d. natural justice.

4). In the Republic, the point of the tale about the Ring of Gyges is that:

a. someone who suddenly possesses great power will probably do unjust and immoral deeds.

b. someone who takes rings from buried treasure will probably end up in legends.

c. anyone would want the power to become invisible.

d. none of the above.

5. In the ideal city of Socrates, women are assigned to:

a. whatever class that their souls fit best, just as men are assigned.

b. the class that tradition tells them to belong to.

c. the class that popular opinion thinks they belong to.

d. none of the above.

6. Socrates says that philosophy should control religion because:

a. all religions are only false myths.

b. the people don’t really need religion – they need law.

c. the guardians have no use for religion.

d. religion should teach myths that are beneficial for everyone.

7. According to Socrates, the guardians must all be good philosophers because:

a. philosophers deserve to have important jobs.

b. guardians can live boring academic lives just reading and writing books

c. both philosophers and guardians must know what justice is, and both make society more just

d. none of the above

8. In Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, the sun corresponds to which feature of the Divided Line: a. the intellect b. images c. the physical world d. the highest Good

9. According to Plato, which government always follows when a democracy collapses?

a. timocracy

b. aristocracy

c. democracy

d. tyranny

10. According to Socrates, a democracy always develops this feature:

a. factions arise that hate each other and hate the government too.

b. demogogues try to persuade the people to give them total power.

c. everyone complains that there are too many laws restricting their liberty.

d. all of the above

11. According to Socrates, a demagogue is someone who:

a. encourages the people to hate and fear their government.

b. tells the people to blame another group of people (minorities, or foreigners) for their problems.

c. tries to convince the people to put him or her into a position of supreme power. d. all of the above.

12. According to Socrates, religions cannot know what morality truly is because:

a. traditions are not consistent about what a god expects from us.

b. churches are led by immoral priests and ministers.

c. religious people can’t be experts about theological ethics.

d. none of the above.

13. According to Descartes, the evil demon cannot do this:

a. make me think that 2 + 2 = 5

b. make me think that the world does not exist

c. convince me that I don’t have a body

d. none of the above

14. According to Descartes, doubting is:

a. a kind of sickness.

b. a kind of thinking.

c. a kind of virtue.

d. none of the above

15. According to Descartes, a person can truly know something only if:

a. this person sincerely believes it.

b. this person has never doubted it before.

c. there is no possible way for this person to be mistaken about it. d. none of the above.

Part Two. Instructions: Provide short answers to these questions. 25 points maximum are awarded for each answer. Use at least 8 sentences for each of your answers, but no more than 12 sentences.

16. According to Socrates, what are the three main virtues that are in everyone’s soul, and why does each person need to have all three of them to be a good person?

Socrates talks about the three virtues which are present in everyone's soul, and these traits are identified as moderation, namely courage, and wisdom. He argues that all three virtues in a person allow them with certain qualities which makes them just and rational. He contrasts the just city with these three virtues such as wisdom allowing knowledge, courage resisting fear, and moderation allowing non-ambiguity or self-discipline amongst choice. He believes that these three virtues are what shapes a perfect or unbiased human being. He says that these three aspects are in the soul of every person who allows them to proceed with natural functions in life.

17. Describe how Socrates justifies his view that people may not be moral just by always obeying God.

He uses his reference from the just city to analyze and argue on the significance that humans may not always be moral while being utterly obedient to God. He states that the man must obey whatever the city tells him unless it's an unlawful or injustice commitment. It involves the man going to his death even if God commands it which he deems may not be right. He reflects on his own decision where he promptly refused to have obeyed the city also it means leaving the very pursuit of philosophy. He refers to have defended the civil obedience by justifying on the moral views concerning obedience to God.

18. How does Socrates argue that being philosophical, by knowing the Forms and the Virtues, is a way to ensure that you are immortal? 19. How does Descartes explain why you might not really know that you aren’t asleep and dreaming right now? 20. How does Descartes prove that you can know that you are at least a thinking mind?

Socrates talks about immortality through arguing about destroying evil from body and mind as these traits often resist a human from ensuring immortality. He also says that removing injustice would also make a person immortal. Similarly, Descartes says that a human cannot distinguish between being awake or dreaming as it contradicts the belief of a person. He proves his theory by reflecting on the occurrence of no pain in the state of sleep. He also states that a person while in such state of dreaming finds it hard to wake up.

Phil 102 Essay

Phil 102 Essay

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Phil 102 Essay

Introduction

Free will and determinism act as a baseline of human actions taking into account the concept of choice. It would not be wrong to say that free will is an idea that infers, humans have the choice in how to act and think of self-determinism. Free will and determinism is a debate that approaches different disciplines. Philosophers have incorporated different perspectives in order to determine the stance of choice, addressing either choice is determined or it is free will that guides actions. A. J. Ayer a well-learned professor has brought into insight a philosophical spectrum that addresses the stance of free will and determinism. Ayer has explained the dilemma of self-determinism and a compatibilism solution for it. According to him, free will is an outcome of the conflict between two different assumptions asserting, either men are acting freely, or with a reflection of being responsible for their actions morally or human behavior is the product of causal laws. (Van Inwagen, et, al. 2018). He infers that free will is more like compatible with determinism and it is the stance of dissolution and reconciliation of conflict that exists between moral responsibility and determinism. In this paper, I will argue that determinism and free will are compatible.

Discussion

A.J. Ayer’s essay, “Freedom and Necessity” is a clear illustration of stance that clarifies the compatibility between free will and determinism. He is of the view that moral responsibility does not require any contra-causal freedom; he believes that there are several factors that determine the stance of free will such as an absence of any constraint that can act as a barrier. Ayer asserts that all necessary truths in this world are true on the context of meanings that are used for expressing them. His acceptance of human freedom is highly undemanding because he has denied the existence of causal necessity. In accordance with his philosophy, all actions can be caused taking into account the importance of agent that is the source behind causing an action. He asserts that the presence of constraints has no effect on the stance of determinism, taking into account that humans will be free. (Ayer, et, al. 1972). Ayer has characterized freedom in a straight forward way, addressing that people have free will when they are in control of their actions, asserting that people who are not in the control of their actions are not responsible for the outcome or position of an act in moral context. In fact, people are moral agents that are worthy of praise or any kind of blame as a result of an action.

Ayer has used cognitive psychology to infer that all human actions are actually the result of the activity of brain. The adaptation of this naturalistic view asserts that there is a direct conflict associated with the abstraction that is required for free will. In a simplified form, Ayer infers, if all actions are the product brain events, adhering to the laws of nature then those laws that cause action are not according to an individual's will. ultimately, the responsibility of action cannot be assigned to an individual. It is significant to note that Ayer has incorporated a conflict between morality and naturalism, taking into account that morality requires freedom of choice and freedom of will in contrast to naturalism that requires a determination by natural law. (Van Inwagen, et, al. 2018). Ayer characterizes freedom in terms of its opposite. Ayer infers that human understanding considers caused and determined as an opposition of freedom while he thinks the opposite of freedom is "constraint" not the cause. He infers that it is necessary to think about situations where there is no external control in the form of natural laws. The cases in which a person is threatened, brainwashed or hypnotized, there is no stance of free will. It is significant to note that an individual can only be called as free of constraints only if he/she has performed an action in compliance with the will only. Such an individual will be free from all compulsions or reaction to a threat. The stance of being free is completely compatible with the existence of causal mechanisms that can pave the way for enforcement. In a nutshell, causal connections between decisions and actions are mandate for free actions. (Ayer, et, al. 1972).

In the context of free will and determinism, Ayer took into consideration the problem of ffree will and took a sharp turn from his own idea of “compatibilist position”, addressing that the antithesis between the claims made to justify determinism and free will are illusory. According to him, the problem of free will is the product of human actions taking into account that except some easily identifiable cases, human actions are not bound to any beholding sense. There are several philosophers who have argued that moral responsibility accompanied by determinism is compatible. The point of consideration was the ownership of actions, adhering to the fact that how can one be made responsible for an action in the sense of wrong doing and righteousness. (Ayer, et, al. 1972). It is asserted that what would be the outcome other than right and wrong?

Ayer inferred certain laws to address the question concerning outcomes. He incorporated causal laws as a tool to analyze determinism. It would not be wrong to say that human actions are determined by causal laws. It is significant to note that Ayer evaluates the relationship between free will and determinism by adhering to two aspects, "affirming" and "denying". Ayer called these ideas as “moralists”, because their code of conduct is exactly in contradiction to the attempt to preserve the legitimacy of the moral responsibility. He considered it as a hopeless way of proceeding taking into account that this way is treated as a hopeless stance for moralists because it requires extended consideration for understanding the freedom that is required for moral responsibility. Ayers infer that freedom required for moral responsibility should not be treated as a baseline of freedom from causal determination adhering to the freedom from constraint and compulsion. According to him, this freedom is compatible with the essence that all events are causally determined. Although it is objected that man can never be freed from the interference of determinism, posing human being as, "helpless prisoner of fate". Ayer infers determinism does not entail to “helpless prisoner", in fact, it is the utilization of decision making powers to fullest. The discovery of conditions asserts that the action is no less free for being administered by the natural laws. (Ayer, et, al. 1972).

Conclusion

An exegetical analysis of all the features associated with the tie between determinism and free will infers that it is a satisfactory theory. It would not be wrong to say that causal determinism is an idea that affirms, every event is actually necessitated by different conditions. Although Ayers attempt is a semantic trick still it is valid because the concept of free will drift thought to a stance where it is affirming that there are several events that are predetermined while others are not. If an action falls in the latter category, it is assertive that freewill is applicable but in the other category, man would not be responsible for the outcome because there could be a lack of free will. It is significant to note that Ayer has profoundly elaborated the stance of freewill and determinism.

References

Ayer, A. J. (1972). Freedom and necessity. In Philosophical essays (pp. 271-284). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Van Inwagen, P. (2018). The incompatibility of free will and determinism. In Agency And Responsibility (pp. 17-29). Routledge.

Phil1200 Ass44

Phil1200 Assignment 44

Anita

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

Author Note

Phil1200 Assignment 44

The study of ethical history is an essential component of philosophy. The 19th century saw two prominent British philosophers who developed a fundamental framework for addressing social and ethical problems. The doctrine of utilitarianism was formulated that determined ethical objectives, relying upon the notions and concepts of pain and pleasure. The paper will be examining the system of classical utilitarian ethics from the perspective of the two English thinkers, John Stuart Mill, and Jeremy Bentham, and compare it with the categorical imperative proposed by Kant, to explore which account is more practical and plausible.

Both Mill and Bentham were fundamentally cornered with social and legal reform in order to provide a basis to end corrupt social practices and laws. For Bentham, utilitarianism was based on the greatest happiness principle. He held that an individual must always act in a manner, within reason, which would result into the maximum greatest happiness. Conversely, Mill formulated his idea of utilitarianism based on a qualitative distinction between pleasures. Both sought to answer the question about what makes a policy, law, or an act a fundamentally moral one; for utilitarians, it was the lack of utility.

The ethical theory proposed by Bentham was grounded on the presumption that human actions have to be evaluated according to the consequences they produce, and the only consequences which matter are those that help achieve happiness, in the sense of achieving maximum pleasure and minimizing or avoiding pain. Bentham’s hedonistic utilitarianism, in determining the value of the utility, considered how intensely something brings about pleasure, how quickly it follows the act, how long it lasts, and how effectively does it avoid collateral harms while producing benefits. Mill agreed with Bentham’s propositions but modified the theory to include intuition. For him, some pleasures were higher than others; for instance, intellectual pleasures surpassed sexual pleasures. Mill's utilitarianism was thus not hedonistic and significantly departed from Bentham's theory; however, he still accepted good to exist in the psychological state of pleasure. This led him to understand the rationale for having rights to be utility, which was in contrast to the indiscriminate hedonistic view of Bentham, and to many seems more plausible to be institutionally implemented. The qualitative measures of pleasure, though included Bentham’s ideas of duration and intensity, began to diverge from the hard utilitarianism proposed by Bentham.

Another place where Mill differed from Bentham was the emphasis on internal feelings of remorse and guilt as a means of regulating an individual’s actions. Since human beings have social feelings besides individual, the perception of social or physical harm to another individual creates painful feelings within a person, a view that Mill’s utilitarian ethics accommodated. In contrast, Bentham valued autonomy and liberty, any violation of which is consequently immoral. The view sharply contrasted with that of natural law approaches and the ethical theory of categorical imperative that was proposed by Kant.

Kant’s ethical theories were based upon the idea that reason should be used to govern how people should behave and act. He discussed his theory in a number of works in which a common reference to the concept of duty can be frequently found. Kantian ethics saw an act of virtuous if it was based on goodwill, which surpassed other human virtues. Goodwill is a unique virtue which maintains a high ethical value even if the moral intentions with which that act was performed failed to achieve its objective; thus it was virtuous and good. Another related concept that Kant discussed in his works on ethics was duty. Duty referred to a will that overcomes certain barriers to sustain an ethical intent or act. Such a will would be observable in adversity, and in such a case, Kant saw such acts to hold a moral worth if they were performed with regards to that duty.

The Kantian view based itself on the principle of the Categorical Imperative (CI). The maxim which defined CI was to act in accordance with that which you would desire, at the same time, to become universal law. The CI was instrumental in the formulation of Kantian ethics, using which he proposed further formulations. A CI binds humans regardless of what they desire, such as having a duty to speak the truth, even it goes against us, or what the circumstances would entail. Moreover, since the CI is based on sound reason, they are ethically binding, and through this arise duties. A failure to fulfill these duties would contradict with good will. Moreover, he classified these duties as perfect and imperfect. A degree of flexibility exists within an imperfect duty such as the choice of acting beneficently. Furthermore, because we are rational agents, therefore individuals also owe a duty to rationality, and thus moral principles based on rationality apply to humans at all times.

One of the central aspects to Kantian ethics and the CI principle is that humans should not be treated as a means to an end, and thus people should not be exploited to gain what you desire. Thus human actions can be evaluated through their motives, which become moral or permissible if they pass the CI test. In contrast, utilitarianism allows any means necessary, regardless of motives, to achieve an outcome that leads to pleasure or happiness. They ‘why' behind the action is not significant as is the end result and the happiness that it brings. It is for this reason, Bentham’s greatest happiness principle which was used to formulate his ethical theory is flawed. Another reason is the subjective and non-universal nature of what happiness is or how it can be measured. Applying Bentham’s utilitarian ethics can justify slavery, imperialism or fornication since each of them brings about certain pleasurable consequences. In contrast, I find the Kantian view to be much more plausible as it values the cause behind an act rather than its outcome; notwithstanding that in certain situations, it can be the more difficult option.

Philo Essay

Philosophy Essay

Name

Affiliation

Date

Philosophy Essay

Alternative possibility and moral responsibility regarding the actions of human beings have always been an important point of study for the philosophers. The philosophers like Harry G. Frankfurt has explored the moral responsibility as well as the alternative possibility of the actions of the human beings and have presented the stance, that human beings are morally responsible for their actions, even if they were forced to do some action or had some possible alternative of that action. Most of the philosophers were of the view that if a person is forced to do an act, then he or she is not morally responsible for that action, on the basis of the clause that the person would have acted otherwise or even just thought about acting the other way, if they were presented with the alternative possibility of the situation of the action. In other words, the freedom of will of any person is quite important to acknowledge, in order to make the persons responsible for his action. On the other hand, Frankfurt dos not believe in this clause and share the point of view that moral responsibility does not hold any importance in terms of holding any person responsible for the actions committed or done by him. In this paper, I will argue the stance of Frankfurt that moral responsibility or free will is not important and each and every person is responsible for his actions and I will also explore the conditions presented by Frankfurt to support his claims.

Moral responsibility, free will, and principle of alternative possibility are the three terms which are specifically important in this debate of the responsibility of the actions of human beings; therefore it is quite important to explore the definitions of these terms. The very first out of them is the term moral responsibility which means that the persons deserve the praise, appreciation, even the blame, and guilt of their actions, in the case they are morally entitled to that action. The free will is another concept in philosophy which means that some person does some action on the basis of his own will and desire and is not forced by the outside forces to do some action, or act in a certain manner. The last most important concept is that of the principle of alternative possibility, which states that a person can only be held accountable for his actions; if he would have done otherwise in any kind of situation (Coren, 2018).

The principle of alternative possibility holds the most important position in the debate of moral responsibility and alternative possibility as presented by Frankfurt. A general belief of the philosophers is that a person can only be held morally accountable of doing some action, or even not doing it if he clearly had the alternative option of action and had acted otherwise. In other words, the moral responsibility of any action can only be placed on a person, if he had done the action out of his free will and was not pressurized or even manipulated to do the action through any sources. Another important thing to regard in this scenario is that the person would most probably have taken the chance of acting otherwise if the freedom of will was provided. Freedom of will is necessary for holding people morally responsible for their actions because of the fact that they are not pressurized or manipulated to do some action and is entitled to accept all the recognition, blame or appreciation of that particular action. This might be the case on the basis of the ability of human beings to take their decisions and choose the course of their action after thinking about each and every aspect of their outcomes. The philosophers are of the view that the human beings should be able to choose between two different alternatives, while making the decision regarding any action, on the basis of their free will (Kittle, 2018).

The stance of one of the most famous and recognized philosophers, Frankfurt in this regard is that the presence of the principle of alternative possibilities is not necessary in order to hold the people morally responsible of their actions. So, Frankfurt has falsified the need for the principle of alternative possibility from the scenario altogether. He is of the view that a person can be held morally accountable and responsible of his actions, irrespective of the fact that he would have made a different choice if he would have been provided with the alternative option of making the decision or free will. Frankfurt has tried to present the example of his stance through the case of Jones, who has been threatened greatly to do some action. Frankfurt argues that Jones is so scared of the threats that he has received that he decides to do what is demanded from him, ignoring the decision he had made utilizing his free will. One of the most important points highlighted by Frankfurt in this regard is that either jones did not want to act in a certain manner, therefore readily submitted to the threats and acted accordingly. So, the moral responsibility of his action is on him, as he as deliberately submitted to the threats (Coren, 2018).

On the other hand, another important stance shared by Frankfurt in this regard is that Jones was so scared of the threats that he forgot about his free will or making the alternative choice of getting out of the situation and just acted in the demanded way, in order to ensure his safety and security. In other words, he deliberately submitted to the situation and whatever was demanded of him, so he should be held morally responsible for his actions. he did not act according to the principle of the alternative possibility and he also would not have utilized it, which is the main point of focus of Frankfurt and also supports the point that jones should be held responsible of his actions, irrespective of the fact that he could have acted differently in the situation, because in reality, he would not have done so. According to Frankfurt’s point of view, the only thing necessary to hold someone responsible of their action is their free will of doing something and the principle of the alternative possible is not applicable in this regard. I agree with the point of view of Frankfurt because the person would have acted according to the situation, utilizing his or her free will and the alternative options would not have been able to impact the choices of the person in any given situation (Frankfurt, 1969).

Moral responsibility, free will and the principle of alternative possibility are some of the most important concepts in the subject of philosophy, which help the people, explore the general reasoning of their action. Frankfurt is of the view that only the free will of the people is enough to hold them morally responsible of their actions and the alternative possibility does not play any role in this regard as it is often ignored in most of the cases as well.

References

Coren, D. A. (2018). Alternate Possibilities and Moral Asymmetry. Acta Analytica, 1-15.

Frankfurt, H. G. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. The journal of philosophy, 66(23), 829-839.

Kittle, S. (2018). Does everyone think the ability to do otherwise is necessary for free will and moral responsibility?. Philosophia, 1-7.