Introduction

This paper is focused on weighing the argument of whether God exists or not. There are people who believe in his existence while others do not. Most of those who don’ t believes in his existence have come up with several theories and opinions which try to establish their stand. This paper, therefore, outlines all these theories and opinions and tries to weigh them with the facts that prove the existence of God. Several philosophers and researchers have been quoted in the paper in order to just bring out their feel and view of the whole argument. The occurrences that occur in an orderly manner in the universe have also been explained as one of the reasons to prove God, s existence. Therefore, there exists several premises and taking of positions from the premises with given reasons.

1^st premise

God exists is the first premises.

2^nd premise

 God does not exist.

These two premises are built on facts and theories, premises one is more plausible than the second one. There are more logical facts and theories that support it.

My argument

I am persuaded by the fact that there exists a God who is loving, all-powerful and right. The subsequent reasons are the ones that make me hold onto this stand. The universe we live in operates by uniform laws than no one has clue where they came from. Life seems uncertain but it is possible to count day by day and other factors such as gravity are constant and never change, the duration of rotation of the earth never changes. Even the greatest scientists have been amazed by how the world maintains its uniformity, God is the cause of the universe and is responsible for the uniformity that is in it (Adamson, n.d). This serves as proof that God exists.

Science says that the earth rotates around its axis to bring about day and night. It also says that the earth rotates on its own orbit while going around the sun. There are questions to be asked in order to find out the origin of this orbit, the axis as well as the sun and earth itself. Scientists have tried to come up with some theories, but they always lack some evidence in their explanations. A good example is the Nebula cloud theory which tries to explain the origin of the earth. It states that there was a whirling cloud which left behind masses that cooled to form the earth (Anderson, n.p). The question here is; what is the origin of this cloud.

When water is placed in a bucket and left in a room that is having normal conditions, it is expected that after sometime this water will cool and maintain a temperature that is the same as that of the environment This in itself brings out the natural nature that the earth has as a globe. There is; therefore, some sense of orderly occurrence of events whose nature cannot just be explained by science alone (Adamson, n.p). What is the origin of this consistency? If not God.

Jesus Christ is also another evidence of God' s existence. He is the only person so far who compared with God. People used to gaze at him when he taught about the word of God (Adamson, n.p). There exist prophets and teachers for the people who don’t believe in God’ s existence, but none of them has ever compared himself or herself to God. A vital example is Buddha and Muhammad. Jesus was able to heal people and perform miracles unlike them. From my above evidence, it' s clearly seen that God exists.

Looking at water, it has certain properties which include: It is colorless unless polluted, it is odorless and it has no taste. Its taste can sometimes be described as a neutral taste. It is a surprising fact that no human being, animal or plant can survive without its presence. It is said that the human body, the animal body, and the plant body is made up of two thirds by the water component. Therefore, these unique qualities of water are best suited for life. This water enables us to live in a world where we experience fluctuations in temperature as it has a different melting and boiling point. It is also known that water is a universal solvent. This is a property that makes any chemical to dissolve in it. This means that these chemicals can be able to be transported in our bodies into the smallest vessels. This enables the chemicals to be absorbed in our bodies for the main reason of it being neutral chemically. Water has given surface tension and this property enables it to move upwards in the plant while going against gravity (Anderson, n.p). Therefore, the plants are able to use this water, however tall they are. Another very interesting property is its ability to freeze from the top going downwards. This enables the fish to live underneath it during the winter period and so they don't die. The larger percentage of the earth is made up of water. Most of this water is salty. There exists a purification system which makes this water to be purified and be available for consumption. Evaporation happens and the water vapor gets condensed which then falls on the earth surface as rainfall for consumption by the plants and animals (Anderson, n.p). This phenomenon is explained scientifically, but its origin can only be traced back to the existence of God. Therefore, the life on the planet is sustained by these processes which clearly act as evidence of God’s existence.

I believe in the existence of God with the reason that he is constantly seeking to find us and make us learn more about him and his word. He wants us to live a righteous life. This is the reason as to why his gospel is being preached and spread all over. This is also one of the reasons as to why those who don’t believe in his existence go around posing challenges on his existence with the need for the provision of evidence that is sufficient. When they go about trying to find this evidence；they end up getting to know more about God which is one of the objectives of God. The evidence of his existence surrounds us all. After knowing about God; Lewis who was a philosopher went on to write a book titled "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God.

The individuals, on the other hand, argue that God does not exist and have even come up with evidence and explanations regarding the same. They try to explain the originality of this consistency and orderly occurrence of events. Richard Feyman said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery. The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of mystery (Anderson, n.p).

Some people argue that there exists evil. Because of this reason, they say God can never be all powerful, loving and good at the same time as he is always described. Therefore, if evil did not exist, then it would have been okay to conclude that God exists. Otherwise, as long as evil exists, the two cannot compete to be on the same page. There exists murderers, shoplifting, rape, and burglary just to mention only but a few (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d). This is one of the reasons as to why atheists believe that God doesn’t exist. Another reason is Injustice. It is said that destinies are never given on the basis of qualification and merit. It is said that they are given on the basis of knowing a person and also on an arbitrary basis (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d). The principle behind this is adding to him or her who has and taking away from he or she who does not have. Therefore, God cannot be just as people claim to because this could not be happening. The third reason is the existence of pain. It is said that as long as God allows the occurrence of diseases, pain and natural disasters, then he cannot be all knowing and caring. From the human sense this is not possible. Therefore, atheists believe that if God existed, then there would be no cases of disasters that cause harm and pain to people.

Conclusion

This argument can be summarized from three main points as illustrated below:

1) Whatever comes into existence must have a cause.

2) The universe started to exist.

3) Therefore, it can be said that the universe has a cause.

The cause stated above is God. He is the one who brought the universe into existence. Therefore, from my own point of view, there is the existence of God. From the above explanations, it is clearly evident that the reasons that prove the existence of God are very strong and undisputable, unlike these reasons that try to prove that God does not exist. Furthermore, the facts brought forward aimed at proving God' s existence are so many as compared to those that have been brought forward to counter them. Dr. Atkins came up with a book that is titled The Creation'. It is noted clearly that from this book, he struggles so much to explain how coming into being of the universe by the cause of nothing. It becomes an interesting story as we ride along with him but in the end, things start becoming difficult for him. He contradicts himself in the end and gets trapped. He, therefore goes back to a time that is beyond the creation moment. He argues that there was no time and space. He argues that during this time when there was no time, there existed a whirling wind that by trial and error brought about the existence of the universe. It is very honest and reasonable to say that this is and will never be a scientific hypothesis. You cannot assume that there was a time when there was no time. It makes no sense. Therefore, based on my argument above. I decide to side with the existence of an all-powerful. loving and all-knowing God.

Works cited

Adamson, M., Is There a God? n.d. Retrieved from; https://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Logical Problem of Evil. n.d. retrieved from; https://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/

INTRODUCTION

In the current century, there exist different perceptions as to whether there is the existence of God or not. This has brought up very heated debates in both learning institutions and social media. There is a section of people who are said to be atheists and therefore, they question the existence of God with some challenges and evidence that they bring forward. On the other hand, there is a majority of people who believe in the existence and have pieces of evidence towards this. They are ready to defend what they believe in as far as religion is concerned.

In arguments, there exists a premise. In this paper, I am going to state which premise is strong and which one can be said to be weak. After this, I am required to come up with a solid stand on whether I support the premise or not. After declaring my support or declining it to a certain premise, reasons as to why I choose my stand are going to be given.

 The above-stated part can be said to be the argument of the premise. Things that are going to make other people react to my argument are going to be highlighted together with the way they react. After this, there shall be a section on how I am going to reply to these people and finally my solid stand and conclusion is going to be given.

   The main focus is on the problem of suffering. It is well known that the problem that is very much influential to a person who believes in ‘the existence of God’ is ‘the problem of suffering’. It can also be said to be the problem of evil. This is because evil and suffering always go hand in hand. To some people, evil brings about suffering. Others believe that it is suffering that brings evil.

   This problem of suffering goes like this: “There is clearly suffering in the world. So either the omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being does not know about it, knows about it but does not care, or cares but is unable to stop it. In the first case, the being is not omniscient. In the second, the being is not omnibenevolent. And in the third, the being is not omnipotent. Either way, at least one attribute is missing. Therefore, there is no omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent being”

 This is a very interesting problem. Over the past years, philosophers and some theologians have come up with a lot of answers that are meant to bring a solution to this problem. These attempts are always referred to as theodicies (Ashton, & Westacott, 2006). They are generally broken down into the necessary evil theodicy, anti-interventionist theodicy, the free will theodicy, the mysterian theodicy as well as all the best possible world’s theodicy.

There are six premises under the problem of suffering. The first premise is an ‘omnipotent God would be able to prevent all evil/suffering, this is a weak premise’. The second one is an omnipotent God would try to prevent evil/suffering; this is also a weak premise. The third premise is an ‘omniscient God would know’ about ‘all evil/suffering’, which is also a weak premise (Ashton, & Westacott, 2006). The fourth premise is if there is an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, it would prevent all evil/suffering. (from 1, 2, 3). The fifth premise which is not all evil/suffering can be prevented is the only strong premise. The last premise is there is no omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent God, this premise is a weak one also.

PREMISE

Under the problem of suffering, we have the following premises:

1)    An ‘omnipotent God would be able to prevent all evil/suffering’.

 ARGUMENT

Premise 1

 I argue against the first premise that states that an ‘omnipotent God would be able to prevent all evil/suffering’. I am very much against this because omnipotence means the quality that enables one to have a power that is unlimited. The omnipotent nature of God only suggests that he can do anything that is possible (Maritain, & Watkin, 2005). On the other hand, it is very well known that this problem of suffering is an evil that is very necessary in the world. This, therefore, means that it is not possible ‘to prevent all the evil’ ‘or suffering that exists in the world’. This is a very good and non-objectionable reasons as to why though the omnipotent nature of God, he cannot be able to prevent all the evil or suffering that exists in the world. Therefore, this is the reason as to why I classify this premise to be a weak one.

  The reply that I am most likely to get from this kind of argument is going to be in the form of a question trying to interrogate me on why I think that suffering is a necessary evil. Some of them might be of the view that it is very unnecessary and therefore it should not be in existence.

  My reply to them would be that it is very unreasonable to think of a world which is not characterized by any form of suffering or evil. Suffering is responsible for making people be human (Maritain, & Watkin, 2005). When a human being undergoes suffering, he or she is connected to the same fate that the people before him or her and the people who are again going to come after. This evil or suffering also presents as a very great appreciation of those moments of comfort. Assuming that the world had all comfort moments, it would mean that we would not be able to appreciate these moments. This would then bring about less effort in people making them not attain their set goals.

 A second reason is that virtues are brought about by evil. Therefore, there can exist no good without the existence of bad (Maritain, & Watkin, 2005). Therefore, God had to permit evil because he created good. Other people would ask why I think so and they would try to say that this reason has no solid facts behind it and therefore is unmotivated. My response to them would be that, in order for an individual to understand the aspects of good, he or she must also be able to understand the aspects that exist where good does not exist. By understanding this aspect, then one is able to understand the aspect of evil or suffering.

The most common aspects of God portray him as a deity who is authoritative and at the same time, gives people the free will to choose for themselves. The free will given to humans permits them to operate, as they want (Maritain, & Watkin, 2005). For this reason, human beings have the free will to choose between adhering to their own laws or committing evil. If god automated humans according to his will, then man would not enjoy life. It is through strife that human beings become better versions of themselves. For instance, natural disasters are unpreventable and the only thing man can do is seat back as the extreme weather wreak havoc on their land.

Another response to this premise is occurrence of evil events is a necessity for human beings and the manifestation of good or modest deeds can only take place after evil. Some human traits only exist after evil manifests. For instance, the compassion dominates after one suffers and success comes after failure (Ashton, & Westacott, 2006). Hence with opposite of evil is good. Furthermore, liberty can only come from bondage and so on and so forth. In addition, God gave each one of us a functioning brain for problem solving and helping each other get out of problems. Therefore, humans beings are self-sufficient and well equipped to handle predicaments and evil that may come their way.

 Humans were not meant to be safe and sound away from the jaws of death. From birth to death, humans pass through pain and anguish as they try to go about their lives (Moser, 2009). God is only a helper and cannot solve all the challenges and man goes through and even sometimes creates for himself. Suffering on earth has its own place, it is justifiable, and the earth is a better place due to the existence of suffering. Furthermore, sufferings helps man shape character and strength.

 The focus should not be on the existence of god when discussing issues pertaining evil. Evil comes from dark hearted man who are willing to sacrifice anything in order to destroy the lives of other people (Moser, 2009). For instance, a thief can decide to rob the hard-earned money of someone else. The illustration above demonstrates man’s role in creating evil himself and even perpetuating it from time immemorial. In the end, the life of another man is dependent of another human being than an omnipresent God who already played his part and is waiting for man to fulfill his or hers.

God can only do so much since he operates based on human being emotions, actions and will. Some people say that evil exits due to the absence of god while others would rather blame god for every death experienced on earth (Moser, 2009). Give and take, the world may be a better place due to the existence of man’s free will to do as he or she pleases. In the event of a disaster, humans have a role to play rather heaping blame to a deity who gave the authority and ability to safeguard their lives.

There is a sharp contrast between communities that have faith in God and societies, which have faith in themselves or put faith in other things (Moser, 2009). Without faith in God, then humanity is not any different from a coconut tree or amoeba bacteria. The confidence in God puts things into a correct perspective rather than give rational reasons and arguments. Belief in God improves makes humans more valuable. Theories and concepts such as natural selection pair humans with animals. Furthermore, the theory claims that humans exist for survival only thus rendering laws, morals, and ethics of humans useless or without a benefit. Human are not just beings that survived evolution.

 My conclusion to this premise is that it is true that God is omnipotent but this does not mean that he is ‘able to prevent all the evil and suffering in the world’. This conclusion is based on the argument that I have presented above. The manifestation of evil and grief within the globe seems to pose a great predicament to the certainty of the ‘existence of a God’. If god was aware of all the evil, he would somehow prevent them from taking place. However, this is not the case. God gave human beings power to choose between good and evil.

Reference

Maritain, J., & Watkin, E. I. (2005). An introduction to philosophy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Ashton, J. F., & Westacott, M. (2006). The big argument: does God exist: Twenty-four scholars explore how science, archaeology, and philosophy have not disproved God. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

Moser, P. K. (2009). The evidence for God: Religious knowledge reexamined. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Engel’s Argument on Immorality of Eating Meat

            Engel argues that the people who show less value on non-humans as compared to humans are still involved in immoral practice of eating meat. The argument had been directed to people who live in societies where agriculture is greatly practiced hence options of food rather than meat are available. His argument shows how animals suffer and this has been associated to the increased rate of people owning agricultural foams worldwide. Having the knowledge concerning the slaughtering activities makes it clear that animals suffer much. Immorality in eating meat is compatible with biocentrism and anthropocentric worldview.

            Engel had been intending to show that eating meat is wrong to those who belief so. He believed that the nature of people’s believes is a determinant of how immoral the habit is. His argument however had not been directed to cause threats to those who eat hotdogs and hamburgers (Bramble, Ben & Bob, 187). Some people believe that it is not right to treat animals in an inhuman manner without a reason. People believe that it is important to euthanize the animals which are untreatably injured and undergoing suffering by protecting them from misery whenever possible. Engel believes that the more one is committed to these believes, that is how they are prone to the immoral behavior of eating meat.

            It is right that if there had no factory and agricultural farms, the world would be better. In the modern society, eating meat is not a necessity for human to survive hence causing suffering to them is unnecessary hence the activities in slaughter houses are wrong (Bramble, Ben & Bob, 188). As per Engel’s argument, it is true that the world would be better with no or few agricultural and factory farms in relation to people’s believes. It is important to opt on being a vegetarian. He argues that support to agriculture farms is not necessary and one should engage in other practices as well as refraining from eating animal meat as it would enable to lower the suffering of animals.

            Some people depend on animals for food. Several societies only depend on animal products for food. This is mostly associated with the areas where the soils are too poor to support growth of food and cash crops (Macaskill, 608). This makes them depend on animal products like meat for food. Saying that eating meat in such societies is immoral might not be right as it is the staple food. There is no good reason to prevent them from taking meat as it is the only source of food and if they fail to eat, they will eventually die or suffer from food deficiency conditions like malnutrition

            It is true that eating meat is not necessary for human beings. People have survived and doing their activities very well like the athletes. They mostly take vegetables. Changing from meat diet is a nice opinion as it would protect someone from getting various implications associated with eating meat. Some of the conditions that avoiding meat would protect someone from include; osteoporosis, stoke, heart diseases and arthritis among others. It is possible to personally abstain from taking the meat and encouraging the close associates to avoid taking meat (Bramble, Ben & Bob, 188). This goes hand in hand with advising them on the dangers associated with consumption of meat. Since people already know the suffering underwent by animals and the negative implications of eating meat, it is clear that the practice is wrong.

Conclusion

            It is immoral to eat meat in matters where people strongly have believes concerning how the animals undergo much suffering. The more people have strong believes, the much immoral people are. If the world had no agricultural farms it would be better as there would be no animal suffering. This argument does not oppose those who like meat products but mostly is directed to those with various believes as outlined above. This argument does not apply for people who depend on meat as the staple food. There are various illnesses associated with meat consumption and changing from this diet by abstaining would help human beings to be safe from getting the negative implications of the diet. Immorality in eating meat is compatible with biocentrism and anthropocentric worldview.

Work cited

Bramble, Ben, and Bob Fischer, eds. The moral complexities of eating meat. Oxford University   Press, USA, 2016.

Macaskill, Craig. The National Agricultural Directory 2011. RainbowSA, 2010.

Plato and Hume on morality

Society has had a major impact on my understanding of what is ethical and how people influence once understanding of morality. I have always been of the opinion that people’s moral actions are influenced by personal beliefs, experiences and the principles that people choose to abide to when building their self-identity. This is especially because, like most people, I have this desire to fit in to society and be considered one of the active members who actively influence the occurrences that take place in the world around me. As such, I try to ensure that my actions are a reflection of what I believe in as well as an indication of what I expect from the people I associate with on a regular basis. However, after reading Plato and Hume’s arguments on morality, it shifted my understanding of morals as something that is greatly influenced by the consequences that arise from an action as the doer of the act seeks to achieve a sense of self-fulfillment but on condition that the act does not have a negative outcome on other people.

            According to Hume, people use both reason and their personal desires when deciding whether an act is moral or not. However, although reason is used to determine whether something is good or bad, Hume believes that the moral distinctions that govern an individual have little to do with reason but rather a product of moral sentiments like the feelings of approval or blame displayed by other people in society who are directly or indirectly affected by the individual’s actions (Korsgaard, 2009). People are greatly influenced by how others react to their actions or things they say. When considering whether an act is moral or not, people tend to focus more on how others will view an action than the impact the action will have on the individual. It is this desire to act in accordance to what is acceptable that Hume uses to explain how people go about understanding what is moral and what is unethical.

            When people assess the morality of an action, they do so, both directly and indirectly, with consideration of whether they will be approved or disapproved by the people they impact. The approval or disapproval therefore acts as a cause that pushes people to act in accordance with the individuals evaluating of what consequences the subjects of the act will encounter and little attention to the individual’s self-interest (Bloomfield, 2008). Hume therefore views morality as an effect caused by people’s need for approval and immorality results from the disapproval demonstrated by other members of society who experience or witness the act engaged by an individual (Korsgaard, 2009). Although Hume suggests that moral standards are set by society’s understanding of right and wrong, as well as people’s desire to engage in a way that has a positive impact on others, people’s awareness of how people respond to other people’s actions also determines whether one will behave morally or not. 

            When people morally approve an act performed by someone, they are more likely to develop a positive attitude towards the individual because they are considered to be ethical. Before reading Hume’s argument on morality, I was of the opinion that people engage in moral acts because they do not intend to cause any harm or discomfort to others. Morality was therefore influenced by rational decisions influenced by my desire to do good not just for sake of doing good but also with the aim of causing the least hard to others (Vasiliou, 2016). Hume however suggests that self-fulfillment little impact on influencing moral actions because people are more influenced by the approval or disapproval that their actions trigger from members of society. Morality is therefore influenced by not just the act itself, but also by the emotion (approval or disapproval) it triggers from others.

Hume further believes that, for an act to be moral, it must fulfill specific major requirements. The act must be agreeable to the person engaging in it as well as to others who either witness or are affected by it. A moral act is therefore one where the person engaging in it believes that the act itself is moral and that anyone who is subjected to it will have the same opinion (Korsgaard, 2009). Morality is therefore determined not just by the doer as I thought but also by the people who experience it because they make up the society that sets up the criteria for determining right from wrong. Secondly, a moral act is one that is advantageous to the one who performs it and also the people who are impacted by it. The advantages that result from an act assert its morality because the positive gain caused by the advantages it creates help to classify it as a virtue (Freydberg, 2012). Immoral acts on the other hand are those that both the person who engages in them as well as the people they impact disagree with them; consider them as disadvantages; and therefore are vices in the eyes of society.

            Plato further discredits my previous notion that morality is influenced by reason and personal desire by stating that in order to engage in moral acts, one either follows or sets aside personal interests with the aim of doing what is right rather than only doing what is rational.  The act of setting aside one’s own interest is however dependent on other people’s willingness to do the same if it results in doing what is moral (Korsgaard, 2009). Since morality requires one to identify personal interests, it is also important to differentiate actual self-interest from perceived self-interests as this is the best way to differentiate morality from rationality. The perceived self-interests originate from people’s belief of what is best for the self while actual interests originate from requirements of justice that exist in society (Vasiliou, 2016). Plato further believes that the actual interests are an advantage rather than a hindrance to understanding morality because people find it more rational to pursue the apparent interests rather than the perceived ones. It is this understanding of perceived and actual interests that make it easier for people to differentiate moral acts from immoral ones.

            Studying Plato’s moral philosophy further altered my moral outlook as I learnt that morality is not only determined by the nature of an action and its consequences but also by an individual’s desire to do right for the sake of doing right and being just for the sake of justice. Although Plato does state that morality is influenced by people’s self-interests as well as the desire for those actions to be accepted by others in society, he makes a strong argument advocating for morality to be influenced by the desire to be moral in its own without seeking self-fulfillment or approval from others (Korsgaard, 2009). From his argument, I leant that it is more important to do the right thing, not for the benefit and approval associated with being moral but solely for the sake of doing what is right with or without consequences of any kind. Morality should therefore be influenced by the desire to do what is right without the desire to achieve any gratification from society or to fulfill a personal interest but rather to do what is right for the sake of being right.

            Before reading Plato and Hume’s work, I thought that moral acts are based on the decisions that people make based on their personal interests and experiences. I was of the opinion that the decision to do right or wrong results from people’s decision with the aim of achieving a personal goal. However, Hume taught me that morality is not only about fulfilling ones self-interests but also about engaging in actions that do not affect others negatively. Plato added on to this by stating that people should not only engage in moral acts for the advantages they bring but also for the sake of doing what is right. Other than seeking personal satisfaction and getting the approval of others, people’s actions should be moral because it is the right thing to do regardless of the consequences. It is therefore important to know when to use reason and apply it in a way that helps to identify perceived interests from actual interests. Once identified, the next step is to analyze the planned action to determine what consequences will result if it is implemented. Lastly, people should strive to be moral regardless of the consequences simply because being moral for the sake of morality is the best approach to maintain a society that runs on ethics and morals.

References

Bloomfield, P. (2008). Morality and self-interest. Oxford [etc.: Oxford University Press.

Freydberg, B. (2012). David Hume: Platonic philosopher, continental ancestor. Albany: State     University of New York Press.

Korsgaard, C. M. (2009). Self-constitution: Agency, identity, and integrity. Oxford: Oxford Univ.             Press.

Vasiliou, I. (2016). Moral motivation: A history. New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press.

Kant and Nietzsche on ethics

Kant and Nietzsche are two of the most influential philosopher that sought to create a better explanation of what is ethical and what drives people to make ethical or immoral decisions. While their arguments do raise valid points on the topic of ethics, Nietzsche’s philosophies tend to be more convincing not only because they are based on rational arguments but also because they answer most of the questions that Kant’s ideologies are unable to. Although Kant, to some extent, does elaborate in what drives people to be ethical, applying these ideologies in a social setting is difficult as his arguments regarding moral laws are based on principles that contain no contradictions whatsoever. Since human actions are always tend to contradict one another, the ethics that Kant talks about is unachievable thus making his arguments difficult to implement in the real world.

Most of the arguments that Kant makes in support for the universal law he advocates for in Kantian ethics either gives wrong answers or the solution provided raises more questions about what is ethical instead of actually helping people to discern right from wrong. A good example is the hypothetical scenario that Kant proposes as an example of a society made up of good morals (Bailey & Constancio, 2017). In his argument, Kant suggests that morality can be seen in a society where everyone plays a part in helping the poor. Although helping others is ethical, Kant presents it in a way to suggest that everyone ought to help the poor as it is the moral thing to do. However, since Kant’s arguments are designed to reach an outcome where there are no contradictions, his argument becomes irrelevant when trying to implement the ideas he shares. If, for example, everyone played their part and helped the poor, it would then mean that, after a specific period of time, there will be no more poor people left to help (Bailey & Constancio, 2017). The universal act of helping the poor would therefore make beneficence impossible and therefore helping the poor would become immoral as it no longer serves any purpose in society.

In addition, Kant’s ideologies regarding ethics put human beings at a constant battle between their desires and their reasoning. According to cant, being ethical means suppressing personal desires and only acting on ideas and actions that have been reasoned out and decisions made to determine the morality of an act before engaging in it (Brusotti & Siemens, 2017). It is however difficult for human beings to suppress all desires they have ad only act on reasoning because the desires are also part of how people interact with one another as well as the world around them. Since Kant does not clearly discuss how human beings can go about resolving the conflict brought about by desire and reasoning, his ideologies on ethics tend to be vague and unsatisfactory as they do not present human beings with enough reasons to engage in moral acts.

The limitations in Kant’s ideologies are brought about by his approach of presenting ideas based on a fictional society or a society that he wishes would exist if people followed his teachings (Somi, 2010). Instead of focusing his arguments on what actually happens in the real world, Kant creates a hypothetical scenario and this makes it difficult to determine what actions can be implemented in the real world. Kant ideology creates universal laws that are impossible to implement in society especially because he presents morals as something that not only guides the way people interact with one another but also restricts them to a specific set of acceptable behaviors (Bailey & Constancio, 2017). His argument is difficult to act on as it requires one to abandon all personal desires and only act on those that have been reasoned out as this, according to Kant, is the only way to engage in an ethical manner.

Unlike Kant who argued in the lines of what ought to happen in society for people to be considered moral, Nietzsche had a more compelling argument as his ideologies helped to explain and interpret things that were already happening in society. Nietzsche’s ideologies were practical and his argument on what was ethical helped to draw conclusions that could help resolve problems that exist in the real world and not a fictional society as was the case with Kant (Bailey & Constancio, 2017). In his discussions about ethics, Nietzsche sought to highlight the confusion that existed due to beliefs related to Christianity and Kantian ethics. According to Nietzsche, the ethical systems used in society had two major limitations. Firstly, the arguments made metaphysical claims regarding the nature of humanity. Accepting these claims was also mandatory as it was the only way to give the systems normative force (Kevin, 2003). Secondly, the ethical systems used would often benefit some people in society and act as inconveniences to others thereby making them ill-suited to determine what was ethical and what was immoral in society.

Although both Kant and Nietzsche agreed on the concept of autonomy and the impact it has on the decisions we make, Nietzsche differed from Kant as he rejected Kant’s ideology that valuing our own autonomy was on condition that we respect the autonomy of other people as well. Nietzsche further disagrees with Kant in regards to his argument on reason and desire (Bailey & Constancio, 2017). According to Kant, reason differs from desire because reason allows for one to step back from a situation, reevaluate the appropriate cause of action and makes an independent decision that help in choosing what is ethical from what is not. Nietzsche however disagrees with this notion as he believes that the self is made up of social structures comprising of everything that drives and motivates people (Brusotti & Siemens, 2017). According to Nietzsche, it is not that people use reason to determine the most appropriate cause of action and go against one’s drive but rather that alternative drives can take dominance over others and this result to people engaging in ethical acts.  People are therefore unable to use reason to control their desires as Kant suggests because the alternative actions that the self engages in results from the strongest drive asserting its dominance.

An argument can be made that Nietzsche’s argument about the dominant drive requires recognition of a self capable of stepping back as suggested by Kant. While the two do share some similarities in their arguments, Nietzsche’s argument about the self only adds on to his belief that people must first view themselves as unified agents. Unlike Kant however, the self or unified agent that Nietzsche talks about is influenced by its drives when differentiating right from wrong unlike in Kant’s argument where reason is used to determine if something is ethical or not. Nietzsche gives a more convincing argument than Kant because his arguments about ethics help in determining whether something is right or wrong while Kant mostly discusses possible outcomes of a hypothetical society instead of addressing what actually takes place in society.

References

Brusotti, M., &  Siemens, H. (2017). Nietzsche's engagements with Kant and the Kantian legacy.             Vol. I. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Constâncio, J., & Bailey, T. (2017). Nietzsche's engagements with Kant and the Kantian legacy. Vol. II. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Kevin R, (2003) “Nietzsche’s critiques: The Kantian foundation of his thought” University of       Notre Dame, retrieved from, https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/nietzsche-s-critiques-the-kantian- foundations-of-his-thought/

Somi A, (2010) “A comparative study of Kant and Nietzsche concerning the role of science in     political theory” St Andrew Research Repository, retrieved from, https://research-    repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/980

Introduction

            David Hume is a philosopher who was born in the early 1700s to his parents Joseph Hume who was a lawyer and his beloved wife Katherine Falconer in the land of Edinburgh. This is a land is found in Scotland. His family had been having a humble background but this did not give them instability in their life. When he was a small boy, he used to take religious beliefs very seriously. He derived several vices from a book of devotion in the period of 17^th century. He went to Edinburgh College where he learnt for period of four years.  The people from his family had expectations that he would pursue a degree in law but surprisingly he did not (Radcliffe, 2). He had been claiming that nothing could have taken from the professors who had graduated in college.  He had been having a dream of being a philosopher and a scholar. He took many years carrying out his own study and reading stories about the previous philosophers. He had begun being popular and generating views which appeared very much philosophical.

            Hume had fallen sick in the year 1729 and the practitioner who assessed him was able to come out with the main problem termed the condition as “the disease of the learned”. He was treated and asked to avoid being too much of a loner (Radcliffe, 2). He later moved out of his home and went to France where he had been communicating with the Jesuits. It is during this period that he had become an author of the manuscript,” A Treatise of Human Nature”. It did not do well in the market and he prepared volume of essays which were embraced in the market very well. Since then, he had become familiar to the people as a person with philosophical nature and went on doing more writings. Hume is a philosopher who gives explanation of the mind of people in terms of the principles and qualities. The analysis of this philosopher has always been used to give consideration to quantum mechanics, deferential and unique account of the mind of human beings. Hume tries to feature the different states where the content of the mental state is kept and also the identification of what is included in the content. He brings out various things that happen in the mind like comparing, rearranging, recalling and combining. In order to construct images which are creative, come out with awareness and abstract ideas, all the named activities need to be acquired from sensation.

            According to Hume, people are used to approving the things that are morally right or wrong depending on what is appreciated and rejected. He had been an arguing that people usually accept issues because according to them, they have been considered right (Palmer, 53). People may find themselves doing some things which are not pleasant to them having the basis that they are considered morally right according to the societal norms and beliefs. People have got the feeling that so long as an activity is figured to be morally right, it should be approved as good to be done. There is the need to keep away emotions in order to come up conclusions which are moral. Hume also talks about trust and explains that the way people interact with others can greatly bring a nice attitude that goes beyond the moral code of ethics.

            On the other hand, there is another philosopher called Hobbes. This man had been born in the late 1500s. He was a very clever man who used to read books that had been published earlier by other writers. He also used to make translations of various writings into different languages (Rosenberg, 9). During his time, countries and those who headed them were being controlled by the church. People had been subjected to following the instruction ordered by the church but Hobbes refused to do as per the rule. He had a strong believe that only religious matters were supposed to be coordinated by the church and not the entire life of the people. He was also against the people who had been fighting for freedom from the ruler for he believed that people were supposed to be under the rule of the king and do as per the commands. Hobbes life had been full of conflicts from the people who were having believes that they needed to get freedom from their king as well as the church which had a feeling that it should not only be responsible for church matters but also control all the other issues in the whole nation. Several fights had been his portion due to this issue of being against the will of the rest of the people. There could have been thoughts that he had been defending the king with an aim of getting some favor but this had not been his desire whatsoever. He went on standing strong and believing that no matter how great the conflicts would appear, they could not prevent him from managing his objective. The main aim behind his strong opinions was not any other than to ensuring that the people of the nation had been in the position off living peacefully. He had been a great thinker even though he came across numerous criticisms from the people. His thoughts and believes have been contributing much towards emergence of ideas in the modern life.

            Hobbes had been believed that people desire what is good and reject the things that are considered to be bad. He had been having the feeling that there are no set limits of good and evil. People are driven to doing what they feel is good by their desires (Sofroniou, 125). He says that people like doing the things that are pleasant to them as they view them to be good. There is the tendency of doing the issues that are being felt as good and appealing to them. They do not have to mind if the issues are being viewed as morally right or wrong so long as they are going to make them happy. He goes ahead to explain that if someone lives a life out of political matters, what they want is that which will determine the good and what is not good.

            Hume presents a stronger argument concerning the approach of ethics. According to him, people do what is supposed to be done in the community. They should consider standing with the right actions that will not provoke the culture. People do what is customary correct and keeps away what is not acceptable. The fact that there are implications or punishment in the society for doing what is morally wrong, people are trying as much as possible to follow the right paths. This argument is good as it tells that what is morally right is supposed to be adhered to by the people. It therefore outdates that of Hobbes which explains that people do according to the desires of their hearts. He says that what people feel like is pleasant to them is what they consider to be right and what is wrong is probably what is not desired by their hearts. This is not a strong argument as people might at a times desire what is not morally acceptable and figure it as good to them. The fact is that people have different tastes and therefore they can end up doing what is wrong to others while they are thinking that it is right.

Conclusion

            It is possible to say that Hume and Hobbes are two different philosophers who viewed ethics in different perspectives. Hume argues that people are supposed to do what is viewed to be morally right and reject that which is considered to be wrong. People are expected to follow the morals of the society and ensure that their actions go as per them. On the other hand, Hobbes argues that people are supposed to do according to what they feel as appealing to their desires and reject what is not pleasant to them. By so doing, they will have done the good thing which is considered to be pleasant and wrong which is considered to be unpleasant of which they  might end up doing things which are considered wrong by others. Hume’s argument appears to be stronger compared to that of Hobbes as basically people are expected to do activities which are morally right and reject that which is wrong. The desires and tastes can be contradicting as not all that people desire is considered to be right and not all that is considered to be unpleasant is wrong.

Work cited

Palmer, Daniel E. Ethical Issues in E-Business: Models and Frameworks. Hershey, Pa: IGI          Global, 2010.   Print.

Radcliffe, Elizabeth S. A Companion to Hume. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Print.

Rosenberg, Aaron. Thomas Hobbes: An English Philosopher in the Age of Reason. New York:     Rosen Pub. Group, 2006. Print.

Sofroniou, Andreas. Medical Ethics Through the Ages. Swindon: Psysys Ltd, 2003. Print.

Act Utilitarian is a school of thought that believes that the actions of a human being are acceptable as long as they bring about acceptable results in the context in which he or she made them. Utilitarianism involves considering a particular action and analyzing the action in terms of happiness (Sheng 78). For example, it would be wrong for an employer to deny someone a job based on the fact that he or she is unattractive rather than consider academic and other qualifications. Act utilitarian also considers the fact that one does not have time to examine the results of their action even if they have time, they will choose it based on their pleasure or happiness, for example choosing to work for a charity group which will benefit a lot of individuals or buying a television, one will obviously lean on a choice that brings him pleasure. Act utilitarian can agree with facial discrimination. This can happen when one selects more attractive people in a company than selecting based on academic merits. If the consequence of this action benefits the company, act utilitarian will support the action and this will promote more facial discrimination. Therefore, act utilitarian focus on the overall result.

Rationale behind utilitarianism

Humans are intelligent beings, each and everything they do comes out of reasoning. Whether it is done knowingly or unknowingly, everything that a human decides to undertake is for a purpose, and it is justified in their minds before they can begin executing it. Utilitarianism are governed by rationality most of the times if not all the time. It is constructed and guided by the asset of principles that help individuals to draw the line between right and wrong, good and evil (Sheng 118). Humans use instincts or habits formed from previous encounters, but they act according to conscious decisions of what they perceive as right or wrong. Then how do human arrive at these decisions? What do humans use to measure their actions against? This is where ethical relativism and ethical egoism comes in.

Utilitarianism and its aspects pose a very significant challenge when one discusses ethics rationally. First and foremost, unlike relativism is centered on a concept that believes that there is no absolute truth in ethics and whatever is considered right for one individual may not be right for another or may vary from society to society (Sheng 108). Making it hard to pinpoint to any logical conclusion or rationality. Various organizations have different customs, and each thinks that his traditions are better than the other is. No particular set of social customs are preferable than the others (Varner 88). It can be argued that morality is constructed differently within various cultures. Each community comes up with standards that are utilized by individuals within it to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. Every judgment of right or wrong assumes or abides by these set standards. For example, if polygamy is considered right for one community, then it is right for that entire community, and if the same practice is deemed wrong for another within a different society, then the method is wrong for the whole of the nation. In Ethical Relativism there is no such concept as a constant absolute right as they are no neutral standards that can be used to compare the ethics and decide what is right and what is wrong. Therefore this poses a significant challenge when trying to evaluate ethics rationally.

Whereas ethical relativism tries to explain that there is no line between wrong or right or good and evil. Utilitarianism suggests that people tend to behave in a manner that favors their self-interests above the interests of others. If selfishness is true, then morality is not possible because morals sometimes need an individual to consider putting others first rather than their ambitions or self-interests (Varner 123). When a utilitarian choice is about to be made one will think how it will benefit him or her more unlike relativism, which tries to weigh in on how the decision will affect the rest of the people as well. For example, if one could benefit from donating 10000 dollars the morally acceptable thing to do is to stay with the money instead of giving it out to charity. In addition, focuses on an individual, and it is descriptive. It tries to be factual by describing human affairs, which are self-centered and not otherwise. People act for various reasons but what is behind their drive is it themselves or god or for the good of the society. Can a person work only based on his interests without considering the benefit of others.

Counter argument

Individuals try to avert getting into the discussion as they claim that moral positions are just contrasted in opinions. If that were a fact one would be forced to believe that there are good morals or good prudent reasons for not getting into arguments with other people, that it was good to avoid conflict with other people on contentious issues (Varner 67). Instead, people who support utilitarianism impose their views on others also known as ethnocentrism. But then one has to personally agree that being ethnocentric is ethnically no right and there are good reasons why it is wrong.

On the other hand, psychological the perception surrounding utilitarianism can be discredited the moment one finds an instance in which an individual has acted in the manner that is against his self-interest probing that there is ethics (Varner 71). The theory only trues to portray humans as self-centered and cannot behave otherwise; therefore, anything that represents humans as selfless discredits it.

Comparison with other concepts

Whereas a theory Kantian focuses on motive rather than the outcome, utilitarianism is centered on the results only. According to Kant, people know what is morally right, but they do not want to do it. This is because what is right may not directly benefit the individual. For example, when one comes across a wallet with a wad full of notes, the right thing to do is to return the item with the money, but it is in an individual's interest to keep the money even if there was certainty that the individual would misuse the funds (Hursthouse and Crisp 90). If humans were to be controlled by the desires and feelings, then they would not be able to conduct themselves morally at all. In the case of a lion that hunts down a human being, it would be absurd to claim that the lion had an ethical duty not to kill the human nature yet; a lion only depends on its feelings and instincts to react.

 On another hand, if a person died of another human being, he could be found reprehensible and could be taken to court for prosecution. Unlike animals, human beings have the capability of behaving morally hence can reason beyond their feelings or desires and override their emotions to act ethically (Bartels and Pizarro 131). Lions respond to their desires when they are triggered. Only a human have the mental capacity to choose. The free will to choose, according to Kant means that humans can act autonomously, which means that they can conduct themselves according to the laws of their own making. Being free means to be able to make decisions without the influence or impact of the surrounding environment an individual finds himself in hence implying that one can make reasoning beyond their desires.

Without free will, ethics is impossible according to the opinion of utilitarian deontology. At times one's wishes may be in line with what is ethically right and sound thing to do. Individuals are supposed to react based on moral duty and not moral laws (Vaughn 150). If an individual act based on moral obligation but not motivated by moral requirements he or she does not have free will as laws of psychology already decide their actions. Not doing what is right is not an issue, doing the right things for the right reasons is the ultimate objective of morality. Being rational depends entirely on applying reason and logic, which helps to do the right thing hence in the case where there is no absolute right or wrong for one to cause with ends up affecting the judgement of a rational. Hence, in the end, rationality cannot apply when it comes to one thinks of it in terms of egoism or even utilitarianism.

Works cited

Bartels, D.M. and Pizarro, D.A. The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121(1), pp.154-161, 2011

Hursthouse, R. and Crisp, R. Normative virtue ethics. Ethica, 645. 2013

Sheng, Ching Lai. A new approach to utilitarianism: A unified utilitarian theory and its application to distributive justice. Vol. 5. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

Varner, Gary E. Personhood, ethics, and animal cognition: Situating animals in Hare's two level utilitarianism. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Vaughn, Lewis. Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. WW Norton & Company, 2015.

Deontological and teleological approaches to ethics

Introduction

Deontological ethical approach judges if an action is right, despite the outcome of the action. On the other hand, there is teleological ethics which states otherwise, this theory judge’s morality from the outcome or the consequence it brings. Philosopher sought out to prove which of these two theories should be use to judge the morality of human actions in business and entrepreneurship. In most occasions the deontological approach is associated with German philosopher Immanuel Kant whom was the first one to define it in the 18^th century. Kant believed for one to be morally upright one most follow the universal moral laws, and also one must have a good will that will lead one to act in accordance to the law out of respect than acting on natural inclination. Teleological approach focuses on the goals or achievement of an action. For many reasons it is advisable to use teleological theory in making business decisions.

These two approaches have their differences which are as follows; deontology approach is a theory that state that the results of the action do not justify the means that were used, while teleological approach is a theory that states that the results always justify the means that were used. Deontology can be referred to as ethics that are duty based, while teleology can be referred to as ethics that are results based. Teleology examines the history of the results of an action in order to determine or predicts the outcomes or results of an action, while deontology encourages on to follow what can be said to be morally right judging from the values that have been instilled in a person. Deontology advises one to maintain all fairness and not to use others for personal gains, while teleology advises one to use whatever means necessary to produce good results. Deontology adheres to rules and principles while, teleology does not adhere to rules or principals (Ayers, 2019). These differences help to set apart these two theoretical approaches.

`Each of the theoretical approaches has its strengths and weaknesses. Deontology theory helps to create and set a good foundation on how humans will conduct themselves. The Ten Commandments set’s a good example of what deontological theory is, they are rules that guide humans to do what is morally right since judgment is placed on their actions. Society has also the golden rule that advise one to do unto others what they would want done unto them. Deontological approach requires one to treat others with respect because that is what is morally upright. Deontological ethics helps in instilling personal responsibility in an individual. The requirements of deontological ethics, require one to be responsible while undertaking any action (Ayers, 2019). Any action undertaken by an individual in the society has to be done in accordance with the moral rules and any outcome from such action is ethically correct.

Deontological theoretical approach helps to create a moral absolute. For this approach there is nothing that can be considered as black and white since something is either right or wrong in the society. In cases where extreme situations arise and another course of action is needed the guidelines for this approach do not allow another action to be taken, this is because, morally they are not expected to take another action apart from the required action. This duty based approach places value on every person by aiming and providing respect to all human beings in a society. It forces everyone to offer regards and interests of each other (Ayers, 2019). The outcomes of these theory are not always right though they are dictated by what is morally upright. The last of the advantages of this theory is that it offers certainty of the results of an outcome because it pays concern to the action being undertaken to provide these results.

The deontological theory has its advantages that contribute or make up its weaknesses. This theoretical approach crates a paradox. When considering the welfare of the society as these approach emphasizes on, one cannot consider the welfare of others at the expense of his or her own life, since no self-sacrifice can be termed morally right. This approach also forbids taking another course of action in extreme conditions. In some conditions that would save lives another course of action should be taken to avoid destruction of life but this approach does not permit this (Ayers, 2019). Taking a situation where a missile is supposed to be launched, but launching this missile will kill or harm lives and the duty of the person is to launch it, going against that command can be termed as morally wrong but the course of action was changed to save life.

Deontological theoretical approach can be termed as a good supernatural excuse. This approach includes divine commands such as The Ten Commandments within its structure. If a person or society believes that God or the divinities, they worship is the one that dictates what is morally right and wrong they might be misled. Some people may do harm onto others in the name that their deity allows them and it is morally right. These deontological ethics tent to override morality on a personal level. These deontological ethics define what is wrong and right on a basis of subjective opinion. How to define what is right should be from the insight of an involved individual (Micewski, & Troy, 2007). It is absurd that even the act of quickly pushing a person through an exit to aid them to leave in a dangerous situation before alerting them is morally inferior.

Deontological ethical approach dictate that any form of violence is wrong therefore, in its system it fails to incorporate self-defense. In a situation where one is caught in any form of violence one is allowed to defend him/herself from anyone trying to cause them harm. This approach does not permit one to respond to any kind of violence. Self-defense does not make one morally wrong. This approach encourages one who is immoral to harm another person since the other person holds the perspective that defending him/herself is ethically wrong. This approach also as dictates that one is not permitted to let anyone hurt another person. Sometimes someone cannot control situations and that does not make them ethically wrong. This theoretical approach is also based on the action that one takes, lying in any situation is morally wrong according to this theory, in life some situations require a lie, taking a situation where one wants to commit suicide and they need to be told something in order to stop, it is morally right to lie to them than let them commit suicide (De, 2003). Morality should be judged on the better choice that is made in a situation, but not on the laws of nature that state what is wrong and right.

Every individual’s everyday missions are based on the goals they want to achieve. Individuals are concerned on what results their action will give them. Teleology helps individuals in shaping the decision they make each day by only considering the results of their actions. Just like the deontological approach the teleological approach has its strength and weakness, starting with the strengths; this theory tends to be more flexible than other theories. It allows action to be change in order to suit a circumstance and in order to produce better results. This theory also denies the fact that morality exist in relation to culture, society or even historical context thus making the teleological approach more individualistic. It allows us to look at situations and make decisions on what one sees fit rather than what society considers moral. An example is a situation where a doctor chooses to remove a person from life support system because they know the person has no chance of surviving in order to place a person who has the chances of surviving (De, 2003). The teleological approach helps the doctor to do this because it is what is morally right at the time

            The teleological ethical approach is more useful in the 21^st century. It is a century where people are not more concerned with playing God by determining what is morally right or wrong but concerned with getting life changing results despite the moral status of the actions they take. This theory has made room for practices such as cloning of embryo for infertile couple without worrying if the action is morally right according to society or not, simply because the results of these cloning action will be beneficial for many (De, 2003). It is arguable that the teleological theory helps people deal with problems arising in the real world that deontological approach fails to address. Teleological theory puts people in a real world while deontological theory puts people in an ideal world where nothing can go wrong and a change of course of action cannot be needed.

The teleological system has got weaknesses although they do not outweigh the strengths. Unlike the deontological system where the consequences or results are certain, in this system one is not certain of the consequences of an action. Taking into consideration the earlier example of a doctor who removes someone from life support to save the life of another, the doctor cannot be so sure that the other patient will survive or die, not being sure of the consequences can be seen as taking chance with people’s life in this case. This approach makes room for immoral deeds which are against Gods divine commandments an example is cloning of embryos which is against God’s command on the nature laws. From the former example, the act of the doctor pulling the patient from life support is immoral and goes against God’s commandment as stated in the book of Deuteronomy32:39 “learn that I alone, I am God, and there is no god besides me. It is I who bring both life and death.” (Harrington, & Terry, 2009). This is proof that committing even euthanasia when doctors are required to may seem right, but it is immoral according to divine commandments.

Since we live in a realistic world where problems arise, and people in various professions need to find solutions to them. It is advisable to use the theory that helps us deal with these problems not one that places us in a position where we cannot deal with these problems. Sometimes doing what is morally wrong can benefit people or even save lives. Teleological approach is the best approach in doing business. These theory allows one to be morally right when doing something good and morally wrong while still doing something good. It allows room for adjustment when needed. It has its weaknesses but everything that is good has pros and cons. These theory is guided by two principles; the greatest good has done to be done for the greatest number of people and the end results will always justify the means that were used (Harrington, & Terry, 2009). The deontological theory suggests that the means is most important than the results, which I personally disagree with because if the consequences of an action that is right are wrong why not change the action so that it can produce good consequences.

Teleological theory creates room for people with different believes on what is morally right and wrong and this is good because everyone is raised with different beliefs of what is good or wrong. If something is morally right for someone according to their background it does not mean that the action is morally right for a person raised in a different background. Another advantage provided by teleology is that it caters for the needs of the majority. Taking an example where a medical institution looks to find a cure for a disease that is affecting many people, the institution is likely to carry out procedures and treatment on patients suffering from that disease, it is true that they will violate the right of those patients, but those patients are likely to heal and the cure found will benefit a lot of people, only the end justify the means used (Teays, 2015)and to get to any fruitful results for the sake of saving humankind, then any means has to be used.

Teleological system can be most suitable and preferred to deontological methods because, deontological system does not offer the flexibility that is offered by the teleological system. For teleological system the consequences are usually morally rights since they are for the greater good but for a deontological system the consequences are mostly morally wrong because it places its emphasis on the means but not the consequences that will help everyone. In running a business, it is advisable to use means that are more concentrated on results than means that are more concentrated on good actions. Only good results are good for the growth of a business therefore, the ethical nature of an action should be completely based on the results produced but not the means that were used (Teays, 2015). It is only right to judge an action by the results it produces but not the means. To run a successful business, it is advisable to use the teleological approach when deciding the ethical nature of an action.

Conclusion

When it comes to choosing a method of evaluation the ethical nature of an action many philosophers tend to disagree on the teleological method and the deontological method. These two methods are different in so many ways and have no similarity. Each method is founded on a certain belief, the deontological method is based on the belief that one has to do what is morally right according to society while, teleological method is based on the belief that any decision that leads to consequences that are beneficial even if the action is morally wrong is right. These two theoretical approaches have strengths and weaknesses that make each of them suitable or not suitable to be used while determining the nature of an ethical situation. The flexibility offered by the teleological approach has made it more suitable to be used in businesses because only good results are considered despite the actions that were taken to arrive to such results.

References

Micewski, E., & Troy, C. (2007). Business Ethics: Deontologically Revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(1), 17-25. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25075355

Teays, W. (2015). Business ethics through movies: Case study approach.
            Chichester, West Sussex, UK ; Malden, MA : Wiley Blackwell
Harrington, N., & Terry, C. L. (2009). LPN to RN transitions: Achieving success in your new       role. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

De, G. R. T. (2003). The ethics of information technology and business.Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub

Ayers, c. (2019). 12 Pros and Cons of Deontological Ethics. Retrieved from;                                             https://connectusfund.org/12-pros-and-cons-of-deontological-ethics

Contrasting Indiana and Idaho Intelligent Security Policies

Indiana’s Privacy Policy and Idaho’s License Plate Reader Policy

An IT security policy is a documentation of the guidelines and the events that all individuals that access and use organizational IT assets and resources should follow (Dunham, 2018). An IT security policy is the prototype of an organization’s culture whereby its guidelines and dealings are resultant from the employees’ attitude to their data as well as work. An IT security policy helps to reserve privacy, reliability and accessibility of information systems (Dunham, 2018). Indiana Intelligence Fusion Centres (IIFC) licence plate reader (LPR) policy and Idaho Criminal Intelligence Centre (IC²) privacy policy are two IT security policies that work in ensuring that they protect civil rights and ensure that the respective citizens have their personal privacy.

 IC² main mission is to collect, store and analyse any crime information and this includes even any suspected offences which ensures that there is protection of human civil rights (Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center License Plate Reader Policy, 2018). The aim of licence plate reader (LPR) policy provides proper guidelines and principles for the collection, access, dissemination of information to IIFC personnel. LPR helps in increasing public safety and improvement of the state, local, tribal and national security. It helps in minimizing potential risks to individuals’ privacy, civil constitutional rights and civil independences and it helps in fostering truth in the government by strengthening transparency.

Similarities

1. Employment and training

For new employees, both these policies ensure that special training in regard to their policy requirements is given. All of them ensure that the new employees understand the concept protecting information and ensuring accuracy in collection, analyses and dissemination of information. The training normally entail subjects such as; role of the policy, constituent and intent of the provision of the policies, originating and participating agency responsibilities and obligation, ways to device the policies in genera daily activities, mechanisms of reporting violations and the nature and possible penalties for the violations (The Idaho Criminal Intelligence Center Privacy Policy, 2019).

1. Security

Both of the policies operate in a secret environment thus ensuring that they protect the facility from any external intrusion. Both IC² privacy policy and PLR policy apply protected internal and external precautions against network interferences and entree to the database from outside the facility is only permissible over protected systems. IC² stores data in such a way that it cannot be supplemented, ruined or even eliminated except by the approved personnel (Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center License Plate Reader Policy, 2018). The right to use of the analysis and distribution of information is only settled to the specific employees whose job positions and obligations require such kind of admittance and this are also employees that are appropriately trained, have completed all the background checks and the appropriate security clearances (The Idaho Criminal Intelligence Center Privacy Policy, 2019).

• Supremacy and oversight

The governance board of IC² normally consist of one command staff member from each of the agencies that provide staff to IC². The governance board is also responsible for the approval of all policy and procedures of IC² (Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center License Plate Reader Policy, 2018). Just like with IC² IIFC director is normally responsible for the overall overseeing and administration of the LPR program to ensure compliance with appliance laws, regulations, standards and policy (The Idaho Criminal Intelligence Center Privacy Policy, 2019).

1. Information gathering and acquisition of IC² and IIFC

Both IC and IIFC do not at any given time pursue, admit or even preserve data from an distinct or a nongovernmental data supplier who may or may not accept a charge, for providing the data if they knows that the provider is legally prohibited from obtaining or disclosing the information. IC² Privacy Policy just with PLR only seeks and retains information that is based on possible threats, reasonable suspicions, pertinent to an exploration and tribunal of a criminal activity (Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center License Plate Reader Policy, 2018). All this information that is acquired is normally received by the policies and analysed according to priorities and needs.

Differences

Idaho Criminal Intelligence Centre (IC²) privacy policy

1. With IC², in order to help avert unintentional public disclosure and any susceptibility, data is not usually stored with publicly accessible data. The qualified and capable members are generally elected by the IC² director (Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center License Plate Reader Policy, 2018).
2. The IC² privacy policy is compliant with the U.S Constitution, the constitution of Idaho and also the Criminal Intelligence Systems Operations and the Idaho Public Records. When a sanctioned user does not conform with the requirements of IC² when it comes to the gathering, use, obliteration and classification of information, this user’s access to information is suspended and the matters may then be referred to the appropriate authorities and the required disciplinary measures are applied (Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center License Plate Reader Policy, 2018).
3. IC² privacy policy is normally retained by Idaho State Police and the director has the key role of the daily procedures which include; managing of the personnel, exploration and allocation or disclosure of information (Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center License Plate Reader Policy, 2018).

Indiana Intelligence Fusion Centres (IIFC) licence plate reader (LPR) policy

1. Privacy generals are normally taught and designated through the command of the Executive director (The Idaho Criminal Intelligence Center Privacy Policy, 2019).
2. Privacy agreement is normally directed by a proficient privacy officer that is normally taught by the management director (The Idaho Criminal Intelligence Center Privacy Policy, 2019).
3. Violations of the policy can be reported directors or to the privacy officers where the necessary punishment will be given (The Idaho Criminal Intelligence Center Privacy Policy, 2019). The reporting can be made either in person; it can be written or made via any electronic communication.

Best policy

Idaho’s IC² private policy is much better as compared to Indiana’s IIFC licence plate reader because it the policy is much more detailed and it very clearly explained. The policy adheres to the criminal Intelligence Guidelines that are conventional under the U.S department of justice (Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center License Plate Reader Policy, 2018). It has very clear guidelines as to how the policy is effected and the consequences that come with not doing in accordance to the policy which makes it very easy for every individual to understand as compared to LPR that does not clearly state its purpose or give clear guidelines on how the policy can be effected (The Idaho Criminal Intelligence Center Privacy Policy, 2019).

Conclusion and recommendations

Cyber security has been a major issue affecting government agencies which has led to amplified need for improved cyber security risk management strategies.  States have worked hard to come up with strategies that can help deal with cyber security and though they are helping, these policies need to properly strategize to make them more effective. There are things that states should adopt when it comes to cyber security management and one of them includes training employees on cyber security and ways to ensure that data is secure in their various security sites (Dunham, 2018). Another important factor is ensuring that frequent analysis on citizen and employees’ data and classifying the data in both the external and internal clouds and also management of mobile devices. The state governments should always ensure that they inspire and support the development and sustainment of a workforce that is skilful in cyber security as a basis for attaining government aims in cyber security (Dunham, 2018).

References

Cooke, M. (2015, September 11). Desperately Seeking Security Frameworks – A Roadmap

for State CIOs. Retrieved from https://www.nascio.org/Publications/ArtMID/485/ArticleID/189/Desperately-Seeking-Security-Frameworks-–-A-Roadmap-for-State-CIOs

Dunham, R. (2018, July 26). Information Security Policies: Why They Are Important to Your

Organization. Retrieved from https://linfordco.com/blog/information-security-policies/

Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center License Plate Reader Policy. (2018). Indiana Intelligence

Fusion Center, 1-6. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwiWmaGVifDgAhXK2OAKHQdCCVMQFjAAegQIChAC&url=https://www.in.gov/iifc/files/Indiana_Intelligence_Fusion_Center_LPR_Privacy_Policy.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1JZNoJqflmeyOJRJVSkK5p.

The Idaho Criminal Intelligence Center Privacy Policy. (2019). Idaho Criminal Intelligence,

1-20. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjuiI2mivDgAhVS2OAKHbgvAZEQFjAAegQICBAC&url=https://www.isp.idaho.gov/icic/documents/IdahoCriminalIntelligenceCenterPrivacyPolicy.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2PxrQvJoR5iJrkXX-r6fkp.

Aristotle’s idea of virtue and happiness

Introduction

            Aristotle was a philosopher who dealt with both practical and theories while trying to bring out difference. He was a great philosopher whose practical of philosophy had two great attractions. First, the image it presents to the people’s excellence and secondly is the notion that a theoretical philosophy of logic, nature and of being which is great in its influence and magnitude. The theoretical projector is now tarnished regardless of the image of the ethical still being bright. His account of nature has been contradicted by modern heroes like Russell and Epicureans. There has been replacement of his logics, deconstructions of his metaphors and his theoretical philosophy has been discredited.

            Aristotle’s point of happiness is that nothing can make someone happier if he or she is already happy. This is because happiness is good and unconditionally complete in itself hence if someone is happy it is impossible to improve the state of happiness. According to Aristotle, once someone reaches happiness there is no additional happiness. The ultimate good of happiness is built in lesser goods. He says that there are several stoppers of happiness, that is, certain ideas, thoughts or actions that can hinder someone from doing something right for the right person at the right time. These include misunderstanding of the nature of happiness, overdependence on emotions, over-emphasize on materials, honors and success, failure to think what  is too much or what is not enough when deciding the choice of action to take among others.( Madvin, 21). Aristotle claims that someone must control their emotions if they want to optimize their chances of living happily by considering the following line of thinking.

• There is a reason for intelligence.
• Excellence requires intelligence.
• Excellence is similar to virtue.
• Happiness requires virtuous activities.

This means that there is the need to think rationally before doing thing in certain circumstances. Happiness comes about when someone stops basing important life decisions on emotions and bases them on reason and this way it is impossible to encounter stoppers of happiness.

            The modern philosophers have rejected the approach of happiness to pertain the whole life. Epicureans, Stoics and Plotinus insist that happiness depends on the state of individual at a certain time but not temporal structure of life (Rabbås, 11). They agreed that despite the differences of the meaning of happiness, it is a stable state.

            Aristotle point of virtue is that intellect and character develop well or badly and that the difference is on our hands. According to Aristotle, talking about virtue is talking about what happens when the development goes well in order to know what it takes so that our lives may be better. He does not offer any theory of how one gets better with respect of virtues but only talks about how to get better in ones intellect and character (Snow, 18).  Aristotle offers this theory of virtue acquisition because he thinks that it is easy to understand how virtues are acquired. However, he thinks of the process of acquiring the virtue as something done by people always through training and practice. That is why he says that acquiring a virtue is similar to acquiring a skill like learning how to play to construct a building. Aristotle’s idea of virtues is that someone begins with the study of skills acquisition in order to get the best study of the nature of virtues. Russell sketches on research program for virtue development by Aristotle and tries to show that Aristotle thinks that acquisition of virtues is part of people’s lives and also the normal ways through which people try to make their lives better.

             Russell’s point of virtues is that through studying on how skills are acquired there can be better understanding of how virtues are acquired. He argues that there are two respects in psychology through which the emphasis of skills acquisition meshes well (Snow, 2). To begin with, it is important to understand the distinction between path-dependent and path-independent. The first one specifies moral ideal and ways of acquiring g it .Russell argues that the Aristotle’s idea of virtue is a path-dependent approach. The second respect is on skills in which acquisition of virtue by Aristotle meshes well with psychology. The fact that Aristotle did not clearly the competencies needed in virtue he can be viewed as a philosopher whose work left gaps of research to be carried out by later generations.

Conclusion

            Aristotle point of happiness argues that when someone is happy there is nothing that can be done to make them happier. He says that happiness is already stable by itself. Someone needs to control their emotions in order to optimize their level of happiness. He also claims that in order to live a virtuous life one need to understand that intellect and character can either develop well or badly. He thinks that the virtue acquisition process of training and practice. He feels that someone acquires skills then ends up acquiring the virtues. However, modern researchers think differently from his ideas and have rejected them. Epicureans, Stoics and Plotinus insist that happiness depends on the individual’s state at a given time but does not take the whole life as Aristotle claims. Russell’s idea of virtue is that through studying the skills acquisition is a better way of acquiring the virtues contrary to Aristotle’s argument who claims that virtue acquisition is part of life and acquiring skills is similar to acquiring virtues.

Work cited

Knight, Kelvin. Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to Macintyre. New     York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Internet resource.

Snow, Nancy E. Cultivating Virtue: Perspectives from Philosophy, Theology, and Psychology. ,   2015. Print.

Madvin, Gary. Finding Happiness with Aristotle As Your Guide: Action Strategies Based on 10   Timeless Ideas. Place of publication not identified: iUniverse Com,

Rabbås, Øyvind, Kjalar E. Eyjólfur, Hallvard Fossheim, and Miira Tuominen. The Quest for the Good Life: Ancient Philosophers on Happiness. , 2015. Print.

How Thomas Hobbes and John Locke responded to religious wars and civil strife

Introduction

In the 17^th century England, lived two great philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both of them founded and introduced their theories about the state and social contract. Despite the difference in their theories on how religious strives and civil war should be responded to they can both be held accountable for the changes that occurred in France and England in the late 17^th century. They wrote their work at a time the world was dominated by conflicting religion and wanted to find a solution. Their solution is one of the factors that impacted the way the society continued even long after their death. Their works was responsible for changes that took place in England and France in the late 17^th century.

 They looked out to know the obvious truth of religion. Hobbes wrote his works when England was at war and he was in France and the civil war in the country was just beginning. The cause of some of the wars at that time was that there was too much religion that conflicted. He sought to find the solution to this conflict since these wars led to destabilization of some political structures. Locke at his time wrote a letter that encouraged pluralism of religion in one territory and it was well received by the public (Harrison, Ross 10). They helped change people’s perspective of religion and showed how many religions can co-exist

Hobbes in his book Leviathan, argues that it is the people who give power to their rulers. Towards the end of the seventeen century Locke in his work the two Treatises of Civil Government Locke emphasized that all men have certain nature rights. They have given up some of those nature rights willingly to form a government that will protect the rest of their rights such as; right to life, property and speech and no ruling authority would lay claim to control those rights (Harrison, Ross 18) these two philosophers helped to change the belief of people about power and rights of citizens of a state.

Hobbes argues that an ideal political system is a force that drives all matters into the right direction. It controls the conflicts that arise from the desires of people unlike other philosopher who came before him he does not draw the analogies between the state, monarchy and the human body he emphasizes that. He uses the metaphor of a skilled technician and a machine. The state is the machine and the skilled technician is a capable responsible leader (Hager, Alan 175). As the years evolved the society became more aware of the political system and this helped solve some of the problem Hobbes and Locke sought to find a solution to.

Conclusion

Hobbes and Locke contributed to the political change that took place at the end of the seventeenth century by redirecting people’s beliefs on matters affecting them into another direction. Both helped to show the relationship between religion and the political system thus solving some of the major conflicting issues such as existence of multiple religion. that had destabilized many political structures. Hobbes and Locke were great philosophers despite the difference in their work, their theories helped in solving the religious strife and civil war in England and France.

Work cited

Harrison, Ross. Hobbes, Locke, and Confusion's Masterpiece: An Examination of Seventeenth Century Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.

Hager, Alan. Age of Milton, the: An Encyclopedia of Major 17th-Century British and American Authors. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2004. Internet resource.

Plato Republic

Plato is one of the most celebrated philosophers of all the philosophers of the western tradition. According to him the education of the guardians of the state was of much importance, and he considered it a priority. They talked about educating the mind and the character and included stories, but not just stories, suitable stories which they choose from those that are produced (Meretoja & Davis, 2017). To them, poets and storytellers made mistakes in telling people that the unjust people are happy and those who are unjust are wretched, that doing wrong things pays if they avoid being found and justice is for once own advantage and disadvantage of the other.

             Storytelling needs to be controlled because the children learn from them, the fact that a child can't differentiate what is wrong and right, it will be essential to control this stories to ensure those that teach them good character and give good education is told. Those individuals who are very good in making imitations are praised and respected and also considered as wonderful beings, and therefore it is good to find the health of our souls and recognize those who are imitating virtues.

             Plato was a great storyteller, and he saw the power stories had and he also noted that the effectiveness could not be derived from entirely rational means and therefore, storytellers with poets and other musicians had to be either banned from the Republic or be at least censored strictly. This means that Plato was perfectly protecting the young from this power of storytelling (Meretoja & Davis, 2017). It is therefore clear that Plato assumed that children learned from stories and what they are told will determine what they will think as for right or consider to be the actual thing.

            It is true to some extent that the young consider what they learn as the real thing, and children might not understand the different characters that the poets might imitate as fiction. And thus if t you tell a child this is what goes on in the society, that will be what the child will consider it as what usually goes on. Controlling what the children can be told and by choosing the only most suitable one is honestly a good step in giving the society what will be important in their minds and what can build their character.

            I agree with the Plato assumptions because they are correct, what the children see in movies or play in games and also get in stories will modify their character, culture, and behavior. That is what is happening in the world currently, what people and the children get from the internet and movies make a significant impact in their lives (Bolaños, 2017). Stories should set a good example to the children, and competent individuals are supposed not to depend on the loved one's property and therefore be self-sufficient.

            We should also recognize the positive destinations of stories, and I believe that stories is fundamental in the preparation of children in performing their roles in the ideal states, and therefore, stories should play there a key role in shaping cultures, promoting behaviors which are desirable and be an inspiration and remove this sense of our importance. What will benefit from writing stories that will not build the character of the founders, absolutely nothing, that why I agree with Plato.

References

Bolaños, K. A. (2017). Plato on the Responsible Use of Poetry and Fiction in The Republic and The Laws. Kritike: An Online Journal of Philosophy, 11(2), 241-256.

Meretoja, H., & Davis, C. (2017). Truth, Ethics, Fiction: Responding to Plato’s Challenge. In Storytelling and Ethics (pp. 21-36). Routledge.