Question 1

Why it is a challenge to rational discussion

 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.

Ethics 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.

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.

Ethical Relativism and egoism pose a very significant challenge when one discusses ethics rationally. First and foremost, 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. 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. No particular set of social customs are preferable than the others. 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. Ethical egoism 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. When an ethical 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. Egoism 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?

 Ethical egoism and ethical relativism have their differences and similarities. Egoism claims to be impartially right while relativism suggests that no moral theory can be entirely accurate. As for their similarities, they both center on the importance of individuals. In both methods what is right or wrong melts down to the values, interests, and beliefs of an individual making the ethical decision. In fact, no person can fully grasp the effect of their moral choices. It can be debated that egoists are merely basing their choices on what they think suits them at that particular time and not objectivity criteria.

Ethical egoism claims that there is no absolute. This poses a challenge to rational reasoning while discussing morality. The problem with having no absolutes is that there will be no standards by which to judge what is wrong or right hence affecting rationality while discussing ethics which relies heavily on set standards of right or wrong.

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 relativism

How the doctrines can be challenged

 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. Instead, people who support ethical relativism 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 egoism 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. The theory only trues to portray humans as self-centered and cannot behave otherwise, therefore, anything that represents humans as selfless discredits it.

Question 5

Picture this; an old woman is busy crossing the street. A robber grabs her purse with an intention of robbing her valuables. In the event of catching her handbag, he ends up pulling her out of harm's way as there was a truck coming towards her. As a consequence, the thief is crushed to death. In a second case, a man rescues a woman from an oncoming vehicle that is about to break her by grabbing onto her purse and pulling her out of the way. He ends up saving her life but dies as a result. In both instances, the actions and results of the stranger and the thief are the same. From a utilitarian point of view or angle, the two cases do not differ from each other. But from the Kant angle, the two instances are different. The actions of the second instance are ethical while the effects of the thief from the first instance turned out in favor of the old woman. The contrast is seen in the intention of the doer of the action. Alternatively, it can be concluded that for action be morally upright, the intention or motive behind the deed should also be-be good. The consequence is not a factor to be considered when analyzing the morality of an action. Even if in the second situation, both the lady and the man could have been killed, it does not change the intention of the man.

Whereas 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. 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. 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 Kant 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. If an individual act based on moral obligation but not motivated by moral requirements he or she does not have free will as their actions are already decided by laws of psychology. Not doing what is right is not an issue, doing the right things for the right reasons is the ultimate objective of morality.

Question 4

The trolley problem and the various manners in which utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics would deal with the problem.

Kantian deontology

Kantian ethics tend to focus on the motive behind the action. Alternatively, it can be said that people's motives or intentions are what can make an effort moral or immoral and not outcomes of the activities. According to Kant, the challenge with ethics is that although people know the right thing to do, they usually do not do it. This is because the right thing to do usually conflicts with one's self-interests.

Virtue ethics

It was derived from Aristotle, a student of Plato. Plato is known for providing some of the fundamentals of the Catholic Church and later to the Protestant theologies and principles through the ideas of St. Augustine. By the time people came to agree with Aristotle's ideologies, the secular world had rejected his suggestions and had replaced him with Kant and Mill.  Virtue ethics suggests that people need to recognize things that are good for human beings. The right action will be arrived at after one chooses what he or she considers to be good. Unlike Utilitarianism that suggests that the choices should be based on the highest happiness of the most significant number of people or whether to make morals uniform and universal, the one thing that should bother an individual is, 'What would a reasonable individual do in such as a situation? What can a good nurse do in such a case? What could a good nurse react in such a context? Both Kantian deontology and Utilitarian ethics can at times lead to horrendous results but virtue ethics looks into cases separately hence can easily avoid harm.

Utilitarianism

Is based on doing what will result in the highest good for the majority of the people. In a context where there is not enough doctors or supplies to cater for all the sick people as it sometimes happens during a war or any other calamity, doctors will tend to patients who are not critically injured hence saving most lives and leaving the rest to their fates.

Trolley problem

A run away trolley is speeding down the track towards five workers who will lose their lives if the trolley is not stopped or its course diverted. There is a person who was standing next to a lever that can change the course of the trolley onto a different truck. The only way one can prevent the five workers from losing their lives is by diverting the trolley onto a different track. If the course of the trolley is diverted, only one worker will be killed, but as a result the lives of the other five workers will be saved.

What is going on?

The trolley problem brings to light the fundamental tension between the two institutions of moral thoughts. A utilitarian may argue that the most appreciate action would be to act in the manner that achieves the highest good for the most significant number of people which should be pulling the switch and diverting the trolley so that it can only kill one person. The Kantian deontological able would suggest not picking the switch as certain actions such as killing people is unethical even if the outcome will have a greater good, killing people is just outright wrong according to Kantian deontology.

Virtue ethics does not settle on a definite answer to the trolley problem. According to virtues ethics, a person who pulls the switch is virtuous, and if an individual does not pull the switch is also worthy. While deciding on what a right person might have done in such a crucial situation, the train will have already killed the five individual in the truck. The debate over virtue ethics is that it is entirely useless when directing our moral actions.

Jefferson versus Hamilton

Introduction

            In the United States of America, there existed two competing philosophers, who one was supporting the idea of improving and enhancing the power of federal government and the other one was against it.  Jefferson and Hamilton out-dated these two philosophers, both Hamilton and Jefferson were very influential people, and both had two different political views. Hamilton was the leader of federalist’s political party; he pushed for the significance of a solid federal government t in leading the United States. Jefferson was the leader of the democratic republican political party which advocated for promoting and growing the people participating in the government. Both Hamilton and Jefferson had good and better intention for the common people of the United States of America, the federalist political party was much more concerned with uniting the people of United States of America, this is because it tried to fight the domestic group and minding the future of the American people.

            America won its independence in early 1800 from Britain, and fear of failure was still at large.  Hamilton sought to destroy the fear of failure by increasing the central government of the United States. By doing this, American people will be assured of their freedom and they will be able to speak with one voice when united. Hamilton had experienced poor political governance and bad economic frustration initiated by the state through corruption and high taxation policies. He cleared this mess by making sure that the central government is responsible for the decision making on matters of economic systems and politics. With the

federal government in place, national conflicts will be easily managed before it takes roots and destroys the lives of American people.

            Hamilton advocated for flexible interpretation of American constitution and not powers that were not granted to them by the constitution and also they adopted the philosophy of loose construction. Hamilton believed that people of American will benefit from his party agenda because it will force the government to behave or act in whatever manner would be good for the best of the American people.  Jefferson opposed the establishment of the bank of the United States, which was storing excess money, printing excess money, and circulating more cash to help American businesses.  Jefferson and his followers strongly opposed the development of the state bank which was mainly benefiting the American people. Jefferson viewed that financial institutions should be controlled by the state according to the constitution and state should not be permitted to develop private financial institutions. Hamilton viewed that if no banks existed in the entire country, then all creditors would back up and supports the government. This would eliminate domestic group and also it will bolster the nation economic status. 

            In distinction, Jefferson believed in putting a large amount of authority straight onto the American people.  Democratic-Republicans were anxious that the powerful state would be capable of running the nation unchecked and unopposed without the approval of the people.  However, the constitution of America prohibited such kind of administration to rule a country.  The Democratic Party guaranteed that the central government would always put the people of America first by performing they will.  Jefferson disagreed with them and continued to preach his old-fashioned conspiracy theories which continually served to divide Americans damage their strength and strengthen interstate conflicts. Both the two parties worked and tried their best to lead the Americans in a positive way. However, Federalist Party was more effective in accomplishing its objective by using their federal power to take control over state issues and to develop stronger banking systems and the American people were united. The federalist’s party believed in protecting the American people, securities and to ensure that they enjoy their freedom.

Works cited

Syrett, Harold. "Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18."  Alexander Hamilton, opinion on the constitutionality of the bank. 23 Feb. 1791. New York and London: Columbia University Press. 6 Nov 2006

What Makes a Person a Villain

  Introduction

            A villain is a person who is morally evil and corrupt; he or she does not show compassion towards humankind, he or she is guilty of committing heinous crimes and they are recognized for their actions. For example, in the play of Shakespeare King Claudius portrayed the qualities of a villain.  Claudius was an intelligent man and he deceived people into believing that he is innocent and morally upright.  He used his power to manipulate people so that he can remain and maintain the power; he failed to show any remorse for his actions.  He used his linguistic skills to make people believe he is a good person; however, upon investigation, he was really a bad king who was manipulative and cunning in nature and he showed no mercy to anyone.  

            Claudius killed his brother who was the king of Denmark by poisoning him as he sleeps, who was Hamlet's father.   He married his brother wife in order to take or secure power for himself. After noticing that Hamlet is on him he employed some of Hamlet's friends to keep an eye on him and he organized or convinced them to have Hamlet killed during a duel. The plan did not succeed and he ended up killing his wife, Laertes, and Hamlet. Claudius is a villain because he was all wrong; he was a cold- blood killer and a liar, he killed six people so that he can achieve his goal (Charney, 2012).  By confessing to his actions, Claudius mitigates his evil nature.  Also, he believed in sacrificing human lives and humanness in order to accomplish his goals. Claudius was not a good king because he was not committed to his country rather he was more concerned for himself (Jiménez, 2015).

References

Charney, M. (2012). Shakespeare's villains. Madison [N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.

Jiménez, H. J. (2015). Shakespeare's extremes: Wild man, monster, beast.

Importance of Philosophy in My Life

Introduction

             Philosophy is defined as a pursuit of knowledge; it seeks to understand the nature of truth and reality. It examines the nature of universe, mind and the body, how they relate to all three and between the people. Philosophy arises out of wonder, curiosity and the desire to understand the universe. Philosophy involves analysing, criticism, interpretation, and speculation and the philosophic idea is an unavoidable part of human survival. Individuals always wonder from time to time by such importance philosophic questions such as the meaning of life or are there life after death.  Philosophy has helped me to be reasonable. It is important to learn how to be reasonable. For instance, every day we have to make choices to attain our objectives. Reasoning well enables us to think and make better choices that help us to attain our objectives, become a better person and live a good life.

            Philosophy has helped me to be moral. Decisions we make every day can have positive or negative effects on other people. Our decisions can help or destroy the people who live around us. We want a world where there are no criminals, where rich people help the poor, world where there is no corruption, and so on. Philosophers have written moral theories that help individuals to make good moral decisions. We can increase our ability to be moral by applying good reasoning to morality. Also, we can write our own philosophy and discuss moral arguments concerning morality, study moral philosophy and learn moral theories. Through learning moral education people are taught about psychological factors that encourage people to be moral. For example, I learned how to care and show sympathy for others and how to stop risky behaviours and lifestyles. Philosophy offers knowledge by helping an individual to understand logic issues, develop natural sciences and discover various world beliefs. In particular, we can know certain concepts are achievable even when we do not have an idea of how there are done (Furtak, Ellsworth & Reid, 2012).

            Philosophy has helped me to be more creative by learning how to think more creatively. Philosophers have impacted the world by offering new ways of viewing things and offering new answers. Philosophy is not a primary skills oriented study but it is the study of critical thinking that equips us and helps us to improve our thinking skills. Critical thinking is related to proper reasoning which is referred to logic.  Also, Philosophy has helped me to identify deception, for instance, many upcoming religions are not good and they use manipulative techniques to get followers similar to cults. With the knowledge one is able to differentiate between bad and good reasoning. Once we realize the difference between bad and good, we will be able to be aware of the deception, avoid it and help the people around us to learn about it. Creating awareness of fighting deception is one of the ways of changing the world we live in to be better. Individuals who use lies to gain followers, power and money often hurt  people.  Institutions in the society such as the law, government, marriage, religion, business or education are based on philosophic ideas.  Differences in philosophic have led to the overthrow of government and changes in law, and transformation of whole economic systems. This is because people involved in those institutions have different beliefs and ideas about what is good for the people. Philosophy has greatly influenced our lives like the language we speak was derived from philosophy through classifications. For instance, the grouping of noun and verb contain the philosophic idea that there is a major difference between things and actions.

            Idealism philosophy theory prioritize with ideas, social reforms and morals, the main goal being benefiting ourselves and the people around us, and having in mind that all people are good regardless of their ethnicity ( Koslowski,2005). The world would be a better place if people will embrace and spread philosophy and be valued in their lives, then our entire world will be improved and our behaviour, thus making the world a better place.    Philosophy offers people ways to improve critical thinking skills. These skills can be used in every area of our life, by learning how to make sense in our personal lives and thinking out between good and bad decisions that we make day to day out. When you this you be able to make good and better decisions, rather than decisions based on emotions such as pain, fear, and anger. Also, wisdom will equip people to know and to be aware of many evil and false things in our universe, such as lies, materialism, and sexism. Thus, improving the word, improving ourselves, and have better relationships with people.  Living a philosophical life is better because it offers enlightenment and also it helps people to become better people in future.

References

Furtak, R. A., Ellsworth, J., & Reid, J. D. (2012). Thoreau's importance for philosophy. New York: Fordham University Press.

Koslowski, P. (2005). The Discovery of Historicity in German Idealism and Historism.

The relationship between truth and the good for Mill

On liberty by Mill was published in 1859 and his principal aim was to ensure that personal liberty was not consumed in the drive towards popular sovereignty. Through the emergence of the United States as a democratic nation led Mill into making a conclusion that phrases such as self-government and the power vested in people over themselves do not fully express the truth about the whole case (Mill, 1859). The people who exercise authority are often not the same people with whom this authority is exercised and thus the self-government, in this case, is not the government for an individual but rather a government for the rest of the people. Mill acknowledges the need to protect a person’ liberty from that of the tyranny of the majority as it has a great influence on the overall liberty. Mills work in this book is highly influential as it involves defending freedom of speech for people as a way of determining the actual truth that is being protected from falsehood which is the same as protecting the likelihood of one ever knowing the truth. Mill, therefore, seeks to explore the actual meaning of liberty of individuals and the responsibility of one’s personal moral growth.

According to Mill, goodness is solely about utility. He thus argues that denying that there are moral truths is the same as claiming that there are no facts in regards to whether an action adds up to the general happiness or it does not. Mill argues that freedom of speech will allow people to discover the truth better than while having the selective censorship. Thus he asserts that if people took time to speak and to listen to each other respectfully, then there might be truth in it. However, this is not the case in our societies as the exchange of ideas in our societies is different from that given by Mills (Mill, 1859). People including great thinkers get things wrongly but with time these wrongs have achieved the large levels of rational opinions and conduct as time allows false opinions to give a path to true ones. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right or any other mandate at all things” (Mill, 1859). However, if society represses the expression of dissenting opinions, most people will tend to become more cautious both in expressing themselves and in their thoughts as well hence resulting in the common good. Many of the good and true ideas often start by being contrary to accepted belief.

True beliefs are generally suppressed since they are thought to be false though they are actually true. Therefore for one to assume that a view is false and hence it should be censored is the same as assuming the infallibility of an individual’s belief. Human beings are, however, creatures that are incapable of infallible knowledge.  Mill’s empiricism, therefore, leads him into believing that humans do not have insights into the truth and that all of the human’s beliefs must remain open for revision in relation to further observation. Therefore, discussions even those that are thought to be securely established ought to remain open. Mills asserts that some of the truths ought to be suppressed despite being true since they are thought to cause harm (Mill, 2013).

According to chapter 5 in the book on liberty by Mills, he asserts that people are not accountable for the conduct that affects only them. A person, therefore, should be answerable for any form of misconduct that harms others and in such incidences, the society is held responsible for punishing the misconducts of their members. However, throughout the book, Mill asserts that silence is at times important in concealing the truth as sometimes the truth may cause harm to others, “If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error” (Mill, 1859).

These types of actions may cause harm to others but they may ultimately bring a larger advantage to the society. Freedom, as evidenced in Mill’s argument, indicates that liberty is all about freeing an individual from coercion by the state or rather from any form of social pressure. Therefore protection against the tyranny of the majority is not enough and thus there is a need for people to be protected from the tyranny of the prevailing ideas and feelings against the trend of the society to induce by other methods than civil penalties, its own opinions, and practices as the rule of morality on those who oppose them (Mill, 2013).

The liberty of the individuals must be restricted so as to enhance goodness amongst people. However, if a person refrains from interfering with others in what concerns them and if he simply acts in accordance to his own liking and judgment in the things that concern him, then in the same manner opinions ought to be free. Therefore, a person ought to be allowed to carry out his or her own opinions at liberty but at his or her own cost. Humans are not infallible meaning that their truths in most of the time are only half-truths. He asserts that it is not desirable that there is no unity of opinion unless if it results from having a complete and free comparison of the opposite opinions. Mills argue that “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race”, having diverse opinions is not evil but rather a good thing until people are able to acknowledge all sides of truth and this is applied in the mode of human’s actions which is not less than that of their opinions (Mill, 1859).

Self-protection is the only reason as to why mankind is warranted either individually or rather collectively in getting in the way of the freedom of action whether good or bad by any of the individuals. Mill argues that the only purpose for which authority can be rightfully implemented over any of their membership within the civilized society against his will is when the society wants to prevent harm to other people. A person own good and morality does not guarantee a warrant and thus he cannot rightfully be obliged to do something since it will be good for him and it will make him happy as in the opinion of other people, to do that will be the wisest decision to make or the right thing to do.

References

Mill, J. S., & Industrial Systems Research,. (2013). On liberty: A translation into modern English.

Mill, S. J. (1859). On Liberty. Parker.

Betrayal hypothetical

According to the teology concept, some of the actions that we undertake, we do them with a predetermined purpose in our minds. Hence people end up doing things knowing the result that they expect to get. The concept asserts that the moral worth of an action is established by the consequences of these actions. Correct consequences are those that are for the well being of a person and despite the type of consequence, it is regarded as intrinsically beneficial and valuable and this is the reason as to why actions that lead to these consequences are regarded as moral (McQueen & McQueen, 2010). In this case, the action of signing the signature on the register is regarded as moral since the consequence of this action will result in the well being of Jane and ultimately bringing her happiness. The choice to sign for Jane will result in a good outcome as she will be set free from the murder charges, hence the action is that of moral worth. Basing on this concept, I would do this over and over again even if Jane was my child.

Deontology concept, on the other hand, focuses more on the rightfulness or wrongness of the action rather than the consequences of these actions. What makes a choice of action right is whether it has confirmed to the moral rules. The world is full of rules and it is these rules that delineate right from wrong. The core goal of this argument is that people should be able to realize the rules for living and leading moral lives and once they are aware of these rules, they ought to follow them (McQueen & McQueen, 2010). In Jane's case, therefore, it will not be right to forge a signature in the register as this is not in accordance with the law. Failing to sign the register on behalf of Jane, is an act that is morally obligatory in spite of its consequence on Jane’s well being. Though the concept is the outcome that I want, I would just follow the rules and allow the law to take its course even if Jane was my child.

According to relativism concept, it asserts that there is no absolute truth and the truth that exists is only held by individuals. This means that the moral position is relative to the individual. For instance, different people have different stands on morality and what is right or wrong to someone, may not be for the other person (McQueen & McQueen, 2010). In this case, forging the signature to free Jane from her charges of murder would be morally right as it is evident that she did not commit the crime. If Jane was my child, I would do the same for her to see that she is at liberty.

According to virtue concept, it asserts that morality does not limit a person’s action. Virtue, therefore, determines a person’s values that are based on moral standards. Virtue is acquired through practice and by a principle of virtuous conduct; people are likely to make right choices of decisions whenever they are faced with ethical problems (McQueen & McQueen, 2010). In this case, forging a signature in the register would not be good as it is not virtuous. Honesty is a rational virtue and thus being honest about the entire case will lead to a virtuous living and a successful life if Jane is freed on the basis of honesty rather than a dishonesty action of forgery.

Justice concept is the core element of ethics and also in the legal system. This is applied to a person’s actions, to laws and if they are unjust, it forms a basis for people to reject them. Justice is also a rational virtue that involves the treatment of people in accordance with their conduct. Acting in a just way calls for one to be willing to judge. In this case, therefore, it is important to judge one’s actions so as to determine whether they are good or wrong. However, all forms of justice are based o the moral assumption that involves consideration of ethics, fairness and the law (McQueen & McQueen, 2010). Though it is not fair for Jane to be convicted of a murder that she never committed it is only fair to let law and criminal justice to take place.

According to the video on to defend a killer, one thing is quite evident, ethics is quite harder especially when one is on the inside and not on the outside watching. There is a high level of responsibility that is vested in doing the right thing and hence one ought to make careful considerations on the decision to kill. It is true that we all want to be happy and thus our actions may thus be driven by the end result of this action. However, this is not right and that is the reason as to why we have rules and laws put in place so as to govern our action. In this case, the deontology and justice concept ought to be applied in Jane’s case as this is the right thing to do.

References

Top of Form

McQueen, P., & McQueen, H. (2010). Key concepts in philosophy. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bottom of Form

Moral Panics

    Stories are of different nature and they all have an effect on the recipients who are mainly composed of the public. Stories that instill public fears and those that attract government intervention following their adverse effects are likely to cause moral panic in the society. These fears, as well as government interventions, are inconsistent with the intent threat posed on to the society by the group of people who are held responsible. Stories that indicate the possibility of evil, threatens the society. These stories have a high capability of spreading fear among large parts of the society and ultimately the spread moral panic to all parts. The media and moral entrepreneurs or even moral police officers, has long been the main part of the sociological trend which is referred to as moral panic. Other stories that cause moral panic include stories that are aimed at spreading moral indignation by the media. The media mainly reports of stories that have selected facts which have a high probability of causing uneasiness, tenseness, and terror (Rodgers 2011).  A good example of moral panic is the report of the prevalent kidnapping cases of children by pedophiles. Sex lawbreakers, in this case, are the subjects of moral panic since they are the mythical giants who make children their victims. Reports that these sex lawbreakers placed on the public registry are changed in a manner that they commit immorality.  The moral panic changes these into predatory mischievous sprites. However, these stories fade away during Halloween. In some of the cities across the world, there are restrictions that have been put in place on sex lawbreakers during Halloween (Jenkins 2001).

    Reliance on news media will continue to be a problem in our society. Thus, there is the need for the legislators to establish sanctions on media outlets that will be caught involving themselves in issues that persist in alarming the public about invalid issues hence causing moral panics. The legislator should, therefore, safeguard against media pressure through isolating the drafting of legislation from the media reporting and depending on professionals to carry out individual assessments on the threats of alleged terror. The establishment of sanctions against media outlets during the time of moral panic is important in restricting the media coverage on invalid issues. Sanctioning of the media law will be important as it will bar media outlets from publishing and presenting issues that affect people or those that encourage terror and panic in the society. Media outlets should be punished for publicizing news that will only bring tension in the society and in so doing; moral panics will be greatly reduced (Rodgers 2011).

    Once a story reaches the national level, the host has a responsibility of investigating and correcting invalid information presented. This is because some of the anchors and news media personnel’s, are quite prominent and thus have an authority figure to the public. Thus, while presenting some information as though they personally believe it, it affects the entire publics’ perception. For instance, during Oprah’s interview on rainbow parties, the information reached millions and millions of people, particularly parents. His, as a result, caused moral panic amongst most parents as they kept on wondering what was happening to their teenagers. Thus most people believed that the story must have been true and thus they embraced the story even without having to investigate the case to determine whether it was true. It is therefore important for media personalities and especially anchors that are well known in the society to be thorough in carrying out investigations before they present the information to the public as they are great influencers of facts in the society.  If Oprah took the initiative to investigate the erroneous allegations, she would have realized the facts about the rainbow parties and thus the rumor would seize to be baseless as there is supporting evidence. Journalists have the responsibility to pursue truth at all times and this can only be enhanced through diligent verification. Thus in hosting a show, the host is responsible for challenging both the claims as well as the assumptions that are presented. In doing so, accurate and truthful information is presented, introducing the highest value of information that the host has gathered and verified.

    News media emphasis on the rainbow party topics not only increased the salience of the subject on the public agenda but it rather activated previously acquired information about the problem in public’s memories. This has however triggered the public perceptions, attitudes, and prejudices, in regards to the rainbow party issue (Marsh and Melville 2008). The publicity n the issue has also increased beliefs amongst public who are now strongly convinced that teenagers are out of control criminals and deviant. This extensive mass media coverage resulted in the perception that the nation is entering an epidemic of immoral activities amongst teenagers.

    The media mania surrounding the case of rainbow parties and other similar cases has not only inflicted fear factor among the parents but it has also caused nightmares among them. These media stories have corrupted the parent's mind where they no longer view their children as innocent as they seem but rather they are fed with concerning information about the double life that their children are experiencing and they tend to believe that for a long time. It is a result of this that parents attitude towards their parenting strategy changes and hence they become stricter while dealing or while parenting their teenage children. The fear of sexual immorality among teenagers has raised concerns all over nations. Parents are therefore more concerned today about the young people and sex than they were a few years back. As a result of this, most of the concerned parents have become overprotective o their children thus restricting them from doing some things. Thus, they closely monitor the teenagers as they strongly believe that the sex issue and the rainbow parties will end up leading them to trouble.

    In conclusion, it is important to note that the range of behaviors that we often consider as a moral panic, leads us to mysteries. The rainbow party’s story has proven to be a mystery to most of the people as it is baseless. However, the society has to realize that it is critical to determine the truth behind the issue covered before making any conclusion or even making any judgment. In doing so, there will be reduced moral panics amongst people and this will ultimately lead to the development of a peaceful society.

References

Jenkins, P. (2001). Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a contemporary crisis. New York:            Oxford University Press.

Marsh, I and Melville, G. (2008). The Media and Moral Panics- Theories and Examples.     In:     Crime, Justice and the Media. Routledge: Taylor and Francis e-library. p51.

Rodgers, J. (2011). Competing moral panics: an analysis of media representations during prolonged social anxiety (Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology).

The issue of ethnicity and race in present world

Racism is an issue prevalent in the current world and that few people are willing to talk about. Racial discrimination has been reported to be on the rise and even spreading around the world so that the situation seems to affirm the worst expectations that humans’ bad worst behaviors start developing in the womb. This is more evident in the few cases where racism has been related to xenophobia, discrimination and injustice. The issue of race can be examined through functionalism, conflict theory and symbolic internationalism in a bid to explain racism and related discrimination and stereotypes.

Functionalism

In the functionalism perspective, the role of racial inequalities or discrimination should serve an essential function them to in existence as long as they have? Such an idea is basically problematic, if one was to question how discrimination can have positive contribution in the society. Functions or dysfunctions might be viewed by a functionalist as being a result of racial discrimination and inequality. To the dominant race, racism becomes functional in some ways, an example being the suggestion that it can justify a society that is racially unequal (Brinkerhoff, Ortega & Weitz, 2013). This can explain the case of slavery, where slave owners’ suggestion that the white people are fundamentally superior to black people was aimed at justifying slavery.  Another issue to consider is whether racism has any positive contribution to how the society functions through strengthening of bonds between among the in-group members by excluding members not belonging to the group (Kirby, 2000). In case a community may increase solidarity through declining to other people access. Societies that have dysfunctions related to racism involves failure utilize the talents of various subjugated groups and a society should shift from any employing effort and time required in maintenance of racial boundaries that are artificially created. A lot of time, effort and resources are lost while trying to perpetuate racial segregation and discrimination (Brinkerhoff, Ortega & Weitz, 2013).

Conflict perspective

This deals with the part of the society that can be viewed as negative, where the status quo is challenged by conflict theorists, who hold up to social change and the belief that influential and wealthy individuals force social order on individuals  who are weak and poor.  Inequalities related to race can be explained through conflict theories, and especially the many present struggles between the ethnic minorities and white rich and ruling class where the former perceive the latter as a threat to them. In addition, decades after American Civil War indicates attempts to disenfranchise and even suppress the rights of the minority group’s rights (Brinkerhoff, Ortega & Weitz, 2013).  In the present global culture it is hard to separate impacts of race on the society.  When race is examined and the various advantages or disadvantages that can be derived from it, society should acknowledge that how race is experienced is normally shaped. The issue of racism can also be examined through the prejudice culture, where prejudice is ingrained in the culture.  A person is born, grows and develops in an environment full of stereotype images and where racism is casually expressed and this imparts a stereotyped impression on the people (Kirby, 2000).

Interactionism perspective

In this point of view, sociologists are bound to consider details and symbols present in life, their significance and interaction among individuals in the society.  Race is a strong symbol as an identity source in the society. The symbol of race is even viewed by some interactionist is the source of racism but not the race per se.  Through interactions among the dominant group members in the society, racial prejudice is formed and without such interactions, the dominant group members would not harbor racist views. The interaction of these individuals lead to a perceived image of the minority race which enables the dominant group to promote its perception of the inferior group and eventually the status quo is maintained (Brinkerhoff, Ortega & Weitz, 2013). It becomes ingrained in the culture of these people in such a way that a person holding a racist belief concerning a given group is based on information and images they receive. The popular media may become a mode through which such images are conveyed to the individual, who unquestionably believe them since they have not personally come across or interacted with that group. In addition, internationalism may be used to examine how people in the society view their races and other people’s races.  Given that people take up a white identity due to high concentration of skin pigment than those taking up a black identity, the definition of white or black are astounding (Gordon, 2015).   The interaction among people of a given group exposes them to thoughts and images that influence their perceptions of their race as superior to other races. 

Conclusion

The most significant perspective relating to racism is interactions perspective, where race is perceived to be essential source of social symbolism and even the identity of an individual. The interaction among members of a given group leads to formation of negative images about other races and thus prejudices culture. Everybody becomes a subject to resulting stereotypes that are embedded in such a culture.

References  

Brinkerhoff, D. B., Ortega, S. T., & Weitz, R. (2013). Essentials of sociology. Cengage Learning.173-174

Kirby, M. (2000). Sociology in perspective. Heinemann.. 754-757

Gordon, L. N. (2015). From power to prejudice: The rise of racial individualism in midcentury America. University of Chicago Press.

Actionless Action (Daosim) and the Practice of Virtue (Confucianism)"

Wu Wei or non-doing simply means natural actions or effortless actions.   In actual sense, it does not meaning doing nothing but it means understanding the orders of things and doing the right thing effortlessly.   People should observe the natural world, avoid forcing actions and   create room for ‘flow of life’.  In performing actions, people need to consider skill and efficiency and allow the nature to accomplish everything (Slingerland, 2015).  The point is that the level of Wu Wei is achieved when people follow the order of things and apply minimal effort.  However, people make mistake by interfering with the natural laws.

  In connection with Confucianism, people especially city dwellers should adhere to moral, cultural and social values in modern day living. It is their responsibility to maintain harmony or in other words they should respect the rules of virtue.  For example, one of the aspects of wu Wei is unconditional happiness. This means that people require unconditional happiness is this achieved when kindness and compassion are offered. In other words, in order to achieve happiness or long-lasting fulfillment, people should do things to them and to others which will cause happiness and should allow happiness occur naturally. People should act in a positive way to attain happiness.  Other aspect is love-this means that people cannot strive to find love since love occurs naturally (Slingerland, 2015). However, it is their responsibility to make relationships with new people and find new experiences.  Generally, through doing actions of the highest quality to bring love and happiness, people should avoid interfering with the process and wait for natural flow of things. Finally, wu wei (non-doing) in city dwellers can be presented   through dedication.   For example in places of work, people should be faithful and committed in their work for their own benefits and for the benefits of others.  In this case, people should be devoted to duties and after following the order of things, faithfulness and commitment will occur (Slingerland, 2015).

Reference

Slingerland, E. G. (2015). Trying not to try: The ancient art of effortlessness and the surprising power of

spontaneity.

Identifying Truth or Fiction

 First, people are attracted to pseudoscience-type claims because such claims are connected with authoritarian personality or in other words the pseudoscience claims are socially constructed and people have adopted beliefs which they believe that they are reliable.  Note that people are interested with resemblance thinking and like making conclusion from testimonials and anecdotal evidence. When interpreting things and making claims,  people  do not go beyond the belief circle  and the beliefs  aids them in understanding  things clearly  rather than  trying to interpret the real science (May, 2016). Other point is that pseudoscience-type claims are logical in that rather than struggling to understand the physical world, people rely on ideologies and cultural goals. On the same note, in making claims people are not interested with expansion of knowledge but rather they focus on justifying the belief through adhering to the norms of scientific research.  In pseudoscience, people do not want to be connected with mainstream research, data and theory but rather they show interest in assumptions from everyday experience (Robbie, 2012).  

 Example of pseudoscience-type claim include; Trofin Lysenko’s genetic theory.  He did an experimental research on environmentally acquired inheritance where he stated that for living bodies to develop, the qualitative features require different environmental conditions.  He came up with the idea of growing crops in different seasons and that   every plant requires a certain amount of heat.  His discovery led to practical implication on winter-wheat seedlings and effects on agricultural productivity.  This claim did not meet scientific methodology standards he did not adhere to the concepts of heredity and inheritance, his ideas did not demonstrate the mechanism of inheritance and his ideas were not related to genetics (May, 2016).

 Other example is on ‘Scientific Creationist’ which states that creation is not only supported by scriptural authority but there are evidences from scientific research.  The theory offers a literal interpretation which tends to show that the story of creation in biblical view   is derived from the evolution theory and both supported by natural selection.  However, this pseudoscience-type claim does not meet scientific methodology standard   by failing to conduct scientific research to on laws of nature and does not show the connection between metaphysics and religion (Robbie, 2012).

 This week discussion has changed  my way of thinking in that  first, I understand  that  Pseudoscience  use  self-serving assertion in  emulating legitimate fields  while science  connects itself with the natural domain,  adheres to the underlying principles  and uses a systematized knowledge in  evaluation answers to  research questions.  To become a critical thinker and to make effective claims, facts should come from reliable sources, there should be supportive evinced and personal beliefs should not make conclusion (Robbie, 2012).  Given that pseudoscience creates a hypothesis and subjective validation, there should be valid evidence from reliable sources.

References

Robbie Rob. (2012). Baloney Detection Kit, (Dr. Michael Shermer). Retrieved from:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJmRbSX8Rqo&feature=youtu.be

May, A. (2016). Pseudoscience and science fiction. Cham: Springer.

Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?” (pp. 101-109)

Kant’s public use of reason means the use that a person makes if his or her reason while addressing the public and private of reason happens when the person carries out a task which relates to certain vocation (In Lever, 2012). As such, the private use of reason is vocational while public use of reason is extra-vocational.  The public use of reason has no restrictions, where a person is able to freely speak their mind especially as a scholar. The private use of reason means that there are restrictions and a person is supposed to some guidelines, where they cannot put across their opinion or disagree with an establishment they work for (In Lever, 2012).

This is different from how the terms public and private are used today; public in the present involves a position or entities that are created by the state ad their agency; private involves positions or entities that are owned by individuals with not outside control.

References

Lever, A. (2012). New frontiers in the philosophy of intellectual property. 235-237

Existentialism

            Jean Paul Sartre presents existentialism as humanism. In his definition of existentialism, he asserts that a person exists prior his or her essence. This means that there is nothing to determine one’s character, way of life. An individual is responsible of defining her or his own essence in life (Sartre, 2007). He states that we give meaning to our lives by existing and by how we act. This means there is no fixed way a man is expected to be. Therefore, we are responsible of defining ourselves. According to Sartre (2007), the lack of predefined purpose that comes with absurd existence brings anguish of freedom. Yet, man has the choice to become what he or she wants and live his or her own life without any restriction. He condemned the idea of man living without freedom. There is no phenomenon that things have to be in a given specific way. People have to acknowledge that things can be done in various ways hence they can pursue the alternate options. There are people who believe that they are capable of doing one particular kind of work or even live in a particular place (Sartre, 2007). He termed such as people living in bad faith. In his view, man is capable and responsible of finding for himself ventures in the world based on his or her wish. There is nothing specific about man, thus as long as man exists he will decide to make for himself what he wishes. Therefore, men have no greater purpose, nothing fixed about them and there is nothing called human nature but rather men choose what they make themselves to be. This briefly answers the question, what type of existentialism does Jean Paul Sartre present?

Reference

Sartre, J.-P., Macomber, C., Cohen-Solal, A., Elkaïm-Sartre, A., Kulka, J., & Sartre, J.-P. (2007). Existentialism is a humanism =: L' Existentialisme est un humanisme. New Haven: Yale University Press.