Singer I found is a very interesting man, his main ethics is he believes everyone should be treated equal, he is a strong believer in animal right. He doesn’t think it is necessary to harm anyone or thing unless it is going to be benefited from in the long run. From Singers utilitarian perspective he doesn’t believe in suffering of humans or animals he would like to see it reduced. This is why he goes by the greatest number for the greatest good.
Singer believes we should eliminate and or avoid specisism because this is allowing their species take priority of other species for example how we eat animals and they suffer to let us be fulfilled. He believer we need to stop killing animals. He also believes it is very wrong to experiment on animals that is causing them to suffer and harming animals.
In the Lane neuron- ethical argument simply state that eating meat is wrong and vegetarianism is the way to go to avoid harming animals. Singer believes that we should not be influenced by our cultures to eat meet or by others he doesn’t want us harming and killing animals and animals have a central nervous system and they can feel pain; this is not fair to the animals. After reading on Singers ethics I am totally for the animals and always have been but I just don’t think I can not eat meat I know it is hurting the animals but I was raised on it and would way to hard to stop eating meat.
.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
post one and two make up.
POST ONE: Explain Aristotle's theory of ethics as presented in the websites above. And what is his view on happiness and its relationship to ethics? Finally, what makes you happy in this life and what do your think Aristotle would say about that? Be sure to substantiate your work with ideas from Aristotle's writings. I need to see that you read the material. I would write this post in three parts: Aristotle's theory; what makes you happy?; Aristotle's critique.
Aristotle is what I think when I think philosophy I don’t know why but whenever anyone talks about philosophy his name always seem to be the name that stands out. He was intensely interested in the relationship between history and poetry; he thinks that history may deal with facts, but poetry deals with truth. Aristotle was the one who introduced the ideal of happiness as a human goal to the western philosophers. He believed it was a result of rational activity and not a pursuit of pleasure. I like how Aristotle is all about happiness he wants everyone to be happy and no one to be harmed in the way.
Aristotle believed on sciences, in especially logic and observation. He was the author that came up it biology and develop all sorts of theory on every thing. He was really smart and knew a lot. He was known to write dialogues which was good because we were able to really see his way of thinking.
Aristotle view on relationships I think is basically you scratch my back ill scratch yours. To Aristotle everything on this earth has its own virtue, meaning that if it performs the way it is supposed to by its nature then it was virtuous. He believed every human has a purpose. I think Aristotle seemed like a really good philosopher I like his way of thinking on all of his ethics and views on happiness and relationships. He seem to be a very likable guys with great theory and super intelligent
[POST TWO: How does Epicurus define an ethical person? Compare and contrast his moral theory with that of Epicurus understanding of ethics. In order to complete this post I would make sure to outline in depth each theorist's position and then compare and contrast them. Again, write this post as three parts: Epicurus; Epictetus; compare/contrast section.]
Epicurus was a Greek thinker, he is known for being the first philosopher to advocate a like in search of pleasure know as hedonism. His main goal was know to be life free of pain. He though you should obtain peace of mind, ataraxia which is the highest pleasure. He believes we look for pleasure without thinking about what we like to do that might give us the pleasure.
His theory hedonistic paradox is that if you look for pleasure, chances are you wont find it. He says for example people who are looking for people to love can attest to this theory. Ge also believes pleasure come to you when you are in the middle of something else and rarely when you are looking for it. But most important in order to feel pleaser you must care or else you will more then likely never achieve feeling pleasure.
Epicurus believed that there are many things in life other than physical pleasures that can bring us happiness and there is nothing in utilitarianism that says we have to define pleasure and happiness as mere gratification or physical desires. I theory very interesting, I think I would have to agree with him many things bring us happiness not always pleasure because we don’t do everything in our life to pleasure are selfish because I think this would make us selfish I mean are intention are to bring pleasure and happiness but I don’t think they always have to be hand in hand
Aristotle is what I think when I think philosophy I don’t know why but whenever anyone talks about philosophy his name always seem to be the name that stands out. He was intensely interested in the relationship between history and poetry; he thinks that history may deal with facts, but poetry deals with truth. Aristotle was the one who introduced the ideal of happiness as a human goal to the western philosophers. He believed it was a result of rational activity and not a pursuit of pleasure. I like how Aristotle is all about happiness he wants everyone to be happy and no one to be harmed in the way.
Aristotle believed on sciences, in especially logic and observation. He was the author that came up it biology and develop all sorts of theory on every thing. He was really smart and knew a lot. He was known to write dialogues which was good because we were able to really see his way of thinking.
Aristotle view on relationships I think is basically you scratch my back ill scratch yours. To Aristotle everything on this earth has its own virtue, meaning that if it performs the way it is supposed to by its nature then it was virtuous. He believed every human has a purpose. I think Aristotle seemed like a really good philosopher I like his way of thinking on all of his ethics and views on happiness and relationships. He seem to be a very likable guys with great theory and super intelligent
[POST TWO: How does Epicurus define an ethical person? Compare and contrast his moral theory with that of Epicurus understanding of ethics. In order to complete this post I would make sure to outline in depth each theorist's position and then compare and contrast them. Again, write this post as three parts: Epicurus; Epictetus; compare/contrast section.]
Epicurus was a Greek thinker, he is known for being the first philosopher to advocate a like in search of pleasure know as hedonism. His main goal was know to be life free of pain. He though you should obtain peace of mind, ataraxia which is the highest pleasure. He believes we look for pleasure without thinking about what we like to do that might give us the pleasure.
His theory hedonistic paradox is that if you look for pleasure, chances are you wont find it. He says for example people who are looking for people to love can attest to this theory. Ge also believes pleasure come to you when you are in the middle of something else and rarely when you are looking for it. But most important in order to feel pleaser you must care or else you will more then likely never achieve feeling pleasure.
Epicurus believed that there are many things in life other than physical pleasures that can bring us happiness and there is nothing in utilitarianism that says we have to define pleasure and happiness as mere gratification or physical desires. I theory very interesting, I think I would have to agree with him many things bring us happiness not always pleasure because we don’t do everything in our life to pleasure are selfish because I think this would make us selfish I mean are intention are to bring pleasure and happiness but I don’t think they always have to be hand in hand
post 10
Cloning was not introduced until the 1970’s the reason cloning was brought to everyone attention was the cloning of Dolly the sheep it had taken more then 227 takes before Dolly was created. Although it is know the human cloning is way more complicated the cloning animals or plants. The human cloning simply is much more difficult because human cloning would require taking somatic cell, as opposed to reproductive cell such as an egg or sperm cell, from a person removing its nucleus. The DNA of the somatic cell is transferred to an enucleated egg. But is not possible because certain somatic cells are turned off; at this point is not able to turn them back on.
From a religious point of you the Roman Catholics believe it is evil to used human cloning as well as southern baptism they support the Roman Catholics point of view. In the Jewish religion they fear human cloning because they feel it might harm the family by such relationships and roles within the family.
From an ethical point of view from the possibility of human cloning society had not been able to have a clear view because the morality of human cloning. In our society we dived up by churches and state, law and governing, human cloning will be reflecting the ethical position that are not based on any god of religious. Such as possible physical harm to the embryo and or harm to the child. They also fear possible social harm for example over time human cloning might become a preferred practice.
Personally I do not think human cloning is a good ideal. Because are world would be coming to an end people wont be having babies they will just clone their children instead of reproducing again. I just do not think it is right and is morally wrong because we would more then likely use them to experiment on and this could lead to killing many people in the long run.
From a religious point of you the Roman Catholics believe it is evil to used human cloning as well as southern baptism they support the Roman Catholics point of view. In the Jewish religion they fear human cloning because they feel it might harm the family by such relationships and roles within the family.
From an ethical point of view from the possibility of human cloning society had not been able to have a clear view because the morality of human cloning. In our society we dived up by churches and state, law and governing, human cloning will be reflecting the ethical position that are not based on any god of religious. Such as possible physical harm to the embryo and or harm to the child. They also fear possible social harm for example over time human cloning might become a preferred practice.
Personally I do not think human cloning is a good ideal. Because are world would be coming to an end people wont be having babies they will just clone their children instead of reproducing again. I just do not think it is right and is morally wrong because we would more then likely use them to experiment on and this could lead to killing many people in the long run.
Post 12
POST TWELVE: Using the first article explain what is evolutionary psychology and how does it apply to the field of ethics? Next, explain in depth the thesis of the second article and the support offered for it. Finally, offer your response to what you read.]
When I read the articles I found that evolutionary psychology is the study of human behavior based on the principle of natural selection. Natural selection is the theory that animals evolve because nature decides which traits are favorable for animals to survive with; this would be allowing animals to give off their genetic code with that trait.
Darwin was a proponent of evolutionary psychology and the father of the theory of natural selection. He believed that the main roots for human morality lied in social instinct, such as caring for the young. Darwin was the one who had the instinct to help humans and distinguish from friend or foe. This would be to define something as them or as humans were able to adapt and protect their young and keep their family alive. Darwin accepts the greatest-happiness principle as a standard of right and wrong.
When I read the articles I found that evolutionary psychology is the study of human behavior based on the principle of natural selection. Natural selection is the theory that animals evolve because nature decides which traits are favorable for animals to survive with; this would be allowing animals to give off their genetic code with that trait.
Darwin was a proponent of evolutionary psychology and the father of the theory of natural selection. He believed that the main roots for human morality lied in social instinct, such as caring for the young. Darwin was the one who had the instinct to help humans and distinguish from friend or foe. This would be to define something as them or as humans were able to adapt and protect their young and keep their family alive. Darwin accepts the greatest-happiness principle as a standard of right and wrong.
MOT (there is not post because i just post it but it didnt come up yet)
Hillary Gollenberg
07-20-08
Research Project
For my research paper I decided to go to the museum of tolerance. I have been to the museum twice when I was in grade school and I really enjoyed it. So I thought I would make a trip back and see if I can get someone else out of it now that I am older. My boyfriend Ryan came with me because he had never been. We went two Sunday’s ago there was three big groups so we did not get to see as much as I wanted to because we took the tour by ourselves without a guide. They were renovation so some of the exhibits we were unable to see. Form the outside the museum still looked the same, one thing that was new was the metal detectors it felt like I was at the airport. But I guess we have 911 to thank for that.
We watched the one video that I found really sad about a lady that was pregnant and had her baby for seven day while she was in the hospital the Nazi broke into the hospital making the Jewish exit and forced them into a truck. She was separated from the baby her family was trying to fight for her but there wasn’t anything they could do. Her family was outside and witnessed the baby getting thrown out of the window of the hospital. In this incident 30 innocent babies were thrown out of the window and died instantly. I found this story so disturbing I will most defiantly remember this story for the rest of my life. I just cannot get past what they were thinking kills all these innocent new born children what kind of morals do they have it is so disgusting, when I watch the video this story just made me sick to my stomach.
When I was getting ready to watch another video I cannot remember which one it was but next to the screen was a timeline that showed all the hate crimes that have happened here in American from the Oklahoma City bombing and ending with the Terrorist Attack on September 11th. We also watched a video on the issues involving race, gender and class. I thought this was neat because there were polls and they allowed us to interview the characters. I thought this was so interesting and was surprised that it was so interactive.
After we went through the tolerance side we moved on to the Holocaust area. I was unhappy with this side because things were closed because of the renovation. I really wanted to see all the artifacts to share them with my boyfriend because I remember being interested in this part of the museum. We were able to walk through the doors of the concentration camp there was one for children and one for adults, I thought this was very interesting although I didn’t like how they had two prisoners hanging by nooses I found this a little disturbing and so did my boyfriend.
We also listen to William Harvey who was a holocaust survivor, he told us his story one thing that really caught my attention was when he talked about hearing Hitler state to the world that he would kill every Jewish person in the world and if they lived he would make sure they weren’t happy. But lucky that didn’t apply to Mr. Harvey he was reunited with mom, sister’s and some other family members. So there was a somewhat happy ending for William Harvey. Hearing a voice of an actual survivor and the experience he was apart of was just so real to me and made me depressed.
When we first walked in I got a ticket with a boys name on it, which read Yehiel Goldberg, when we put it into the machine it said he was born in Pinsk, Poland. Yehiel and his family had fought for their life but he didn’t make it he was murdered at seventeen in July 1942. This was so sad because I was him for the day and to die at age seventeen I would be so young and miss out on the rest of my life. Over all the experience was better this time that I went to the museum I think It was a lot better to understand now that I am twenty two compared to thirteen, my boyfriend really enjoyed it he was glad he came with me. It is just so sad and you walk out all down and depressed knowing something like this really happen in our world. But hopefully this history never repeats itself.
07-20-08
Research Project
For my research paper I decided to go to the museum of tolerance. I have been to the museum twice when I was in grade school and I really enjoyed it. So I thought I would make a trip back and see if I can get someone else out of it now that I am older. My boyfriend Ryan came with me because he had never been. We went two Sunday’s ago there was three big groups so we did not get to see as much as I wanted to because we took the tour by ourselves without a guide. They were renovation so some of the exhibits we were unable to see. Form the outside the museum still looked the same, one thing that was new was the metal detectors it felt like I was at the airport. But I guess we have 911 to thank for that.
We watched the one video that I found really sad about a lady that was pregnant and had her baby for seven day while she was in the hospital the Nazi broke into the hospital making the Jewish exit and forced them into a truck. She was separated from the baby her family was trying to fight for her but there wasn’t anything they could do. Her family was outside and witnessed the baby getting thrown out of the window of the hospital. In this incident 30 innocent babies were thrown out of the window and died instantly. I found this story so disturbing I will most defiantly remember this story for the rest of my life. I just cannot get past what they were thinking kills all these innocent new born children what kind of morals do they have it is so disgusting, when I watch the video this story just made me sick to my stomach.
When I was getting ready to watch another video I cannot remember which one it was but next to the screen was a timeline that showed all the hate crimes that have happened here in American from the Oklahoma City bombing and ending with the Terrorist Attack on September 11th. We also watched a video on the issues involving race, gender and class. I thought this was neat because there were polls and they allowed us to interview the characters. I thought this was so interesting and was surprised that it was so interactive.
After we went through the tolerance side we moved on to the Holocaust area. I was unhappy with this side because things were closed because of the renovation. I really wanted to see all the artifacts to share them with my boyfriend because I remember being interested in this part of the museum. We were able to walk through the doors of the concentration camp there was one for children and one for adults, I thought this was very interesting although I didn’t like how they had two prisoners hanging by nooses I found this a little disturbing and so did my boyfriend.
We also listen to William Harvey who was a holocaust survivor, he told us his story one thing that really caught my attention was when he talked about hearing Hitler state to the world that he would kill every Jewish person in the world and if they lived he would make sure they weren’t happy. But lucky that didn’t apply to Mr. Harvey he was reunited with mom, sister’s and some other family members. So there was a somewhat happy ending for William Harvey. Hearing a voice of an actual survivor and the experience he was apart of was just so real to me and made me depressed.
When we first walked in I got a ticket with a boys name on it, which read Yehiel Goldberg, when we put it into the machine it said he was born in Pinsk, Poland. Yehiel and his family had fought for their life but he didn’t make it he was murdered at seventeen in July 1942. This was so sad because I was him for the day and to die at age seventeen I would be so young and miss out on the rest of my life. Over all the experience was better this time that I went to the museum I think It was a lot better to understand now that I am twenty two compared to thirteen, my boyfriend really enjoyed it he was glad he came with me. It is just so sad and you walk out all down and depressed knowing something like this really happen in our world. But hopefully this history never repeats itself.
post 8 715
post 8
I am not a very religious person, I am baptized catholic and Ibelieve in god but I'm not very active in religion. Although I findother religions interesting such the seven that I have just read.Daoist which is Taoist ethics in which encourages their people to bedetached from the world; they want you to be in non action. Daoisttry to go off basic moral rules against killing, stealing lying andsexual misconduct. They even have social interaction, they even tryto conduct you how to bow, eat and wash. They want you to think intheir religion and their religion only. Daoist try to realizationbased on how one's life in interaction with the community, familyand, religious groups.Buddhism is a religion in which doesn't have any views onabortion some think it is ok and some believe it is murder it is moreof an individual belief weather it is right or wrong. I think this isbecause they believe the thing you kill must be a living thing, youmust have the intention and effort to kill, if these elements are notinvolved then killing isn't bad. In Buddhism they believe everyone isresponsible for their actions and the consequences that fallow. Whenyou look at Japan which mostly everyone living there is Buddhist andthey use abortion as a form of birth control. This is why theybelieve in Jizo which is a god; they believe take the child and takecare of it until it is reborn by someone else. Buddhism is an animalfriend religion. They believe in corporal punishment and they getwhat they deserve but they believe in rebirth and if you die as a badperson you will get pay back. They are a very peaceful religion andare not all about war and fighting.Hindu are generally is a lay back religion, they believe thatabortion is ok and as long as it wont harm the mother or father ifyou are going to have a baby that when it arrives you will not beable to give the baby the life it deserves that you don't have thebaby at all which is why they probably don't believe in birthcontrol. Hinduism is non violence religion they don't believe inkilling and violence. One thing I found funny they don't believe indonating their organ but they are for the people and not harminganyone.Judaism seems very structured; they don't have an opinion onabortion. They are for the animal they don't want to harm them in anyway. Judaism is defiantly not be in favor of corporal punishment butmost think they would be, they do believe in war only is it isnecessary. Judaism is against suicide they believe it is wrong youshould never take your own life. They are for organ donation; theybelieve it is a good thing to do at the end of your lifetime.Sikhism sounds like a pretty normal religion, they areagainst abortion It is forbidden which is why they believe in birthcontrol to help prevent the abortion. They believe life is a giftfrom god and should be never taken away by anyone or themselves. Theybelieve in war they have a special term for it which is 'Dharam Yudh'which means the defense of righteousness. Overall I think Sikhismsounds the most like Christianity.Muslims forbid abortion they are very pro family and are allabout they children and there well being. They believe in Allah whichis who they believe made all living things and believe they shouldnever be harmed. They are one of the only religions who still believein circumcision. They are old fashion and haven't looked into stemcell research.Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with, it isthe most closest to catholic religion. They are strongly againstabortion and forbid it, they believe in birth control. They believethat human being are better and strong then animals. They aresupporter of life they believe in some corporal punishment but aremostly against the death penalty. They are against suicide theybelieve in taking your own life is wrong. They are strongly againstsame sex marriages they think homosexuality is look down upon and iswrong in all aspects. One thing I didn't know is they are against warthey believe it is unnecessary.
I am not a very religious person, I am baptized catholic and Ibelieve in god but I'm not very active in religion. Although I findother religions interesting such the seven that I have just read.Daoist which is Taoist ethics in which encourages their people to bedetached from the world; they want you to be in non action. Daoisttry to go off basic moral rules against killing, stealing lying andsexual misconduct. They even have social interaction, they even tryto conduct you how to bow, eat and wash. They want you to think intheir religion and their religion only. Daoist try to realizationbased on how one's life in interaction with the community, familyand, religious groups.Buddhism is a religion in which doesn't have any views onabortion some think it is ok and some believe it is murder it is moreof an individual belief weather it is right or wrong. I think this isbecause they believe the thing you kill must be a living thing, youmust have the intention and effort to kill, if these elements are notinvolved then killing isn't bad. In Buddhism they believe everyone isresponsible for their actions and the consequences that fallow. Whenyou look at Japan which mostly everyone living there is Buddhist andthey use abortion as a form of birth control. This is why theybelieve in Jizo which is a god; they believe take the child and takecare of it until it is reborn by someone else. Buddhism is an animalfriend religion. They believe in corporal punishment and they getwhat they deserve but they believe in rebirth and if you die as a badperson you will get pay back. They are a very peaceful religion andare not all about war and fighting.Hindu are generally is a lay back religion, they believe thatabortion is ok and as long as it wont harm the mother or father ifyou are going to have a baby that when it arrives you will not beable to give the baby the life it deserves that you don't have thebaby at all which is why they probably don't believe in birthcontrol. Hinduism is non violence religion they don't believe inkilling and violence. One thing I found funny they don't believe indonating their organ but they are for the people and not harminganyone.Judaism seems very structured; they don't have an opinion onabortion. They are for the animal they don't want to harm them in anyway. Judaism is defiantly not be in favor of corporal punishment butmost think they would be, they do believe in war only is it isnecessary. Judaism is against suicide they believe it is wrong youshould never take your own life. They are for organ donation; theybelieve it is a good thing to do at the end of your lifetime.Sikhism sounds like a pretty normal religion, they areagainst abortion It is forbidden which is why they believe in birthcontrol to help prevent the abortion. They believe life is a giftfrom god and should be never taken away by anyone or themselves. Theybelieve in war they have a special term for it which is 'Dharam Yudh'which means the defense of righteousness. Overall I think Sikhismsounds the most like Christianity.Muslims forbid abortion they are very pro family and are allabout they children and there well being. They believe in Allah whichis who they believe made all living things and believe they shouldnever be harmed. They are one of the only religions who still believein circumcision. They are old fashion and haven't looked into stemcell research.Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with, it isthe most closest to catholic religion. They are strongly againstabortion and forbid it, they believe in birth control. They believethat human being are better and strong then animals. They aresupporter of life they believe in some corporal punishment but aremostly against the death penalty. They are against suicide theybelieve in taking your own life is wrong. They are strongly againstsame sex marriages they think homosexuality is look down upon and iswrong in all aspects. One thing I didn't know is they are against warthey believe it is unnecessary.
post 11 714
Post 11
Cloning was not introduced until the 1970's the reason cloning wasbrought to everyone attention was the cloning of Dolly the sheep ithad taken more then 227 takes before Dolly was created. Although itis know the human cloning is way more complicated the cloning animalsor plants. The human cloning simply is much more difficult becausehuman cloning would require taking somatic cell, as opposed toreproductive cell such as an egg or sperm cell, from a personremoving its nucleus. The DNA of the somatic cell is transferred toan enucleated egg. But is not possible because certain somatic cellsare turned off; at this point is not able to turn them back on.From a religious point of you the Roman Catholics believe it is evilto used human cloning as well as southern baptism they support theRoman Catholics point of view. In the Jewish religion they fearhuman cloning because they feel it might harm the family by suchrelationships and roles within the family.From an ethical point of view from the possibility of human cloningsociety had not been able to have a clear view because the moralityof human cloning. In our society we dived up by churches and state,law and governing, human cloning will be reflecting the ethicalposition that are not based on any god of religious. Such as possiblephysical harm to the embryo and or harm to the child. They also fearpossible social harm for example over time human cloning might becomea preferred practice. Personally I do not think human cloning is agood ideal. Because are world would be coming to an end people wontbe having babies they will just clone their children instead ofreproducing again. I just do not think it is right and is morallywrong because we would more then likely use them to experiment on andthis could lead to killing many people in the long run
Cloning was not introduced until the 1970's the reason cloning wasbrought to everyone attention was the cloning of Dolly the sheep ithad taken more then 227 takes before Dolly was created. Although itis know the human cloning is way more complicated the cloning animalsor plants. The human cloning simply is much more difficult becausehuman cloning would require taking somatic cell, as opposed toreproductive cell such as an egg or sperm cell, from a personremoving its nucleus. The DNA of the somatic cell is transferred toan enucleated egg. But is not possible because certain somatic cellsare turned off; at this point is not able to turn them back on.From a religious point of you the Roman Catholics believe it is evilto used human cloning as well as southern baptism they support theRoman Catholics point of view. In the Jewish religion they fearhuman cloning because they feel it might harm the family by suchrelationships and roles within the family.From an ethical point of view from the possibility of human cloningsociety had not been able to have a clear view because the moralityof human cloning. In our society we dived up by churches and state,law and governing, human cloning will be reflecting the ethicalposition that are not based on any god of religious. Such as possiblephysical harm to the embryo and or harm to the child. They also fearpossible social harm for example over time human cloning might becomea preferred practice. Personally I do not think human cloning is agood ideal. Because are world would be coming to an end people wontbe having babies they will just clone their children instead ofreproducing again. I just do not think it is right and is morallywrong because we would more then likely use them to experiment on andthis could lead to killing many people in the long run
Final
1.) Give a very specific outline of the ETHICS of Gandhi as presentedin his "autobiography" chapters 1-50 and the final last pages.Unlike a biography that only outlines his life, the "autobiography"allows you to go into his head and experience his world view. Focuson his world view. Articulate his ethics as "he sees them." Answerwhat does he mean by "experiments with Truth?" What arehis "specific" personal ethical struggles and life challenges? Whatpersonal problems does he face and how does he solve them? Giveexamples. Detail his ethical position. And, finally, why do youthink Gandhi is considered by many to be a moral hero? Do you thinkthat Gandhi's life can serve as an inspiration for us today. ApplyGandhi's ethics to your individual life AND to the world at large.(Hint: I need to see in this essay that you completed the assignedreading; this most likely will be a longer essay and so worth a bitmore). If you did not read the AUTOBIOGRAPHY then skip this questionand write I DO NOT KNOW. Do NOT use an outside source on the life ofGandhi to answer this question (no credit)....I am trying todecipher if you read the assigned book and understood his ethicalstruggles from his own perspective.
Gandhi was very political and a spiritual leader in India. He was a prisoner at the time of civil independence; his family was founder of India independence. He even has his own holiday as the international day of non violence. Gandhi was a strong believer of non violence they refer him to a freedom fight such as Martin Luther King, Jr.
Gandhi goes by a few principles of his ethic’s they are vegetarianism, truth, brahmacharya, simplicity, faith and non violence. Gandhi dedicated life to the wider purpose of discovering Satya. Gandhi tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes, like most people do. Vegetarianism is basically that he doesn’t eat meat. Simplicity is he believe that a person involved in social service should lead a simple live in that he it could lead to Branhmacharya. Brahmacharys is Gandhi’s was to come close with god he used this after his father passed away. Brahmacharys is a spiritual and practical purity; in spite of this Gandhi has been sharing his bed with young women when I found rather strange.
Gandhi has drawn most of his ethics and most faith from Hinduism. Hindu are generally is a lay back religion, they believe that abortion is ok and as long as it wont harm the mother or father if you are going to have a baby that when it arrives you will not be able to give the baby the life it deserves that you don’t have the baby at all which is why they probably don’t believe in birth control. Hinduism is non violence religion they don’t believe in killing and violence. One thing I found funny they don’t believe in donating their organ but they are for the people and not harming anyone.
Although he believes that all religions are equal but he rejected them in efforts to convert him to a different faith. As a rule of Gandhi he was opposed to the concept of partition; this contradicted his vision of religious unity. He wrote the demand for Pakistan which is Islam stands for unity and the brotherhood of mankind. Not for disrupting the oneness of the family of humans.
Today I still really don’t get Gandhi I like how he is about non violence but I cannot see myself thinking as he does and worshiping him, but like they say in their eyes of the believes of Gandhi they believer for him to be like Martin Luther King, Jr which we all look up to very much because he made a great changes for our world today.
4. Discuss the ethical contributions of Einstein as presented in theweb link onthe course website. As you did with Gandhi, explain whydo you think Einstein is considered by many to be a moral hero? Whatdo you most admire about him? Do you think that Einstein's life canserve as an inspiration for us today. Apply Einstein's ethics toyour individual life AND to the world at large.
Einstein I would have to say is more of a hero then Gandhi, he seemed like a family man and a nice guy. I mostly go that from looking at his clips he was with family around a table. When reading the article it talked about how he had hobbies such as sailing his sailboat, he was always up for a good joke, all around a pretty swell man.
Einstein had dealt with the grand struggle over totalitarianism and democracy, he found for human rights. He was fighting for it all about because of him he has really made an impact on our world today. They call him the man of the 20th century.
A lot of people turned on Einstein because of the nuclear weapon he helped to produced. This is because the Germens turn that against us and Einstein was there to take them blame. He said had he had know this was going to happen he would have never had done so. I still think he was a good man and I like him more then I do Gandhi.
Gandhi was against Einstein in that he didn’t like war or violence itself but then again either did Einstein, Gandhi was there to look down on Einstein when the whole nuclear weapon broke lose because he such a believer in non violence world. They were both brought up in family, although I still like Einstein more then Gandhi I don’t know all the religious thing behind Hinduism and they way he thinks.
5. What is the "utilitarian argument for animal rights" (define) aspresented by Singer? When discussing Singer outline his argument foranimal rights drawing specifically from the assigned reading (hint:you will need to mention and define speciesism and other importantideas and examples from the Singer reading and VIDEO, etc. I willlook for VIDEO material in your essay (required). Do not just write avague response but draw key ideas from the material. Again, for thefinal VIDEO details (when applicable) are important.
Singer I found is a very interesting man, his main ethics is he believes everyone should be treated equal, he is a strong believer in animal right. He doesn’t think it is necessary to harm anyone or thing unless it is going to be benefited from in the long run. From Singers utilitarian perspective he doesn’t believe in suffering of humans or animals he would like to see it reduced. This is why he goes by the greatest number for the greatest good.
Singer believes we should eliminate and or avoid specisism because this is allowing their species take priority of other species for example how we eat animals and they suffer to let us be fulfilled. He believer we need to stop killing animals. He also believes it is very wrong to experiment on animals that is causing them to suffer and harming animals.
In the Lane neuron- ethical argument simply state that eating meat is wrong and vegetarianism is the way to go to avoid harming animals. Singer believes that we should not be influenced by our cultures to eat meet or by others he doesn’t want us harming and killing animals and animals have a central nervous system and they can feel pain; this is not fair to the animals. After reading on Singers ethics I am totally for the animals and always have been but I just don’t think I can not eat meat I know it is hurting the animals but I was raised on it and would way to hard to stop eating meat.
.
7. How does Peter Singer view euthanasia? Describe his reasoningprocess. Do you agree? Justify philosophically (explain in depth).(note: there are varying types of euthanasia so make sure to explaineach and his position on each one of these and your position on eachof these as well.) And also, at the end of this essay, what do youthink Singer would say about the past case dealing with TerriSchiavo (do a google.com search to find details on the case
Singer stance on euthanasia and poverty I found interesting some things I agree on and others I do not. When he speaks about Euthanasia he breaks it into three different parts which are Voluntary, involuntary, and non voluntary. Voluntary is where a person kills themselves on purpose mostly because they are terminally ill and they commit suicide to stop from suffering. Singer mentions the Dr. Jack Kevorkian “The suicide machine” who help many people by using lethal injections in prison. Personally I don’t think that is right the only time I feel someone should use voluntary is if they are slowing dying and they are suffering should they kill themselves.
There is involuntary which where your are able to consent but you don’t say so and they kill you anyways because they know you are suffering and you are going to dies anyways. This one doesn’t quite make any sense to me but maybe I am reading this incorrectly because this almost sound more like Voluntary and more on an accident basis
The third one is non voluntary which is where you are not able to consent for your death but they know you are suffering and or is going to die for example if you have been an accident and or is a baby and cannot communicate. Most Utilitarianism such as Singer believes there are not extrinsic reasons for killing and baby alive if they are suffering they believe the child should be helped to death.
I honestly think that Euthanasia should be ok their there is no hope for that person and they are going to suffer for the rest of their life. I feel it is their choice to choose weather or not they want to take their life or not. Because I know I would never want to suffer a lot of people who do and are terminally ill just want to be killed; such as many choose to do so. But I do not think that should be considered suicide and if that is I hope that god forgives them because they are suffering and that is not fair.
8.) Outline the article on CLONING, discussing what it is, how isworks and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the ethical (and political andreligious) issues involved. Next discuss the 25 minute VIDEO on thistopic. Having been well informed about cloning now, what is yourethical position here? Explain in depth yourstance on this topic. Cloning was not introduced until the 1970’s the reason cloning was brought to everyone attention was the cloning of Dolly the sheep it had taken more then 227 takes before Dolly was created. Although it is know the human cloning is way more complicated the cloning animals or plants. The human cloning simply is much more difficult because human cloning would require taking somatic cell, as opposed to reproductive cell such as an egg or sperm cell, from a person removing its nucleus. The DNA of the somatic cell is transferred to an enucleated egg. But is not possible because certain somatic cells are turned off; at this point is not able to turn them back on.
From a religious point of you the Roman Catholics believe it is evil to used human cloning as well as southern baptism they support the Roman Catholics point of view. In the Jewish religion they fear human cloning because they feel it might harm the family by such relationships and roles within the family.
From an ethical point of view from the possibility of human cloning society had not been able to have a clear view because the morality of human cloning. In our society we dived up by churches and state, law and governing, human cloning will be reflecting the ethical position that are not based on any god of religious. Such as possible physical harm to the embryo and or harm to the child. They also fear possible social harm for example over time human cloning might become a preferred practice.
Personally I do not think human cloning is a good ideal. Because are world would be coming to an end people wont be having babies they will just clone their children instead of reproducing again. I just do not think it is right and is morally wrong because we would more then likely use them to experiment on and this could lead to killing many people in the long run.
9) Do the same for STEM CELL RESEARCH. Utilizing the online articlnd VIDEO, discuss what it is, how it works, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY,the ethical (and political and religious) issues involved. Make sureto discuss the 29 minute VIDEO in your essay! (required) Having beenwell informed about stem cell research, what is your ethicalposition here? Explain in depth your position on this topic. When I read up on stem cell research I was for it even though I wasn’t quite sure what a stem cell was or what is endured. I found out that a stem cell they are cells found in most multi cellular organism. There are two types of stem cells which is embryonic stem cell which is the one that the conservatory is all about. The embryonic stem cell that are found in blastocysts; the adult stem cells are found in adult cells.
There is major conservatory over stem cell research if it is really ethical is the main argument. The controversy is basically over human embryonic stem cell research which emanates from the techniques used in the creation and usage of stem cell. With technology and the way it is today, when you’re starting and stem cell line it requires the destruction of a human embryo or cloning.
The ethical issues against stem cell research are that you are killing a living organism which is the embryo. Because many are against abortion and are for stem cell research, this is because the embryo is known to be no bigger then a pinhead. This is why George Bush is look down on as a hypocrite because he approve this bill and is totally against abortion.
The moral objection is killing the blastocysts but they say cannot be based of suffering. The ethical issue is that they have a future but eventually can develop and be capable of human suffering, human love, hate, feel and human consciousness. I think this is ethical and morally right because it is know that we can save many people by stem cell research. These stem cells don’t have any feel or live at this part so in my opinion they are not missing out on anything; as humans we have not become attached to the stem cell or living organism yet.
10. Out of everything you studied this term, from the ten ethicaltheorists, to the moral case topics, to the life of Gandhi andEinstein, to evolutionary psychology, what or who had the most impacton your thinking and may have actually impacted your life in someway? Explain in detail...apply to your life and world. I really wantto see that you digested the material you studied and that somehow itaffected your worldview. Articulate who or what influenced you themost and how it did. Offer details.
I would have to say Einstein I really like his article and what they had to say about him. I love how he is for the people. I feel that he has made a big impact on which our society is today having. I mean he found human right, what we would do with out these rights. We have freedom as individual and we have say in our society and allowing us as humans to make a difference ourselves.
I just really think out of evolutionary psychology and Gandhi Einstein really shines as the true hero of our world today. But I am sure a lot of people might disagree but that is because we all are entitled to our own opinion and backgrounds. With out Einstein we may not have the freedom we have today.
Although, people in India and who believe in Hinduism more the likely believe in Gandhi as the true hero and found him more interest. But mainly because I am a American; totally for human right I believe that Einstein is truly a hero and I believe that he has really made a difference in my life I have never given him credit for what he has done because truly I didn’t know until I took this class.
Gandhi was very political and a spiritual leader in India. He was a prisoner at the time of civil independence; his family was founder of India independence. He even has his own holiday as the international day of non violence. Gandhi was a strong believer of non violence they refer him to a freedom fight such as Martin Luther King, Jr.
Gandhi goes by a few principles of his ethic’s they are vegetarianism, truth, brahmacharya, simplicity, faith and non violence. Gandhi dedicated life to the wider purpose of discovering Satya. Gandhi tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes, like most people do. Vegetarianism is basically that he doesn’t eat meat. Simplicity is he believe that a person involved in social service should lead a simple live in that he it could lead to Branhmacharya. Brahmacharys is Gandhi’s was to come close with god he used this after his father passed away. Brahmacharys is a spiritual and practical purity; in spite of this Gandhi has been sharing his bed with young women when I found rather strange.
Gandhi has drawn most of his ethics and most faith from Hinduism. Hindu are generally is a lay back religion, they believe that abortion is ok and as long as it wont harm the mother or father if you are going to have a baby that when it arrives you will not be able to give the baby the life it deserves that you don’t have the baby at all which is why they probably don’t believe in birth control. Hinduism is non violence religion they don’t believe in killing and violence. One thing I found funny they don’t believe in donating their organ but they are for the people and not harming anyone.
Although he believes that all religions are equal but he rejected them in efforts to convert him to a different faith. As a rule of Gandhi he was opposed to the concept of partition; this contradicted his vision of religious unity. He wrote the demand for Pakistan which is Islam stands for unity and the brotherhood of mankind. Not for disrupting the oneness of the family of humans.
Today I still really don’t get Gandhi I like how he is about non violence but I cannot see myself thinking as he does and worshiping him, but like they say in their eyes of the believes of Gandhi they believer for him to be like Martin Luther King, Jr which we all look up to very much because he made a great changes for our world today.
4. Discuss the ethical contributions of Einstein as presented in theweb link onthe course website. As you did with Gandhi, explain whydo you think Einstein is considered by many to be a moral hero? Whatdo you most admire about him? Do you think that Einstein's life canserve as an inspiration for us today. Apply Einstein's ethics toyour individual life AND to the world at large.
Einstein I would have to say is more of a hero then Gandhi, he seemed like a family man and a nice guy. I mostly go that from looking at his clips he was with family around a table. When reading the article it talked about how he had hobbies such as sailing his sailboat, he was always up for a good joke, all around a pretty swell man.
Einstein had dealt with the grand struggle over totalitarianism and democracy, he found for human rights. He was fighting for it all about because of him he has really made an impact on our world today. They call him the man of the 20th century.
A lot of people turned on Einstein because of the nuclear weapon he helped to produced. This is because the Germens turn that against us and Einstein was there to take them blame. He said had he had know this was going to happen he would have never had done so. I still think he was a good man and I like him more then I do Gandhi.
Gandhi was against Einstein in that he didn’t like war or violence itself but then again either did Einstein, Gandhi was there to look down on Einstein when the whole nuclear weapon broke lose because he such a believer in non violence world. They were both brought up in family, although I still like Einstein more then Gandhi I don’t know all the religious thing behind Hinduism and they way he thinks.
5. What is the "utilitarian argument for animal rights" (define) aspresented by Singer? When discussing Singer outline his argument foranimal rights drawing specifically from the assigned reading (hint:you will need to mention and define speciesism and other importantideas and examples from the Singer reading and VIDEO, etc. I willlook for VIDEO material in your essay (required). Do not just write avague response but draw key ideas from the material. Again, for thefinal VIDEO details (when applicable) are important.
Singer I found is a very interesting man, his main ethics is he believes everyone should be treated equal, he is a strong believer in animal right. He doesn’t think it is necessary to harm anyone or thing unless it is going to be benefited from in the long run. From Singers utilitarian perspective he doesn’t believe in suffering of humans or animals he would like to see it reduced. This is why he goes by the greatest number for the greatest good.
Singer believes we should eliminate and or avoid specisism because this is allowing their species take priority of other species for example how we eat animals and they suffer to let us be fulfilled. He believer we need to stop killing animals. He also believes it is very wrong to experiment on animals that is causing them to suffer and harming animals.
In the Lane neuron- ethical argument simply state that eating meat is wrong and vegetarianism is the way to go to avoid harming animals. Singer believes that we should not be influenced by our cultures to eat meet or by others he doesn’t want us harming and killing animals and animals have a central nervous system and they can feel pain; this is not fair to the animals. After reading on Singers ethics I am totally for the animals and always have been but I just don’t think I can not eat meat I know it is hurting the animals but I was raised on it and would way to hard to stop eating meat.
.
7. How does Peter Singer view euthanasia? Describe his reasoningprocess. Do you agree? Justify philosophically (explain in depth).(note: there are varying types of euthanasia so make sure to explaineach and his position on each one of these and your position on eachof these as well.) And also, at the end of this essay, what do youthink Singer would say about the past case dealing with TerriSchiavo (do a google.com search to find details on the case
Singer stance on euthanasia and poverty I found interesting some things I agree on and others I do not. When he speaks about Euthanasia he breaks it into three different parts which are Voluntary, involuntary, and non voluntary. Voluntary is where a person kills themselves on purpose mostly because they are terminally ill and they commit suicide to stop from suffering. Singer mentions the Dr. Jack Kevorkian “The suicide machine” who help many people by using lethal injections in prison. Personally I don’t think that is right the only time I feel someone should use voluntary is if they are slowing dying and they are suffering should they kill themselves.
There is involuntary which where your are able to consent but you don’t say so and they kill you anyways because they know you are suffering and you are going to dies anyways. This one doesn’t quite make any sense to me but maybe I am reading this incorrectly because this almost sound more like Voluntary and more on an accident basis
The third one is non voluntary which is where you are not able to consent for your death but they know you are suffering and or is going to die for example if you have been an accident and or is a baby and cannot communicate. Most Utilitarianism such as Singer believes there are not extrinsic reasons for killing and baby alive if they are suffering they believe the child should be helped to death.
I honestly think that Euthanasia should be ok their there is no hope for that person and they are going to suffer for the rest of their life. I feel it is their choice to choose weather or not they want to take their life or not. Because I know I would never want to suffer a lot of people who do and are terminally ill just want to be killed; such as many choose to do so. But I do not think that should be considered suicide and if that is I hope that god forgives them because they are suffering and that is not fair.
8.) Outline the article on CLONING, discussing what it is, how isworks and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the ethical (and political andreligious) issues involved. Next discuss the 25 minute VIDEO on thistopic. Having been well informed about cloning now, what is yourethical position here? Explain in depth yourstance on this topic. Cloning was not introduced until the 1970’s the reason cloning was brought to everyone attention was the cloning of Dolly the sheep it had taken more then 227 takes before Dolly was created. Although it is know the human cloning is way more complicated the cloning animals or plants. The human cloning simply is much more difficult because human cloning would require taking somatic cell, as opposed to reproductive cell such as an egg or sperm cell, from a person removing its nucleus. The DNA of the somatic cell is transferred to an enucleated egg. But is not possible because certain somatic cells are turned off; at this point is not able to turn them back on.
From a religious point of you the Roman Catholics believe it is evil to used human cloning as well as southern baptism they support the Roman Catholics point of view. In the Jewish religion they fear human cloning because they feel it might harm the family by such relationships and roles within the family.
From an ethical point of view from the possibility of human cloning society had not been able to have a clear view because the morality of human cloning. In our society we dived up by churches and state, law and governing, human cloning will be reflecting the ethical position that are not based on any god of religious. Such as possible physical harm to the embryo and or harm to the child. They also fear possible social harm for example over time human cloning might become a preferred practice.
Personally I do not think human cloning is a good ideal. Because are world would be coming to an end people wont be having babies they will just clone their children instead of reproducing again. I just do not think it is right and is morally wrong because we would more then likely use them to experiment on and this could lead to killing many people in the long run.
9) Do the same for STEM CELL RESEARCH. Utilizing the online articlnd VIDEO, discuss what it is, how it works, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY,the ethical (and political and religious) issues involved. Make sureto discuss the 29 minute VIDEO in your essay! (required) Having beenwell informed about stem cell research, what is your ethicalposition here? Explain in depth your position on this topic. When I read up on stem cell research I was for it even though I wasn’t quite sure what a stem cell was or what is endured. I found out that a stem cell they are cells found in most multi cellular organism. There are two types of stem cells which is embryonic stem cell which is the one that the conservatory is all about. The embryonic stem cell that are found in blastocysts; the adult stem cells are found in adult cells.
There is major conservatory over stem cell research if it is really ethical is the main argument. The controversy is basically over human embryonic stem cell research which emanates from the techniques used in the creation and usage of stem cell. With technology and the way it is today, when you’re starting and stem cell line it requires the destruction of a human embryo or cloning.
The ethical issues against stem cell research are that you are killing a living organism which is the embryo. Because many are against abortion and are for stem cell research, this is because the embryo is known to be no bigger then a pinhead. This is why George Bush is look down on as a hypocrite because he approve this bill and is totally against abortion.
The moral objection is killing the blastocysts but they say cannot be based of suffering. The ethical issue is that they have a future but eventually can develop and be capable of human suffering, human love, hate, feel and human consciousness. I think this is ethical and morally right because it is know that we can save many people by stem cell research. These stem cells don’t have any feel or live at this part so in my opinion they are not missing out on anything; as humans we have not become attached to the stem cell or living organism yet.
10. Out of everything you studied this term, from the ten ethicaltheorists, to the moral case topics, to the life of Gandhi andEinstein, to evolutionary psychology, what or who had the most impacton your thinking and may have actually impacted your life in someway? Explain in detail...apply to your life and world. I really wantto see that you digested the material you studied and that somehow itaffected your worldview. Articulate who or what influenced you themost and how it did. Offer details.
I would have to say Einstein I really like his article and what they had to say about him. I love how he is for the people. I feel that he has made a big impact on which our society is today having. I mean he found human right, what we would do with out these rights. We have freedom as individual and we have say in our society and allowing us as humans to make a difference ourselves.
I just really think out of evolutionary psychology and Gandhi Einstein really shines as the true hero of our world today. But I am sure a lot of people might disagree but that is because we all are entitled to our own opinion and backgrounds. With out Einstein we may not have the freedom we have today.
Although, people in India and who believe in Hinduism more the likely believe in Gandhi as the true hero and found him more interest. But mainly because I am a American; totally for human right I believe that Einstein is truly a hero and I believe that he has really made a difference in my life I have never given him credit for what he has done because truly I didn’t know until I took this class.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Midterm
Midterm
1.) Nietzsche had quite a few ethical views. He was against morality. He would call himself and immoralist. He would criticize morals schemes which include Christianity, Kantianism and Utilitarianism. By doing this he didn’t want to destroy morality he wanted to re-evaluate the values of the Judeo-Christian world. He wanted to bring about a new more natural source of values in the vital impulse of life itself. He wanted to return the values of Homeric Greece.
Nietzsche next ethical view was “God is Dead” he believed that if god is dead this would eventually lead to the loss of universal perspective on things, along with it any coherent sense of objective truth. He believed in stead we would retain only our own multiple, diverse, and fluid perspectives; this view is know as perspectivism. Nietzsche says that even though god is dead before becoming dead in man’s hearts and mind, this had provided the foundation of a "Christian-moral.”
Nietzsche also believed in will power and or the will to live. He believed that the whole world and everything in it is driven by a primordial will to live, resulting in all creatures' desire to avoid death and to procreate. He believes in truth, free spirit, I think this has something to do with why he loves god so much because of the truth, will power to live and free spirit. He loved Jesus he believed that in sin, which basically is anything that puts distance between God and man is abolished. He believes in a new way of life, not a new faith, which comes from the Christian religion.
He didn’t like Paul because Paul question god, he believed “if Christ did not rise from the dead, then all our faith is in vain. Nietzsche was a strong believer in god and heaven. Even though he says god is dead he still believed in him even though he knows god died because of us to let us live and gave us the free will and told us the truth and believes everyone should do the same.
2.) Epictetus is a well know philosopher but for some strange reason he never wrote anything. It was those people who surrounded him who wrote his philosophy down. There is a handbook of all of Epictetus thoughts that Keith Seddon wrote. Epictetus would encourage his students to learn “the truth of nature,” this was broken up into two categories that were labeled exclusive and executive power. Exclusive power was judgment, impulse, desire aversion; executive power was health, material wealth, fame. He introduced two concepts to his students which where Prohairesis and Dihairesis and related them to everyday life. Epictetus believed understanding that we should not be affected by the external objects because they are not up to us. He believed in happiness and fulfillment.
Spinoza is best known for his ethics, in which most of his philosophy reflects his ethics. Most would say his philosophy is best described as pantheistic. This is because pantheism views that immanent abstract God and or that the universe, nature and God are equivalent. Which helps to show how Spinoza is a strong believer in god and nature it self which I feel has a strong impact in both his philosophy and ethics. He is a strong believer in free will.
They are very similar in that they both believe in stoicism; stoicism is health, happiness, possession. They believed that everything is really good and or bad in a man’s life is up to themselves to determine which one they are. They believe no matter who you are you choose to be that person and you still have nature and happiness to live day to day with. This is how I feel that Spinoza and Epictetus relate in that they both believe in stoicism; that every human is free and believe in using their freedom to be happy and fulfill their lives.
3.) Epictetus is a well know philosopher but for some strange reason he never wrote anything. It was those people who surrounded him who wrote his philosophy down. There is a handbook of all of Epictetus thoughts that Keith Seddon wrote. Epictetus would encourage his students to learn “the truth of nature,” this was broken up into two categories that were labeled exclusive and executive power. Exclusive power was judgment, impulse, desire aversion; executive power was health, material wealth, fame. He introduced two concepts to his students which where Prohairesis and Dihairesis and related them to everyday life. Epictetus believed understanding that we should not be affected by the external objects because they are not up to us. He believed in happiness and fulfillment.
Spinoza is best known for his ethics, in which most of his philosophy reflects his ethics. Most would say his philosophy is best described as pantheistic. This is because pantheism views that immanent abstract God and or that the universe, nature and God are equivalent. Which helps to show how Spinoza is a strong believer in god and nature it self which I feel has a strong impact in both his philosophy and ethics. He is a strong believer in free will.
They are very similar in that they both believe in stoicism; stoicism is health, happiness, possession. They believed that everything is really good and or bad in a man’s life is up to themselves to determine which one they are. They believe no matter who you are you choose to be that person and you still have nature and happiness to live day to day with. This is how I feel that Spinoza and Epictetus relate in that they both believe in stoicism; that every human is free and believe in using their freedom to be happy and fulfill their lives.
4.) Epicurus was a philosopher who was a strong believer in life free of pain. He thinks you should have peace of mind and ataraxia is the highest pleasure. He believed that we avoid pain and want pleasure which I feel is very true no one wants to be hurt we all want pleasure and happiness.
Aristotle was a strong believer in everything has its own virtue; everything has a purpose in this world. Aristotle is all about happiness he states that “happiness is what is good for men.” He believes that happiness is good for everyone in his writings he often talk about how it doesn’t hurt to have good health, good looks and money.
Epictetus believed in leading humans to better lives he was a strong believe is stoicism. He is a believer of nature and harmony. Epictetus say’s keeping ourselves happy with our everyday life requires two things watching our own actions and paying attention to the world and the actions that go on with in it.
All three of these philosophers believe in living life to its fullest; they all seem to want happiness in life as long as you are doing a good thing’s within your life. When you read their writings you can really see how they are pro happiness within nature. They all believe we all are determined to have our own lives because nature is full of things that can make us happy and that is what god intended us to do is be all we can be and stay happy and make as many right choices as you can.
5.) Sartre is best known for his French existentialist of the twenty century. He did not believe in Christianity this is because Sartre was a believer that there is no god and because there is not go there are no moral rules. Maybe he felt this way because he was a victim during world war two he was held by the Nazis. Sartre would say there are no values, he believes all events happen at random and that life is absurd. One of his ethics is bad faith he believes choose not to choose is bad faith.
Sartre was the developer of existentialism; he believed there are only one way to live and only one virtue to strive for. Existentialism is the thought that there is no human nature, that when we claim we have to be somebody or do something is just a poor excuse for not wanting to make choices. Existentialism is the building block to Sartre ethics. To me he seems like a crude guy; I guess you can say very honest. Even his writings are negative and to the point. But I really think his ethics are learning toward crude and honest because of his life experiences.
Sartre often talks about “if any choices could authentic so long as it is lived with a clear awareness of its contingency and responsibility.” I think he is saying that freedom is a choice you chose to be free if you become locked down that is nothing but for your choice. Something thing I can agree with but there is one thing I don’t and that is that there is no god. But I believe we do all have a choice and we should use them accordingly and not lean towards bad faith.
6.) First I would like to focus on Kant’s ethical theory focus on epistemology and metaphysic, epistemology. Kant likes to focus on morals of epistemology and the reasoning of metaphysics. Kant believes that “freedom is an ideal of reason; that without the function of freedom reason cannot act.” For example I think Kant is trying to say, because of freedom we learn from our actions and those actions and human life gives of knowledge to be able to reason.
Also, Kant’s criticism of utilitarianism is very famous; he believes that utilitarian theories actually devalue the individuals it is supposed to benefit. Kant also believed that utilitarian theories are leaning more towards inclination in humans for pleasure and happiness, not by the universal moral law by reason. In which I feel he philosophy is incorrect because, without human happiness and pleasure they would not be able to reason by moral law. Kant is also a strong believer of good will.
Kierkegaard believed in those three stages; which are the aesthetic stage, the ethical stage and the religious stage. The aesthetic stage focus on sensuous of joy Kierkegaard believes that children are the ones who have strong interest in this stage. The Ethical stage is where many people realize there are laws of convictions in which they believe there is always a way to become a good person. Last would be the religious stage which is where those things that make sense to you and you choose to trust god and love for the reason of your happiness. Both Kierkegaard and Kant are very religious they believe in god and are true believes of being happy and good human beings.
7.) Mills was a strong believer in utilitarianism Mills believed in that cultural, intellectual, and spiritual pleasures are valued more then physical pleasure he is very opinionated in that he believes that physical please are not as strong as cultural, intellectual and spiritual. I think this has a lot to do with his upbringing because he is well educated and very religious. But most importantly utilitarianism reflects on both his two ethical theory which are liberty and the harm principle.
Epicurus believed in hedonism which is, pleasure seeking which basically states the more look for pleasure the more it surpasses you. They believe the more pleasure the more pain is released. He believes everything we do we do for the sake that we will gain pleasure. He says that pleasure is good and pain is bad and we determine this the same way that fire is hot.
They both believe in pleasure but different aspects. Mills is more a believer that pleasure comes from cultural and spiritual aspects and explains how pleasure is valued. Where as Epicurus explains that pleasure as everyone has pleasure and pain, he goes into death on how we perceive pleasure but not as in depth as Mills does.
8.) While reading all the articles this first half of the semester I have came across a better understanding of ethics. Ethic is self is the study, questioning and justification of moral rules. There are many different types of ethics such as normative ethic which reflects the golden rule which treating others how we would want to be treated. There are applied ethics which is focused mostly on abortion and similar issues. Last but not least there is metaepthics which is the study of everything that exist in our universe.
I think my favorite theorist was John Stewart Mills, because of what he believes in. I also am a strong believer in the harm principle which states, that each individual has the right to act as he wants, as long as the actions do not harm others. I think almost all human go by this in their day to day life. Treat others how you want to be treated, we all live life and learn that is not the greatest feeling when you are put down by someone and or is not treated very fairly. If we all lived life by treating other how you would want to be treated we would all live in a better place and be a much happier person. I think this is what Mills is saying in his philosophy he believes in. I also like the fact that Mills utilitarianism I like how he believes in culture and spiritual pleasure. I think he was a great person and gave us a better understanding on how we as humans should live our lives.
1.) Nietzsche had quite a few ethical views. He was against morality. He would call himself and immoralist. He would criticize morals schemes which include Christianity, Kantianism and Utilitarianism. By doing this he didn’t want to destroy morality he wanted to re-evaluate the values of the Judeo-Christian world. He wanted to bring about a new more natural source of values in the vital impulse of life itself. He wanted to return the values of Homeric Greece.
Nietzsche next ethical view was “God is Dead” he believed that if god is dead this would eventually lead to the loss of universal perspective on things, along with it any coherent sense of objective truth. He believed in stead we would retain only our own multiple, diverse, and fluid perspectives; this view is know as perspectivism. Nietzsche says that even though god is dead before becoming dead in man’s hearts and mind, this had provided the foundation of a "Christian-moral.”
Nietzsche also believed in will power and or the will to live. He believed that the whole world and everything in it is driven by a primordial will to live, resulting in all creatures' desire to avoid death and to procreate. He believes in truth, free spirit, I think this has something to do with why he loves god so much because of the truth, will power to live and free spirit. He loved Jesus he believed that in sin, which basically is anything that puts distance between God and man is abolished. He believes in a new way of life, not a new faith, which comes from the Christian religion.
He didn’t like Paul because Paul question god, he believed “if Christ did not rise from the dead, then all our faith is in vain. Nietzsche was a strong believer in god and heaven. Even though he says god is dead he still believed in him even though he knows god died because of us to let us live and gave us the free will and told us the truth and believes everyone should do the same.
2.) Epictetus is a well know philosopher but for some strange reason he never wrote anything. It was those people who surrounded him who wrote his philosophy down. There is a handbook of all of Epictetus thoughts that Keith Seddon wrote. Epictetus would encourage his students to learn “the truth of nature,” this was broken up into two categories that were labeled exclusive and executive power. Exclusive power was judgment, impulse, desire aversion; executive power was health, material wealth, fame. He introduced two concepts to his students which where Prohairesis and Dihairesis and related them to everyday life. Epictetus believed understanding that we should not be affected by the external objects because they are not up to us. He believed in happiness and fulfillment.
Spinoza is best known for his ethics, in which most of his philosophy reflects his ethics. Most would say his philosophy is best described as pantheistic. This is because pantheism views that immanent abstract God and or that the universe, nature and God are equivalent. Which helps to show how Spinoza is a strong believer in god and nature it self which I feel has a strong impact in both his philosophy and ethics. He is a strong believer in free will.
They are very similar in that they both believe in stoicism; stoicism is health, happiness, possession. They believed that everything is really good and or bad in a man’s life is up to themselves to determine which one they are. They believe no matter who you are you choose to be that person and you still have nature and happiness to live day to day with. This is how I feel that Spinoza and Epictetus relate in that they both believe in stoicism; that every human is free and believe in using their freedom to be happy and fulfill their lives.
3.) Epictetus is a well know philosopher but for some strange reason he never wrote anything. It was those people who surrounded him who wrote his philosophy down. There is a handbook of all of Epictetus thoughts that Keith Seddon wrote. Epictetus would encourage his students to learn “the truth of nature,” this was broken up into two categories that were labeled exclusive and executive power. Exclusive power was judgment, impulse, desire aversion; executive power was health, material wealth, fame. He introduced two concepts to his students which where Prohairesis and Dihairesis and related them to everyday life. Epictetus believed understanding that we should not be affected by the external objects because they are not up to us. He believed in happiness and fulfillment.
Spinoza is best known for his ethics, in which most of his philosophy reflects his ethics. Most would say his philosophy is best described as pantheistic. This is because pantheism views that immanent abstract God and or that the universe, nature and God are equivalent. Which helps to show how Spinoza is a strong believer in god and nature it self which I feel has a strong impact in both his philosophy and ethics. He is a strong believer in free will.
They are very similar in that they both believe in stoicism; stoicism is health, happiness, possession. They believed that everything is really good and or bad in a man’s life is up to themselves to determine which one they are. They believe no matter who you are you choose to be that person and you still have nature and happiness to live day to day with. This is how I feel that Spinoza and Epictetus relate in that they both believe in stoicism; that every human is free and believe in using their freedom to be happy and fulfill their lives.
4.) Epicurus was a philosopher who was a strong believer in life free of pain. He thinks you should have peace of mind and ataraxia is the highest pleasure. He believed that we avoid pain and want pleasure which I feel is very true no one wants to be hurt we all want pleasure and happiness.
Aristotle was a strong believer in everything has its own virtue; everything has a purpose in this world. Aristotle is all about happiness he states that “happiness is what is good for men.” He believes that happiness is good for everyone in his writings he often talk about how it doesn’t hurt to have good health, good looks and money.
Epictetus believed in leading humans to better lives he was a strong believe is stoicism. He is a believer of nature and harmony. Epictetus say’s keeping ourselves happy with our everyday life requires two things watching our own actions and paying attention to the world and the actions that go on with in it.
All three of these philosophers believe in living life to its fullest; they all seem to want happiness in life as long as you are doing a good thing’s within your life. When you read their writings you can really see how they are pro happiness within nature. They all believe we all are determined to have our own lives because nature is full of things that can make us happy and that is what god intended us to do is be all we can be and stay happy and make as many right choices as you can.
5.) Sartre is best known for his French existentialist of the twenty century. He did not believe in Christianity this is because Sartre was a believer that there is no god and because there is not go there are no moral rules. Maybe he felt this way because he was a victim during world war two he was held by the Nazis. Sartre would say there are no values, he believes all events happen at random and that life is absurd. One of his ethics is bad faith he believes choose not to choose is bad faith.
Sartre was the developer of existentialism; he believed there are only one way to live and only one virtue to strive for. Existentialism is the thought that there is no human nature, that when we claim we have to be somebody or do something is just a poor excuse for not wanting to make choices. Existentialism is the building block to Sartre ethics. To me he seems like a crude guy; I guess you can say very honest. Even his writings are negative and to the point. But I really think his ethics are learning toward crude and honest because of his life experiences.
Sartre often talks about “if any choices could authentic so long as it is lived with a clear awareness of its contingency and responsibility.” I think he is saying that freedom is a choice you chose to be free if you become locked down that is nothing but for your choice. Something thing I can agree with but there is one thing I don’t and that is that there is no god. But I believe we do all have a choice and we should use them accordingly and not lean towards bad faith.
6.) First I would like to focus on Kant’s ethical theory focus on epistemology and metaphysic, epistemology. Kant likes to focus on morals of epistemology and the reasoning of metaphysics. Kant believes that “freedom is an ideal of reason; that without the function of freedom reason cannot act.” For example I think Kant is trying to say, because of freedom we learn from our actions and those actions and human life gives of knowledge to be able to reason.
Also, Kant’s criticism of utilitarianism is very famous; he believes that utilitarian theories actually devalue the individuals it is supposed to benefit. Kant also believed that utilitarian theories are leaning more towards inclination in humans for pleasure and happiness, not by the universal moral law by reason. In which I feel he philosophy is incorrect because, without human happiness and pleasure they would not be able to reason by moral law. Kant is also a strong believer of good will.
Kierkegaard believed in those three stages; which are the aesthetic stage, the ethical stage and the religious stage. The aesthetic stage focus on sensuous of joy Kierkegaard believes that children are the ones who have strong interest in this stage. The Ethical stage is where many people realize there are laws of convictions in which they believe there is always a way to become a good person. Last would be the religious stage which is where those things that make sense to you and you choose to trust god and love for the reason of your happiness. Both Kierkegaard and Kant are very religious they believe in god and are true believes of being happy and good human beings.
7.) Mills was a strong believer in utilitarianism Mills believed in that cultural, intellectual, and spiritual pleasures are valued more then physical pleasure he is very opinionated in that he believes that physical please are not as strong as cultural, intellectual and spiritual. I think this has a lot to do with his upbringing because he is well educated and very religious. But most importantly utilitarianism reflects on both his two ethical theory which are liberty and the harm principle.
Epicurus believed in hedonism which is, pleasure seeking which basically states the more look for pleasure the more it surpasses you. They believe the more pleasure the more pain is released. He believes everything we do we do for the sake that we will gain pleasure. He says that pleasure is good and pain is bad and we determine this the same way that fire is hot.
They both believe in pleasure but different aspects. Mills is more a believer that pleasure comes from cultural and spiritual aspects and explains how pleasure is valued. Where as Epicurus explains that pleasure as everyone has pleasure and pain, he goes into death on how we perceive pleasure but not as in depth as Mills does.
8.) While reading all the articles this first half of the semester I have came across a better understanding of ethics. Ethic is self is the study, questioning and justification of moral rules. There are many different types of ethics such as normative ethic which reflects the golden rule which treating others how we would want to be treated. There are applied ethics which is focused mostly on abortion and similar issues. Last but not least there is metaepthics which is the study of everything that exist in our universe.
I think my favorite theorist was John Stewart Mills, because of what he believes in. I also am a strong believer in the harm principle which states, that each individual has the right to act as he wants, as long as the actions do not harm others. I think almost all human go by this in their day to day life. Treat others how you want to be treated, we all live life and learn that is not the greatest feeling when you are put down by someone and or is not treated very fairly. If we all lived life by treating other how you would want to be treated we would all live in a better place and be a much happier person. I think this is what Mills is saying in his philosophy he believes in. I also like the fact that Mills utilitarianism I like how he believes in culture and spiritual pleasure. I think he was a great person and gave us a better understanding on how we as humans should live our lives.
Post 6 #476
Karl Marx was a well known philosopher he was a scholar and a political activist. He was labeled the “father of communism” He was a strong believer in communism but frowned upon capitalism. He thought of capitalism as immoral for a few reason. Marx argued with many issues because a lot of people say that communism is related to capitalism but Marx would disagree.
Marx argued that capitalism would have the same affects as previous socioeconomic systems had faced; he believe that capitalism will help to cause internal tensions and will lead to its destruction. Marx’s was not a big believer in social economic classes. From what I have read I feel Marx’s believes its not fair that the upper class have the most power and the middle class be stuck with less power when then work the hardest and to add to it he did not think it was fair that the lower class should be stuck working for less wages. He was not a believer let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Basically Marx believes capitalism was immoral because the labor work force was looked over, and he believed people where getting cheated out of life itself.
I think because of Marx’s philosophy focus on human nature and equality. In Marx writing “Communist Manifesto,” He wrote, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” In this statement he reflects what his society would be like. Marx wanted everyone to only have one wage. Therefore, I think Marx’s would envision a moral society as a non-class society he would want everyone to be equal and make the same wages. He would want to be fair to nature and humans as a whole and not judge by who is rich and or poor.
Marx argued that capitalism would have the same affects as previous socioeconomic systems had faced; he believe that capitalism will help to cause internal tensions and will lead to its destruction. Marx’s was not a big believer in social economic classes. From what I have read I feel Marx’s believes its not fair that the upper class have the most power and the middle class be stuck with less power when then work the hardest and to add to it he did not think it was fair that the lower class should be stuck working for less wages. He was not a believer let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Basically Marx believes capitalism was immoral because the labor work force was looked over, and he believed people where getting cheated out of life itself.
I think because of Marx’s philosophy focus on human nature and equality. In Marx writing “Communist Manifesto,” He wrote, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” In this statement he reflects what his society would be like. Marx wanted everyone to only have one wage. Therefore, I think Marx’s would envision a moral society as a non-class society he would want everyone to be equal and make the same wages. He would want to be fair to nature and humans as a whole and not judge by who is rich and or poor.
Post 4 # 343
I feel that Kant and Mills are two very different people.They believe in most of the same things but have different aspect towhat those things mean to them. There ethical theory are the same inthat they share a lot of the same values but because of who they areas individuals and their upbringing the view them differently. Onemajor one I will focus on is Unitarianism. In this essay I will focuson them as individuals then compare and contract at the conclusion ofmy paper.First I would like to focus on Kant's ethical theory focus onepistemology and metaphysic, epistemology. Kant likes to focus onmorals of epistemology and the reasoning of metaphysics. Kantbelieves that "freedom is an ideal of reason; that without thefunction of freedom reason cannot act." For example I think Kant istrying to say, because of freedom we learn from our actions and thoseactions and human life gives of knowledge to be able to reason.Also, Kant's criticism of utilitarianism is very famous; he believesthat utilitarian theories actually devalue the individuals it issupposed to benefit. Kant also believed that utilitarian theories areleaning more towards inclination in humans for pleasure andhappiness, not by the universal moral law by reason. In which I feelhe philosophy is incorrect because, without human happiness andpleasure they would not be able to reason by moral law.Kant is also a strong believer of good will he states that "good willis good not because of what it performs or affects, not by itsaptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtueof the volition; that is, it is good in itself." In his writing hewrites "like a jewel it would shine by its own lights, as a thingwhich has its whole value in itself." I feel this quote from hiswriting reflects that we are the jewel and our good will within oneanother is our light that shines upon us.I would like to focus on John Stuart Mill and some of his theories.John Stuart Mill was educated by his father and grew up with a strongreligious up bringing. He was a philosopher who had focused on manyethical issues such as the harm principle, liberty and his opinion onutilitarianism. Mill's believed that "it is better to be a humansatisfied rather then a pig dissatisfied." He also believed that ifyou are educated and a college graduate you should be granted morevoting power then someone who is not because you have more experienceand understanding.Mills was a strong believer in the harm principle and liberty. Theharm principle states, that each individual has the right to act ashe wants, as long as the actions do not harm others. Liberty involvesdefense of free speech. Mill would argue that free discourse is anecessary for intellectual and social progress. We can never be surethat opinions do not contain some kind of truth. For example, Millswould state harms may include acts of some kind of omission and orcommission; failing to rescue and drowning person counts as a harmfulact.As for Utilitarianism Mills believed in that cultural,intellectual, and spiritual pleasures are valued more then physicalpleasure he is very opinionated in that he believes that physicalplease are not as strong as cultural, intellectual and spiritual. Ithink this has a lot to do with his upbringing because he is welleducated and very religious. But most importantly utilitarianismreflects on both his two ethical theory which are liberty and theharm principle.In what I have pointed on both Mills and Kant you can see howthey are both very opinionated people. They have they same view inwhich they both believe in freedom as long as not harming others and,good will in a human. They both believe in utilitarianism butdifferent aspect of it but I think that is do to their different inupbringings and how they both have very strong opinion.
Post 3 #268
Spinoza's was born in Amsterdam in 1632; he was the son of asuccessful Portuguese Jewish Merchant he was a well educated man.Spinoza is best known for his ethics, in which most of his philosophyreflects his ethics. Most would say his philosophy is best describedas pantheistic. This is because pantheism views that immanentabstract God and or that the universe, nature and God areequivalent. Which helps to show how Spinoza is a strong believer ingod and nature it self which I feel has a strong impact in both hisphilosophy and ethics, when you read his writings you can see rightaway you can identify that those are Spinoza writings. Spinozastates "God is no longer the transcendent creator of the universe whorules it via providence, but Nature itself."One philosophy I want to focus on that reflects some of his ethic,is that he is a big believer of free will one philosophy that I wantto focus on to really understand Spinoza ethics. In his Ethics ofconatus guidance of reason, Spinoza states "life lived by the 'free-man' – is one that is lived by the guidance of reason rather thanunder the sway of the passions." Also, "everyone love himself, seekhis own advantage, what is really useful to him, want what willreally lead a man to greater perfection, and absolutely, thateveryone should strive to preserve his own being as far as he can."These two statements from Spinoza's writing I feel reflect back tofree will as a human being.In conclusion, I feel in today society we use free will to ouradvantage as human being's; which is a big part in Spinoza'sphilosophy. Our country is all about freedom and Spinoza would morethen like is proud that his philosophy might have helped out countryto make these decisions in our constitution of the Untied State ofAmerica.
Post 5 #370
Post Five
Kierkegaard was born in the capital of Demark, he grew up with bothparents; was very religious and educated. His father was a strongbeliever that none of his children would live past the ages of JesusChrist which is 33. I found this funny because Kierkegaard fatherlived to be 82 and his mother passed at 66. When Kierkegaard's fatherpassed away he asks Kierkegaard to become a priest in whichKierkegaard when on to fulfill.Kierkegaard became a strong believer in existentialism, which is thefocus on the meaning of essence of your lives. Existentialismquestions existence of human. Another concept is existence proceedsessence which state that through you as individual its how you createyour life that so the essence of existence. Kierkegaard believes inthe concept of dread for example when experienced by children whenfaced the possibility of responsibility for his or her actions, isone of the main forces in a child's individuations. Bad faith is lookbad upon bad use of freedom and is frowned uponKierkegaard believes that making choice without allowing your valuesreflect with your other values. He believes that choosing not to makechoices and flipping the coin is considered to be a refusal of onesfreedom. Freedom is a concept in existentialism is states, "Since manis free, and since he already exists in this world, it is impliedthat his freedom is only in this world, and that it, too, isrestricted by it." Kierkegaard thinks this is very important and tomake the right decision on how you choose to use your freedom. Hebelieves that bad faith is look bad upon; this is because it is lookat as freedom that is frowned upon.I feel that existentialism reflect on Christianity because theChristian religion reflects on good faith and existence to live onthis earth. Christianity also reflects on the freedom; each human isworthily of and until you betray that freedom you are worthily ofthat freedom. But they a strong believers that essence of existentsof human, they are strong believers in living life helping others andmaking this world a amazing place to live with all the rightdecisions and if you choose to make bad ones you correct it. This ishow I think existentialism reflects on Christianity. Kierkegaard is avery strong believer of the Christianity life and existentialismtheories. .
Kierkegaard was born in the capital of Demark, he grew up with bothparents; was very religious and educated. His father was a strongbeliever that none of his children would live past the ages of JesusChrist which is 33. I found this funny because Kierkegaard fatherlived to be 82 and his mother passed at 66. When Kierkegaard's fatherpassed away he asks Kierkegaard to become a priest in whichKierkegaard when on to fulfill.Kierkegaard became a strong believer in existentialism, which is thefocus on the meaning of essence of your lives. Existentialismquestions existence of human. Another concept is existence proceedsessence which state that through you as individual its how you createyour life that so the essence of existence. Kierkegaard believes inthe concept of dread for example when experienced by children whenfaced the possibility of responsibility for his or her actions, isone of the main forces in a child's individuations. Bad faith is lookbad upon bad use of freedom and is frowned uponKierkegaard believes that making choice without allowing your valuesreflect with your other values. He believes that choosing not to makechoices and flipping the coin is considered to be a refusal of onesfreedom. Freedom is a concept in existentialism is states, "Since manis free, and since he already exists in this world, it is impliedthat his freedom is only in this world, and that it, too, isrestricted by it." Kierkegaard thinks this is very important and tomake the right decision on how you choose to use your freedom. Hebelieves that bad faith is look bad upon; this is because it is lookat as freedom that is frowned upon.I feel that existentialism reflect on Christianity because theChristian religion reflects on good faith and existence to live onthis earth. Christianity also reflects on the freedom; each human isworthily of and until you betray that freedom you are worthily ofthat freedom. But they a strong believers that essence of existentsof human, they are strong believers in living life helping others andmaking this world a amazing place to live with all the rightdecisions and if you choose to make bad ones you correct it. This ishow I think existentialism reflects on Christianity. Kierkegaard is avery strong believer of the Christianity life and existentialismtheories. .
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
