Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I like the line from the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal." I try to live by this ideal. I'm two races, black and white, and I consider myself equal to anyone. My parents taught me to be accepting of all people. My mother said, "Treat others as you would have them treat you." I think I do a good job following this and have always believed that if I was compassionate to others I could expect the same in return. My dad always told me that if I respected people they would respect me, but I've realized this is not always true.
I have often gone to a particular restaurant with my mother, who is white. Ninety-five percent of the customers and all the restaurant's employees are white, so I think it is safe to say it is a white restaurant. I always looked forward to going because they have fried fish night every Friday and I love fried fish. I remember the smell of the fish, the live band and the murmur of arcade games in the background. I never stayed at our table for long, since I always asked my mother for a quarter to "play a game, just one." Of cou...
I feel that Thomson?s argument was easily refuted although it was very imaginative and clever. It doesn?t seem that her idea of abortion only being wrong in the case of voluntary pregnancy will hold water too long. In my personal opinion I feel that abortion is generally wrong. I think that if the woman became pregnant through consensual sex, even if she did not want to have a child, abortion is wrong regardless of the contraceptive precautions that were exercised. In the terribly unfortunate case of rape I feel it is more than understandable for the woman to want to abort the fetus. Seeing how the fetus had no control over the situation it seems that they should be given the chance at life. Although it is very unfortunate for the woman to have to be in such a situation I think it would be in the best interest for everyone to have the child. Maybe someday the unwanted child could make a contribution to all of mankind. The one situation that is very complicated to me is in the case of the mother?s life depending on the fetus being alive. I feel that every individual situation should carefully studied while considering all possible outcomes.
The simplest description of free will, as conceived by such philosophers as David Hume, is simply that free will is, “the ability to choose an action to satisfy a desire” (Hoefer). However, modern philosophers have mostly rejected this definition because it is known that nonhuman animals also act on their wants and needs but lack the intelligence to consider their actions as free choices. A more complex assessment of free will, better differentiating between humans and animals, is that the ability of humans to choose actions flows from the relationship between their animal desires and intellects. This means that people's actions are free when they have intelligently determined the best decision to make in any situation, even if their choices conflict with what they truly want, or their base animal desires. By conquering their basic instincts to make rational, informed decisions, humans have exercised free will, which animals cannot do
David Hume sought out to express his opinion in which sentiment is seen as the grounding basis for morality. This sentiment is acting as the causal reasoning for why we have morality or act in a moral way. David Hume, as well as Kant, believe that causal necessity governs humans lives and actions. In this essay, I will show how Hume, provides an argument in favor of sentiment being the foundation of our morality, rather than his predecessors who favored reason. To do this, I will begin to outline Hume’s theories, highlighting his main ideas for grounding morality on sentiment and bring up some possible counterarguments one of which being Immanuel Kant's theories and how that might potentially weaken his argument and how the roots of morality
...rce of all morality seem too lifeless and lacking the human element. Hume’s attempt to display morality as a phenomenon makes more sense to me, since morality has been and will continue to be observed and can be replicated many times. Though I believe Hume’s overall outlook on morality to be more fitting as a whole, there are certainly divisions of Kant’s work I find very sustainable. For instance, Kant’s rationalization of god through the highest good of morality seems plausible, since morality without an obtainable ideal is certainly useless. However, including god in the discussion of morality is difficult due to god not being a naturally occurring sentiment that would affect judgment. Both stances on the subject of morality are very valid as well as very different, but I believe both feelings and reason are necessary to find an accurate moral philosophy model.
Like I said before freewill is a topic that philosophers have argued about over the years. Most times when the question ‘do you have freewill?’ is asked, a lot of individuals usually say they are free even without thinking twice. Although there are a lot of philosopher that believe we all have freewill and there are also other philosopher who have spoken up and tried to prove their point that humans have no freewill. Philosopher that argue that humans have no freewill are called the determinists. The determinists argue
The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.” ― Aristotle; for the previous reasons I firmly believe that we are far from the point where everyone is treated as an equal. I do however have faith and hope that one day we can live in a country where people aren’t judged the color of our skin, the people we love, or the religion we chose to follow but until we reach that point we will still be fighting the fight of civil right.
Kant, Immanuel. "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Immanuel Kant." Fifty Readings Plus: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. Donald C. Abel. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 404-16. Print.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he thoroughly indicated a well-defined direction in order to achieve our true nature to which we seek happiness. For Aristotle, to be human means to be a rational animal who flourishes through reason to achieve the highest human good. To achieve happiness, one must li...
Being a female and a black individual, is it naive of me or daringly optimistic to believe that one day everyone can be treated equally and help one another prosper. As Martin Luther King, Jr. believed that the world would be equal opportunity despite his politics of location, can’t I too.
We live in a world full of many societal issues. The aspects that determine whether one will have a successful or unsuccessful life is due to their characteristics such as race, gender, and social status. In the book Is Everyone Really Equal, Ozlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo’s exigence is to express the following issues and to encourage the reader to work upon changing the world through social injustice, oppression, power, and community.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” (Declaration of Independence,1776)
In Aristotle’s novel The Nicomachean Ethics, his main concern is how humans are able to reach eudaimonia where eudaimonia means flourishing, happiness and for the purpose of this paper, the good life. Aristotle holds that happiness is the greatest human good and that people recognize that they need this to live a good life. People are able to come to this understanding but disagreements arise on what happiness truly is. Most people view happiness as being synonymous with pleasure but those who seek pleasure are not living the good life because they tend to go looking for it in the wrong places. Another view of happiness is that it involves honor. Aristotle thinks that
Aristotle once stated that, “But if happiness be the exercise of virtue, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be the exercise of the highest virtue; and that will be the virtue or excellence of the best part of us.” (481) It is through Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that we are able to gain insight into ancient Greece’s moral and ethical thoughts. Aristotle argues his theory on what happiness and virtue are and how man should achieve them.
If we have free will then we have choices and we make a choice by reasoning. We also have free will to choose how we behave in a good way or a bad way. We can choose by emotion. Emotions can be extreme or not as extreme, by the way we handle things. We choose how to handle things. Sometimes they could lead to consequences and they could be serious. An example is we either choose to go to work or hang out with friends and have a fun time. The better choice is to go to work instead because we have
Over the years, there has been an extended running controversial debate as to whether free will truly needs an agent to encompass a definite ability of will, or whether the term “free will” is simply a term used to describe other features that individuals may possess, which leads to the controversy of whether free will really does exist. The result of free will is assumed to be human actions, that arise from rational capabilities, which as a result means that free will is depended normally on are those events, which leads us to believe that the opportunity of free action depends on the leeway of free will: to state that a person acted freely is simply to say that the individual was victorious in acting out of free choice (Van Inwagen 1983).