In my opinion, all actions have some kind of consequences, even if its a good or bad consequence, you'll always have one. My reasoning for all actions have consequences is that whenever you do something, there will always be something that will happen to you. Let's say you help someone in the hallway, you help them pick up pencils or crayons and folders, someone will be watching and may give you a reward. In At The Beach, Fernando was told not to go too far into the reefs because of the sea urchins, yet he told everyone that it was ok and that no one was watching. Fernando lead them too far where his mom told him not to go. They went in and little Javi ended up stepping on a sea urchin. Fernando lied to his mom about what had happened. He got
The captain’s stupid younger brother was a sailor on his ship. And he went crazy and was locked in the front bedroom where barney sleeps for 20 years. When the Captain was out in the South Pacific they picked up a shipwrecked sailor. The guy they rescued bunked with the crazy brother. And the next morning the sailor was dead the brother had strangled him.
Well there is always the fate aspect in everything that occurs in our lives but majority of the outcomes created from the individuals own decisions. It is up to the individual to determine what can occur, if they do one thing then something will be the outcome. A side from that, there is always the possibility of being at the wrong place at the wrong time which can have an affect of on the outcomes of life.
The next day Bagley went to the pond and he saw the fish and they talked about bagleys patch. he got it when he was watching his dad make the tunnel. a owl came and got his dad and took his eye out. Bagley told the striped fish how he felt about her and she said they cant be together. She came back and then she said he shouldn’t come back to the pond. He kept his promise and didn’t come back, but he dropped bugs in the stream that led to the pond hoping she got them.
Suppose something happens that it was within your power to prevent? If you didn’t have malicious intent, was it still you fault? Does letting someone die when you know you had the capability of saving them in turn make you a murderer? All of these are questions that philosophical thinkers have tried to answer for centuries. The Doctrine of Acts and Omissions holds that it is morally worse to commit an act that brings about a bad event than it would be merely to allow the event to take place by not doing anything to prevent its occurrence. In essence, there is an intrinsic moral difference between acting and the failure to act. In some ways, we bear more responsibility for what comes about as a result of our doing something than for what comes about as a result of our allowing it to happen. A proponent of the Doctrine of Acts and Omissions would say than in certain circumstances, killing is morally worse than letting die. Failing to give aid to someone bleeding out from an accidental amputation is no doubt bad, but surely not as bad as cutting their arm off in the first place.
Within those consequences, the most important factor is the level of happiness. This is labeled as the Greatest Happiness Principle. The principle states that a person should always act in order to yield the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. There is argument over the importance of quantity of happiness versus the quality of that happiness and the sources of these pleasures however this doesn’t necessarily effect this debate. This is because in order to have a definitive answer the man must qualify for both. The defining factor according to these ideals is whether or not the man by whatever means, causes a larger amount of pain and less happiness in both quality and quantity while alive than he would if he killed himself. If it is true that his life does not benefit the aggregate happiness of people then in the consequentialist view it would be permissible and morally acceptable for the man to kill
One main reason why people should not be held accountable in life-or-death situations is that something unexpected could happen. In the argumentative text, “The Cost Of Survival,” the author describes how people doing regular activities can cause unexpected danger. For instance,
Consequentialists argue that punishing someone for their wrongdoings will ensure that they are less likely to commit this act again, but
This principle states that if one acts freely, then one could have done otherwise. The principle is associated with the claim that a person is not to be held morally responsible for actions that are due to unavoidable situations, or situations in which one is coerced to do something. However, we may argue that these claims are not necessarily true. Philosopher Harry Frankfurt argues this in his essay Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. In the situations of which a man is threatened or coerced to do something, it is difficult to determine what the man’s actions will be in those instances in response to the threat, as his decision to act will be subjective. However, in the case of which coercion actually affected the man, and that the force or suggestion was solely the reason why the man acted the way he did, it seems that he is not held morally responsible. But when the coercion does not affect the man, he is morally responsible for his action. This leads to the claim that a person is only held morally responsible in situations of coercion, when the suggestion itself is the sole factor in one’s decision making process. However, the principle of alternative possibilities provides no such explanation or association with such a claim. For this reason, we may challenge the principle of alternative possibilities, as there are quite a few situations which are exceptions
The movie begins with Marlin and Coral, a lovely clownfish couple who are ready to be the parents of 400 unborn children. However, this happy home is destroyed by a marauding barracuda. Coral and 399 of her eggs are killed during the barracuda attack, leaving Marlin to look after the last remaining baby fish who born with a deformed fin, Nemo by himself.
Consequentialism is described as the theory that states actions are morally right based only on the consequences. Many of my actions are based in terms of consequences. Before, I used to take whatever actions that made my happy, but now, I think more about the results of my actions. More specifically, I think about the negative results. This has made into a bit of pessimist. Whenever I hear ideas, I am quick to think about the negative consequences first before the positive. This usually means that I am not keen on taking risks if the amount of negative consequences outnumber the good. I remember when I was first planning to come to George Fox University. When the idea first hit me, I was quick to think negative consequence of how expensive it was to come to the mainland for college. I wasn’t thinking how the university could benefit my future. Eventually, I figured the positive consequences of coming to George Fox outweighed the bad. On the bright side, at least in my view, being a pessimist has allowed to think farther ahead when it comes to planning. Every action has consequences, and my consequentialism has taught me the importance of thinking before taking action. If I take any actions, it will be the ones that have the fewest negative consequences for me and the people around
The movie begins at the new home of the clown fishes named Marlin, Coral, and their yet to be born babies. Coral dies attempting to protect their eggs from some spiny-finned fish. It is truly heartbreaking that only one egg survives. Marlin raises his only son Nemo like an over protective father who does not want his son to do anything out of his sight, Since one of Nemo’s fins is smaller than the other Marlin assumes that handicaps him. When Ne...
There are some cases where I am for this idea and there are some cases were I am against it. I believe that people are responsible for their actions but not all of them. They may be responsible for their actions but it wasn't their choice to carry out the action. Ultimately, the responsibility is theirs. If you were a pilot that carried nukes and the army demanded you to drop the bomb on a defenseless village. If you had a family back home that was living off your pay check and you decided not to bomb the target, your whole family would have to pay for what you thought was the right thing to do. What would the right choice be? To let your family suffer because you thought is it was wrong to bomb a certain place? This is like making someone choose between one form of torture or another, it doesn't really matter which one you pick, you get hurt somehow in the end. Another example is when you don't know that what you doing is wrong. Say you grew up on a different planet were it was acceptable to kill the weak people who had deformities. If you were to relocate to another place were it was wrong to kill the weak and you kill a person the first day you get there before you learn anything about any laws or anything. Would that person be responsible for their actions? He wouldn't the faintest idea of the laws in his new environment. It could have been just his natural instincts telling him to do what he does at home. I would think that was no one's fault.
There is no denying that CW’s Arrowverse is pretty amazing. What started off with Arrow soon spawned The Flash, then Legends of Tomorrow. After Legends of Tomorrow came crossovers with Supergirl, Constantine, and even an animated series, Vixen. This universe has had many successful moments including the introduction of the Flash, the Invasion crossover, Deathstroke, Flash vs. Arrow, and much, much more. However, this does not mean the universe is perfect. Other than Arrow season 4, there is one problem that sticks out to me whenever I think of the Arrowverse: there are absolutely no consequences.
In my opinion, the best lesson is actions have consequences for the story At The Beach.
All my life I have been taught to think before I act, in order to prevent myself from making a mistake. Yet, I have learned through my many errors in life not to duplicate my unfortunate actions. Many times I have been told to consider the consequences of my actions prior to acting. I have found, though, that this may not always be the best approach. I would not argue this to be true in any situation, however.