Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Media influencing politics
Mass media effects on electoral process
The effect of media on politics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Media influencing politics
In chapter four of Johnathon Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind, Haidt talks about five different topics. Of these five, there are three that I am going to discuss; 1.) We do care about what others think about us, even if we do not think we do. 2.) We as humans will always tend to be dishonest when we think we can get away with it, and 3.) We will reason with anything to justify our original thought. His main thesis for this chapter is that our intuitions come first, then our strategic reasoning. With this chapter comes about a lot of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the word we use to describe something that bring the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain for everyone involved. It also takes the consequences into effect. I say …show more content…
He proposes an experiment where he had a large group of students rate their self-esteem and how much it depended on what others thought. Then he picked a few individuals who- question after question- said they were completely unaffected by the opinion of others. He took those individuals plus the other individuals who admitted to being affected by what others had to say about them, to a lab a few weeks later and had them talk about themselves for five minutes, speaking into a microphone. At the end of each minute, they saw a number flash on the screen indicating how much the person in the other room wanted to interact with them. With ratings one to seven (seven being best), you can imagine how it would feel to see the numbers drop 4…3…2…3…2…etc. Not surprisingly, people who admitted that they cared about what others thought had huge reactions to the numbers, and their self-esteem sank. But the self-proclaimed mavericks suffered shocks almost just as big. They might not have thought that other people’s opinions mattered to them, but when it showed the numbers right in front of their face, the indeed had a negative reaction. Haidt’s quote “Our reasoning is less for our own benefit, and more to convince others of our stance” sums point number one …show more content…
We definitely notice how quick people are to judge others by their statements and beliefs if they go against our own- but if it’s our own belief, we tend to defend it until the end. In this point, Haidt talks about the confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out and interpret new evidence in ways that confirm what you already think. People tend to think “there is evidence that supports my theory, therefore my theory is right.” The main point in topic number three is that people tend to be close-minded when it comes to being wrong. No one likes to be wrong, so we tend to find ways that support how we feel and what we think is right in order to justify out thoughts and feelings. Our intuitions come first, our strategic reasoning comes
With utilitarianism ethics, they consider the end product. Balanced out, the happiest result happens by all parties compromising. (COB,
“Utility” or the “greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." (Mill 7)
The capacity of the mind is seemingly limitless. Understanding that, the formation of a completely separate entity within the mind of an already perspicacious individual becomes less remarkable. The ensuing battle between William Wilson and “a second William Wilson” is quite simply a conflict between the two most basic components of a person’s intellect – mankind’s perception of self, and the benevolently interloping conscience (Poe 1570). The conscience is a universal concept. The majority of people are aware of their conscience, and, according to Dr. Allen Wood, a professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, people often “speak of their conscience urging them to do the right thing, or bothering them if they have done (or are thinking of doing) the wrong thing” (1). Considering Dr. Wood’s statement, and the persistent struggle between the two Wilsons, it is apparent that the second Wilson is a manifestation of the former Wilson’s conscience.
In the book Righteous Mind by Jonathan Hadit a social psychologist at the University of Virginia discusses why he believes people more specifically the American people cannot get along in today's society. Haidt’s research examines the foundations of morality, and how morality varies across cultures–including the cultures of American liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. Hadit considered himself a strong supporter of liberals and then he started his research. In the book, he discusses, how the American public is divided by politics and Religion. He covers the topics that no one desires to talk about because people who decide to touch on these topics end up in arguments because no one can simply agree on political and religious views. According to Jonathan Hadit, people cannot get along because people do not understand where the other party is coming from, and they want the other party to understand their point of view and to agree with them.
It shows that losing hope is already a negative mindset and never getting a better grade is the outcome of a judgment based on their negative mindset. According to the University of Southern Mississippi document “Cognitive Biases”, it states that “belief bias is the process of confusing the argument with the believability of its conclusion.” (1) It means that what a person believes will become his conclusion and the judgment that he made is not always in logic. This supports Haidt’s idea that the way you believe will turn out to be your judgment. Negative bias is built on thoughts and emotions working together to cause immigrant students to come up with negative thoughts on academics.
Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that explains whether a moral is good or bad;our actions affects not only to oneself but to others. Mill explains that pleasure is the absence of pain.The reason we do anything in life is to avoid pain. Also Mill interpret utilitarianism to be “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness”. Increasing the amount happiness produce greater happiness and reducing negative consequences to all.
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Commentators have lamented for years now regarding the polarized states of America. Pundits inform us that Not since the days of Reconstruction has the country experienced the amount of vitriol, misunderstanding, and resentment from political differences. While numerous people have witnessed and discussed this saddening occurrence, few have delved into how this phenomenon arose and what stakes it holds for our future. Instead, political minded people have droned on about more policy, for for too many, legislative victory is all that matters (unfortunately).
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the morality of our actions is judged according to the consequences they bring about. According to utilitarianisms, all our actions should promote happiness. For Mill, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. In this paper, I will discuss the objection to Utilitarianism that is only fit for a swine, and Mill’s responses to that objection. Those people who reject this moral theory will say utilitarianism does not grant human life enough value compared to that of a pig. Mill gives an effective response and states that humans can and are the only ones that experiences higher pleasures and qualities of life, which make a human's life better than a pig's life.
As with the emerging theory of capitalism in the 18th and 19th Century England, we could speak of “pleasure” as “pluses” and “pains” as “minuses.” Thus the utilitarian would calculate which actions bring about more pluses over minuses.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
The ethical theory of utilitarianism is associated with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism essentially is the theory that good is what causes a person pleasure and evil is what causes a person pain. Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes titled Act Utilitarianism because it focuses on individual actions A “right” action, according to Betham, is one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Where a “wrong” action is one that would cause more pain than pleasure. Before a person commits an action, they should look at the consequences that it can have on the individual and others. Hedonic Calculus is a method in determining how much pleasure or pain an action will elicit. Hedonic Calculus consists of seven criteria including intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent. Each criteria can be given a score between -10 (worst pain) to +10 (highest pleasure). The action becomes ethical and moral if there is an overall net happiness for everyone that is affected. An acti...
The pursuit of knowledge is determined by our ability to use the ways of knowing as tools in order to establish truth. Pursuing knowledge is being able to justify one’s beliefs with true information. However the issue becomes the differences between individuals’ justification and determining information as true. The idea of only having a hammer and fitting problems to the available tools is consistent with how we use the ways of knowing as tools. People will rely on one way of knowing more than the others because it is a stronger justification for them. In some cases people may use one of the ways of knowing that other people would not consider, consistent with fitting the problem to the tool.
When talking about pleasure there needs to be a distinction between the quality and the quantity. While having many different kinds of pleasures can be considered a good thing, one is more likely to favor quality over quantity. With this distinction in mind, one is more able to quantify their pleasures as higher or lesser pleasures by ascertaining the quality of them. This facilitates the ability to achieve the fundamental moral value that is happiness. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill offers a defining of utility as pleasure or the absence of pain in addition to the Utility Principle, where “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). Through this principle, Mill emphasizes that it is not enough to show that happiness is an end in itself. Mill’s hedonistic view is one in support of the claim that every human action is motivated by or ought to be motivated by the pursuit of pleasure.
A moral theory should be one’s guide when deciding whether an action is either good or bad, wrong or right. There are many types of moral theories to choose from, but we will only focus on two: utilitarianism and ancient hedonism. These theories meet in their pursuit of something greater, for hedonism it’s personal pleasure while for utilitarianism it is happiness for the greater number of people. In this work, the differences and the similarities of utilitarianism and hedonism will be pointed out after explaining them separately.