My grandmother always says, “You kids better stop fooling around, you are the future”. In Swenson’s article titled “The Dignity of Human Life”, He takes a more religious approach and argues that the true meaning of life is for one to be happy, and to achieve happiness one has to get to know themselves through their values through an ethical conscious. He starts off with “As a preparation for an existence, in the present, the youth of a nation are trained in various skills and along devious lines, according to their capacities and circumstances…But, in addition to this, which we may call a preparation for the external life, a something else is urgently needed” (Swenson 17). Swenson expresses that as we age, we are trained to contribute to life, …show more content…
He continues on saying “A view of life” is not something you can learn in school, at the library, or something which is acquired within a short time period, rather it is an individual’s knowledge of themselves as a person, of his or her own capabilities and aspirations (Swenson 17). In the eyes of Swenson, everyone yearns to be happy, and if you are not happy, then you have failed in life. Swenson talks about Aristotle’s belief in that true happiness comes from not only virtue, but also from goods and friends (Swenson 20). Swenson does not agree with Aristotle’s views on happiness and comes up with four reasons to justify his decision. The first one is, one who is self who is dependent on external objects and relies on them to bring happiness to one’s self is “self-captive to the diverse world of its desires”(Swenson 20). Which means you are not an independent person, you rely on objects to bring you happiness, and when that object is scarce, you are unhappy. Secondly, happiness found through materialistic things is uncertain. “This happiness is subject to the law of uncertainty, to the qualification of an unyielding, mysterious perhaps” (Swenson
The definition of compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others. As this definition shows compassion shows concern for other that every person would love to have. In The Chosen written by Chaim Potok, Mr. Potok really presents compassion in his book. Not only does he display compassion in one of his character but in every single one he gives them compassion that is expressed in different ways. He goes into detail example of compassion with each of his characters and really emphasizes the true meaning of compassion. Three main character that he shows compassion through in different ways are, Reuven, Mr. Malter and Reb Sanders.
In his piece, “Human Dignity”, Francis Fukuyama explores the perception of human dignity in today's society. This perception is defined by what Fukuyama calls “Factor X”. This piece draws attention to how human dignity has been affected recently and its decline as we go into the future. Using the input given by the Dalai Lama in his piece, “Ethics and New Genetics”, the implementing of factor X and human dignity on future generations will be explored. Through the use of the pieces, “Human Dignity and Human Reproductive Cloning by Steven Malby, Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues by Isaac Rabino, and Gender Differences in the Perception of Genetic Engineering Applied to Human Reproduction by Carol L. Napolitano and Oladele A. Ogunseitan, the decline on the amount of human dignity found in today's society as well as the regression in Factor X that can be found today compared to times past. Society's twist on ethics as a result of pop culture and an increase in genetic engineering has caused for the decline in the amount of dignity shown by the members of society and the regression of Factor X to take hold in today's society.
Women in America have been described as “domestic household slaves” referring to their status in society. Do the documents support this assertion? If so what is the evidence?
Aristotle accepts that there is an agreement that this chief good is happiness, but that there is a disagreement with the definition of happiness. Due to this argument, men divide the good into the three prominent types of life: pleasure, political and contemplative. Most men are transfixed by pleasure; a life suitable for “beasts”. The elitist life (politics) distinguishes happiness as honour, yet this is absurd given that honour is awarded from the outside, and one’s happiness comes from one’s self. The attractive life of money-making is quickly ruled out by Aristotle since wealth is not the good man seeks, since it is only useful for the happiness of something else.
All human beings are born with genes that are unique to them and make us the individuals we become. The right to exist as an individual in society achieving the best possible potential of one’s existence irrespective of any bias is expected by most humans. In the essay, ‘The new Civil Rights’ Kenji Yoshino discusses how the experience of discovering and revealing his sexual preference as a gay individual has led to him proposing a new civil rights by exploring various paradigms of the rights of a human being to exist in today’s diverse society. In exploring the vast demands of rights ranging from political or basic human rights we have differentiated ourselves into various groups with a common thread weaving through all the demands which
Millions of years of evolution have taken us from a single cell to a genetically unique animal we now call humans. This progression and advancement has taken us from beings with no language or sense of thought, to what is now an extremely advanced human race, exploring the world as we know it. In Human Dignity, Francis Fukuyama explains the concepts of what makes an animal human. This can be a very hard concept to grasp and even Fukuyama cannot give a clear answer. Fukuyama agrees that there is not solely one characteristic that makes an animal human, it a group of elements, which he calls Factor X. These elements are what should ultimately give animals the right to be treated with dignity, honor, and respect. If animals can develop an advanced
whatever it takes to keep them alive. That is not moral, that is legal. But
From chasing joy to evading misery, it seems as if the ultimate purpose in life is to achieve happiness. However, the question regarding how to define and acquire happiness has continued to be a disputed topic. Beginning back in 350 BC, Aristotle developed and supported his view on human happiness as the fundamental end goal of human life in Nichomachean Ethics. However, others did not universally agree upon Aristotle’s accounts and ideas about happiness. In around 550 BC, Solon preached his own theory on happiness in The Histories, stating that a person’s happiness cannot be determined until death, testing Aristotle’s beliefs. Solon attempts, but fails, to refute Aristotle’s belief that happiness is an eternal, virtuous state, by arguing instead that happiness is subject to change.
“Without Conscience" by Robert D. Hare is one aimed towards making the general public aware of the many psychopaths that inhabit the world we live in. Throughout the book Hare exposes the reader to a number of short stories; all with an emphasis on a characteristic of psychopaths. Hare makes the claim that close monitoring of psychopathy are vital if we ever hope to gain a hold over Psychopathy- A disorder that affects not only the individual but also society itself. He also indicates one of the reasons for this book is order to correctly treat these individuals we have to be able to correctly identify who meets the criteria. His ultimate goal with the text is to alleviate some of the confusion in the increase in criminal activity by determining how my of this is a result of Psychopathy.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s elucidation of happiness is based on a ground of ethics because happiness to him is coveted for happiness alone. The life of fame and fortune is not the life for Aristotle. Happiness is synonymous for living well. To live well is to live with virtue. Virtue presents humans with identification for morals, and for Aristotle, we choose to have “right” morals. Aristotle defines humans by nature to be dishonored when making a wrong decision. Thus, if one choses to act upon pleasure, like John Stuart Mill states, for happiness, one may choose the wrong means of doing so. Happiness is a choice made rationally among many pickings to reach this state of mind. Happiness should not be a way to “win” in the end but a way to develop a well-behaved, principled reputation.
As most people would agree, the 20th century contained some of the bloodiest and most gruesome events ever recorded in history. Why do words such as Hiroshima, Rwanda, The Final Solution, A Great Leap Forward, The Great Purge and so many more spark such vivid images of blood, torture and murder in our minds? And despite those horrific images, what is it that causes us humans time and time again to commit such crimes against humanity? Those are the kinds of questions Jonathan Glover, a critically acclaimed ethics philosopher, tries to answer in the book he had spent over ten years writing, Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century. Through Humanity Glover tries to answer those questions in a way which will give a solution as how we can prevent ourselves from ever repeating those crimes in the future.
He says, “it is impossible or not easy for someone without equipment to do what is noble: many things are done through instruments, as it were—through friends, wealth, and political power. Those who are bereft of some of these (for example, good birth, good children, or beauty) disfigure their blessedness, for a person who is altogether ugly in appearance, or of poor birth, or solitary and childless cannot really be characterized as happy; and he is perhaps still less happy, if he should have altogether bad children or friends or, though he didn’t have good ones, they are dead. Just as we said then, [happiness] seems to require some such external prosperity in addition” (NE 1099b5). This quote contradicts in many ways how Aristotle previously described happiness. Aristotle says happiness is self-sufficient, but needing money, friends and political power is not self-sufficient.
In the article “What makes us moral” by Jeffrey Kluger, he describes how morality is defined and how the people follow rules. Kluger discusses about scientific research that has been done to point out the important reasons of morality. Kluger explains that a person’s decision to do something good or bad is based on empathy, that humans tend not to do bad to those they sympathize with. Kluger also compares humans with animals and thinks that morality is the only thing that separates us from animals. I do agree with Kluger that people are born with a sense of right and wrong, but we should be taught how to use it. We learned to be nicer to those around us because we already know the type of person they are, and the morality we learned as children
Aristotle rejects the idea of universal happiness by explaining how Plato does not incorporate the large number of variants. Aristotle believes that good is not a single, common universal, because what it is to be good is particular to the essence of the individual. One might also argue that other common factors associated with happiness were wealth, pleasure, knowledge, and honor. Aristotle disagrees and found each of these limited to the notion of the good of man. Some benefits that may motivate them to seek better opportunities within their career may be the thought of money bringing happiness and also they will practice living the good life. Developing a good character requires a strong effort of will to do the right thing, even in difficult situations. The general idea that happiness is a result of the wealth is skewed from reality. Wealth is a means to happiness, not actual happiness, one who is wealthy, but is unable to actually use the money is not happy. Aristotle feels the good for man is something that is not dependent on anything else, so being wealthy is not something desirable. Happiness is not pleasurable sensations that can be gained or lost, it is what we seek when acting and is a condition of a person over a lifetime, not at one
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...