Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of media in manipulating social opinion
Social effects of the mass media
Effect of Mass Media
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of media in manipulating social opinion
In “The Wrong Way to Get People to Do the Right Thing”, Alfie Kohn uses rhetorical appeals to support the claim that appealing to self-interest is detrimental towards getting people to help others. In the beginning of the article, Kohn provides the basis for the aforementioned argument. He starts off by identifying the focus of the article: the usage of selfish appeals in order to motivate someone to do a desired action. He then provides several examples of the selfish appeals being used in advertisements, magazines, and other sources. In the examples, the desired action is to help others and the selfish appeals come in the form of promises of money, improved health, enlightenment, and other self-serving gains. The validity of the examples can easily be proven because most people have likely come across similar examples on their own at one point or another, This provides credibility to Khon’s initial claims, which in turn, makes the reader more apt to believe his primary claim. Khon’s claim that the usage of selfish appeals is detrimental towards getting people to help others is fully expressed in the remainder of the article. After creating the basis for the argument, Khon …show more content…
By describing the advertisements and other sources that use selfish appeals, the article made it easy for me to recognise the problem without having to be directly told that it is a problem. When the counterclaim was introduced, I was already opposed to it as a result of the introduction. The wide variety of sources that support Khon’s claim lead me to believe that there are likely plenty other sources that also support the argument. These three aspects of the article are why I am persuaded and why an an undoubtedly large group of people are also
Adam Smith’s moral theory explains that there is an “impartial spectator” inside each of us that aids in determining what is morally and universally good, using our personal experiences and human commonalities. In order to judge our own actions, we judge and observe the actions of others, at the same time observing their judgments of us. Our impartial spectator efficiently allows us to take on two perceptions at once: one is our own, determined by self-interest, and the other is an imaginary observer. This paper will analyze the impartiality of the impartial spectator, by analyzing how humans are motivated by self-interest.
...themselves. By adding further conditions or exceptions we could address specific objections and create more narrowly defined obligations. Further modifications of PP’ would not generally eliminate obligations, but it would allow choices to be made. In particular, for the affluent, doing nothing remains off limits so they would still be required to do what they can to alleviate suffering in places where they are in agreement that help is warranted. This derivation from the original argument plausibly supports the basic argument made by Singer that we ought to do everything in our power to help those in need so long as we need not sacrifice anything significant.
The idea of self-sacrifice seems relatively common-sense to most of us: we forgo some current potential good in order to maximise either the good of someone we care about, or our own later good. Richard Brandt (1972) includes altruistic desires in his definition of self-interest: "if I really desire the happiness of my daughter, or the discomfiture of my department chairman ... then getting that desire satisfied ... counts as being an enhancement of my utility or welfare ... to an extent corresponding to how strongly I want that outcome." The key point here is that by this definition of self-interest, an altruistic act must have a number of conditions in order to be classed as self-sacrifice. Ove...
Now, against Unger’s Pretty Demanding Dictate, there might be conflicting views proposed by the defenders of Murphy and Cullity. Murphy and Cullity would both agree that Unger’s Pretty Demanding Dictate is too demanding on us and therefore should have a limit at which point we become free from moral obligations. However, each author holds a different reason for supporting this over-demanding objection; Murphy argues for fairness as a constraint on moral obligation while Cullity argues for self-interest as a constraint.
People perpetrate seemingly selfless acts almost daily. You see it all over the news; the man who saved that woman from a burning building, the mother who sacrificed herself to protect her children from the bomb blast. But how benevolent are these actions? Are these so-called “heroes” really sacrificing themselves to help others? Until recently, it was the common belief that altruism, or selfless and unconditional kindness, was limited primarily to the human race. However, within the last century, the works of several scientists, most prominently George Price, have provided substantial evidence concluding that altruism is nothing more than a survival technique, one that can be calculated with a simple equation.
Most people feel that they should help the needy in some way or another. The problem is how to help them. This problem generally arises when there is a person sitting on the side of the road in battered clothes with a cardboard sign asking for some form of help, almost always in the form of money. Yet something makes the giver uneasy. What will they do with this money? Do they need this money? Will it really help them? The truth of the matter is, it won't. However, there are things that can be done to help the needy. Giving money to a reliable foundation will help the helpless, something that transferring money from a pocket to a man's tin can will never do.
Fed up, directed by Stephanie Soechtig and journalist Katie Couric, was released in 2014. Fed Up scrutinize the food industry in America, investigating why obesity is still a worldwide epidemic in adolescents and how The American Food Industry may be to condemn. Soechtig and Couric main premise is that the food industry has the greatest impact on adolescents’ weight. To that effect, Soechtig and Couric interview overweight adolescents’ ages 12-15 with a weight 180-400 pounds, President Clinton, Gary Taubes; an American science writer, and former and current officials in the U.S Department of Agriculture. Fed up certainly persuades its audience through ethos and pathos; however, the author could have developed their argument more with logos
Singer’s argument and viewpoint in the Ethics of Assistance proposes the argument of moral obligation in which he states that, “Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical attention are very bad things, and if we can prevent very bad things from happening, without sacrificing something of comparable moral value, then we are morally required to do it”. He claims that the concept of moral obligation should be revised and that we are obligated to help others in need, sacrificing something with any moral value. Although there are a few objections and exceptions to his argument, Peter Singer’s viewpoint on moral obligation is sensible, which everyone is obligated to prevent bad things from happening even though sacrifices of equivalent or in more value are in expense.
Ethical egoism is diametrically opposite to ethical altruism, which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if he sacrifices his own interest. Further, researchers justify and rationalize the mental position of egoism versus altruism through an explanation that altruism is destructive for a society, suppressing and denying an individual value. Although the ‘modern’ age unsubtly supports swaggering egoistic behavior in the competitive arena such as international politics, commerce, and sport, in other ‘traditional’ areas of the prideful selfishness showing off, to considerable extent discourages visible disobedience from the prevalent moral codes. In some cases, the open pro-egoist position, as was, per example, the ‘contextual’ interpretation of selfishness by famous German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, can be described as a ‘grotesque anomaly’.
Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets the ultimate criterion of morality in some nonmoral value (i.e. happiness or welfare) that results from acts (Pojman 276). It is contrasted with altruism, which is the view that one's actions ought to further the interests or good of other people, ideally to the exclusion of one's own interests (Pojman 272). This essay will explain the relation between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. It will examine how someone who believes in psychological egoism explains the apparent instances of altruism. And it will discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critque of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism.
Rhetoric is the art of effective speaking or writing, and persuasion. Most people use rhetoric numerous of times in their everyday life without their concern or knowing.
What appeal(s) are being used in this text (ethos, etc.)? Give a specific example from the text to support your answer.
How are people supposed to take pride in their country when the words spoken to them contain deceit and ulterior motives for war? Peoples’ own languages are betraying them when they are fueled with the intent of going to war with other countries. In “Words and Behavior”, English writer and philosopher Aldous Huxley describes the relationship between war and the human language. His essay claims that words are manipulated to encourage going to war, yet he does not agree with the words of deception that are used to give grounds for going to war. He expresses this through the repetition of “force”, his formal writing style, and appeal to Pathos.
These are the means that are useful to everyone for achieving and developing their plan of life (Angier, 2015: slide 14), e.g. money and self-respect. And thus, with choices being behind the veil of ignorance in the original position, will allow us to maximise the share of these primary goods in an equal manner (Leif, 2013).
Before a case can be made for the causes of altruism, altruism itself must first be defined. Most leading psychologists agree that the definition of altruism is “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare.” (Batson, 1981). The only way for a person to be truly altruistic is if their intent is to help the community before themselves. However, the only thing humans can see is the actions themselves, and so, selfish intent may seem the same as altruistic intent. Alas, the only way that altruism can be judged is if the intent is obvious. Through that, we must conclude that only certain intents can be defined as altruistic, and as intent stemming from nature benefits the group while other intent benefits yourself, only actions caused by nature are truly altruistic.