8

Eugenics on humans, good or bad?

18 Jan 2017 21:24 | Author: blackfish766 | Category: Lake region electric cooperative essay contest

A Socratic View of Wrongdoing
Morality is a term that refers to our adherence to rules that govern human behavior on the basis of some idea of right and wrong. Ethics refers to our process of reasoning about moral rules. Whatever your concept of morality, it must address the human capacity to identify and choose between right and wrong and then to act accordingly. Socrates believed that nobody willingly chooses to do wrong [1]. He maintained that doing wrong always harmed the wrongdoer and that nobody seeks to bring harm upon themselves. In this view all wrongdoing is the result of ignorance. This means that it is impossible for a human being to willingly do wrong because their instinct for self interest prevents them from doing so. This is an extraordinary statement that strikes disbelief in many people going all the way back to Aristotle [2]. It seems contrary to experience that nobody knowingly does wrong. Perhaps you have personally witnessed examples of people who did wrong and seemed to know full well that their behavior was wrong. We propose that this belief of Socrates is true in a clear and simple way.

If you answered yes to the above questions, then you can accept the idea that nobody chooses to do wrong when they perceive that the wrongdoing in question will bring harm upon them. To the extent that we simply obey our instinct to benefit ourselves and relieve our suffering, we are not willing to harm ourselves. Socrates’ believed that persons who seek what they understand to benefit them are not trying to do wrong. They do not act for the sake of the wrong, but for the sake of obtaining the perceived good with which they are trying to improve their lives.

Comments
  1. author
    purpleswan215 17 Jan 2017 23:04

    Ask Yourself Two Questions:
    1. Do you believe that all humans have an instinct to benefit themselves?
    2. Do you believe that all humans, to the extent that they suffer, instinctually seek to relieve their suffering?

    If you answered yes to the above questions, then you can accept the idea that nobody chooses to do wrong when they perceive that the wrongdoing in question will bring harm upon them. To the extent that we simply obey our instinct to benefit ourselves and relieve our suffering, we are not willing to harm ourselves. Socrates’ believed that persons who seek what they understand to benefit them are not trying to do wrong. They do not act for the sake of the wrong, but for the sake of obtaining the perceived good with which they are trying to improve their lives.

    Evil , in a general context, is the absence or opposite of that which is described as being good. Often, evil is used to denote profound immorality. [2] In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force. [2] Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives. [3] However, elements that are commonly associated with evil involve unbalanced behavior involving expediency, selfishness , ignorance , or neglect. [4]

    The philosophical question of whether morality is absolute, relative, or illusory leads to questions about the nature of evil, with views falling into one of four opposed camps: moral absolutism , amoralism , moral relativism , and moral universalism.

    When it really comes down to it when the chips are down and the lights are off are we naturally good? That is, are we predisposed to act cooperatively, to help others even when it costs us? Or are we, in our hearts, selfish creatures?

    But even the most compelling televised collisions between selfishness and cooperation provide nothing but anecdotal evidence. And even the most eloquent philosophical arguments mean noting without empirical data.

  2. author
    brownmeercat755 18 Jan 2017 05:22

    Good luck on that. That is what the touchy-feely people claim, but have you listened to the news lately? Mankind is not inherently good, but evil. Mankind is born bad; they don t need to learn it. They do need to learn to be good.

  3. author
    User1490429664 17 Jan 2017 22:59

    Ask Yourself Two Questions:
    1. Do you believe that all humans have an instinct to benefit themselves?
    2. Do you believe that all humans, to the extent that they suffer, instinctually seek to relieve their suffering?

    If you answered yes to the above questions, then you can accept the idea that nobody chooses to do wrong when they perceive that the wrongdoing in question will bring harm upon them. To the extent that we simply obey our instinct to benefit ourselves and relieve our suffering, we are not willing to harm ourselves. Socrates’ believed that persons who seek what they understand to benefit them are not trying to do wrong. They do not act for the sake of the wrong, but for the sake of obtaining the perceived good with which they are trying to improve their lives.

    Evil , in a general context, is the absence or opposite of that which is described as being good. Often, evil is used to denote profound immorality. [2] In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force. [2] Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives. [3] However, elements that are commonly associated with evil involve unbalanced behavior involving expediency, selfishness , ignorance , or neglect. [4]

    The philosophical question of whether morality is absolute, relative, or illusory leads to questions about the nature of evil, with views falling into one of four opposed camps: moral absolutism , amoralism , moral relativism , and moral universalism.

  4. author
    User1491530702 17 Jan 2017 23:00

    nceee essay easy to learn

  5. author
    User1489054329 18 Jan 2017 01:22

    Ask Yourself Two Questions:
    1. Do you believe that all humans have an instinct to benefit themselves?
    2. Do you believe that all humans, to the extent that they suffer, instinctually seek to relieve their suffering?

    If you answered yes to the above questions, then you can accept the idea that nobody chooses to do wrong when they perceive that the wrongdoing in question will bring harm upon them. To the extent that we simply obey our instinct to benefit ourselves and relieve our suffering, we are not willing to harm ourselves. Socrates’ believed that persons who seek what they understand to benefit them are not trying to do wrong. They do not act for the sake of the wrong, but for the sake of obtaining the perceived good with which they are trying to improve their lives.

    Evil , in a general context, is the absence or opposite of that which is described as being good. Often, evil is used to denote profound immorality. [2] In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force. [2] Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its motives. [3] However, elements that are commonly associated with evil involve unbalanced behavior involving expediency, selfishness , ignorance , or neglect. [4]

    The philosophical question of whether morality is absolute, relative, or illusory leads to questions about the nature of evil, with views falling into one of four opposed camps: moral absolutism , amoralism , moral relativism , and moral universalism.

    When it really comes down to it when the chips are down and the lights are off are we naturally good? That is, are we predisposed to act cooperatively, to help others even when it costs us? Or are we, in our hearts, selfish creatures?

    But even the most compelling televised collisions between selfishness and cooperation provide nothing but anecdotal evidence. And even the most eloquent philosophical arguments mean noting without empirical data.

    This article addresses one form of that problem that is prominent in recent philosophical discussions--that the conflict that exists between the claims of orthodox theism and the facts about evil and suffering in our world is a logical one. This is the "logical problem of evil."

    The article clarifies the nature of the logical problem of evil and considers various theistic responses to the problem. Special attention is given to the free will defense, which has been the most widely discussed theistic response to the logical problem of evil.

  6. author
    User1489977713 17 Jan 2017 23:16

    Pursuasive Essay topics~ Terrorist attacks in the United States. Terrorism: it s high time to stop that war. Human cloning is wrong. Human cloning and family values. Greenhouse affect as a result of deforesting. Pollution is a consistent demolition of the earth. Anorexia is a cause of weight loss. Argument Essay topics~ Should the animals be used for scientific research? Is it humanly? Should the cigarettes smoking be banned as heroin consumption? Should drivers of automobiles be prohibited from using cellular phones? Should restrictions be placed on the use of mobile phones in public areas like restaurants and theaters? Casual Essay topics~ Define the basic causes of economic power of the U.S. Explain the major reasons for the high dropout rate in college. What are the causes of the computer revolution? What caused the emergence of the ozone holes in the upper atmosphere? Name your favorite city and give detailed reasons why you like this city most. Identify the main reasons of depression. How is it possible to sail through the blues? Explain the cause(s) of some clothing or hairstyle fad(s).

  7. author
    silverladybug259 18 Jan 2017 07:41

    Click here essay on human nature good or evil

    A Socratic View of Wrongdoing
    Morality is a term that refers to our adherence to rules that govern human behavior on the basis of some idea of right and wrong. Ethics refers to our process of reasoning about moral rules. Whatever your concept of morality, it must address the human capacity to identify and choose between right and wrong and then to act accordingly. Socrates believed that nobody willingly chooses to do wrong [1]. He maintained that doing wrong always harmed the wrongdoer and that nobody seeks to bring harm upon themselves. In this view all wrongdoing is the result of ignorance. This means that it is impossible for a human being to willingly do wrong because their instinct for self interest prevents them from doing so. This is an extraordinary statement that strikes disbelief in many people going all the way back to Aristotle [2]. It seems contrary to experience that nobody knowingly does wrong. Perhaps you have personally witnessed examples of people who did wrong and seemed to know full well that their behavior was wrong. We propose that this belief of Socrates is true in a clear and simple way.

    If you answered yes to the above questions, then you can accept the idea that nobody chooses to do wrong when they perceive that the wrongdoing in question will bring harm upon them. To the extent that we simply obey our instinct to benefit ourselves and relieve our suffering, we are not willing to harm ourselves. Socrates’ believed that persons who seek what they understand to benefit them are not trying to do wrong. They do not act for the sake of the wrong, but for the sake of obtaining the perceived good with which they are trying to improve their lives.