<http://mattward502.blogspot.com/> [Bad Blogs: Ward, Matthew].
I believe stealing is a serious offence because how a person comes to having a thought wave of stealing something, (which they are aware of as an act of breaking the law) is a sure sign of something ethically wrong.
I believe that in any case whether a person gets hurt or not, the crime that accounts the most; is the ethical code that everyone mutually accepts when they live within a society of morals, virtues and law; which exist to keep society within boundaries.
Perhaps if the majority of individuals were utilitarian (the greatest good for the greatest number) less people would steal, prices in shops would decline, taxes would decrease and products would be easier to afford, therefore; less need to steal.
Although, Immanuel Kant would disagree with the utilitarian view and would argue his categorical imperative. Kant would argue that a hypothetical moral system cannot persuade moral action neither can it be equally distributed because the system is too reliant on one-sided considerations.
I believe stealing is a serious offence because how a person comes to having a thought wave of stealing something, (which they are aware of as an act of breaking the law) is a sure sign of something ethically wrong.
I believe that in any case whether a person gets hurt or not, the crime that accounts the most; is the ethical code that everyone mutually accepts when they live within a society of morals, virtues and law; which exist to keep society within boundaries.
Perhaps if the majority of individuals were utilitarian (the greatest good for the greatest number) less people would steal, prices in shops would decline, taxes would decrease and products would be easier to afford, therefore; less need to steal.
Although, Immanuel Kant would disagree with the utilitarian view and would argue his categorical imperative. Kant would argue that a hypothetical moral system cannot persuade moral action neither can it be equally distributed because the system is too reliant on one-sided considerations.
27 February 2008 14:07
-------------------------------------------
<http://thinkingaboutbeing.blogspot.com/> [AGA: Poznanska, Agnieszka M].
In my opinion infidelity is incorrect in most circumstances. I for one would dislike it if it happened to me. I'd really like to stand firm and say that it is wrong in all cases. But i feel that i'd be lying if i said so. Before i say it is completely wrong, i would first have to relate it to an actual incident of infidelity because then i could argue for both view points within the relationship.
For example; A man with absolutely no intentions of being faithful to his girlfriend what-so-ever may argue that he was not cheating because his intentions of being faithful were never there. The woman however was faithful through all of the relationship. In which case, she was misled by her partner. Surely, morally this is incorrect.There is however a growing problem in today’s Western culture; which i would argue stems from such activities as drinking in access and the mixture of nightclubs. Put together, is not usually a good outcome.
A psychological hedonist may argue that the deep rooted interest in infidelity may be due to an unhappy relationship, therefore the partner will perhaps cheat in order to maximise their desire for pleasure.
In contrast, an ethical hedonist would argue that one would try to maximise their ethical pleasure. So in relation to cheating, one would hope that a person would not cheat because it'd be on their conscience and therefore may maximise pain. (Perhaps search John Stuart Mill, also believed in maximising pleasure and minimising pain).
27 February 2008 21:41
In my opinion infidelity is incorrect in most circumstances. I for one would dislike it if it happened to me. I'd really like to stand firm and say that it is wrong in all cases. But i feel that i'd be lying if i said so. Before i say it is completely wrong, i would first have to relate it to an actual incident of infidelity because then i could argue for both view points within the relationship.
For example; A man with absolutely no intentions of being faithful to his girlfriend what-so-ever may argue that he was not cheating because his intentions of being faithful were never there. The woman however was faithful through all of the relationship. In which case, she was misled by her partner. Surely, morally this is incorrect.There is however a growing problem in today’s Western culture; which i would argue stems from such activities as drinking in access and the mixture of nightclubs. Put together, is not usually a good outcome.
A psychological hedonist may argue that the deep rooted interest in infidelity may be due to an unhappy relationship, therefore the partner will perhaps cheat in order to maximise their desire for pleasure.
In contrast, an ethical hedonist would argue that one would try to maximise their ethical pleasure. So in relation to cheating, one would hope that a person would not cheat because it'd be on their conscience and therefore may maximise pain. (Perhaps search John Stuart Mill, also believed in maximising pleasure and minimising pain).
27 February 2008 21:41
---------------------------------------
On your question; 'Is this why some people don't admit to doing it as they fear they will be laughed at?'
I believe that its actually a case of when masturbation is brought up in conversation, the immediate thought is it's a discusting act. Well in my mind anyway.
Yet i know it is not a discusting act. But the connotations that come with the act and term of masturbation are mostly negative: i.e. something you do when you're single, lonely, undesired, desperate.
All of which are harsh don't get me wrong.
Everyone has their own thoughts on the term and use of the term. I'm not a reserved person but i do believe that such topics are simply out of bounds.
05 April 2008 20:23
05 April 2008 20:23
-------------------------------------------
<http://monkeyfeatures.blogspot.com/2008/03/drugs-and-alcohol-eastenders-and.html> [Greenwood, Lauren].
Drugs and alcohol is such a difficult topic. I'm indecisive as to where the margin is as to drinking this amount is wrong, and doing this drug is wrong.
According to the law such drugs as marijuana are illegal in the UK. So in relation to the law in the UK, it is being bad to use it.But morally, socially and ethically, is it truely the act of being bad?
Once one has added up the advantages and disadvantages of doing an act and the advantages outweigh the negatives i believe it can be seen from ones perspective as not being a bad act.
But in the eyes of others virtues, ethics and morals it could be completely opposite.
The decision of what comes under being bad will never be decided. And i sincerly hope this.
05 April 2008 20:40
05 April 2008 20:40
No comments:
Post a Comment