Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Jean-Paul Sartre Essay
As we grow and become an adult that is able to form our own opinion is almost like a rite of passage because reading over the six steps almost seems like I have been a part of each step at some point in my life. When I was growing up I think relating to Stage 1: The Punishment and Obedience Orientation was definitely part of my life. Of course we donÃ¢â¬â¢t want to get in trouble as kids so generally we recognize that the authority will provide a severe enough punishment that will stop us from doing whatever we did again. I put myself at Stage 4: The Ã¢â¬Å"Law and OrderÃ¢â¬ Orientation. Before I returned to college I wanted to join the San Antonio Police Department and I almost made it. I was excused from the application process at the third stage of the process because of 1 question. I have been in favor of law enforcement for probably 10+ years. I also believe my military past supports the argument of placing me at this stage. I also believe Stage 4: The Ã¢â¬Å"Law and OrderÃ¢â¬ Orientation best describes me because it is essentially how I have lived my life the previous 10+ years. From joining the military to trying out for the SAPD I recognize there are procedures and guidelines established to keep the world and our country a safe place to live. Of course there are people that try the law and want to stretch it to the brink and this goes both for criminals and politicians that use laws and loopholes for personal gain. Providing support for my decision is simple. I have a tendency to instantly report or confront someone that is breaking or stretching the law. I have confronted three people living at my townhome complex about dogs being off of leashes while being outside. It is against complex policy and I have reported all three individuals simply because I feel like this is my neighborhood and when kids are outside playing I will always assume a dog is aggressive because terrible things do happen. I have a german shepherd that is never off the leash unless inside the dog park fence. Cleaning up after the animal is also our responsibility because diseases can be spread through an animalÃ¢â¬â¢s waste. That is also something I have confronted tenants about and reported them for. KrishnaÃ¢â¬â¢s advice is all about standing by your upbringing. I take it to mean that you must always follow your path regardless of the outcome or consequences. Therefore, Arjuna is a warrior at war, because of this he must always fight when directed to fight regardless of the consequences. IÃ¢â¬â¢m not completely sure how you compare or relate KrishnaÃ¢â¬â¢s advice to care ethics because to me care ethics is not shown even in the slightest by Krishna. For me to say I would definitely fight the war would be wrong. For me to say that I would definitely withdraw would be wrong. Frankly, I have no clue how I would act or what I would do on the battlefield. I have been deployed and stationed in warzones but I had no relations or ties to the people we are at war with. Arjuna has friends and family standing on the same battlefield that may die during this conflict. This is not a factor I had to consider when being deployed. So, for me to say that I would fight or would not fight is not an answer I can straight up provide because I have never and will probably never be faced with that situation. Ethically, I donÃ¢â¬â¢t think I gave an answer that can be analyzed like it should be. I think that providing a run around answer may be a slight display of selfishness. I say that because I donÃ¢â¬â¢t know how to answer a question that involves going to war with family. I can say that if family is not included on the opposing side I would do what my country asked of me and go fight. In order to give a definite response to whether I could fight against family and friends I would have to be put in that situation. There are also consequences to not fighting when your country requests that you go to war. So, the consequences would also be going through my mind at judgment time. A virtue can be argued that the virtue is that person. For example I hold a virtue of cleanliness and honestly something that is out of place or something that is an eye sore will irritate me to the point of fixing the mess. Almost every day at work I notice something out of place such as a wrapper on the floor or stain on someoneÃ¢â¬â¢s desk. These examples bother me to the point of needing to resolve the problem. I believe a virtue can guide a person through their day-to-day life just like possessing morals. A strongly valued virtue is just as evident as someone with strong morals. Morals just like virtues can be practiced every day. However, we must practice virtuous acts regularly. After a while, these acts will become a habit and so the virtuous acts part of our everyday life and the person will be leading a life guided by his virtues. People who practice their virtues improve their skills and therefore become happier. According to Aristotle the person who struggles to acquire virtues is in the long run a better person and is much happier because of the extra hard work it took to acquire the virtue. By continuously practicing your respective virtues people will soon be acting in the right way based on the virtue the person is trying to master. I do not believe people are exclusively good or bad, but become good or bad according to their habits they develop throughout their lives. When a person learns how to use the virtues they become the characteristic of the person. A person who has learnt the virtue of generosity is often called a generous person because he or she acts in a manner that displays generosity in all situations. People are more likely to acquire virtues by observing others in our society. If we experience other people being kind to us and see the happiness it creates we are more likely to practice this virtue then if we were just told to practice it. Programs like Big Brothers Big Sisters help influence the younger generations so that they follow in the correct footsteps. Our virtues guide us to be the person we are and the person we ultimately want to be. Being virtuous can alter for the good, and the bad, a moral problem we may face throughout our lives. John CalvinÃ¢â¬â¢s work focused on individuals and how the individual could do nothing to ensure their own salvation. John CalvinÃ¢â¬â¢s line of thinking more closely relates to determinism. John relates to determinism because his theory is all about people not being able to freely guide their own salvation. Isaac Newton focused on nature and that the entire universe is governed by natural laws and because of this there is no freedom. Isaac NewtonÃ¢â¬â¢s line of thinking more closely relates to determinism. If the universe is governed by natural laws then the ability to be free cannot exist. Also the fact that human beings are physical in nature makes people susceptible to natural law and therefore freedom is an illusion. Charles Darwin was a big believer in evolution and that everything evolves at different stages and only the fittest survive. Charles DarwinÃ¢â¬â¢s line of thinking more closely relates to determinism. I believe determinism is present because nature causes the evolution based on defined parameters. This theory provokes survival which is triggered by something else such as a weakness that evolution fixes. Karl Marx believed more about social character and how our actions are determined based on the economy and socially determined. Karl MarxÃ¢â¬â¢s line of thinking more closely relates to determinism. This theory identifies a cause such as economic struggle being the reason for a personÃ¢â¬â¢s situation. Everything is based on social classes and your class is determined at birth. Sigmund Freud explains that people are determined, even the unborn because of our unconscious minds. Sigmund FreudÃ¢â¬â¢s line of thinking more closely relates to determinism. I say determinism because a life is extremely influenced by their parents so the ability to freely make choices does not exist. A choice is more often the result of someone elseÃ¢â¬â¢s influence. Lastly, Jean Paul Sartre to me is more of a realist because he discusses that people are born in to a situation and sometimes are unable to help their situation and social status. However, Jean Paul Sartre also believes people have a capacity to alter how they live. Jean Paul SartreÃ¢â¬â¢s line of thinking more closely relates to freedom. After reading all these theories, I feel like Jean Paul SartreÃ¢â¬â¢s theory is really the only theory that allows freedom of choices. Human beings from birth are placed in a class, but based on this theory all people have the ability to change their class or status. I believe justice is hard to pin-point because justice can be displayed in both ethically and unethically. Reliving an assignment I completed earlier talked about torture and whether or not I thought it was justified. I believe torture can stand on the same line as justice. However, I can also understand the opposite side saying torture is unethical no matter what form or fashion it is conducted. The elements of justice are open to interpretation and the consequence of justice is arguable. When implementing a form of justice there are always consequences to those actions. In order to fully understand the justice form you need to identify all angles of the decision. This is where the decision making becomes tricky because most people like to make a decision and run with it. However, you should always take a step back and weigh every possible decision and its outcome before implementing a decision. To better understand how a consequentialist works I will provide an example. For instance, if John Doe thought to himself one day that he was going to rob a bank he would most likely make a plan. First, John would try to decide if robbing the bank would even be worth it. Then John would scrutinize every aspect of the plan to ensure the best possible positive outcome. John would also attempt to predict the consequences of robbing the bank and failing because a consequentialist brings everything in to consideration. It is easy to identify the differences of right and wrong because everyone innately knows what is right and what is wrong. All human beings also have the ability to identify the consequence to our actions. Unfortunately people most generally act without thinking and therefore find themselves sitting on the wrong side of the law. This is when people find out how justice actually works.