Individual vs. Social Consciousness in Hobbes, Madison, Hegel, and Marx Hobbes and Madison derive their concept of politics in the liberal tradition of individualism, sketching out an ahistorical notion of human nature. By contrast, Hegel and Marx view the political as a social construction understood as dialectic. From this dialectic arises a progressive self consciousness. This is a historical process.
The debate over abortion usually focuses on politics and law and the most frequently asked question tends to be whether or not abortion should be outlawed or continue to be allowed at the discretion of each individual. Behind these debates are the most basic of ethical questions which do not always receive the attention they may deserve. There are many opinions on this topic, however, a good place to start is whether or not law has the authority to rule over morality and whether the laws that we have now bring enough attention to the moral value of abortion. Along with these concepts abortion can also be viewed through the eyes of the utilitarian approach to ethics which focuses on both pleasure and pain and the ability to maximize pleasure over pain. To do so we must first know exactly what abortion is and then must also have a broad definition of what the utilitarian theory encompasses. Abortion by definition is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus resulting in its death. The utilitarian theory by definition focuses on the rightness or wrongness of the act in question and its effects on a community as a whole (Katz, 2004). Viewing abortion through the utilitarian approach, theorists would want to distinguish between the possibility of pleasure and pain instances of abortion over the amounts of
The question of right and wrong has been battled over for centuries. Many conservatives still believe that truth is absolute, while others disagree, saying that truth is relative. I believe that truth is absolute, and therefore, it is never right to do wrong.
The Attunity Code of Business Conduct lists the basic codes that are expected in any business and codes specific to Attunity. This system of inquiry will explore the guidelines listed below and others applicable to business decisions and the responsibilities of those entrusted with dealing with the problems that come with successfully managing a business. Extensive review of ethical guidelines is necessary to ensure all staff is aware of the ramifications of the lack of knowledge of this policy.
The purpose of organizational incentives is to change worker's behavior. Ultimately this is done through impacting their motivation and goal-based decision processes which have an underlying neurological component. This paper outlines the neurological components that are activated and influence this motivational process as they relate specifically to incentive rewards. Specifically, motivational theories are reviewed and correlated to neurological stimuli with an emphasis on the nucleas accumbens, ventral tengemental area, brain-lateralization, executive functions in the amygdala and hippocampus and the mesolimbic dopamine system's effect on motivation. It is suggested that while all of these systems play a role in incentive salience and subsequent behavioral impact, the dopamine system is the most robust and has the largest role. Through association and classical conditioning, incentive stimuli connected to dopamine release can modify and reinforce specific behavior. The amount of dopamine released by specific incentive stimuli is dependent upon the subjective perception of the magnitude of reward and the rewards salience (Depue & Collins, 1999).
Throughout our lives we must all make choices which bear certain responsibilities and consequences, whether positive or negative. We go through decision making more than once on a daily basis, like deciding what to eat, what to wear, where to go and how to get there, who to see and what to say. We definitely must make choices like going to school or not; do I accept who I am or try to change? Do I accept others for who they are or try to change them and how? With each choice we make we must bear consequences which may impact us and others either in a positive or negative way. The fact remains that we must take responsibility for the choices we make and the actions such choices bare, by accepting any end result.
In order to give an accurate answer to this question I will first need to set some perimeters; first of all define time. Time is a pre-established system, created by humankind, for describing the continuous passage of events. Time has as its basic unit the solar day, which is the average time it takes the Earth to complete one rotation around its axis. Another aspect of the question I have to define is perfect time being a relative term; perfect time depends on a specific location or time zone, but also on ‘who’ sets perfect time and how it is decided. Official time for all time zones is measured at the Greenwich Meridian (GMT) based on the Earth’s movements; therefore making this perfect time. Once we have set the perimeters is when theory of knowledge steps in. In order to claim you know your watch keeps perfect time you have to believe in it, it has to be a true and you have to be able to justify it.
To question the benefits of a fundamental approach to the study of history, is to essentially pose a question of insight and certainty. It is not merely about a holistic view, but more about if a holistic view is even possible within history. Is it possible to encapsulate the whole of eternity into a defining moment and still remain tangibly accurate? Is the macro and micro interrelated and interchangeable? And most of all, what kind of answers does a big approach provide that are beneficial? Would it, possibly, solve the nature of the human phenomenon? Can the way history is viewed contribute towards a Utopian world?
Although he lived 2,392 years ago, Aristotle’s ideas and theories of how people think of themselves and their life are still discussed today. What is good? What are we trying to achieve? Why, how, what, and when are all questions we as people ask ourselves all the time. Aristotle tries to help us understand ourselves and the questions that consume the human mind. The core of his ideas comes down to what appears to be may or may not be the true reality; the difference of true good and what seems good. In order to find “the good”, one must understand the function of a human and find the virtuous way of everything; finding excellence in all they do. All of this leads up to the ultimate goal of happiness. True happiness is being all you can be.