The Effects of Bronfenbrenners Ecological Systems, Piagets Theory of Cognitive Development, and Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development in A Child Called “It”, a Book by Dave Pelzer

In the book A Child Called “It” by Dave Pelzer, the reader learns how differently

Pelzer developed compared to most children. Because of the situation that he was raised in, he goes through many stages of human development in a different way and at different points of his life when compared to his peers. The effects that Bronfenbrenners Ecological Systems, Piagets Theory of Cognitive Development, and Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development all had on Peltzer are very evident in this book.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Model

Unfortunately, Pelzer was not protected by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological systems. For most people, these ecological systems are what makes everything ‘click’, or connects every aspect of our lives. (Feldman, 2013). However, for Dave, everything was kept separate, causing him to have negative mesosystems. Because his mom was not involved in his schooling, Dave had little to none motivation to do well in school. He was held back in first grade and was constantly getting in trouble for stealing food. He is known as a bad kid, or the “food-thief”, and states that his principal knew who he was because of how often he was getting caught stealing food. Pelzer would get so scared when sent to the principal’s office in fear that the principal would call his mom, which he knew would make things worse for him at home. His mom would punish him for stealing the food, but seemingly did not care about how well he did in school. For example, when his teacher sent a letter home to his mom about how well he had been doing in class, Dave was so excited to show her. But, his mom tore the letter to shreds, and shouted at him that he would never impress her, and she wished he was dead (Pelzer, 1995, pp. 104). His mom’s lack of support for his schooling caused him to fail to care about his own education.

Another example of a mesosystem that has failed Dave is the relationship between his ‘friends’ and his family. Although Dave didn’t have typical friends, the closest thing he had were the neighborhood boys who he was, on very rare occasions, allowed to play with.

Read more

Human Morality in Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, Friedrich Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, and Jack London’s The Call of the Wild

From the mid-nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century, the idea of morality began to change and evolve. Prior to this time, the Bible and its teachings had been the primary influence of morality. Divine authority had decided the separation between what is right and what is wrong. Actions that betrayed God or others were labeled as sinful and evil, while actions that demonstrated altruism and sympathy were labeled as good. But the relationship between morality and heaven had begun to fade with the new philosophies and theories of the nineteenth century. In 1859, Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species divorced human morality from the metaphysical world and instead linked morality to the physical world of evolution. Thus, the theory of natural morality was created. Morality was not considered acquired from religion or societal norms, but rather inherited from natural selection. To concur and expand, in 1887, Friedrich Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals strayed away from the religious definition of morality and instead related morality to the history of man. These two ideas are brought together in Jack London’s novel The Call of Wild, which further discusses Darwin’s ideas on the morality in civilization versus the morality in the wild and Nietzsche’s ideas on master versus slave morality.

Throughout his book, Charles Darwin rejects the idea of morality stemming from religion. Instead, he focuses on the theory of natural selection, which is defined as “the struggle for existence”. This theory entails that animals that have adapted to their environment have a better chance of surviving and thriving by producing similarly well-adapted offspring. For instance, Darwin writes, “The most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave the most progeny”. Through this process, the animal’s main goal is to survive. In order to do this, they must be able to fight or hide from other animals. For example, female peacocks choose to mate with male peacocks that have big, strong, and colorful tails. These tails represent their ability to fight off weaker peacocks and survive. This survival of the fittest mentality serves to better the species. As Darwin states, “What natural selection cannot do is to modify the structure of one species, without giving it any advantage”. In the case of the peacocks, since only the peacocks with strong and colorful tails survive and have the chance to mate, their offspring will also have strong and colorful tails. In this way, hardly any weaker peacocks will be left in the species. The theory of passing physical attributes through natural selection can be expanded to passing emotional and moral attributes as well. Darwin explains, “Man is a social being” and interacts with a family or community.

Therefore, “he would inherit a tendency to be faithful to his comrades”. Darwin suggests that sympathy is the key to survival between social animals. This sympathy is evident when animals can sense that another animal is in danger. In this way, when animals hunt or travel together, they defend one another from harm or distress. This theory explains why individual animals would put their own life at risk for the safety of the community. Darwin claims that the demonstrative character of sympathy is inherited through natural selection. Since sympathetic animals thrived by living in communities, this sympathy must be passed down for their offspring to continue to thrive. With this logic, those animals that were not sympathetic lived in isolation and ultimately did not survive, making them unable to produce not sympathetic offspring. In this way, the idea of natural morality reins true: morality is inherited. This idea rejects the traditional view of morality. Darwin suggests that morality is not taught or defined by what religion condones as good or evil. Instead, Darwin claims that morality stems from evolution and is inherently passed down. Through this, human morality has changed and evolved as humans have evolved, but it remains a part of us nonetheless. Friedrich Nietzsche’s idea stem from Darwin’s. Similarly, Nietzsche separates the ideas of morality and religion. Nietzsche distances himself from studying the origins of morality, or “behind the word,” and instead emphasizes the value of studying the history of morality through humans. If one understands how humans developed the concepts of good and evil, and then questions these values, one can attempt to determine if our values of good and evil assisted or obstructed our growth as humans. Nietzsche states, “We need a critique of moral values, the value of these values themselves must first be called in question—and for that is needed the conditions and circumstances in which they grew, under which they evolved and changed morality as a consequence”.

The key here is that understanding morality must transpire beyond simply accepting these definitions as ultimate truths and instead understand how these definitions came to be. Nietzsche, similarly to Darwin, argues that morality and its definition is developed and changed by humans and not religious teachings. To further flourish his definition of morality, Nietzsche introduces the idea of master morality versus slave morality. Nietzsche traces the origins of the word “good” as “the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good”. Therefore, the core of this master morality is the nobility. In this sense, it is the masters that “established themselves and their actions as good” because they have the social standing to do so. This master tags “good” as strong and noble and sees “bad” as weak, common man. Nietzsche praises this master because he is a sovereign individual. The master is described as autonomous because “this emancipated individual, with the actual right to make promises, this master of a free will with this mastery over himself gives him mastery over circumstances”. In this way, only the master has the ability to make promises because he has control over himself and his future. The master, as Nietzsche would say, has the will to power. This will to power is the master’s main driving force and allows him to strive for greatness. With this theory, Nietzsche determines masters as the creators of morality because they have completely control over themselves and the circumstances of their society. Slave morality, on the other hand, is simply a reaction to the master morality. Slave morality is synonymous to ressentiment. Nietzsche writes, “In order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external word; its needs, physiological speaking, external stimuli to reaction at all—its action is fundamentally reaction”.

Therefore, since slave morality is a reaction to oppression, these slaves begin to resent their oppressors. Through this mindset, the slaves tag themselves as “good” and their masters as “bad.” This slave morality can be seen in priests, who highly believe and worship religion. Priests fall to this slave morality because their religion denies them of pleasure and the ability to gain control over these pleasures. In this way, religion oppresses the priests and their will to power. Nietzsche, similar to Darwin, dislikes the idea of morality and its relation to religion. Nietzsche praises the master because he has control of himself, which in turn allows him to be the master of his own morality and define the relation between good and bad. However, the slave, or in this case the priest, must resign all control over to religion; thus, forfeiting the will to power. Jack London intertwines both Darwin’s and Nietzsche’s ideas on morality in his novel. Call of the Wild centers around a dog named Buck who lived in the civilized Santa Clara Valley of California. But Buck’s life is completely altered when he is sold as a sled dog to assist humans search for gold in the North. As Buck is exposed to the harsh reality of the wild, London calls upon Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. Following Darwin’s theory, Buck begins to steal extra food from his masters in order to survive. To reflect on this, London writes, “This first theft marked his adaptably, his capacity to adjust himself to changing conditions”. However, Buck does not truly realize that the morality of civilization does not exist in the wild until “Curly’s face was ripped open from eye to jaw” and she was ultimately killed by a dog named Spitz. Here, Buck understands that the survival of the fittest entails to kill or be killed. London describes Buck’s ability to catch on to Darwin’s ideas of survival as “instincts long dead became alive again”. In this way, London suggests that Buck’s primitive instincts were not dead in civilization, but rather hidden. This reawakening of primal instincts demonstrates that these instincts have been passed down to Buck by previous dogs in his species. Similar to Darwin’s theory of natural morality, emotional and moral attributes are passed down and not taught. London continues to explain Buck’s journey in the wild through Nietzsche’s theories.

For instance, Curly’s death inspires a conflict between Buck and Spitz. This rivalry alludes to Nietzsche’s theory of the master-slave morality. Between Buck and Spitz there was a constant struggle to rule or be ruled. Buck originally accepts the slave morality, or the civilized morality, and allows Spitz to be his master. But after constant taunting from Spitz, Buck adopts the master morality and kills Spitz. Here, Buck is seen exercising his will to power and as a master, “Buck possessed a quality that made for greatness”. In this instance, Buck takes control of his circumstances and “the successful champion, the dominant primordial beast who had mad his kill and found it good”. This shows that Buck distances himself from the slave morality of abiding to rules of civilization and instead finds pride and satisfaction from his new master morality. Therefore, all three authors depart from religious influences on morality. Darwin claims that sympathy and natural morality is passed down from animals in one species by natural selection. In this way, morality develops through evolution. Nietzsche expands on this theory by claiming that morality has evolved and changed by humans throughout history. Nietzsche praises the master morality and the master’s will to power and rule over himself. On the other hand, Nietzsche criticizes slave morality because slaves are not autonomous being and fall under the control of forces such as religion. London reflects both these theories through Buck’s journey in the North. Buck’s survival instincts in the wild allude to Darwin’s idea of natural morality, while Buck’s ability to thrive in the wild and fight for himself mimics Nietzsche’s master morality. In both cases, the traditional idea of morality and its relation to the Bible gets left behind for a new sense of morality that develops through humans themselves.

Read more

The Best Example Of The Implementation Of The Theory of Broken Windows in New York

It may be surprising for some of us to learn that the duties of the police do not just involve fighting crime, apprehending criminals, chasing thieves and other ‘crime-busting’ duties, but Include traffic control, dealing. With community and social nuisance problems, attending sports/social events. crime prevention adVice and many other less pressing tasks, in other Words, ‘order maintenance‘. The police force as We know it today has changed radically from the first policemen that patrolled the streets in the 19th century and criminologists have recently played a large part in influencing police strategies. Recently, a return back to the early days of maintaining order has seemed to have emerged with the appearance of the ‘broken windows theory, an approach to policing that emphasizes creating and maintaining orderly public spaces. Suggesting that continuing urban decay of a community Will lead to higher levels of crime and disorder.

In order to determine whether the core function of the police should be to maintain order, it is useful to understand Why the police force was created in the first place, to look at the theory in practice, and to evaluate its success on crime rates. Typically, the task faced by the police in the early l9th century was that of maintaining order. The role of the police at his time, before a professional ‘police force‘ was established. Was to maintain a Visible presence and police were literally ‘watchmen’, observing and dissuading unruly public disorder by their presence.

The 19th century was a time of great unrest, stemming from homelessness and social deprivation. as towns grew in size and the Industrial Revolution Whilst creating great wealth, conversely created poverty on a massive scale. Mob power grew out of the Working classes’ struggle against destitution and hunger. While homeless children and drunks roamed the streets. London itself had doubled in srze and the problems it faced. With a lack of adequate housing and the struggle for basic needs, spread outwards to neighboring counties from its metropolitan core. As riots, strikes and public disorder increased, the beadles and watchmen employed to maintain order were seemingly ineffective and a need for a professional police force intensified.

Robert Peel as Home Secretary in 1322, played a malor role in establishing the Metropolitan Police. Whose duties included urban discipline and prevention of crime with police enjoying extended powers of arrest, Despite much opposition in England. With major concerns as to who governed the new police and who paid for them, parliament agreed. With Peel and the Metropolitan Police Force Was created. In 1829, the first policemen were employed and told to be “Vigilant and active” whilst patrolling the streets, their object now being to ‘prevent crime’. Criminals were stereotyped as belonging to the lower classes and included drunks, the II’lSh, prostitutes and the homeless. As the century Wore on, more and more counties began to follow the Metropolitan lead and various Acts of Parliament ensured that by the end of the 18505, a peak number of new police forces had been achieved.

The police force we know today has changed from the role of watchmen and developed into the more active role of law enforcement, it has been shaped, reformed and revised since those early fledgling Peelers tackling mob rule. But is its core function still to maintain order? Currently, members of our society have an expectation to be able to go about their daily business, within an orderly community, without encountering problematic situations that undermine their feelings of safety. Neighborhoods may differ in. What they perceive to be orderly behaviour but the disorder can typically be defined as “Behavior that violates widely accepted standards and norms of behaviour, and about which a broad consensus exists, in spite of racial, ethnic and class differences.” (Kelling, 1996) The police play an important role in maintaining order, acting as Visible figures of authority, called upon to assert their authority When the standards the community has placed Within its locality break down.

A strong community Will, in effect, police itself but the presence of uniformed patrolling officers adds to their feelings of security and seemingly helps to keep a status quo of normal, acceptable behavior research has shown.  However, employing more officers on the beat, making more arrests, and maintaining a visible presence does not actually reduce crime, even though people may have feelings of increased safety and consequently assume a reduction in the levels of crime. Therefore, Would a more rigorous method of order maintenance be effective in reducing crime, and should this be central to police duties? The “broken Windows” theory attempts to offer a solution to reduce more serious crime.

Based on a stringent method of order maintenance by predicting the early. Warning signs of potential criminal activity. In essence, the “broken Windows“ theory (James G Wilson & George L Kelling, 1982) predicts that if the physical signs of urban decay, such as a broken window, vandalism, graffiti or minor incivilities such as drunk and disorderly behavior and harassment from beggars or teenagers remain untended and unchecked. then this will lead to more serious crimes being committed. This theory attempts to illustrate hoW the gradual degradation of a place leads to higher levels of crime and disorder.  “If the first broken Window in a building is not repaired, the people who like breaking windows will assume that no one cares about the building and more Windows will be broken.

Soon the building will have no windows.” The highly visible sign of a broken Window (or graffiti. litter etc) signifies to a potential criminal a lack of control where disorderly conduct has been allowed to flourish and suggests to them a community vulnerable and open to criminal activity. Consequently, it undermines the Willingness and ability of local residents to enforce social order and control. Moreover, residents Withdraw from enforcing neighborhood social controls, allowing further incivilities to take place. The criminal, on observing the signs of urban decay may conclude that this lack of order maintenance is his ‘green light to carry out criminal activities. The so-called ‘broken Window‘ in effect acts as his ‘open door’ to crime. Maintaining order may seem trivial and not as important as tackling some of the more serious crimes that beleaguer our streets. At first glance, violent crimes may appear to produce a more plausible sense of fear in the community.

There is, however, a real sense of vulnerability felt by citizens having to deal With disorderly conduct on a daily basis, in fact, confrontations of this kind can seem as frightening as dealing with an intruder. It is this vulnerability that criminals prey on, as a strong community With a zero tolerance of disorder Would prove to be a greater deterrent to a potential criminal. The best example of implementing the broken Windows theory I came across was in New York under the mayorship of Rudolph Guiliani. In the early 19905 of New York City, Rudolph Guiliani Came to power, and William Bratton was inaugurated as the new Police Commissioner of the NYPD, This partnership, using the ‘broken Windows‘ theory declared war on the drunks and homeless truant children, the prostitutes, and unsolicited Window screen Washers that had plagued New York City, With Bratton announcing: “We Were going to fix the broken Windows and prevent anyone from breaking them again.”

New laws were introduced givmg police extended powers of arrest and patrolling officers were encouraged to show ‘zero tolerance‘ to citizens committing minor facilities. Drunks on the street were incarcerated, as were street hookers; litter droppers and graffiti artists were fined and cautioned and rowdy teenagers were told to ‘keep quiet. By concentrating police resources on maintaining order real results were being produced as the theory seemed to be Working. Felony crimes fell by 27% in the first two years of implementation, murders decreased by 72% between 1990 and 1998 and violent crime overall fell by 51%, (see WWW.sheldensays.com). The streets were reclaimed and the public rejoiced, Researchers such as Wesley Skogan were heralding the success and reporting that there was indeed a causal link between urban decay and serious crimes.

Many other criminologists, however, examined the findings and found them to be inconclusive. Bernard Harcourt, (2001) in his book ‘Illusion of Order, the false promise of broken Windows policing’, suggests that no studies establish a link between neighborhood disorder and serious crime. He argues that research showed Cities that adopted order-maintenance policing saw no greater drop in crime than Cities that did not and When certain factors such as poverty, race, and neighborhood stability were removed, the links between serious crime and urban decay disappeared. He did report, however, that order—maintenance policing gave police officers greater surveillance powers. Officers now had legitimate reasons to search and run checks on persons committing minor offenses.

Harcourt stressed that people typically being stopped Who were once seen as society’s most vulnerable members, Were now being classed as minor criminals. Police policy in the UK is heading the same way as the USA by making order maintenance a real priority. With an emphasis on community projects. NeW strategies include more Visible and accessible policing . With regular contact with the same local officers, using more effective ways of identifying and responding to what local people see as priorities and enhanced police powers of arrest. The problem With the broken windows theory is that it is not actually a theory based on any empirical data. The theory was in fact a short article based on observations by Wilson and Kelling, subsequently published in The Atlantic Monthly in 1982.

At this time, it is prudent to remember that Wilson and Kelling are right realist criminologists and as such do not pay much heed to the social conditions that may contribute to crime. The broken windows theory instead appears to focus on a ‘clean-up’ campaign designed to rid our streets of miscreants, whilst doing little to address the reasons why the more vulnerable groups in our society are on the streets in the first place. Why are Windows broken, why do disaffected youths gather in shop doorways? why do we have beggars in the streets and why are some Women ‘choosing’ prostitution as a career? Moreover, why are these minor misdemeanors now classed as disorders Worthy of special attention from the police?

Who has decided that such a radical response is needed to combat street problems and Why are the root causes not being addressed? The ‘out of sight, out of mind’ attitude, however, is a very strong people persuader in allowing the police greater powers of arrest and surveillance. Some of the more radical thinkers among us believe that by creating a society living in fear, the resulting increased powers extended to the police is exactly the result desired in the first place. Mike Davis fears that the increased emphasis on more surveillance and arrest, typically focusing on the American classes, are effectively designed to keep middle-class American prisoners, living in a state of fear and willing to give up basic liberties, Davis argues that the broken windows policies of the Los Angeles police actually do little to reduce serious crime but do much to reduce fear when in fact no real crime has been committed by the people that have been targeted.

The threat of a total police state, masquerading as ‘order maintenance’ however, may culminate in the loss of civil liberties to all citizens. not just the ‘undesirables’. David lcke writes extensively on the problem reaction solution mentality that governments employ in order to create a society living in fear, thus allowing the police greater powers which in turn leads to a serious reduction in civil freedom. “Whenever someone is in fear, they give their power away to anyone they believe is going to protect them” It seems that we have come full circle, from the early days of the Metropolitan police force. created to control the lower classed mob rule, which itself was formed out of desperate social circumstances of poverty and unrest, to the present day, where ‘order maintenance‘ continues to target the less advantaged lower classes within our society.

The broken Windows theory overall is seriously class-biased, targeting the lower classes with no attention paid to white-collar or corporate crimes, (there may be no broken windows in Wall Street but this does not imply that no crimes are being committed, merely crimes of a different nature). Perhaps the answer is not to sweep these people under the carpet Within the guise of ‘order maintenance’, but to understand the conditions which lead to their circumstances and try and eliminate those. As Klockars (1988) suggests, the fact IS that the police Will never Win the ‘war on crime’ as it is not. Within their power to change such things as unemployment, lack of opportunities, poor housing and social inequalities. The core function of the police has to be at all times to protect the innocent, not target the vulnerable. The real fear is just how much civil freedom we allow ourselves to give up, in the pursuit of a quiet life.

Read more

Code of Hammurabi, Magna Carta, US Constitution

From the beginning of society, governments have instituted laws to cease anarchy. The Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, all share the significance of setting standards of law for a group of people. In most countries, the laws are significantly different from the next. Almost all countries share in the laws set in stone: laws against murder, stealing, and rape. Most people would agree that all countries should have laws against these heinous crimes, but others would argue that there is no law, or moral standard that applies to all people. The first group of people are called Moral Absolutists. This group of people believes that there are laws and moral standards that apply to all people. That no matter where a person is from, it is imbedded in his or her heart to not harm another person moral absolutists believe that most, if not all people share in the same morality, and most people should be held up to the stan- dards of the moral law.

These types of people would make moral decisions based on what the moral standards are for the people of the world, and they would make a decision based on the means to the end of the choice. The second group of people are called moral relativists. These people believe that there is no higher moral law, and that no person should be subject to the moral standards of another person. These people believe, just as their name says, that morality is relative to different people. These people would make moral decisions based on who the person is, where that person is from, and what the end goal of the decision is. There is a flaw in reasoning for the relativist because saying “there is no absolute standard for morality” is a standard for morality and the premise crumbles, Relativists and Absolutists differ in their decision-making quite heavily. As an example, a person drinking under age would be viewed very differently.

A Moral Absolutist would think that the subject is breaking the law, and is therefore violating moral standards. An absolutist would not take part in underage drinking because it violates the law, and it is also not right. A moral relativist would think that it is perfectly fine because the person is trying to have fun, fit in, or other ends that may justify it. The Relativist would take part in underage drinking because the standards for morality would differ for that person drinking than the law permits. Another ex-ample of the dispute would be cheating on a test. An absolutist would think that it is stealing and violates the standards of taking another person’s work. So therefore an absolutist would not cheat on a test. On the contrary, a Relativist would think that the person is trying to get a better grade and the person must do what he or she can to get a better grade. Therefore the relativist would cheat because that person is getting a better grade, and that end justifies that decision.

It is another flaw in reasoning to think that the end justifies the means, one could say that to solve overpopulation there must be a mass genocide no end can justify the means, and all people should be held accountable to the moral standings of the world. As stated above, the relativists and absolutists have very different opinions, it would be impossible to be both. The Absolutist believes that the means to an end is what the moral decision should be made upon. While the Relativist believes that the end justifies the means. These are two polar opposite opinions and is impossible to be both. I believe that people desire to be both, because they want to be accepting of other peopled cultures, but also believe that all people should be held to a moral standard. I believe that more people, when the evidence and logic is presented to them, end up becoming moral absolutists than moral relativistsi. This is because of the gross inflation of acceptance and non—judgment of other people, but some become too infatuated with the idea of acceptance it clouds their judgement on what is morally acceptable.

Read more

An Analysis of the Differences Between Generations and the Decline of Moral Value

In to day s society we are more relaxed about many things. And that is what seems to cause the biggest difference between generations. Today the people of the younger generations speak what on their minds, 20 30 years ago if a teen disagreed or got upset with something an adult said or did you did not start yelling at them and tell them off or at least not to their face anyway. The decline of moral values is another big issue when it comes to generation gaps. It seem that in today s world in the average family both parents must work to pay the bills, thus leaving their children to learn a lot for themselves. Which in my mind has the children learning from the world s morals and values and lets face it they are not that great. Many young people feel that in order to fit in they must lower their standards of right and wrong.

And that may be why it so easy for a kid to go kill 10 of his classmates and not care. Lets face it; 20 years ago there was not two thirds of the world s youth on anti-depressants. In our grandparents day if some one was hyper active or a little psychotic they said well hell they will grow out of it sooner or later. And that is a major gap because today we give them Prozac and consoling sessions twice a week for the rest of their life. If you were to walk up to mom or dad and ask them if there were any alcohol and tobacco classes in their high school they would probly say no. So that has to show there is an ever-growing problem with drinking and teens. Just think for a minute 20 years ago how often did you here about a sixteen year older getting their license and two days later lose because of a DUI.

Read more

An Analysis of the Differences Between and the Decline of Moral Values

In to day s society we are more relaxed about many things. And that is what seems to cause the biggest difference between generations. Today the people of the younger generations speak what on their minds, 20 30 years ago if a teen disagreed or got upset with something an adult said or did you did not start yelling at them and tell them off or at least not to their face anyway. The decline of moral values is another big issue when it comes to generation gaps. It seem that in today s world in the average family both parents must work to pay the bills, thus leaving their children to learn a lot for themselves. Which in my mind has the children learning from the world s morals and values and lets face it they are not that great. Many young people feel that in order to fit in they must lower their standards of right and wrong.

And that may be why it so easy for a kid to go kill 10 of his classmates and not care. Lets face it; 20 years ago there was not two thirds of the world s youth on anti-depressants. In our grandparents day if some one was hyper active or a little psychotic they said well hell they will grow out of it sooner or later. And that is a major gap because today we give them Prozac and consoling sessions twice a week for the rest of their life. If you were to walk up to mom or dad and ask them if there were any alcohol and tobacco classes in their high school they would probly say no. So that has to show there is an ever-growing problem with drinking and teens. Just think for a minute 20 years ago how often did you here about a sixteen year older getting their license and two days later lose because of a DUI.

Read more

Kant’s Second Formulation

Telling the truth is always a virtue that a person should have. Imagine if a person only lied because they knew other people were lying; making it only fair. This is all avoided with Immanuel Kant’s philosophical views. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, had created the “Categorical Imperative” which stated there was only one moral obligation. Kant believed that the representation of a principle was a binding command that was viewed as a principle. The formula of that command is called an imperative. Within the rules of the Categorical Imperative, it is stated that one must express the intended action for itself and with no other purpose. If someone is to do something that is against the Categorical Imperative, then it is not moral.

Kant argues that morality should be viewed as deontological; the ethical theory stating the morality of an action should be based on whether the action is right or wrong. The right and wrong can be determined through a series of rules rather than basing it upon the consequences of an action. Throughout Kant’s work there are a series of tests that have been implemented to tell whether a moral statement is correct or not. An example of how this ethical theory works is murdering a person. People should avoid murder, not because it will keep them out of prison, but because they know it is wrong. Even in the worst circumstances a person should always chose to do what is right not because of the consequences of their action, but because right should always be chosen over wrong.

The Categorical Imperative is different than just a regular imperative or even a hypothetical imperative. A hypothetical desire commands a person having a relevant desire. An example of this would be going to college for Accounting. If you want to go to school for Accounting, you must take Accounting classes. If you don’t want to go to school for accounting, then this command isn’t relative to that person. An imperative is just viewed as a direct command. An example being, “Don’t run a red light.” These views are different than the Categorical imperative because the categorical gives commands without set standards and limits. Even if you want to do something that is bad that will benefit you in the end, you still must not do it.

There are two main formulations explaining what the Categorical Imperative (CI) is and how to apply it to everyday moral obligations. Kant states that all his formulas coincide with one another. The conceptual foundation of one formula leads to the basis of the next formula. The first formulation is known as the Universal Law, which states “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature].” Maxim as stated in the first formulation is the rule on which a person acts. In other words, the formulation is saying one is not allowed to do something if everyone else can’t do it as well. No exceptions for oneself. An example of a maxim that would go against the Categorical Imperative would be “Whenever anybody want’s some money, they tend to make a false promise, borrow the money, and then never pay the lender back.” If this maxim was adopted by everybody as the categorical imperative states should be, then nobody would borrow others money because they know they will not be getting it back later.

The second formulation known as the Formula of the End in itself says “So act as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means.” The formulation can be viewed as a way for Kant to introduce the idea of respect for another human. There are two duties that derive from the second formulation. The perfect duty to act on no maxims that use people as mere means, and the imperfect duty to act on some maxims that foster people’s ends. An error that is often brought up with this formulation is the ruling out of using people as means to our ends but is supposed to be viewed as ruling out the use of people as a mere means to our ends. Although it is not the humans means to our ends, but rather the humans humanity that is being treated as a mean to our ends. Kant believes that all ethically moral requirements are met within this principle, the Categorical Imperative, meaning that all others are immoral actions that are irrational and violate the CI.

Kant also spoke about a person’s moral worth. People’s actions determine their moral worth. Actions are either right or wrong and a person is morally worthy or lacks moral worth. Kant believes that for someone to be morally worthy, they must be motivated by morality. If someone desires to achieve or do something, this action cannot give them moral worth but rather comes from doing a duty regardless of whether it was liked or not. When we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our action is often beyond our control and the morality of our actions cannot depend on their outcome. What we can control however is the will behind these actions. That is we can will to act according to one law rather than another.

The morality of an action therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it and not the consequences associated with it. According to Kant the only thing that is good without reason is the good will. A good will is good, not just for what it produces. Courage, health, and wealth can all be used for the wrong purposes Kant argues, and therefore cannot be “intrinsically” good. Happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worth of happiness Kant says, requires that one possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional good. To summarize Kant’s view on moral worth, a good person is someone who does their duty because it is their duty.

To every theory there can be errors within. Kant believes lying is wrong because we all must follow rules that everyone can do. If someone were to lie, then it would be acceptable for everyone else to lie as well. Everyone lying would make it useless to lie because no one would ever be believed. People believe that the error behind Kant’s beliefs if the idea that you can never lie. They believe it would be justifiable to lie in order to save someone’s life. Although error may be present in his theory, Kant states that his ethical theory requires belief in free will, God, and the immorality of the soul.

Immanuel Kant also created the transcendental idealism. This theory states the relation between the mind and objects. There are three different components that make up this theory. The first one being there is a distinction between appearances and things as they are in themselves. The second, space and time are a priori, subjective conditions on the possibility of experience, and hence only pertain to the appearances, not the things in themselves(Citation). Third, we can have determinate cognition of only of things that can be experienced, hence only of appearances, not things in themselves.

Read more
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Close

Sometimes it is hard to do all the work on your own

Let us help you get a good grade on your paper. Get professional help and free up your time for more important courses. Let us handle your;

  • Dissertations and Thesis
  • Essays
  • All Assignments

  • Research papers
  • Terms Papers
  • Online Classes
Live ChatWhatsApp