Morality

Freedom of speech means that a person or a body have a right to express them without any fear of suppression or penalty. It also means that there will not be any imposition of person’s speech. In today’s context, “Speech” is not limited to public speaking and it does include other forms of expression including social media. Australia does not have any explicit constitutional rights related to freedom of speech. However, parliamentarians are protected from criminal action such as fomentation when they express themselves inside the parliament.

Background Australia had mix history of freedom of speech. As Australia does not have any explicit law regarding to freedom of speech, there were attempts to move towards liberation’s of censorship. The modern history of freedom of speech in Australia dates back to First World War. Hughes government increased censorship during the war. After the war as the government lost the wartime power, they introduced the Customs Act to keep out destabilize dogmatic works. During 1933-34, this method cached at peak as more than 100 books were banned. Due to threat of communism, Lyons government denied entry to Czech communist writer Eggnog Chicks.

During the Minimizes’ time, government summoned the editor and publisher of the Bankbooks Observer before the Bar of the House to defend a charge that they had breached parliamentary privilege by publishing an article alleging that a member of parliament was involved in an immigration racket. Both men ended up spending three months in Globulin Jail. During the sass, in Gorton government, Customs & Excise Minister Don Chip removed ban on many novels and Playboy magazine. He also introduced R certificate for adult movies which were earlier banned. Debate on the same is still going on as there are many high profile cases going on.

Utilitarianism The essential claim of utilitarianism is that the only reasonable measure of morality is the minimization of the collective happiness of society as a whole. From this it follows that all other goods, if any, have only contributory, as opposed to inherent value. From the utilitarian viewpoint, freedom of speech can therefore be a thing only n terms of its instrumental value. We should look at marketplace of ideas theory usually associated with John Stuart Mill from this perspective. As generally implicit, this theory says that freedom of speech should be secured because it increases the realization of truth.

Freedom of speech in this view, is thus contributory for capitalize on the amount of truth available to society as a whole. Such a marketplace is particularly unlikely in today’s world, in which varied educational disciplines have become so methodological that most people have only a rare idea of what is going on n them. Mill’s argument that the marketplace of ideas pointed towards the truth should be understood to worry not truths or reason but metaphysical ideas to which the idea of “truth” does not apply. Demonology There are two basic types of moral theories: consequentiality theories and deontological theories.

Consequentiality moral theories are those which hold that the correctness of a deed is determined exclusively by the grade to which it produces good consequences. Utilitarianism is a consequentiality theory which holds that the utmost deeds are those which create the highest amount of pleasure or happiness for the maximum number of people. It is the ethical theory underlying contemporary cost-benefit and risk-benefit analysis, according to which we are focused to pick the deed with the maximum favorable ratio of cost or risks to benefits.

Deontological theories, the most important alternative to consequentiality, hold that the correctness of a deed rest on upon aspects other than the consequences of the deed. These include such things as whether the purposes with which the deed is done ere upright, whether the deed is Just, whether it esteems the rights of those affected by it, whether the deed is steady with the burdens of duty, and whether, whatever its consequences, something in the nature of the deed makes it inherently incorrect.

Social contract Character based ACS Legal/ethical balance

After killing the friend who was left with the shortest straw, the remaining plunders are rescued a couple weeks later and shared their story with their community. The friends are soon met with charges of homicide and disapproval from the public for their lack of moral awareness. This essay will argue that murder is Justifiable when the reality of grim conditions exists. Consequences from such an action do not come to mind when decisions are based solely on emotions and not made with morals and ethical obligations set by society.

The spelunkers depended on the murder of one of their friends in order to survive. In a normal situation, these friends would never purposely hurt, let alone ill, one another. The Intent of the person killing Is something to consider. When confronted with the dilemma of having Limited resources, killing each other was the only option for food. The special circumstance these friends were faced with, led too violent act of survival. The spelunkers waited a week after being trapped before normally commit, but cannibalism is something they would not practice either.

The thought of eating human flesh to the average person is not desirable. But when put in extenuating circumstances, the reasonable person would do anything in order to live. The immense amount of pressure the friends experienced in making this decision was heightened by the hunger in their bellies and the fear in their hearts. Still, aggression and violence is usually associated with murder. That is not the case in this situation. There was no plan to purposefully and maliciously kill one of their friends before they were trapped.

Death was the inevitable future of the four friends and the act of killing the randomly chosen friend brought that reality forward. The system that the spelunkers chose in picking who would die for the greater good of the group was a fair method. One person was not singled out to be killed for any other reason besides having the shortest straw and to be the emergency food source. This is validates that killing one of their friends was only to increase their chances of living. Murder, even though a drastic measure to survive, was absolutely necessary due to the reality of their dire situation.

Once the spelunkers were caved in, the reality of their fate was sealed and the probability of surviving this disastrous event was unlikely. The friends had no idea that a trip full of adventure and fun would lead to such a tragic decision. When the subject of reality comes up, the idea of life and existence follows. Human beings have instincts that help them adapt and thrive in unfortunate mishaps. When lives are threatened or challenged, the truth is, people will do anything in their power to save themselves. The case of the spelunkers is no different.

Even though the idea of having to kill and eat their friend is unwelcome, it was the best option for survival. There are some things in life that are uncontrollable and the natural occurrence of a cave-in is Just that. The spelunkers had no connection to the outside world and the session to kill and eat another human was made in the security of their own world, away from the rules of society. Though unintentional, the reality of the spelunkers’ situation led to an irreversible decision, in which the consequences were an afterthought.

Consequences usually have a negative connotation associated with them. The dire circumstances in which the friends were in, led them to make choices in order to survive. The repercussions the three friends would face were an afterthought in light of trying to survive. In the moment of making the decision to kill another human eyeing, the last thing on their minds was what people would think of them afterwards. They were simply trying to live. Instead of being regarded as brave and courageous in the eye of death, the remaining spelunkers were shamed and ostracizes from society for killing their friend.

To be snubbed by the community where one lives is very difficult to process, especially after the ordeal they Just went through. Then to be categorized as murderers and charged with homicide is unfair. The rules of law should not apply to special circumstances like the case of the spelunkers. If the here friends had not killed their friend and ate him, they would not be alive to tell their story. The consequences of being shunned by the community and being charged with murder, though unanticipated, undoubtedly stirred up emotions of guilt and shame for doing what they needed to do in order to survive. Tit feelings such as fear, despair, or hopelessness, the human mind can make decisions it would not normally. The spelunkers went through a spectrum of emotions before and after the killing of their friend. Being presented with such a calamitous situation, such as being trapped in a cave, can induce a state of panic and anxiety. As much as the four friends wanted to stay calm and wait patiently for help, the idea of dying was too frightening. The simple fear of not being able to survive due to limited resources prompted the idea of drawing straws.

After the straws were drawn, reality set in that one of them would be eaten. And for the three friends to not feel remorse or guilt after killing their friend was nearly impossible. This act was not an easy one and the remorse and guilt will not go away. Without the sacrifice of the friend who died, none of the men would be alive. The friends are grateful and appreciative for their friend’s sacrifice for them to live, yet sad and remorseful that their situation led them to that conclusion.

Since the spelunkers were faced with fear they may not live, they acted with their emotions instead of the morals they would have normally abided by in everyday life. Having morals helps people chose from right and wrong doings. For the most part, the majority of humans would not result to violence or murder in a normal, everyday circumstance. There must be a catalyst for such behavior. In the case of the spelunkers, their feelings superseded moral consideration based on the fear of death. The emotionally charged spelunkers thought with their hearts and not with their minds.

So is the difference between emotions and morals. The friendships that the four men shared were strong and the loyalty they had to one another was proven by the participation in drawing straws. This moral dilemma was the ultimate test of the bond the friends shared. The three friends should not be held responsible for murder based on their limited options of survival. The men’s’ morals did not come into consideration when trying to fight to stay alive. Though the decision to kill their friend for the benefit of the group’s survival is questionable, the spelunkers should not be charged with homicide.

Killing someone under any other circumstance is a plausible reason to arrest and charge someone of murder. But the reality of the situation is, if the spelunkers had enough resources and if emotions such as fear for survival did not exist, murder would not have occurred because their morals would tell them that the consequences for such action, such as the absence of their friend, being charged for murder, and being ostracizes, was not worth it. The truth is, the spelunkers had no other choice but to omit this powerful act if they wanted to stay alive.

And, if they had not killed their friend, four people would be dead instead of Just one person. Every day, people are faced with moral dilemmas and controversial subject matters. Those people are no different than the spelunkers. Although the circumstances surrounding this controversy are not a normal, fear can drive people to do things they would not typically do. If the roles were reverse and if anyone else were in the place of the spelunkers, it would be a challenge for people to accept death without trying everything they could to survive.

Ethics Position Paper Q575 – Dr. Elliot June 7, 2010 University of Phoenix Introduction Today, people can make decisions that can have a profoundly positive or negative effect on their family, their employer, coworkers, a nation, and even on the entire world. The life we lead whether professional or personal reflects the strength of a single trait: our personal character. Ethics are different for each person both on a professional and personal level.

For the most part, people want to be known as a good person, someone who can be trusted, and that he or she is concerned about his or her relationships and personal reputations. I therefore conclude that professional ethics are indeed influenced by personal ethics and values. Although professional ethics guidelines are provided by our government (federal and local), employer and education, are also considered at the same time. What are Ethics? Let’s begin with the definition of ethics.

Ethics can be defined with more than one meaning based upon the context and subject it is being used. In philosophy, ethics is the study and evaluation of human conduct in the light of moral principles. Moral principles may be viewed either as the standard of conduct that individuals have constructed for themselves or as the body of obligations and duties that a particular society requires of its members. A second definition or meaning of ethics is motivation-based on ideas of right and wrong.

Portman defines ethics as “standards of conduct, standards that indicate how one should behave based on moral duties and virtues, which themselves are derived from principles of right and wrong. In order to apply this definition to practical decision making it is necessary to specify the nature of the moral obligations considered intrinsic to ethical behavior” (http://sun. menloschool. org/~sportman/ethics/definition. html). I agree with this definition in fact I believe that ethics are different for every person due to personal values and experiences.

There are general ethics that most people adhere to because of the societal mores and morals we all have been exposed to and abide by. There are also other morals and mores that are picked up along the way that vary between people because of cultures, communities, families, heredity etc. I feel that I may not look at the same situation or case the same as another person and we may never agree upon the same methods to go about resolving an issue. This occurs because we all have differences of opinions and value systems.

For example, I have nothing against people who are gay I just do not encourage nor discourage the behavior; I allow others to live their lives according to what is best for them. The same goes with ethics. Although my job may say I must intervene in a situation but my own personal ethics prevent me from acting professionally because I feel people should be allowed to live and learn. Overall, ethics and ethical positions will vary from researcher to researcher because they do not have all of the same goals nor do they see things in the “same light”.

Ethics in Educational Research Although I think that ethics vary between individuals I believe that professional ethics are important in protecting those participants of research. I do not think that research should be based on the personal interests of the researcher but I think every person has a level of discernment that should be used especially when other lives are involved. General ethics play a huge role in education because first education is where ethics are taught.

After learning about ethics students can then analyze the ethics they can identify and it soon becomes apparent that ethics are involved in most life situations. As future teacher honesty would be my biggest ethical commitment. I choose honesty because with today’s technology and increased use of online educational institutions, people can copy and paste whatever they need in order to be successful. Student’s academic honesty will help me to give them the accurate grade they deserve and not have to punish students who are caught cheating/plagiarizing information.

Ethics also keep researchers from publishing false information and also prevent them from being lazy about the research. Mainly it protects the participants of research and also protects the researcher from being accused of unethical practice if they indeed follow those practices. Ethics and Today I recently heard a report on the news that the World Health Organization is being accused of over exaggerating the Swine flu pandemic. When I first heard about Swine flu I believed that is was a scare tactic in order to get people to get those shots.

WHO performed unethically in my opinion however they believe that many people died from this disease and the swine flu should not be minimized. Ethics today are still very important especially when other people’s lives are involved. While some people find it easy to break ethical standards others follow the guidelines and remain neutral. The swine flu pandemic created worried people and families going in masses to get the vaccine. Today we still need ethics because not every has the best interest of others when conducting research. Federal standards require research to abide by ethical standards.

It is up to each individual to utilize those standards and incorporate them into personal values that may influence society later. Conclusion Ethics vary from person to person due to the differences in values and cultural backgrounds and even education. We do not all interpret information the same way and therefore will not be able to apply the same amount or ethics in any given situation. Furthermore professional and personal ethics affect each other depending upon the specific situation being researched. Also every subject will yield a different set of ethics and values.

Therefore ethics are not only subjective in content but objective in nature. References McMillan, J. , & Schmacher, S. (2006). Ch. 6 Ethical and Legal Considerations. Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry, Sixth Edition, Pearson Education, Inc. McMillan, J. , & Schmacher, S. (2006). Ch. 12 Research Ethics: Roles and Reciprocity. Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry, Sixth Edition, Pearson Education, Inc. Portman, S. (unknown). What are ethics? Retrieved from http://sun. menloschool. org/~sportman/ethics/definition. html

Ethical and Legal Issues in Nursing Over the last several decades, professional nursing has evolved and changed because of the influence of ethical and legal issues. There may be a variety of reasons for the changes. Examples in changes are advances in medical technology, legal changes about abortion and euthanasia, a push toward patient rights and litigation, and ever decreasing resources in which to provide nursing care. With all these influences affecting care, it has become increasingly difficult to have a true understanding of the direction nursing should take when faced with moral, ethical, and legal issues.

Examination of personal moral and ethics along with utilization of available resources will no doubt aid nurses in sorting out feelings, strategizing for the patient and families, and providing guidance to give the best care possible. One resource available is the American Nurses Association, they have developed a code of ethics that should act as a guide in directing care and solving the ethical and legal dilemmas that surface. When applying the code of ethics resource; nurses can assist their patients families in making informed decisions as well as understand their own and their colleague’s responsibilities.

By examining two case scenarios, the first involving end of life decisions, the second involving nursing conduct, the application of the code of ethics, the legal aspects, and the nurses responsibilities would be better understood. It is prudent to begin by examining the legal responsibilities of the nurse in the work setting. A Registered Nurse carries a legal responsibility in the work setting. A nurse has a commitment to the safety of the patient and must be aware of inappropriate practice. All nurses have ethical duties to the patients they serve.

According to the American Nurses Association; a nurse “promotes, advocates for, and strives to protect the health, safety, and rights of the patient” (ANA, 2001, p. 18). If an action is taken that poses harmful effect on a patient’s health this needs to be immediately reported to a higher authority within the workplace or if necessary to a suitable outside authority. A nurse must be accountable for his or her individual nursing practice. The nurse’s duty is to identify anyone with questionable practice.

All workplaces have guidelines set in place for these types of events. A nurse should concern herself about repercussions when reporting unethical practice. A nurse should be familiar and compliant with his or her state’s nurse practice act and his or her workplace policies applicable practice standards of care for each clinical area. In the malpractice exercise the nurse was observed on several occasions violating standards of care. The occurrences were reported immediately through the chain of command which in this case was administration.

After anecdotal notes were kept by the nurse, she should prepare written documentation, including the time and location of the incident and names of any witnesses. Time should be taken to think about the incident and write down all important points that come to mind, who and, when, she notified in administration and what was told to them. This way everything would be in order and accessible if you need to recall when answering questions. Be honest and truthful if there is something you cannot remember you, state that you do not recall.

There should be no disregard during this process, it is the ethical and legal duty of a nurse, as the patient advocate, to stand up, and protect the patient. Every nurse is equally responsible for his or her own actions. Responsibility also carries over to patients not under her direct care, the obligation for all patients. The incident was reported in the correct manner and she kept personal anecdotal records and upheld her ethical duties. Personal and societal views play a major role in the way a nurse views a current ethical situation.

As nurses and as human beings, we each will have our own way of evaluating and assessing different circumstances that we are part of daily. No matter what kind of nursing or nursing experience that you may have, you cannot run from these trying predicaments. “Our ethical framework assists us when we experience serious ethical dilemmas” (Cameron & Salas, 2010, p. 655). In the case regarding Marianne, there are countless ways in which personal and societal values could have played a part.

They could affect how the family would be viewed by society if they did not try everything to save their loved one, or how would it look if they went through with the surgery and it looked as if Marianne was experiencing torture. Ethical dilemmas are never straightforward and never with a right or wrong answer. It is our job as nurses to put aside our feelings and beliefs and to educate the family on all of the potential outcomes that may be expected. We must remember as health care providers, to be non-judgmental.

When reviewing the case of Marianne, the significant legal aspect to consider is the lack of a Healthcare Power of Attorney and Living Will. Not possessing Marianne’s documented wishes creates a legal ethical dilemma and creates family conflict. The responsibility of deciding the future of Marianne’s care will fall on the family with guidance from the hospital’s Ethics Committee. The ANA Code of Ethics provides nurses with guidance in legal and ethical responsibilities. The code describes the obligation of treating patients and families with autonomy.

Lachman describes the role of autonomy in nursing care: “patients have a moral and legal right to determine what will be done with their own person; to be given accurate, complete, and understandable information in a manner that facilitates an informed judgment; to be assisted with weighing the benefits, burdens, and available options in their treatment, including the choice of no treatment; to accept, refuse, or terminate treatment without deceit, undue influence, duress, coercion, or penalty; and to be given necessary support throughout the decision-making and treatment process “(Lachman, 2009, p. 55).

Providing autonomous nursing care to Marianne and her family will ensure all the options are presented. The family members place trust in the nurse to provide good care and be supportive, regardless of the decision they make for Marianne’s future. The trust placed on nurses includes responsibility to the patient and the institution ensuring policies are adhered to thus avoiding the possibilities of negligence. With trust, nurses have an obligation to society. Legally we are “responsible to preserve integrity and safety, to maintain competence and to continue personal and professional growth” (ANA, 2001, p. 8). No matter the situation of the patient in regard to age, race, religion, economic status, etc. We are to treat each patient and family member with the same amount of respect. Both case studies The Nurse as the Witness and The Six Caps are unique in different ways. Nurses often have the tendency to develop close relationships with patients. Reminders may be needed often that the purpose of nursing is not friendship but to alleviate suffering, protect the patient, promote wellness, and to help restore the health.

In Marianne’s case the legal responsibility of the nurse is to communicate all possibilities of Marianne’s care. The nurse in this situation has an obligation to provide all the information possible to help the family come to a decision in regard to Marianne’s life. Nurses are to be truthful and never withhold any information. No matter what a family or patient decides, the nurse is to advocate for that decision. Family decisions are not the function of nurse, no matter what the nature. There may be instances when a nurse will be a witness or perhaps a defendant.

Medical professionals see many and unique situations some will have to be reported and investigated. Documentation is a huge legal aspect of nursing. It will be always important to document exactly what you do and see. Opinions and assumptions are not good practice for documentation purposes as this would not hold up in court and may sway decisions. The malpractice case regarding the nurse as the witness is a fine example of the need to be proficient in documentation. Months and years later, what is in writing is what will count. As nurses we know, if it was not documented, it did not happen!

For this particular case study, the nurse was obligated to report exactly what she wrote about the nurse in question. That nurse has an obligation to report any suspicions of abuse and neglect to administration even repeatedly if necessary. In any situation, the nurse has an obligation to act in the best interest of the patient. It may have consequences but, the overall nurse’s responsibility is to keep the patient safe. Summing up, it is clear that nursing practice can be influenced by personal ethics and morals. The American Nurses Association’s code of ethics provides a guide for practice.

When applied to a practical case, such as Marianne and her family, the code of ethics allows the nurse caring for here to remain professional and objective without letting her own feelings influence the family. The nurse has a responsibility to Marianne, her family and the employing institution. Overall, these guidelines extend throughout practice and are set in place to protect society. It becomes a mutual trust and is why nursing is held to such a high standard. References American Nurses Association (ANA). (2001). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements.

Washington, DC: ANA. Blais, K. K. , Hayes, J. S. , Kozier, B. , & Erb, G. (2006). Professional nursing practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. Cameron, B. L. , & Salas, A. S. (2010). Ethical openings in practical home care practice. Nursing Ethics, 17(5), 655-665. Retrieved from http://web. ebscohost. com. ezproxy. apollolibrary. com Practical use of the nursing code of ethics: part I. Medsurg nursing: official journal of the academy of medical-surgical nurses, 18(1), 55-57. Retrieved from http://EBSCOhost

Hanh-Thy Chau 2M N. Wittlin February 25, 2003 ENG2DB-02 A Revision of Morality in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part One Who is the moral centre in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part one? This will ceaselessly be a question challenging the intentions of Shakespeare’s literature. However, [didn’t Wittlin say don’t start with however else its after a semi-colon] the question in this revision of morality in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part one is, is there even a moral center in Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part one?

Humanity is incapable of absolute goodness; therefore, there is no moral centre in Henry IV, Part one since the three major characters, King Henry, Prince Hal, and Sir John Falstaff, are all somewhat morally flawed. Shakespeare reveals the imperfection of human nature through the behaviour of his [these] characters. First of all, King Henry sets a presumed reputation as the religious, loved and strong leader of England in Henry IV, Part one for his subjects. However, his supposed virtues are only results of his concealed faults. Ironically, the King can be quite blasphemous, despicable, and pathetic.

Throughout the play, Henry is evidently repenting for his conduct in his acquirement of the British thrown. This is shown in his belief of “whether God will have it so, /…To punish my [King Henry’s] mistreadings” (III. ii. 4-11) and that “God pardon” (III. iii. 29) Hal for his unpunished sins of his bad company. Furthermore, King Henry’s disgraceful conduct clearly reveals the false reception of love from his subjects. This is especially revealed in his relationship based on conditional love with Prince Hal. His opinion of Hal, which changed from a state of “riot and dishonour” (I. i. 4) to one of “charge and sovereign” (III. iii. 161), is only established on restricted affection and Hal’s social image, rather than a personal benevolence between parent and child. In addition, another of King Henry’s loathsome features is again shown through his attainment of the throne: deceitful behaviour. Furthermore, the King’s pathetic nature is revealed by his insecurity. The play begins with the King expressing his paranoid worries, being “so shaken” and “wan with care” (I. i. 1-2), accordingly presenting the audience with its first impression of the supposedly strong leader.

King Henry deceitfully attempts to use the “chase” of the “pagans in these holy fields/…for our [England’s] advantage” (I. i. 24-27) to distract the “civil butchery” (I. i. 13) back home in England. Overall, the life events of King Henry IV’s does not present a very moral reputation for a man of worthy of such power and prestige. Secondly, Prince Hal clearly shows both positive aspects and negative aspects, as his character undergoes great change in Henry IV, Part one. Hal gives the audience the impression of his intentions to “throw off” (I. iii. 05) his uncouthly behaviour moral to please the King, the alleged victim in Henry IV, Part one. Hal believes he can “find pardon on” his “true submission” (III. ii. 28) by satisfy his father’s expectations for the throne’s heir and discard the values of his loving surrogate father, Falstaff. As revealed in the previous quotation of pardoned submission, one of Hal’s admirable aspects is his open ability to accept his faults; however, it seems his judgement regarding the class, justice, and honour system remains stereotyped by knightly tradition.

Although Prince Hal’s resultant persona is traditionally considered positive, Hal’s most commonly shown qualities in the play are characterized as manipulative, superficial and unemotional, all of which further reveal his immoral faults. Hal’s manipulative nature is exposed throughout Henry IV, Part one. Prince Hal’s manipulative intelligence is first revealed in his soliloquy, where he vows to “falsify men’s hopes/ and…so offend to make offense a skill” (I. iii. 205-211).

Hal’s aptitude for manipulating is further proven in his sudden abandonment of Falstaff and his low class company, as foreshadowed when Hal symbolically states that “by breaking through the foul and ugly mists…my [Hal’s] reformation…shall show more goodly” (I. ii. 196-). In this quote, the clouds represent Falstaff and company and the beauty in reference [to…] is the reformed Hal. An addition to Hal’s [im] amoral traits is his superficiality. Hal’s superficiality is shown in his judgement of physical image.

This is shown in his constant vulgar references to Falstaff’s obesity: a “fat-witted with drinking of old sack” (I. ii. 2) and his abandonment of Falstaff’s role in his life after his reformation. Hal’s commitment [to] the traditional expectations of honour results in the betrayal of Falstaff’s hedonistic approach on life and his only endeavour is to please the man who had offered a pitiful excuse of love incomparable to what Falstaff had to offer: unconditional love. These examples of Hal’s superficiality also support Hal’s lack of sympathy for others.

Hal’s cold behaviour towards others is shown in his hypocritical approach for Falstaff’s hedonistic [maybe use self-gratifying] attitude. Hal is unaware of his own form of intemperance: he strives to improve his own self-image at the expense of others. Despite Hal’s admirable traits as a respectable member of court, as a human being, Prince Hal’s amorality is quite apparent by the distinction of his actions. Lastly, despite Sir John Falstaff’s self-gratifying lifestyle, he seems to be the most moral character in Henry IV, Part one, although not wholly moral because as previously addressed, human nature is inept of utter goodness.

Due to Sir John Falstaff’s philosophies, many have claimed to be fond of his self-indulging ways but admit the ridicule behind paying formal respect to such a person. Falstaff cleverly manipulates others for his own welfare; however, it is only in good nature. This is proven in Act III scene iii, when Falstaff distorts the situation of his debt to Mistress Quickly into one of an accusation of her being the thief of his “picked…pocket” [wasn’t he really pick pocketed? ](III. iii. 53), and more wittingly forgives her in the end as she goes to prepare his meal, intending no spite upon the hostess.

Falstaff deceives, cowards [not an action; cannot be used in this senctense], drinks “of old sack” (I. ii. 2) and commits virtually every sin. Shakespeare masterfully moulds these negative aspects into unusual forms of virtue in Falstaff’s character by showing that Falstaff means no harm. In doing this, Shakespeare cleverly twists the faults upon the regal members of society by building the play upon the disputes between themselves; thus, showing the power of such subtle issues, barely considered sinful, causing “civil butchery” (I. i. 13), whereas the sinful ways of “Old Jack Falstaff” (II. iv. 72) has no such effect. Although Falstaff’s pleasure priorities may be rather farfetched, his “gift…is youthful irresponsibility, which must be cherished even though it cannot last” (p. xx). Falstaff’s commonly repeated idea that “young men must live” (II. ii. 90) emphasizes his belief in the value of youthful irresponsibility and luxury. Shakespeare grants Falstaff the embodiment of human nature itself, excluding extreme wicked sins, leaving Falstaff’s childlike benevolence untouched; this is shown as he pompously states, “I have more flesh than another man, and therefore more frailty” (III. ii. 167-169). Falstaff serves as a bringer of human nature as he serves to foil all other characters therefore revealing everyone moral flaws yet remaining the most moral character due to his youthful benevolence. In conclusion, Shakespeare brilliantly provokes the audiences’ involvement in his plays by presenting them with intellectual trials to the mysteries of life. Because [r u sure that u want to start a sentence with that] absolute morality is unachievable, Shakespeare does not put forward a definite moral center in Henry IV, Part one.

There will always be a balance of both positive and negative forces as the faults and virtues of King Henry, Prince Hal and Sir John Falstaff were discussed. This is very good. You explained your points well just a couple of minor mistakes but I think you’ll get a good mark. Sorry for not responding I was eating dinner sorry. Talk to you later ok. Bye Word Count: 1 189 Works Cited Shakespeare, William. Henry IV, Part one. Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988

Clinical psychology focus SE on the intellectual, emotional, biological, psychological, social, and behavioral aspect s of human injunction across the life p, in varying cultures, and at all socioeconomic I bevel” (Todd & Aboard, 1999, peg. 5). In my philosophy I do believe this to be true among other things. I believe the Bible to be my main source of truth. View of Human Nature With any philosophy we have to start at the beginning of the nature of people and their disorders. Why are people the way they are? Is it nature or nurture?

I believe we do not s tart out as a “blank slate. ” We are all born with specific genes and attributes that are unique to us. We are all individuals unique in our own ways. However our experiences mature and SSH ape us for good or for bad. Think about life as a poker game and in your hand are the cards you have been dealt. You were given the cards and how you play the game or your “experiences” d determine the outcome. Morality and values are not subjective sets of ideas that vary from p resin to person, or even culture to culture.

Rather, they are determined by Someone who is above e the created realm and gives them to all whom are created. This “Someone” gives you the cards. Without being given these basic values and morals utter chaos would reign in the world. In t he Bible Jesus says “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornication’s, the bets, false witness, slanders. ” (Matthew 1 5:19, NASA) This obviously points to the fact that our he arts are the central problem in addressing the behaviors and actions of our lives. In the Bi blew we also get a clear picture of the condition of the human being.

Romans 3:23 says “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (NASA). The logical implication is that one who has s mined (defined as a thought, action upon a thought, or behavior that is against the character ND perfection of God’s character) is called a “sinner”. Because we have all sinned we can not ex prurience the life God intended us to live. Our sin separates us from God and therefore is the r 80th issue in our lives. Not every struggle is a result of personal sin though. If a client were ABA seed, traumatized, rejected, neglected, etc. The sin is not theirs but the results of someone else’s sin plays out in their life. Many people need counseling because of the sins of others, entrust their own. Our behaviors and actions flow directly from our sinful thoughts, actions, and series. If someone were to live their life on a deserted island and never have any human contact they would still have the propensity and desire to be greedy, lustful, prideful, and o there things that go directly against the character of God. Society and our environment do not diet ermine our actions as much as our own inward distorted desires.

The root issue is a heart problem m, not one of needing just a “behavioral adjustment” to correct the actions. When clients co me to counseling because they are struggling with something that is a result of someone else’s sin the direction and Ochs is still on their need for a Savior to give them the inner ability to have the e strength, patience, forgiveness, and healing to move forward in their life. Therapist/Client Relationship My role as a therapist, is to lift the fallen, restore the broken, and to heal the h rutting. Am not there to judge or “pick sides. We were created for relationships. In order for a therapist to have the type of relationship with the client that allows them to challenge the client they need to be perceived as open, attentive, willing to be challenged, a listener, fair, friend lye, firm, and trusting. A great client/ counselor relationship is not totally essential to change occurring in the life of a client, but it is very important. I should be able to empathic with the client, teach them coping mechanisms, and offer a different perspective or insight as to what the e issue might be.

The client should not rely on me solely as the fix all to any problem. The there pips assists the client in identifying dysfunctional beliefs. The counselor also discovers alternate dive rules for living for the client. The therapist acts as the teacher and teaches new abilities and skills to the client. The client understands their problem better and practice changing self defeating ways, such as, acting and thinking. In this way, it is important to maintain a truthful, secure, confident relationship between the client and the helper to be effective.

The essential o objective is for change to occur; the change could be an environmental change, specific behave viral change, change in thinking identifying and awareness. Strengths and Weaknesses as a Therapist like to think I’m good at seeing the “big picture. ” If you are able to take a step back and look at life this way you don’t worry about trivial things as much because you hen realize that they don’t matter in the big scheme of things. As a therapist could then be a blew to help teach my clients to do the same. Would teach them to focus on the big picture rather t Han trivial details.

One thing that I will have to work on is not giving advice. My friends come to me for advice right now and its really hard to break that habit. I’ve started to take myself oh t of the situation and offer guidelines that could help them in the situation because don’t wan t them to depend on me and the same goes for my future clients. I want to be a Marriage and Fame Ii Therapist and I’m not married, nor do I have a family of my own. Some people could see this as a problem because I don’t know specifically know the situation.

However do empathic with people and can relate to them in other areas. I would also explain to them then that even if I were married I still wouldn’t know the exact situation because every situation is different and unique to that individual. Conclusion My philosophy of counseling beings with the fact that all of humanity has intro NCSC value. The ideal counseling situation would be one where a client is able to see a love Eng relationship dolled between the counselor and the client in such a way that they being t o desire to know more about God.

|Cultural Moral Relativism. Do We All Agree? | |Essay #1 Pratheep | |Sivabaalan 100266114 | |11/18/2009 | |James Connelly | I find Rachel’s arguments against the view of Cultural Moral Relativism persuasive and very convincing. Believers of Cultural Relativism have influenced the notion that cultural moral codes are culture bound.

After explicating and assessing Cultural Relativism views and Rachels arguments, it is clear that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the views that favor Cultural Relativism. Rachels introduces a number of considerations that reject Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism tells us that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics, and what does exist is the customs of different societies. Furthermore, we cannot judge a custom of another society or our own as right or wrong. Cultural Relativism simplifies its facts by employing an argument, known as the ‘Cultural Differences’ argument. ) Different cultures have different moral codes 2) Therefore, there is no objective “truth” in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture (Rachels, p18) Rachels identifies that argument as being unsound, thus an invalid argument altogether. Rachels explains that the conclusion does not follow the premise. Rachels explains that the argument’s premise concerns what people believe, and the conclusion concerns what really is the case. I agree with Rachels reasoning on the argument, the premise is motivated by observations, and not the facts and the conclusion suggests what is true.

Therefore, the argument cannot be considered as a strong view for cultural relativism since the conclusion does not logically follow the premise; an unsound argument. Rachels attempts to provide stronger claims to reject Cultural Relativism through a method known as reduction ad absurbum. One of the main points that Cultural Relativism stresses is that “We can no longer say that customs of other societies are morally inferior to our own”. Rachels disagrees with this notion in contrast with less compassionate practices in other societies.

Rachels brings up examples, such as the oppression of the Chinese Government upon its citizens. Cultural Relativism denies us to condemn such actions because we cannot judge practices in another society to our own. I believe Rachel has a good point on how far is too far, when it comes to customs in other societies. Situations and practices like excursion, slavery, stoning and etc raises questions on how tolerate can people be on inhuman practices. Another proposition that Cultural Relativism brings up is that “We could no longer criticize the code of our own society”.

Rachel criticizes this statement by suggesting that people do not believe our society’s code is perfect, but Cultural Relativism disallows us to think of ways why our society can be better. I agree that our society’s moral code is not prefect and there are a number of reasons that suggests this. For example, animal testing and killings of specific dog breeds are questionable in our society’s moral codes. Furthermore, in our society we have different views on the topic of abortion, where people feel it is right and wrong.

Like many societies and our own, we are prone to question our own moral codes and customs. Lastly, “The idea of moral progress would be called into doubt”, is the last statement Cultural Relativism conveys. The statement contradicts many of Cultural Relativism views it expressed. Rachels example of women rights can be seen as progress, yet it also means that the old ways, before the movement, are now being replace by new and improved ways. Cultural Relativism does view women rights changes as progress; however it forbids us from thinking that this is making our society better.

Thus, cultural relativism views on progress makes this argument contradictory. The five tenets of Cultural Relativism undergo further explication as Rachel notes further criticism. The first claim, “different societies have different moral codes”, holds some truth, however fails to explain that there are universal values that all societies do share. Values such as truth telling, prohibition of murder and caring for the young are conceived by all societies. The only difference is the factual beliefs, not their values. I agree with Rachel, that there are some values that cultures do share.

The second tenet, “The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at within that society”. Rachel assesses and explains that there is a vast difference in what a society believes and what is really true. Practices, like excision, can be very wrong and suggests does it really promote or hinder human well being. I believe it hinders a human well being, excision is a painful procedure that abolishes sexual pleasure for the individual.

Scarring and tendencies to contract disease(s) are most probable in the long run. Cultural relativism believes that society’s morals of a culture can never be wrong. However, Rachels believes that we can see that societies are in need of moral improvement. I agree with Rachels statements, there is room for societies to understand and learn that mistakes can be made even in cultural customs. The third tenet, “There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. There are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times”.

Rachels strongly disagrees with this tenet in cases of stoning, slavery and excision. Rachels says, “it always matters whether a practice promotes or hinder the welfare of the people affected by it”(Rachels, p28). People affected by such barbaric practices do not seem to improve the quality of their lives nor their happiness. The forth tenet, “The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is but one among many”. Rachels points out that Cultural Relativism says, “it is merely one among many”(Rachels, p28) which directs an ‘open question’. A code in particular can be one of the best or one of the worse.

This opens up an entirely new discussion that there are customs that are questioned to being right or wrong. The fifth tenet, “It is arrogant for us to judge other cultures. We should always be tolerate of them”. Rachels raises truth in this statement, we are often arrogant when we criticize other cultures, and tolerance is a good thing. Nevertheless, Rachels notes, we shouldn’t tolerate everything, human societies have done horrible things. Tolerance can only go so far, to a point where intervention is crucial. This claim is inconsistent with the second claim, ‘that right and wrong are determined by the norms of a society’.

There are instants that norms of a society favor intolerance, for example the Nazi army invading Poland. Cultural Relativism teaches us not to criticize the Nazis for being intolerant if all they’re doing is following their own moral codes. However, cultural relativism also tells us that the norms of a culture are bound within the culture itself. Since the norms are bound in Polish society, invasion and manslaughter are not part of their norms. Work Cited: Rachels, James and Stuart Rachels. (2009). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.