Posted at 10.27.2018
Hedonism is thought as the desire to get oneself in pleasure and happiness. The sensation is manipulated from within and can only be stopped, minimized or redirected by one self. It's portrayed as something good and will not involve pain. The theory argues that individuals are continually looking for something that will give them joy whether evil or good. However, the search for happiness and pleasure has so far been endless. Those that make an effort to be happy never get the complete satisfaction (Hedonism 27 ). Happiness is like a butterfly the greater you pursue it, a lot more it eludes you. Be still and allow it come for you (Mill 1).
However, sometimes the pursuit for happiness is not a smooth road. While one is focused on addressing the items of pleasure they seem to be to get road blocks that prevent them from enjoying what they want. What if I get an alternative to that i can enjoy a certain pleasure but is evil? According to hedonism, good things in life are the ones that bring pleasure however when we bring the evil that a lot of people enjoy doing, then hedonism is incorrect. Therefore what one enjoys in life is what gives them pleasure. Nozick's experiment explains that people can be placed into machines where were programmed to feel or have experiences that people choose, instead of us to go through unpleasant situations (Nozick 31).
I do not agree with this theory because it will surely not allow human beings to reside in normal lives. We will never be able to know different pleasures life has to offer as we is only going to be programming everything even as we please.
Utilitarianism explains that the decision of actions and things done depends upon its value and benefit to an individual in regards to making the individual happy (Hedonism 2 20). Unlike in hedonism one chooses the kind of pleasure by analysis its benefit and usefulness. It will depend on preference and taste of an individual. The perspective of your person towards a certain act also determines the choice of what one wants to do. You will discover two categories of utilitarianism: act and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is the kind that you have to believe carefully of what they want to enjoy. They have to consider the effect of the act chosen.
Rule utilitarianism is when one has a choice of an action that involves regulations that should be followed. The individual should highly consider all the guidelines involved. I think the act utilitarianism is plausible as one only needs to be careful of what they would like to enjoy that it will not inflict pain to them. However, the rule utilitarianism is again divided into two: the restricted rule and the open rule. The open rule is a lot flexible while the strict rule must be followed to the latter. On the other hand rule is not plausible because you can be forced to break rules to get pleasure, yet a few of the rules once broken could mean painful experiences when under temptation, will dsicover a utility in the breach of a rule (Mill 19).
It feel that the act utilitarianism is good as you only must weigh the pro and cons of what they intend to do. As the rule utilitarianism may push an individual to the wall and cause them to break rules which could have consequences that could be painful.
Categorical imperative is the classification of acts according to reason and morals. Kant discusses that people need to distinguish what is right or wrong. The decision to do something must be checked whether it's morally right or wrong. When is thinking of enjoying a certain act then they need to weigh it. The average person needs to ask themselves or question the conduct to which they do that act. The finish cause this category is not priority but the protocol followed should be acceptable whether the act is pleasurable or not (Categorical imperative 76 ).
This might not exactly be satisfactory before everyone. When one wants to have fun in doing something of these choice then your pleasure in it is what priority is. However, if the first is forced to check out a certain code of rules to enjoy then at a certain point the pleasure in it is measured. This may lead many into breaking rules and regulations. To be able to have complete satisfaction and pleasure then freedom is mandatory.
The question on gender equality has been very involving. Many folks have tried to compare the behaviors of women and men. If women should be given the same education and opportunities in life then women have the ability to practice and bring up the same virtues as men even though they have been termed weak. If education is what makes one to have good moral habits then all the graduates should be morally upright. However, that is not the case as the degrees you have earned hasn't improved their sense of mannerisms. Hence if women are treated right as men they are capable of doing as much as men can. Nevertheless, women and men are both human they would behave and think the same if subjected to the same circumstances and conditions.
The attitude that many have that women are weak and men are strong can be very demoralizing. We have to not have such like comparisons inside our society today. There must be equal chances on both genders if we are to have a society that is balanced. That way we're able to raise better leaders and better communities than having the dividing attitude. We should not note these distinctions and if they're there they are as well balanced on both sides (Feminist Ethics 132).
However, parents concentrate on teaching boys morals and also to the girl's manners. This makes majority of the women grow up with negative traits and bad virtues as morals are something of thinking unlike manners that may be mastered. In order to have a society that has virtuous women, strong and courageous we should give girls the same grounds to learn and grow. They are allowed to know how to choose and to weigh what's right or wrong.
http://ebooks. adelaide. edu. au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645u/chapter2. html