Often, the dilemma arises of whether or not to tell the truth in a particular situation. This quandary presents itself frequently in high-stakes job interviews, where I may be asked a question about my qualifications for the job and prior experience. Consider a situation where the interviewer is willing to acknowledge false claims as factual - both on a résumé and spoken directly to the interviewer. Also assume that I, as the applicant, take considerable advantage of the naïveté of the interviewer and lack slightly in qualifications. Should I let know the truth about my qualification deficiency or lie with the intention of creating a scenario which results in the interviewer being more likely hire me? For the purpose of my argument, being …show more content…
But it is apparent that there are only two outcomes which can result from the interview. If the interviewer hires me, he is fooled by my deceit and remains ignorant of my mendacity and is therefore harmed in no way. In the case that the interviewer is able to detect my lies, he will simply reject my inquiry and move on to the next applicant - still remaining unharmed. Both situations are indicative of Nietzsche's concept of "will to power". In my situation, I prevail being hired through lies. Conversely, the interviewer's continued search for an honest and better qualified candidate is the other possible prevailing will. But when both situations are looked at, there is an obvious competition of wills between the two: mine and the interviewer's. This competition of wills is what surrounds the dilemma of whether or not to tell the truth to the …show more content…
Some are likely to be vastly under-qualified and some may possibly lack in credentials like myself. Others will be perfectly qualified while others will have a plethora of impressive jobs in their past. While the interviewer could undoubtedly be biased towards vaguely under-qualified applicants, it is much safer to assume he will pick the applicant which is most qualified. Therefore, knowing that the best likelihood rests behind the superior candidate being chosen, using deceit to masquerade as that contender is the ideal method of being hired - not
When each man or woman is given birth to this world by his or her mother, he or she has inherited the trait of sinfulness from the atrocity committed by Adam and Eve, the first predecessors to mankind on Earth. Their souls have been stained with the darkness of Hell, and their DNAs have been altered by the hand of Satan. Although such monstrous betrayal and contravention of God’s law are incendiary to Him, God follows, in contrast to the sinners, the beat of his pure heart towards humans’ sakes. Eventually, Jesus was sent to this world in the retrospect as a noble savior, who selflessly accepted to be persecuted and deceased for the deliverance of men from the Earth fouled by Lucifer. Instead of endeavoring to be perfectly moral, Christians
Joanne B. Ciulla’s short story, “Case: Sleazy or Stupid?” presents a problem that many business people face in today’s modern world. A HR department asked for applicants to apply for a certain type of job. They screen all candidates who apply and select a few who have equal qualifications for the job. The HR department conducts the original interviews and then pass the ones who did well on to the Department Manager who will determine who would best fit in their department. Ciulla’s story recounts that one of the candidates did very well, but his interview lasted longer than either of them expected it would.
As a questioner it is your business to locate the best applicants accessible among those that apply to your organization. A vital point to recollect is that while a hopeful must have the capacity to utilize the advancements, dialects, and apparatuses received by your organization, it's considerably more imperative to comprehend what the competitor can do notwithstanding the particular prerequisites of the employment.
As a human resources manager, the primary task is to ensure that only the best candidates are called for interview. In essence, academic credentials are not enough to determine a candidate’s suitability. During the interview, it is important to ensure that the applicant has required skills to meet the firm’s objectives. For example, a given person might have the best academic qualifications as per the job’s description but lack other important aspects such as ability to work in the team and good communication skills. During the interview, such traits should be noted to disqualify applicants who cannot meet fundamental requirements of a team player.
I find that job interviews are where people ‘fake it until they make it’ and usually it will get the job without a problem. However, with how competitive the workfield is becoming as technology continue to evolve, there is a greater need now to weed out the people who employers are not looking for. Furthermore, I agree with the definition of bullshit and humbug as there is no clear line with what is true and what is false considering how integrated bullshit is in American society. In a lot of Spanish cultures, I know there are other places similar to the US that it’s okay to pass off bullshit in passing, but not when there is coming serious on the line as they want the best qualified people out there to come and work for them.
John the Baptist was an obedient follower of Christ and was known for his remarkable lifestyle. His main audience was unbelievers and new Christians, therefore, he had a huge responsibility to preach about repentance and the coming of the Savior. When it came to confrontation, John did not hold back from speaking truth into a person's life. He was fearless and and believed that standing for the truth was most important. People were attracted to the teachings of John, because he spoke the truth and that baptism was a symbol of their repentance. John was appointed by God to announce the arrival of Jesus Christ. In John 3:28, he says, "You yourselves know how plainly I told you, 'I am not the Messiah. I am only here to prepare the way for Him.”
Both Aquinas and Nietzsche had very different view points. Their morality, pros and cons, and way of seeing things were different. Aquinas morality is based on truth while Nietzsche is based on opinion or “taste”. Aquinas thought will to truth while Nietzsche thought otherwise.
ity and question the facts which everyone else seemed to passively accept. He was severely injured during a military exercise, and remained bed-ridden for several months, which were spent greatly developing his intellectual abilities, both writing and reading extensively. It is also in this year that he met Richard Wagner, with whom he shared a love of Schopenhauer, and they quickly formed a strong friendship. Nietzsche described his friendship with Wagner one of his greatest achievements, an opinion he will continue to have even after their separation.
“Suffering” is a word which carries negative connotations, used to incite pity, empathy or fear. Why would it not? Is suffering not simply agony, defined justly by the Oxford Dictionary as “the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship” (“Suffering)? Yet, we accept suffering as part of life, a fundamental aspect that defines living. Nietzsche tells us that the very act of living is suffering itself, but to survive is to find value in that suffering. Yet, what sort of value can be attached to an idea so negative? Pico Iyer’s editorial in the New York Times explores the value of suffering, likening suffering to passion and “[p]assion with the plight of other’s makes for ‘compassion’” (________________).I began to think upon the cohesive
Today, we know people who lie in their CVs by including a job or position that they never held, or adding a degree that they never acquired. They know they have what it takes to get the job,
The title of this paper draws a critical question about the absolute truth and reason. Perhaps, reason can bring a person to the absolute truth, but it depends on the individual willingness to accept or deny the absolute truth. The absolute truth for this paper refers to God. Thus, the paper will focus on two great existential complementary philosophers in the nineteenth century such as Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. The role of reason to reach the absolute truth differs for Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Nietzsche pushes towards will of power and reason in order to achieve the absolute truth while Kierkegaard pushes towards to passion for the absolute truth and compassion. In fear and trembling, Kierkegaard explores the biblical faith of Abraham.
When concerning yourself with what it is to be human, philosophically speaking, there is no better vantage point than existentialism, which mainly addresses the question of human existence. Nietzsche and Kierkegaard both view man as an intermediary being on his way to reaching true potential: overcoming himself! In various writings they speak of man as something to be overcome. They believe in man as having a constant self, the belief that gives continuity to their lives. Despite some of their similarities in beliefs of what man’s role in existence is, their differences only continue to fog the answer.
While some may claim that being truthful in the interview is morally preferable, I believe the choice to be truthful is largely dependent on the situation at hand and there are far more situations in which it is preferable to be untruthful. If I instead decided to apply for a lowly janitorial position, it would obviously make sense to exercise prudence and tell the truth, as I have much less to gain than in the other job interview. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche speaks about the "indignant" who are miserable in their pursuit of truth, advising the reader to pursue their will and follow the "cynics" - or those who speak "badly" of men (§26). In the same way Nietzsche advises the reader to follow the "cynics", I think it essential to pursue untruth in the case of the job interview; as being honest could very well lead to a situation where I become miserable due to a lack of meeting
For example, two men walk into a job interview Ted Kingsmen is the first guy to walk in he is wearing a fully pressed suit with tie and glossy shoes. Fredrick Waters is the second guy that walks in he is dressed in a wrinkled button-down shirt and his slacks in the same condition. Both men are brought into the at the same time the Ted comes in and sits to the left. Then following him Fredrick sits on the right. No sooner than the two men sit down the employer turns his head to the left making eye contact and starting a conversation. After going over all the needs and wants that the company inspects them to follow. Ted is asked to leave to and sit out in the common area while he talks to guy on the right. As he is leaving the employer starts to speak to Freddrick saying " you are really qualified this job on paper but physically I don't your ready for this position" the guy sits there confused and then walkouts looking shocked and disappointed. Ted is asked back from the common area to come in and then later offer the job. If Mr.Freddicks Waters would had worried a little more about his appearance he would have maybe got the job. Don't let your first appearance be your