What Leads To The Principle Of Hasty Generalization

You should treat everybody equally. Treat people how you would like to be treated by other people. To be sensitive to people’s needs you have to first find out what their needs are for

* Respect. Respect each individual with the same respect as you would like to be respected.

Generalizing from a sample size that is too small or biased, rather than looking at something more relevant with the situation.

I can agree with the idea that basing actions on morals can help to ensure that people are not being irrational in their thought processes and that people’s needs are more likely put ahead of individual wants. If morals were not involved, then decisions would most likely be made depending on what would advance the position of that person the most or on other selfish wants. At the same time, without morals being looked at, many lives could be lost because there is no clear way to judge things and come up with an agreement. Without morals, it can be extremely tough to figure out right from wrong and how a group or individual should act.

B R I T I S H A R M Y TREAT OTHERS AS YOU EXPECT TO BE TREATED

Do we respect and value others as they are, or ‘as we would like them to be’?

When choosing a position on this topic, I would feel most comfortable with the Libertarian view. The Libertarian view coincides with the Kantian moral principle of “Respect for Persons”. To respect a person, you must acknowledge

I read three quotes that caught my attention. “Note that moral judgement must be backed by good reasons-if it true that you ought (or might not) to do such-and-such, then there must be a reason why you should (or should not) do it,” (Rachels and Rachels pg.135) Moral judgement is classified in good reasons only. If a good reason is provided than it’s okay to do it. “The idea that moral rules have no exception is hard to defend,” (Rachels and Rachels pg.129) Moral rules are different in many ways, so little can influence the outcome. “At first Truman was reluctant to use the new weapon.” (Rachel and Rachel pg. 126) So, Truman didn’t like the idea of killing off people who were innocent. But with desperate measure, he made his mind up and agree.

What actions are right to some, might be wrong to others. Essentially, morality is arbitrary. It

formulation we should treat people with fundamental dignity and respect. For instance it would be wrong to make false promises because we would be treating others as a means and not respecting them as persons with intrinsic and value. Treating someone as a means to an end and treating them merely as a means to an end in order to avoid misunderstanding is imperative. So an example of the second formulation is if I steal a book from you, I am treating you as a means to get the book only. If I ask to have your book, I am respecting your humanity.

It is obvious that the choice that we make and every action we take have an impact on the well-being of ourselves and others. Therefore, when it comes to original basis of what we consider is right, I think in my opinion we have to overlook our moral values and also recognizing that our decisions and actions have consequences which sometimes that does not apply directly. In that case, what is right would be something that does not cause arm, or affect anybody in any society. For example, when one volunteer to help in time of disaster we can call that the right thing. In contrast with moral right, one thing we can consider to be wrong is stealing because stealing is universally wrong in every culture or society. Nevertheless, for us to considering

Referring to morality from an individual point of view, each person has strong beliefs about what is wrong and what is right. Moreover, morals differ from person to person and may be due to difference in culture. Morality also results from basic human emotions i.e. love, hate, honesty, greed, sins etc (Psychology Today).

Everyday we are tested as individuals to make the right choice. How we view ourselves as individuals and how others view us are directly correlated to our moral decision-making. But morals are somewhat misleading. What might be a wrong decision for one person might be a solution to another. So how do we define morals? Do we follow Gods’ moral rules because to do so would increase out likelihood of obtaining salvation in the afterlife? Or is it simpler than that. Is God going to deny our entrance into heaven because we have run a stop sign here and there? No. I believe our moral values are much simpler than that. I believe that our moral decision-making comes from our upbringing of what is right or wrong. Our parents and

The definition of morality or what constitutes proper morals is a difficult task and may be explained differently 100 times if one were to ask 100 people. Generally speaking, being moral is conforming to the standards of good or right. This vague definition is open for many interpretations. As mentioned, morality is not recognized internationally or is scrutinized as a weakness by the realist community, at least not openly so. Morality has played a role in international affairs and war for centuries.

Treat people the way they want to be treated, not the way you’d like to be treated.