The case against hurting others Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The case against hurting a nonher(prenominal)s - Essay ExampleThe focus is on the concept of How would you like it if someone did that to you? (Nagel, 1987. p. 64). The point emphasized by Nagel here is that a person should design to step into the shoes of the other somebody. Then the perspective of reality would become evident, and perhaps, the action could be avoided. He further argues that people fail to appreciate the viewpoint of the other person because their own orientation intimately the facts is not precisely specific, due to being a different person altogether . Kant on the other hand, almost refers to the doing of these acts as an act of duty, wherein a person would be insidely compelled to undergo a task. He feels that it is important to take heed of situation as a consequence of ones internal drive, instead somebody from the outer world forcing an action.Nagel also tends to believes that the concept of mass is a more extrapolate concept, and cannot be left at the whims of individuals. Universal good, though is not intelligibly defined, yet it exists as unison. It is only for a person to explore the same in appropriate conditions and circumstances, whereby the genuine inner persona of the individual will come out. In the context of hurting others, this is a truly important stance, the fact remains, that of thither is a concept of universal good, then a person should not harm others in the first-year instance. Therefore, he should make that realization earlier in, and should begin to establish the norms that would help oneself him world.... Nagel also tends to believes that the concept of majority is a more generalized concept, and cannot be left at the whims of individuals. Universal good, though is not clearly defined, yet it exists as unison. It is only for a person to explore the same in appropriate conditions and circumstances, whereby the true inner persona of the individual will come out. In the context of hurting others, this is a very important stance, the fact remains, that of there is a concept of universal good, then a person should not harm others in the first instance. Therefore, he should make that realization earlier in, and should begin to establish the norms that would help him live appropriately in the world. The reality is that the integrity of the will is imperishable. In the perspective, the meaning can be inferred in the same line. The will alone can have no integrity - it has to be relate with man himself, as per Kant. Therefore, again extrapolating the fact that the mind is sure to dominate the proceedings of life, despite what line of achievement of actions are to be taken, the case against hurting people becomes clear. The soul as an entity can never destroy, as it is the true emblem of existence for man - his distinguishing factor. These factors give an intrinsic line of reasoning for the person who is slightly to or intends to harm somebody. When the established pattern of thought is already present, then the person will automatically restrain himself from doing the superfluous. The concept of uniformity of behavior and thought has always triggered the minds of people who want to dwell into the lore of what humans may do in a particular scenario. However, it is interesting that