Jean-Paul Sartre Essay

As we grow and sprain an adult that is able to mastermind our own opinion is al to the highest degree bid a rite of passage be answer interpret over the six step almost c every forms like I clear been a fork of for each one step at some point in my life. When I was ripening up I think relating to Stage 1 The Punishment and obedience Orientation was definitely part of my life. Of course we get intot call for to get in trouble as kids so generally we signalize that the authority will provide a severe enough penalisation that will stop us from doing whatever we did again.I put myself at Stage 4 The Law and Order Orientation. Before I returned to college I wanted to join the San Antonio Police Department and I almost do it. I was excused from the application process at the third story of the process because of 1 scruple. I have been in favor of right enforcement for probably 10+ years. I in any case remember my military late(prenominal) supports the argument of plac ing me at this stage. I withal believe Stage 4 The Law and Order Orientation best describes me because it is essentially how I have lived my life the previous 10+ years.From joining the military to leavening pop out for the SAPD I recognize there argon procedures and eviscerate assembly lines established to keep the realness and our country a safe go forth to live. Of course there argon battalion that try the impartiality and want to stretch it to the brink and this goes both for criminals and politicians that use laws and loopholes for personal gain. Providing support for my decision is simple. I have a tendency to instantly report or confront soulfulness that is prison-breaking or stretching the law. I have confronted third mess donjon at my townhome complex about tails organism off of leashes while being distant.It is against complex policy and I have reported all three individuals simply because I feel like this is my neighborhood and when kids be outside playin g I will eternally assume a dog is aggressive because terrible things do happen. I have a German shepherd that is neer off the leash unless inside the dog third estate fence. Cleaning up after the animal is also our responsibility because diseases stick out be spread through an animals waste. That is also something I have confronted tenants about and reported them for. Krishnas advice is all about standing(a) by your upbringing.I take it to mean that you must always learn your path regardless of the outcome or consequences. on that pointfore, Arjuna is a contendrior at fight, because of this he must always fight when directed to fight regardless of the consequences. Im not completely sure how you compare or colligate Krishnas advice to care ethics because to me care ethics is not shown regular in the slightest by Krishna. For me to recount I would definitely fight the war would be wrong. For me to say that I would definitely withdraw would be wrong. Frankly, I have no clu e how I would act or what I would do on the battlefield.I have been deployed and stationed in warzones but I had no relations or ties to the people we are at war with. Arjuna has friends and family standing on the same battlefield that may die during this conflict. This is not a factor I had to consider when being deployed. So, for me to say that I would fight or would not fight is not an final result I potbelly straight up provide because I have never and will probably never be faced with that situation. Ethically, I dont think I gave an answer that can be canvas like it should be.I think that providing a slip away around answer may be a slight display of selfishness. I say that because I dont know how to answer a question that involves going to war with family. I can say that if family is not include on the opposing side I would do what my country asked of me and go fight. In order to give a definite response to whether I could fight against family and friends I would have to be put in that situation. There are also consequences to not fighting when your country requests that you go to war. So, the consequences would also be going through my mind at judgment time.A rectitude can be argued that the virtue is that person. For example I endorse a virtue of cleanliness and honestly something that is out of place or something that is an affection sore will irritate me to the point of fixing the mess. Almost every(prenominal) day at endure I notice something out of place such as a wrapper on the floor or stain on someones desk. These examples bother me to the point of needing to answer the problem. I believe a virtue can guide a person through their day-to-day life just like possessing morals. A strongly valued virtue is just as evident as someone with strong morals.Morals just like virtues can be practiced every day. However, we must practice virtuous acts regularly. After a while, these acts will experience a habit and so the virtuous acts part of ou r everyday life and the person will be leading a life guided by his virtues. wad who practice their virtues improve their skills and thereof become happier. According to Aristotle the person who struggles to acquire virtues is in the long run a better person and is much happier because of the extra hard work it took to acquire the virtue.By continuously practicing your respective virtues people will presently be acting in the right way ground on the virtue the person is trying to master. I do not believe people are exclusively good or bad, but become good or bad according to their habits they develop throughout their lives. When a person learns how to use the virtues they become the consultationistic of the person. A person who has learnt the virtue of generosity is often called a generous person because he or she acts in a manner that displays generosity in all situations. People are to a greater extent likely to acquire virtues by observing others in our society.If we experie nce other people being kind to us and see the happiness it creates we are more likely to practice this virtue thus if we were just told to practice it. Programs like Big Brothers Big Sisters help square off the younger generations so that they follow in the correct footsteps. Our virtues guide us to be the person we are and the person we ultimately want to be. be virtuous can alter for the good, and the bad, a moral problem we may face throughout our lives. tin Calvins work focused on individuals and how the individual could do nothing to ensure their own salvation.John Calvins line of intellection more closely relates to determinism. John relates to determinism because his theory is all about people not being able to freely guide their own salvation. Isaac Newton focused on nature and that the entire existence is governed by natural laws and because of this there is no freedom. Isaac Newtons line of thinking more closely relates to determinism. If the universe is governed by natural laws therefore the ability to be free cannot exist. Also the fact that human beings are physical in nature take a leaks people susceptible to natural law and therefore freedom is an illusion.Charles Darwin was a big believer in phylogenesis and that everything evolves at different stages and only the fittest survive. Charles Darwins line of thinking more closely relates to determinism. I believe determinism is present because nature causes the evolution based on defined parameters. This theory provokes survival which is triggered by something else such as a weakness that evolution fixes. Karl Marx believed more about social character and how our actions are pertinacious based on the economy and socially determined. Karl Marxs line of thinking more closely relates to determinism.This theory identifies a cause such as economic struggle being the reason for a persons situation. Everything is based on social forkes and your class is determined at throw. Sigmund Freud explai ns that people are determined, even the unborn because of our unconscious minds. Sigmund Freuds line of thinking more closely relates to determinism. I say determinism because a life is extremely influenced by their parents so the ability to freely make choices does not exist. A choice is more often the result of someone elses influence.Lastly, Jean capital of Minnesota Sartre to me is more of a realist because he discusses that people are born in to a situation and sometimes are unable to help their situation and social status. However, Jean Paul Sartre also believes people have a capacity to alter how they live. Jean Paul Sartres line of thinking more closely relates to freedom. After reading all these theories, I feel like Jean Paul Sartres theory is really the only theory that allows freedom of choices. Human beings from birth are placed in a class, but based on this theory all people have the ability to change their class or status.I believe justice is hard to pin-point because justice can be displayed in both ethically and unethically. Reliving an assignment I completed earlier talked about torture and whether or not I ruling it was justified. I believe torture can stand on the same line as justice. However, I can also sympathise the opposite side saying torture is unethical no look what form or fashion it is conducted. The elements of justice are open to variant and the consequence of justice is arguable. When implementing a form of justice there are always consequences to those actions.In order to fully understand the justice form you need to localise all angles of the decision. This is where the decision making becomes tricky because most people like to make a decision and run with it. However, you should always take a step back and weigh every assertable decision and its outcome before implementing a decision. To better understand how a consequentialist works I will provide an example. For instance, if John Doe thought to himself one day that h e was going to rob a banking company he would most likely make a plan. First, John would try to decide if robbing the bank would even be worth it.Then John would scrutinize every aspect of the plan to ensure the best attainable positive outcome. John would also attempt to predict the consequences of robbing the bank and impuissance because a consequentialist brings everything in to consideration. It is easy to identify the differences of right and wrong because everyone innately knows what is right and what is wrong. All human beings also have the ability to identify the consequence to our actions. Unfortunately people most generally act without thinking and therefore find themselves sitting on the wrong side of the law. This is when people find out how justice actually works.