If you order your cheap custom essays from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on My Philosophy. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality My Philosophy paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in My Philosophy, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your My Philosophy paper at affordable prices!
Life is tough. When we think of our lives, we tend to focus on a broad scale the years, or decades, that we have been on Earth. Yet, our lives are actually lived one short moment at a time. Every moment is a drop of water, that we make a choice with, and over time, alter the course of our lives. For most people, those tiny decisions they make are not based on rules, laws, commandments, or high philosophy, but by evaluating the situation and applying their morals. Throughout a life, morals may change. Life is fluid, our understanding may widen over time like an old river, and slow down to bend and accommodate to the opinions and values of others that we meet in the course of our lives.
Humans are intelligent beings with self-consciousness, and therefore simply living and surviving is not enough; we require a goal in life. All people, whether great philosophers, priests, farmers or prisoners, have their own interpretation of life, its goals, and how to make the most of it all. Through the ages, the philosophies of people are shared, and shaped to fit the times, the society and the individual's personality. In my life, I have been able to live in a complex time in history in radically different societies, and through these experiences, I have been able to shape my own individual philosophy.
Different philosophers have different ideas of how a person should be moral, and what should be their goal in life. Hobbes said that we all are in the state of nature and we need to be under a social contract, under an absolute monarch system. Mill's Utilitarian theory defines morality in terms of maximization of utility for all parties affected by a decision or action; summarized by the principle "The greatest good for greatest number of people." However, unlike Mill-- where the act of morality depends on the consequences-- Kant believes whether or not a person acted morally depends on whether he or she had acted on reason alone. Kant sees will as fully autonomous and therefore he believes it requires no external motivation. MacIntyre proposed that all these Enlightenment thinkers were systematically destroying morality, leaving it in fragments. According to MacIntyre, the theories set forth on the basis of human nature failed because all of them rejected any ability for reason to determine or discover a unitary human end.
Through this extremely brief summary of the philosophical theories presented, we are able to see that many of these philosophical theories have been created with a sense of egoism that time has exposed as slightly limited in their viewpoint. Though these philosophies may have seemed right for the time and culture that they were formed in, they have not stood up to the fluid nature of the ages. Calling on ethical principles of these philosophers doesn't always lend clarity to solving a problem. For example one person may argue that the consequences matter most (utilitarianism) while another can refute that by saying that those are chance, and intentions are more important (Kant). Through this over-simplified example, we can see that a single philosophical viewpoint may be too narrow to provide an answer.
Cheap College Papers on My Philosophy
Imagine, if upon leaving an ethics class, every student suddenly knew how to figure out all the right answers to ethical problems; if they wanted to know whether having an abortion is morally permissible or whether or not scientists should use mice for experiments, all they would need to do is grab a pencil and work out a correct, precise answer just you would with a math problem. Unfortunately, this isn't possible. Why not? Have the greatest philosophers in history failed us?
Some people, such as MacIntyre, believe that, in a sense, they have. However, I disagree. I think that philosophy is not there to offer commandments on stone tablets, but to open one's mind to thinking about each problem as they come. As I mentioned before, our lives are given to us one moment at a time, and in each of these moments, we have the power of choice. The philosophers that I have studied have given me the perspective to look at the many facets of the choices I make.
I believe that making moral choices becomes a habit, as we are presented with each moment, we soon learn to habitually answer them. However, each moment is unique and all decisions cannot be answered in the same, habitual way. For that reason, we must strive throughout our lives to open our minds to the moral reasoning of other people. In order for a problem to be solved in the most ethical way possible, it must be evaluated from many different angles, and resolved in accordance with the morals of the decision maker.
You may ask how we can trust the morals grounds the conscience of the decision maker. I believe that each sane person has a natural sense of conscience, and it is only when faced with a dilemma that draws the conscience in two possible directions that one must look to their moral foundation. What I refer to as the "moral foundation" is simply the 'rules' or guidelines that a person carries to determine what is good; i.e. in moral situations, they are what ultimately determine the good choice of decision maker. The word "dilemma" comes from the Greek meaning "two assumptions or choices." Each dilemma we are presented in our lives is not a question of black and white, or it wouldn't-- by definition-- be a problem at all. It is that infamous "gray area" that causes the difficulties for us; we are able to see benefits, or possibly harms, from whatever we choose. Because there are possible harms no matter what the decision, one must look at problems from many different angles so that he or she is able to finally choose the one that will cause the least amount of harm.
A single philosophical concept is not adequate to answer the questions that we face. The simple observation that there are no perfect laws or rules regarding abortion, euthanasia, animal testing, etc, are a testament to the fact that a single dogmatic philosophy is inadequate in providing answers. Each woman facing the choice or whether or not to have an abortion; each family deciding whether euthanasia would be the best decision, and the countless other moral situations are completely unique.
Instead of trying to put forward a single principle and to say what is right, I believe we should respect all the choices others have.
As I have mentioned before, moral reasoning is shaped by the society and times that one lives in. Through my experiences in seeing different societies, I have been able to evaluate the moral codes of the cultures I have been living in. Through this, I have learned to respect the personal philosophies that people hold. There are many viewpoints and each holds a piece of truth. I believe in tolerance in other people's beliefs ("live and let live") however, I am also wary of those beliefs that infringe upon the rights of others with our choices.
Upon arriving in America from Nepal, I found that what could be considered reasonably moral in America is not considered moral in the culture of Nepal. I was torn between upholding the values of my culture, and understanding the ones presented to me in America.
In Nepal women are oppressed and considered inferior to men. If I want to go on a date or hang out with boys, it wouldn't be considered "moral" in my society. Women are supposed to do the household work, take care of their children and their family. So, I believe in my culture women are actually living for other people. They do as they are told to and live as they are told to. If women act as puppets, then society loses half of the valuable opinions that help to develop and enrich it. If we start following the rules that others think are right for us, we are unable to gain moral development.
When I was younger, I tried not to date, hang around with boys, and stay safely within the realm of the feminine community. I obeyed the rules my parents gave me. I believe I was acting in interest of my society. I was looking for the greatest good for my family, and through that, the society. This is in line with the moral principle set forth by Mill, "the greatest good for greatest number of people."
Consider how that philosophy is applied to my culture the women are expected to follow these rules for the good of all. Yet, simply trying to create harmony is not, in my opinion, moral; there must be a level of freedom for all members of society. Many of the traditions today are held in existence only by the belief that they are for the good of society; that they create a good social cohesion. In other words, they fit well with the Utilitarian philosophy. Yet, even the staunchest Utilitarianists will agree that it is not good to infringe upon individual's rights. In societies where women are expected to have limited amounts of freedom in order to "benefit" the society with cohesion, the women are being oppressed and through that the entire society suffers.
It is said that when one member of society is chained, the rest of society must hold the chains to keep that person in place. Thus, where there is oppression, every member is bound and limited by it. With my philosophy, I value the opinions of others in order to create a broader viewpoint. During the "feminist revolution" women pointed out how philosophers had neglected their values A feminist philosopher Allison Jaggar believes that Enlightenment thinkers "show little or no concern for women's as opposed to men's interests and rights." In looking at the two notions of the self as put forth by the Enlightenment thinkers, Kant, Mill, Hobbes and Locke, we see the self pictured in two principle roles (1) the legislator who reflects on principles and policy and () the self-interested merchant who asserts his powers in the marketplace. Historically, these roles have been the roles of white, healthy, youthfully middle-aged, middle class, heterosexual "men." As a result, women's interests and rights get further and further removed from moral experience.
They dismiss as morally uninteresting the problems that arise in the so-called private world, the realm in which women cook, clean, care for the young, the old, and the sick. It overvalues culturally masculine traits like independence, autonomy, separation, mind, reason, culture, transcendence, war and death and undervalues culturally feminine traits like interdependence, community, connection, body, emotion, nature, immanence, peace and life. Traditional ethics favors culturally masculine ways of moral reasoning; ways that emphasize rules, universality, and impartiality. At the same time traditional ethics minimizes culturally feminine ways of moral reasoning; ways that emphasize relationships, particularity, and partiality. (Jaggar, http//plato.stanford.edu)
I believe that the points brought up by feminists are valid; however, I do not think that feminist values should replace the ones previously emphasized. In accordance with my belief that ethics should be shared; I believe that both the 'masculine' and 'feminine' values and all their different variations should be upheld to create a stronger whole. The more we can respect the values of others, the less narrow our viewpoint in solving problems will be. The more that occurs, the greater the chances of finding better solutions to moral questions. However, the ultimate decision in one's life should be left to the individual.
If I want to do something good for the society or anybody else I myself first have to feel content of what I plan to do. I am not forced to obey or follow anyone's principles. Everyone has their own set of principles and there is not guarantee one's principle would work for other. What I trust is that I am unique person and I will do things not because someone else wants me to, but because I want to be content with my decisions. I will take my responsibility and will try my best to fulfill it. I am not responsible for others responsibility. I respect others opinions and religions and will expect the same. I respect my elders and I am willing to hear their expectations and opinions with an open mind; even if I do not agree with them. In the same context I would expect them to respect my ideas and my beliefs. I try my best to be honest, truthful and not try to harm others in any way. I love and respect all the people of the world. I do the best in all the aspects of life and I will accept my traits good or bad. I will not bring in violence and always seek for peace. I let people live their own life and would expect the same freedom in return.
I repeat again that there is no such principle that would apply to all of the human beings. What I think is right might not seem right to all others. Questions of ethical dilemmas may arise considering my principle.
Some people may ask how my philosophy applies to such huge moral transgressions as war or rape. My answer is fairly simple I believe that we should each live in accordance with our own moral foundations. I may be against the war, but my philosophy only is used for controlling my decisions, not the world's largest governments. I am against all forms of violence, especially rape, but I know that I am not morally responsible for the transgressions of others. Philosophy is used to determine what is better or worse in a situation. In cases of obvious infringement of another's persons rights through violence, the people who have been damaged or killed have little need for hearing whether their transgressor acted morally. I have mentioned again and again, that I am against the infringement of other people's rights, however, it is not possible to create a philosophy that can stop all the violence in the world.
My principles may sound too self-centered to the people who think moral principles should have more consideration for others. These people believe it is satisfying and a moral duty to help others. They think it does not seem fair that one should have so much a big home, a car, a good education, and nice clothes others have so little. For people who believe that one's main focus of personal responsibility is selfish, I answer that to live for others, invites oppression it makes sacrifice a virtue and denies both the giver and receiver the true responsibility of their actions. For example suppose, I am person with high ambition; I want something to do in life; I want to get admitted to a prestigious college and I have worked hard all my life just so that I could get admitted in that college. Let us further assume that my friend and I applied together to the same college. I get admitted and my friend is placed on the waiting list. She has a change to get in if someone drops out. What should I do in this situation? Should I drop so that my friend can get in, in order to help her? Should I disregard the hard work I did all my life? If I did drop for her benefit, would she have to be indebted to me for the rest of her life? I believe that I should not have to feel the sense of responsibility for her education as well as my own, and she should not have to feel the weight of a debt caused by great sacrifice. I believe that I should help my friend whenever I can but not at the cost of violating my own future. This is not being selfish, this is simply respecting individual boundaries and responsibilities.
Far too many people live their lives as others want them to live it, they don't live it consciously and they don't know what they want. It is important for everyone to think about what they want out of life. If you honestly want to change something and you have considered it logically and believe in it with all your heart, then don't hold back. Like Gandhi said "Be the change you want to see in the world", try to be an inspiration to those around you, try to convey your messages and beliefs, just as I am doing right now. As we share our values, we will all grow stronger. To use just a single philosophy will never be enough. I said in the beginning of this essay that 'life is tough' while that is true, it is also beautiful; it opens up the possibility for us to examine every moment and through our power of choice flow in perfect harmony with our conscience.
Please note that this sample paper on My Philosophy is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on My Philosophy, we are here to assist you. Your cheap research papers on My Philosophy will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!