Two Dogmas of Empiricism

Science and philosophy are twin sisters like the sun and the moon. Both are sources of knowledge and outshine the other depending on the time of day. At times, it even comes to a point where the light of one completely outshines the other. Yet there are also exciting points in our calendar when both light mingle and produce a splendid array of colors. It will lead ones thoughts hanging on a pendulum swing weighing whether the two are allies or foes.

In the words of Rosenberg, he stated that science deals with descriptive questions while philosophy deals with the normative questions. Thus there are questions that science cannot answer now and perhaps may never be able to answer which philosophy can moreover provide reasons for the cause of this inability to find answers. One of these questions rests on the foundation and nature of scientific facts which Quine extensively discusses in his paper, Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Here Quine wittily dissects the validity of two major claims of science namely the analytic synthetic distinction and reductionism which serves as the foundation of scientific thoughts.

The first dogma argues that there is a clear distinction between analytic or empirical statements and synthetic statements on the following grounds firstly, it is analytic if the denial statement will provide a contradiction but such a claim is only applicable to the form S is P which further falls prey to the problem of meaning and definitions. Secondly, analytic statements suggest synonymy which implies interchangeablity in all contexts without change of truth value also known as the Liebnizs principle of salva veritate. But this will not always apply to all analytic statements. This particular principle traces its power on the use of language in a particular culture or generation and does not entirely rest on analyticity. Apparently, there is no cognitive synonymy between analytic statements as philosopher of old tried to prove.

The second dogma rests on the verification principle. Analytic statements are considered meaningful simply based on its definition while the meaningfulness of empirical statements is based on its relationship with the world of experience. Quine argues that it is false to believe that analytic statements find its meaningfulness based on its conceptual meaning because synonymity alone find its meaning through verification of the closeness of nature of the words used by a particular thinker. There is no difference in terms of verification for analytic and synthetic statements. Both use sensory experience to judge the meaningfulness of statements which ultimately makes 1every meaningful statement reducible to a statement about immediate experience.

Nevertheless, Quine does not fully agree with this form of reductionism. Radical reductionism implies the translatability of statements about the physical world into statements about immediate experience. But that is not the case, Godels argument against the incompleteness of mathematics proves this matter. Mathematics as a branch of science uses a lot of abstract concepts like lines, point and planes, rational and irrational numbers, which are not translatable to experience since they refer to infinity. So is science analytic or synthetic It is true that it is based on experience and can prove so by providing tangible evidences

Empiricism has always been associated with scientific inquiry because of its methodology. It makes it inevitable for Quine to relate his conclusion regarding the nature of empiricism with science. His conclusion is very similar to Kuhns theory about scientific paradigms. Kuhns theory states that there are no truths because of the incommensurablity which exists among scientific principles as exemplified in Newtons Law of Motion and Einsteins Law of Motion. Both are accepted as true by scientists although it forms contradictions between one another if you will not separate them on a different plane. Quine on the other hand suggests that science is like web. It has a lot of empirical data which connects with one another and at times forms a knot yet continuously supports the rest of the web. One cannot simply cut a string because it will mean the destruction of the entire web but one can carefully loosen one string to lessen the knots which it has formed. Thus a conflict with experience at the periphery occasions means a redistribution of truth value over some scientific statements. It involves constant re-evaluation of data gathered without fully disposing the entire system. Thus any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments, elsewhere in the system. Science is a human construct which aims at predicting future experience. Laws of motions are accepted in the scientific world because it is beneficial for man to calculate speed and velocity which are both important in the invention of machines. Descriptions and hypothetical discussions regarding sub-atomic particles and even DNA structures are pursued as the continuation of common sense to simplify theories. Science wishes to unravel the mysteries of the universe which includes the farthest galaxy and the minutest universe revolving within our body to produce discoveries which will make our lives simpler and better. Man is still the master of everything in this world and holds control over everything which he has created, that includes sciences.

Empiricism as a school of thought for theories of knowledge still stands tall. But Quine managed to revolutionize it by clarifying its purpose and nature in relation to the world of analytic statements. It is not error free because its very child, science, uses abstract concepts in describing a part of experience which is very difficult to define. Empiricism in the end became a hybrid of traditional analytic definition used by philosophers and pragmatists conception of science.

Best Human Life

1.Does the best life consist of pursuing just one intrinsic value or several
I am a prudential pluralist, and dont agree with the thought that I should follow only a single value system as it limits thought, and makes me unidirectional. Quite often I find that differences arise from a clash of views, and it is primarily because intrinsic values can be multi dimensional. My cherished views on how to live life may differ radically from another person. This is because people have different standards of rightness and goodness and appear to give different answers to the same moral question. I notice that people of the same culture may more or less have the same values. Conflicts occur when people differ in their opinion on rights or virtues.While rights are established by an enlightened society, ethics are more virtue based, and emerge from traditional society. So, for instance in traditional religious groups there may be restrictions on dress, which may be seen unacceptable to others. I feel the freedom to dress as I please and to do what I want seems right to me, and I believe. Based on culture, I have seen one seeing dressing restriction as correct and this intrinsic. The other group sees this as wrong, for they feel that freedom allows them to do as they please for numerous reasons. That religion is not based on clothes, that freedom allows them the liberty to dress as they please and so on. I have seen that quite often through persuasion, a person change view from one to the other.

2. Is there a universal recipe for the best life or are there different recipes best for different people
I am moderate prudential pluralist, as I believe each human being is different to the other, and there can never be one way in which everyone can follow and have the best life. I feel that every person desires something, whether it is materialistic or just something like mental peace or good health. This varies according to the concerned person is in at that particular time. The problem with a universal approach to life is that it either makes good sense or no sense at all. For a childless couple who appear to have everything, the thing they want most is to have a child. To a person in dire financial straits, his most urgent requirement would be money. However, I feel there are certain basic things one can do for happiness, and this includes training your mind to accept the good with the bad, and not to believe in excesses. I find that by following a value system of inner peace, learning to be patient and a good listener, will help me. I should also do things with out expecting recognition, learn to be selfless, avoid anger, develop tolerance, and be non-egoistic. These I am sure will help me achieve the best of life.

3. Is the best life a matter of personal opinion, or could a persons opinion be wrong
 I am a moderate prudential objectivist, and believe the best of life is a very relative question, as what I want out of life is so different from someone else.  Therefore, my opinion in such matters, considering personal autonomy and finding an answer, is like presupposing that we can resolve the subjectivity of the response. Therefore when moral opinions are challenged, I find that quite often I face arguments that the issue can get finally resolved only with a form of subjectivism. This may be wrong, but the pull of subjectivism caused by challenging the view of morality, and allowing another viewpoint, quite often means that a subjectivist view can prevail. However, I feel the best life is personal option and whether it is right or wrong makes no difference to how I feel.


Where does morality come from

I am a moderate moral absolutist, as unfortunately I find that in life there are no one answer, because all human being are different. The idea that I should do or shouldnt varies according to whether I am at that time thinking based on ethics, which is what is normally followed as it has been established as a societal norm, through enlightenment or sometimes my thinking is based on flowing tradition.
I dont feel that there can be just one opinion on any issue as the following old adage says
 there is no such thing as right or wrong, it is only thinking that makes it so. This is very true if I were to look at an issue from both sides. One side would be meta ethical if the opinion is based on societal value, arising from an enlightened society. In direct contrast to this could be the other view expressed on morality purely based on traditional values and which has been passed on through generations.
What does morality require us to do

I am a pluralist about basic moral standards, as one of the conditions of normative ethics is that it is also involves evaluating moral standards. Therefore, there is an attempt to figure out what people should do, or an evaluation of whether their current moral behavior is reasonable. This is really traditional moral philosophy.
There also arises the question as to whether I am bound to do what is right. Since society often looks at things from a purely theoretical side, it is important to be able to also consider the importance and evaluate the stand taken from a practical side. I find that this kind of pluralistic approach, solves more problems than I thought possible.

Why should I do what morality requires

 I consider myself a moderate altruist, as I find that when I am selfless and help people, society as a whole benefits.  I know that modern society preaches that I should act always in my own interest. I find this approach hard to justify in principle, as it is a purely personal one made for selfish reasons. This is nothing but ethical egoism. I feel that this way of morality is an overreaching way of thinking, and that it cannot be justified always. I therefore feel that a purely altruistic way of life where there is a moderate and  proper approach would be better.

Knowledge and the Self

Man has long been educating his kind - from way back the prehistoric ages where they wrote on leaves up until today where man uses computers.  In between those eras of accomplishment, Immanuel Kant and Jean Jacques Rosseau have taken on the challenges of plotting the best principles of education in honing man.  These two great philosophers have inspired many educators in their time and even long after they have died their works are still widely read.

Jean Jacques Rousseau, in his work Emile,  viewed man as weak, helpless and foolish when born into this world.  According to him, the individual can change this initial stature through education and that it can only be attained by three ways   of nature, men and things.  The growth of the body is accounted for  nature , the way the individual utilize our body is accounted for  men  and the experiences the body underwent in the environment is accounted for  things .  By habituation of the knowledge that the individual learns from these three ways,  he will be able to grow into a fine man.   Although Rousseau clearly made his point regarding the importance of free-will in the child, he also stated in his book that the child cannot be left alone while in the process of growing, for environmental factors can corrupt the childs education and may later produce a  beast  in the society.  He emphasized the importance of a mother in preventing the production of  these debauched men.  To him, the blind love of a mother is a hundred times better than the strictness of a father as the compassion grows into the child and this bears fruit as mans humanity.  (Rousseau, 2007)

Immmanuel Kant, in the translated work of Churton, viewed man as a citizen of the community rather than an individual with free-will.  According to him, the person is honed by the culture of the society and instilled in this are  discipline and instruction .  By fulfilling his own duty to the community, the individual develops into a fine member of the community.  For him, freedom is a tool for shaping  undisciplined men who follow every caprice .  Rosseau also included the importance of developing the abilities of a child little by little as they grow up.  He clearly stated that education is what makes a man furthermore,  it is also the duty of the grown man to pass on this education to the nect generation. (Kant, 2004)

Both philosophers have several similarities in their respective theories.  For one, Rousseau and Kant had made emphasis on experience as the primer of an individuals comprehension.  This  experience  leads the individual into gaining knowledge yet it does not bound the process of education in that alone.  Rousseau mentioned three ways of gaining experience   that is of nature, men and things  on the other hand, Kant defined only the senses in gaining experiences.  Both philosophers also mentioned the importance of child nurturing in the early stages of education.  Rosseau had made it a point to emphasize the role of a mother in the childs growth while Kant did not mention any particular parent-figure in the childs development. According to him, the individual must hone his abilities by his own efforts for it is his duty to do so.

As the great Lao Tzu have said,  Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.  Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.  The world is a battlefield,it always has been since the time of the creation. Brauns were the trend during those time but now education is the most efficient weapon that any individual can have   it will definitely help you survive the  world of ties and suits .   It is through education and education alone that can uplift an individual further up the top of the food chain.

Ethics Analysis

This paper strongly argues the sharp differences between a categorical imperative and a hypothetical imperative. It will demonstrate how the two moral imperatives are predicated in their usage. In point of fact, a categorical imperative is absolute and not conditioned to any factor while a hypothetical imperative is conditional. It takes the form of if this then that. Deontologism grounds its moral judgments in the objective order while utilitarianism aims to maximize the good hence the maxim the end justifies the means. Virtue Ethics considers the being of the acting agent and not the actions it executes. A prima facie duty is a duty an individual has if all factors connected to it remain constant. This is because such duties are never absolute but fluctuating. On the contrary, a non-prima facie duty compels an individual to act in a manner that is absolute. Lastly, according to Aristotle the good life is the conformity of the soul and all its operations to virtue.

This paper seeks to give the distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives as grounded with respect to the Kantian moral principles. In this regard, clear examples will be illustrated especially the allegory of a car and its moral implications. In a bid to understand the theory of utilitarianism and deontologism, the consideration of the trolley example and the fat man will be considered. To shed more light on this, the elements of the principle of double effect will also be considered. Virtue ethics and the good life of Aristotle will also be covered. And lastly, the theory of Ross on prima facie will also be covered accordingly.

Categorical Imperatives versus Hypothetical Imperatives
A categorical imperative is an unconditional and generally acceptable moral duty (Lara, et al. 2007). According to Kant one ought to act in a manner which can be adopted in the universal order. In this regard ones choice of actions in a given situation should point to what can be universally acceptable and applicable. This maxim can have different interpretations but the most core thing is that the action undertaken be universally permissible. In Christianity, it can relate to the dictum that do to others what one would like them do to him. Therefore, all rational beings and with a Good Will acts in accordance with the categorical imperative and further to that evaluate their actions to ensure that they are universally fitting.

It is important to note that a categorical imperative is different from a hypothetical imperative. It is important to note that a categorical imperative is distinct from a hypothetical imperative. The difference is as follows  an imperative implies a command while on the other hand a hypothetical imperative is a preconditioned command. For example, one can argue that if one wants to be happy then she must be a virtuous person. In a hypothetical imperative one is not absolutely obliged such that it only depends on this or that. Kant categorically asserts that moral imperatives are not conditioned to anything as they serve as ends in themselves. Consider the following example it is good to speak the truth always no matter what the case or it is good to help the poor in all ways and by all means. In these examples it can be argued that one is obliged to speak the truth always and that it is a duty to help the poor regardless whether it is a personal interest or wish or desire. Ones duty is ones duty and one must do it whether she wants or not. Indeed, this is the nature of morality. On the contrary, in the case of a hypothetical imperative, one would argue that it is good to speak the truth if this or if that. For example, one would say that it is good to speak the truth if asked to or it is good to help the poor if one is wealthy and has enough to give.

Hypothetical imperatives are not collective or absolute or universal because they are as such conditioned on some objective or aspiration. However, there are criticisms in respect to the categorical imperative in that not all acts can be universally acceptable. This is true considering the era of ethical relativism where people have different opinions and suggestions. Once again, consider the following examples Mr. X is convinced that he can steal a car when he wants to. This is not tenable in the Kantian sense. This course of action lacks universal desirability as stealing in itself is not something that can be desired in the universal order. Still, one would not still a car simply because there are many cars around or because the act will not cause inconveniences in the movements of others. One should not justify the act simply because it lacks grave consequences but as such, because stealing is morally unjustified and it is a duty to keep away from such act.

Moral Theories  Double-Effect
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe that the end always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing.

Deontologism is a moral theory whose tenets are of a non-consequentialist nature. It never believes that the end justifies the means. Contrary to what utilinitarianism believe that one should always exploit the good in hisher actions in the deontological sense, it is not the pursuit of the good but what one should consider is the moral element in the act. It is the act in itself that counts for a deontologist and not the end of it. This is what justifies it as moral or immoral. The following is the principle of double effect.
The act must never be intrinsically evil. It must symbolize ones deep commitment and identification with God and neighbor including the person himself the undesired effects should never be directly intended. The agent must avoid the undesired effects as much as possible the beneficial effects must not be as a result of the evil act. Or better still the desired results should never derive from the bad course of action the desired results must be proportionate to the harmful effects and finally the desired effects must follow from the harmful effects immediately and simultaneously (Ashley, B.  ORourke, K. 1997, PP.191-195).

The above moral principles can be used to analyze the case of the standard trolley example, and the fat man trolley example as follows The case of the trolley problem states that a trolley is moving down a truck without braking. A trolley is moving towards five people. A person is on a bridge that the truck will pass and can stop it by blocking a heavy weight before it. There is a fat man where the person instead uses him to stop the truck to save the five but leaving him dead (Jarvis, J. 1985).

Looking at the above example and from a deontologicalutilitarianism point of view there will be different interpretations. The overall tone in utilitarianism is that the end justifies the means. The case where the fat man is used to stop the track can be justified from an utilinitarianist point of view since saving the five is the perceived good. In other words, the end is to save the five and not the fat man. In light of the principle of double effect the act of using the fat man to stop the track is not evil. The person should not intend to kill the fat man but instead should occur as an unintended consequence. Finally, the desired effects should not be as a result of the bad course of actions.

Virtue Ethics
Virtue Ethics is not much concerned with rules, consequences and specific acts but is puts more emphasis on the subject of the actions. In other words, it is interested with the person who is responsible for acting. It holds that acting in accordance with given rules or analyzing the good outcome of the actions is not what should count. The most primary thing is whether the subject of the actions, in this case the individual, exhibits elements of good character or moral virtues or not (Garret, 2005).

Unlike utilitarianism which is concerned with the maximization of the perceived good in performing a given act in virtue ethics instead, what is important is the moral quality exhibited by the agent of the actions. Therefore, the dictum that the end justifies the means has no place in virtue ethics. On the other hand, deontologism is somehow a normative approach to ethics which typically evaluates the actions of an individual in relation to moral standards in the objective order. In general, the two theories focus on the actions of the agent contrary to virtue ethics which is a complete turn to the subject who is acting.

According to Aristotle the good life is the conformity of the soul and all its operations to virtue. Virtue is classified into intellectual virtue and moral virtue, where in the former theoretical wisdom practical wisdom and understanding are emphasized. In the latter case, what is emphasized is practical wisdom as pertains to development of habit (Haslip, S. 2003).

Aristotle states that the knowledge of virtue is not sought for its own sake like in Mathematics or Geometry, but is sought so that one can inform his way of acting. In other words, moral knowledge is strictly meant to be put into practice, period. What makes an individual virtuous and good is not hisher knowledge about good or virtue, but it is the practice of the good or virtue (Alex, J. 2001). An individual can best acquire moral knowledge from hisher concrete experience.

A prima facie duty is a duty an individual has if all factors connected to it remain constant. This is because such duties are never absolute but fluctuating. On the contrary, a non-prima facie duty compels an individual to act in a manner that is not absolute. Consider the following example a thief comes running and seeks refuge in the priests house.  The angry mobs come looking for him because they want to kill him. The priest has a prima facie duty in telling the truth but on the other hand, he has a prima facie duty in protecting a life.

An action is a prima facie duty only if it holds moral quality features and the actions executed must prove to have been the only action possible at that time (Ross, W. C.1930). He further asserts that there are no absolute standards or universal principles in morality. He further asserts that there are duties that are clear to ones intuition. These duties are keeping promises, correction of a wrong doing, expressing gratitude, acts of justice, benevolent inclinations, personal growth and development and keeping off the possibility of harming others.

However, this theory has some defects in that it is hard to connect the different prima facie duties available to the agent it is unpredictable and with minimal determination it presents an arbitrary framework in moral judgments hence relativism in major ethical issues like abortion, euthanasia or manslaughter just to mention a few. The problem of intuition occurs because it is hard to fathom how moral principles can be self-evident (Ross, W. c.1930).

As we can see from the study a lot has been mentioned. The differences between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative has been presented where in the former, a person is obliged to act but on certain conditions while in the latter case, one is obliged to act in a certain way no matter the circumstances. We have also seen how utilitarianism and the expositions of double effect apply to the case of the fat man and the trolley. I strongly concur with the elements of virtue ethics. I believe the agent is of fundamental importance in the realm of morality since the actions she executes are or proceed from his being as such. One cannot perform peaceful acts if she is not peaceful first and in hisher personality. In Latin it is expressed that nemo dat non quod habet which means you cannot give what you do not have. We have reflected on the good life of Aristotle and the ways in which we can acquire moral knowledge. Indeed, experience is the better teacher. Finally, the reflection of prima facie duty is impressive but I concur that it has so many flaws as the agent of actions will have exceedingly many choices to consider hence creating a multifarious circumstances in making moral judgments. However, I believe there are obvious moral acts that as human beings we do not need to think much. I guess this is what led Ross to look at intuition as a source of moral judgments.

Friedrich Nietzsches Superman or Ubermensch

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher who is widely acclaimed as well as criticized for his critical texts on morality, religion, culture, and many other areas. Central in Nietzsches philosophy is what he called the will to power, a will which every man possessed but most men denied. The will to power is the main force that pushes men to reap achievements in life. However, certain moral systems and religious beliefs and traditions that society has come to imbibe have led to the degradation of mans will to power. As a result, what Nietzsche referred to as slaves have dragged society down and hampered the growth of men. Nietzsche sought to prescribe a philosophy that runs counter to the present slavish values of society, many of them represented by Christianity. Nietzsche prescribed to get rid of such slavish values, enrich the master instinct that feeds the will to power, so that man can evolve into the superman or ubermensch.

A typical religion has a definite ideal of progress, which guides its followers on how to live life. For example, Christianity wants its followers to follow the path of Jesus who basically instructed them to love their neighbors and let go of all material things for the real eternal life is in heaven and not here on earth. Buddhism also teaches its adherents to purge themselves of all desires to attain nirvana. These religions and other similar value systems revolted Nietzsche who believed that these beliefs would all lead to the equality of all men. Nietzsche was very much in favor of an aristocracy, which only used the masses for its own good and to achieve higher goals (Mencken 60). Societys modern tendencies to believe in slavish religions like Christianity have leveled it, and no one benefits from such beliefs and values but the masses. Nietzsche thought that the perfect society would use the masses as mere foundation to achieve great goals. Such a society would be driven by supermen  the perfection of men when they have already given free rein to their will to power.

The superman is Nietzsches ideal, the opposite of the life and self-denying figures of Christ, Buddha and other religious figures. The superman imbibed the intelligent and prudent selfishness and absolute individualism Nietzsche highly prescribed. According to Nietzsche, everyone must only act for the benefit of the generations to be born after him and not his neighbors, as Christianity prescribed. The superman will be perfect in his mind and body, and will rejoice in combat because he doesnt want peace, but war (Mencken 64-65). Since he doesnt believe in heaven or hell, he will be happy and content and face life without any delusions. According to Nietzsche, the superman is supposedly what man should be just as man is the evolved form of the ape.

It is easy to see today how Nietzsches philosophy was abused by Nazis because of its apparent support for eugenics or breeding a supreme race of humans while getting rid of its perceived weaknesses. However, the Nazi reading of Nietzsche is totally shallow and only aimed to support its political ideology rather than get to the heart of Nietzsches philosophy. In the first place, Nietzsche wouldnt have approved of mindless patriotism to ones nation since he only approved of individualism. If we applied Nietzsches philosophy of the superman today, it wouldnt have as much negative effects as many people would think.

The will to power is already present in everybody. It is not something that people must summon from nowhere because it manifests itself whenever a boxer tries to win a championship despite his bloody face, for example, or whenever a religious leader asserts the superiority of his religion among others to gain more followers. What Nietzsche only strived to do is to openly accept this will to power and not deny it as many people would do every day. Thus, for instance, instead of depriving yourself of a good position in the office just because you do not want to strain good relationships with your officemates, Nietzsche would instruct you to use all your strength, cunning and resources to get to the top. If you let the will to power guide you, then you are advancing men by bringing it one step closer to the ideal of the superman.

By practicing life-affirming acts and beliefs, the instinct to apply the will to power becomes sharper. Generations of putting into practice the master morality and getting rid of slavish beliefs would eventually lead to the formation of a new society of supermen with perfected instincts (Mencken 67). Today, while Nietzsches philosophy cannot be practically applied in its entirety in modern life, people can still gain a lot of benefits by understanding and appreciating Nietzsches ideal. Helping others in need indeed benefits society but people should also learn how to help themselves more. Each person has an experience where he let other people take advantage of him just because he isnt willing to go out there and exert his will to power. Applying Nietzsches philosophy, people should achieve more by staying true to their individualistic instincts and sharpening them.

Today, people arent living in an aristocratic society and it is clear that democracy can drive development forward while still letting a huge number of people believe in their own ethical or moral systems. We do not need to create an aristocracy and enslave our fellow men just to evolve into higher species. However, what we can do is start loving ourselves more before we can love others back. If we love or give value to ourselves enough, such that our aim in life is nothing but to be the best at what we do and secure a bright future to the generations to be born after us, we will be able to serve society in a much better way.

Perhaps what Nietzsche was asking people to do is to be honest about themselves and to be honest about reality. We should keep our beliefs in check and question ourselves if our romantic ideals about the afterlife and the essential good in doing good are reasons enough to live. Nietzsche, through his presentation of the superman and his exposition of the will to power, taught us to look life squarely in the eye. Life is here on earth and men are earthly beings. There is no stage where we can show what were worth and what were made of except our present material lives. If we do not strive to become masters and supermen, if we hold our will to power down, then we may not be able to live happily anywhere else.

An Argument against Animal-Based Research

The following discussion provides substantive and practical arguments against animal-based research to support the claim that animal-based research ought to be discontinued. In line with this, the discussion is divided into three parts. The initial part of the discussion presents the justifications for the argument which will be followed by a specification as well as a rebuttal of the counterarguments for the necessity of animal-based research. Finally, the last part of the discussion extrapolates on the substantive and practical arguments against animal-based research in conjunction to the arguments presented in the existing literature on the issue.

It is important to note from the onset that the concept animal is used as opposed to non-human animals for the sake of simplicity. An animal, as it is used in this discussion, refers to all sentient animate life forms (Pullen 103).  A sentient animal here refers to a conscious animate life form, the consciousness of which is evident in its awareness of its surroundings and its capability of experiencing pain (Monamy 6).  Animal-based research, on the other hand, pertains to any investigation involving the use of animals or tissues derived from animals (Pullen 103). There are three distinct categories of animal-based research, these being applied research, biomedical research, and toxicity testing (Pullen 103-104). The former involves the use of animals for medical investigations and genetic modifications (Pullen 103). Biomedical research, on the other hand, involves the use of animals for observational or invasive biological studies (Pullen 104). Finally, the later form of research involves the use of animals for testing the toxicity level of substances that may have contact with humans (Pullen 103).

The issue in animal-based research can be implicitly derived from the definition of the concept animal and the practices involved in animal-based research mentioned above. Practices in animal based research determine the value of animals based on the utility of an experiment thereby reducing animals to the relative interest of human beings. Such a conception of animals fails to account for their intrinsic value. In line with this different arguments are posited for the necessity of continuing or discontinuing animal-based research.

Arguments For and Against Animal-Based Research
Arguments forD  against the use of animals in research may be divided into substantive and practical arguments. Substantive arguments focus on the moral nature of animals as they specify the properties that animals possessD  lack in order for them to be eligibleD  ineligible to a moral status. Practical arguments forD  against animal-based research, on the other hand, focus on the implications of the practice on the social and political life of human beings. In most instances, substantive arguments provide the support for the practical arguments forwarded forD  against the issue at hand.

Arguments for Animal-Based Research
Several assumptions unify the substantive arguments for animal-based research. First, animals have no moral status or merely possess a derivate moral status compared to human beings (Zamir 61-62). Second, since human beings have a superior moral status compared to animals, their interests take a primary role compared to animals (Zamir 64-66). An extension of these assumptions to the practical arguments for animal-based research leads to the proposition that animals may be used in research as their interests take a secondary role to the interests of human beings (Zamir 61-62). This view is succinctly presented by Carl Cohen as he claims, Humans are of such a kind that they may be the subject of experiments only with their voluntary consent. The choices they make freely must be respected. Animals are of such a kind that it is impossible for them, in principle, to give or withhold voluntary consent or to make a moral choice. What humans retain when disabled, animals have never had (865). Another manifestation of this view is presented by Brody as he argues that although animals interests ought to be considered in research, in deciding whether or not the research in question is justified, human interest should be given greater significance that animal interests (132).

The above mentioned arguments for animal-based research takes the following logical form In cases where in the qualifying properties for determining the relationship between A and H shows that A is inferior to H, it follows that H is justified in harming A. From this formal form of the argument, one may infer that the justification for animal-based research may also be used as a justification for all forms of cruelty to animals. Such a view however remains to be problematic since it contradicts one of the implicit assumptions of those who justify animal-based research. This contradiction is evident if one considers that human beings existence as moral agents immediately places them in a situation wherein it becomes their duty to consider the best interest of the other entities in their surroundings. In other words, human beings have a duty to ensure the well-being of animals and as such they ought to prevent cases of cruelty to animals. In addition to this, one may note that the logical form of the argument presented above also allows instances wherein superior human beings may treat the inferior human beings immorally. From a commonsensical perspective, this proves to be immediately illogical. To merely argue that this form of reasoning is sound in the case of animals and human beings fails to account to for the moral duty of human beings to ensure the well-being of those incapable of formulating moral judgments.

Arguments against Animal-Based Research
In the case of arguments against animal-based research, the substantive arguments take several forms. First, animals have an intrinsic value (Singer 285 Callicot 389 Zamir 16). Second, animals share similar qualities or characteristics with human beings (Singer 285 Callicot 389). Finally, actions andD  or decision that inflicts harm on others is immoral (Bernstein 7). The practical manifestations of these arguments are evident in their opposition to actions that lead to cruelty to animals, one of which is animal-based research.

The initial argument emphasizes that animals exist not merely to further the goals of other entities and as such their right to life ought to be respected by human beings (Zamir 23). The second argument, on the other hand, emphasizes that animals share similar characteristics with human beings, an example of which is their capability to experience pain (Singer 505). This argument in itself may be traced to Bentham who claims, Pleasure is good and pain is evil and an ethical person should attempt, in choosing courses of action, to maximize the one and minimize the other, no matter whose pain or pleasure may be involved (qtd in Callicot 384). Benthams assumption here qualifies animals and considers an ethical person as an entity who ensures the good of others. The final argument, on the other hand, takes the form of Bernsteins Principle of Gratuitous Suffering PGS which places emphasis on the moral implications of the actions performed in animal-based research to human beings. PGS states, It is morally wrong to intentionally inflict (or allow the infliction of) gratuitous pain or suffering on another, innocent individual (Bernstein 7). Bernsteins PGS may also be traced to Benthams utilitarian framework. Another argument against animal-based research emphasize that it leads to the unjust and discriminatory attitudes towards species other than our own (Cigman 47). In other words, human beings treatment of other species is comparable to that of racism in the human species. Singer refers to this as speciesism which is the unjustifiable treatment of other specifies based on standards of how we treat the members of our own species (288). Speciesism thereby involves human beings inability to recognize certain similarities they share with other species on the basis of their self-conceived supremacy over other species.

Counter-arguments to these views typically take the form of arguments that emphasize the superior nature of human beings in comparison to animals. As can be seen from the discussion above, these assumptions for the necessity of animal-research are unsound as they fail to uphold the implicit assumptions of their own arguments. A probable argument that may hold however would the emphasis on the distinction between the natural traits and metaphysical traits of animals and human beings.

Given the arguments for and against animal based research, this discussion holds that animal based research ought to be discontinued. As was mentioned in the initial part of the discussion, several reasons may be given for this (1) the intrinsic value of animals, (2) their possession of similar characteristics with human beings, and (3) the immorality of inflicting harm on others (Singer 285 Callicot 389 Zamir 16 Bernstein 7). In the previous discussion, the counter-argument towards these views which emphasizes the superiority of human beings over other species has already been shown to be unsound. A possible counter-argument which may overthrow one of the arguments against animal-based research is that which emphasizes the distinction between the metaphysical and the natural traits of animals and human beings. Although this may topple the view that animals are moral creatures, one may still posit that animals are moral creatures while recognizing this distinction.

The morality of animals remains by virtue of their association to human beings. Although one may posit that animals cannot be given the metaphysical attribute of morality, they are still affected by human beings moral decisions and as such they stand as direct recipients of our moral actions. Given that animals are the recipients of our moral actions, they continue to be moral creatures as their lives are dependent on our moral decisions.

Within this context, the use of animals in research ought to be discontinued since provides a manifestation of human beings failure to uphold their duties towards other sentient beings. This duty in itself is inherent in our moral nature. Animals as the direct recipients of our moral actions ought to be treated in such a way that recognizes their inherent value as living entities and not merely as objects to be used to further human goals.

How Does One See An Analysis of the Literature

There is a certain purity to the way we see the world as young children practically devoid of any social standards and norms, and with no understanding of mores and taboo. But as we grow older, as we  become exposed to different situations and begin to interact with things we havent experienced before, we begin to have an understanding of the world the way it is imposed to us by social constructs. And everything becomes fuzzy and muddled. The purity is gone, and is replaced by a gray area. So, when someone asks how you see the world, it becomes unclear because, for the most part, we are not aware of how our understanding of the world is formed. But, in the following readings that we will discuss we will be able to perceive the processes by which weve come to understand the world, at the same time integrating the ideas found in these readings and forming our own analysis of the question.

Popular philosopher Karl Popper wrote in 1963 an analysis of the our processes of garnering knowledge called Conjectures and Refutations The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, published by Routledge. Popper, one of the leading philosophers of his time, wanted to understand how weve come to recognize scientific knowledge though, for the most part, it is backed by theories and methods unproven. In this discourse on the philosophy of science (a rather contradicting assessment as far as I can say), he published a collection of his lectures and papers that revolved around this interesting topic. As the title implies, he finds that all scientific knowledge are actually conjectures, ideas that started as speculation and a rebellion against previous theories.  He believes that we should refute old theories in order to create new and better ones. But, should these old theories last, like Pythagoras mathematical equations and the Golden Ratio, it would seem like it is of a higher truth.

He begins by giving us an idea of how people begin to understand. He says that as humans we have a instinctive need to observe. It is how, as human beings and mammals, we have come to survive and fight off anything that goes against us. In the case of science, observation results to early prediction. Under the merits of observations, he emphasizes how observation is utilized in the scientific sphere. As we observe we create conjectures, and these conjectures are in need of confirmation for them to be able to be real. As he mentions, Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theoryan even which would have refuted the theory (Popper 36). Essentially, confirmations are not as effective should they be used on ideas that already have a sturdy backing. Risky ideas that have been confirmed, henceforth, become more important.

Popper puts great emphasis on the concept of trial and error. Because everything we know are conjectures, judgements, and wild guesses, we should always put these thoughts on trial. We should always subject these ideas to critical tests in order to know that it is effective. But at the end of the day, no matter how many tests you put these conjectures into, they can never be established as true. Despite this, though, Popper maintains a positive outlook into the process of science. With the context of trial and error, Popper puts great emphasis on the human notion of failure, but at the same time puts stress on the importance of our ability to learn from our mistakes.

Writers then use the idea of observation and creating conjectures to have a grasp of the unlimited possibilities and complexities of science. In Sara E. Shea, Kevin Gordon, Ann Hawkins, Janet Kawchuk and Donna Smiths analysis of the Winnie the Pooh characters in Pathology in the Hundred Acre Wood a neurodevelopmental perspective on A.A. Milnei, we get an example of how Poppers proposed reasons for observations is being used. Using a psychological analysis and an knowledge of the characters personalities and backgrounds, they created a thesis that gave each character a psychological dysfunction.

At one point, we see how observant the researchers were in creating these neurological case studies. At the same time, we get a scientific understanding of the personalities of Pooh and his many, meadow friends. They presumed these characteristics of the personas in Winnie-the- Pooh, conjectures that are up for trial.

We will, for this paper, also discuss Aron Gurwitschs On Contemporary Nihilism. In this reading, we get a view of how observation and our understanding of the world are put into the context of politics, religion, and society. And instead of just focusing on the processes of understanding and observation, he also delves into how these are applied in creating rational understanding. But, he first asks us what rationalism is and how it is important in this world powered by scientific knowledge and technology. Then he points out how we have come to forget our being persons of reason, how we have lost our understanding of the basics of existence and social relations in order to fulfil our quest of endless knowledge. And he, finally, concludes his treatise by saying this rationalization is achieved when man faces the reality surrounding himnatural, political, social, etc., realityand while facing and analyzing it, manifests his freedom and his spontaneity in respect to his reality (Gurwitsch 195).

We also delve into Alex Rosenbergs article published in 2000, under Routledge, in the Philosophy of Science A Contemporary Introduction. The article entitled The Structure and Metaphysics of Scientific Theories, Overview, it can sometimes seem intimidating. His book, firstly, is a discussion of the philosophical problems that arise from scientific exploration, and one that questions the nature, methods, and justification of the process. One again, we go back to the concept of observations When a number of generalizations are uncovered about the phenomena in a domain of inquiry, a theory may emerge which enables us to understand the diversity of generalizations as all reflecting the operation  of a single or small number of processes ( Rosenbug, May na).

All these texts give us an understanding of how we view the world through observations. There were negating themes like that of Popper and Shea, but over-all these texts cover the same aspect of conjectures. In this sense, we must now understand how their perceptions of the world have come to change how we would understand this place where we live in.

Sartres Discussion on Freedom of Choice and Camus Concept of Absurdity

Freedom, Choice and Absurdity
It is stated that an individual has unlimited freedom and that man is able to do what he wants when he pleases to do so however, it must not be confused with the fact that every individual has limitations, because it is clear that everything and everyone has social and physical constraints. This, of course, is merely a factor to Sartre, freedom is a characteristic of the nature of consciousness, i.e. as spontaneity (Onof, 2010).

To Sartre, freedom is all about making choices, and it is stated that an individual can never avoid making choices. It is also stated that Sartre believes that proper exercise (Onof, 2010) of freedom can create value that only the individual who makes choices can experienceeveryone has different experiencesand this fact contributes to the notion that there is, indeed, a singularity in human life (Onof, 2010).

According to Sartre (2003), the life of an individual is like a project which develops as time progresses it is not a project that is clear or known to the individual, nevertheless, the choices which he or she makes throughout his or her life is vital in the development of such life. It is stated that specific choices are always vital components which are bound by time in the life of an individual.

Since choices are part of life, and cannot be removed, it is then, necessary to discuss the relation of freedom to choices. It is stated that freedom is a spontaneous choice and that it consists of creating choices which involve proper coordination of transcendence and facticity (Onof, 2010). This means that the individual must be able to achieve an understanding which is beyond what is, as well as an understanding of how circumstances can limit individuals when they are making choices. Being able to coordinate these two factors will enable an individual to create a choice that is spontaneous.

A choice which is not done so will eventually become a pitfall and produce undesired results when it comes to expressing ones desire for being (Onof, 2010). It is, of course, arguable, that the Self, being granted freedom, is likely to engage in deception, or that which is called bad faith (Sartre, 1993). If an individual recognizes the fact that his or her freedom is bound to his or her facticity, he or she will then be able to understand that he or she needs to create appropriate choices. If one is able to understand such, then it can be said that his or her choices are not trapped in bad faith (Onof, 2010).

Authenticity means that ones actions can affect other individuals, and if one realizes that, he or she is able to create good choices. Such assumptions that the existentialist attitude is all about prioritizing individual spontaneity (Onof, 2010) do not constitute proper choices. It is necessary to state that people who think that making choices is all about themselves defeat the purpose of their freedomthat which is to create the appropriate choices with a coordination of facticity and transcendence (Onof, 2010).

If one is to think that his or her choices all amount to self-fulfillment and will not affect other individuals, then it is most likely that he or she will make choices on bad faith. Sartre (2003) argues that expressing ones authenticity through however one pleases without aligning it with the proper coordination of facticity and transcendence will only create wrong choices and a misuse of freedom. Freedom, in a sense, is about being responsible whenever one makes choices, rather than merely fulfilling ones individual spontaneity.

It cannot be removed, therefore, that freedom is tied to ethical choices. If one is creating authentic choices, then it follows that he or she is creating ethical choices, for he or she has taken into consideration the fact that every individuals freedom is not merely about fulfilling his or her personal desires (Onof, 2010). In fact, it is stated that choosing is not merely about committing oneselfit is also about committing everyone else. In a sense, proper choices do not merely create value to the doer it also benefits those who are around him or her. Exercising ones freedom to create proper choices affects the rest of humanity in the sense that they will be able to place themselves in the situation of the individual who made the choice.

On the other hand, Albert Camus discussion regarding absurdity is seen in The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays it is about the Greek hero who has been condemned by the gods to continuously roll a rock to the top of the mountain (Camus, 1983, p. 119) only to watch it fall back down to the bottom because of its weight.  Camus states that Sisyphus predicament is absurd, for he is doing something that is futile and would eventually have to start all over again once the rock falls down to the bottom of the mountainit is stated that the gods had thought that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor (Camus, 1983, p. 119).

Sisyphus has been one of the most prudent and wisest amongst the mortals, and he had been smart enough to help other people and the gods as well. However, when he died, he has requested to be able to return to life in order to see his wife and chastise her for setting his body in the middle of the public square (Camus, 1983, p. 120). He, of course, upon seeing the light of the world once more, was lured into staying and he did not want to return to the dark abyss of the underworld. This decision of his, however, angered the gods, and he was seized by Mercury and taken to the underworld, where his punishment was waiting for him (Camus, 1983).

As seen in the aforementioned paragraph, Sisyphus was a man who worked hard to be able to enjoy the wonders of the earth, however, in the absurdity of it all, working hard to attain something does not necessarily mean that fulfillment will come afterwards. He has worked hard to be able to help his fellow beings and the gods however, he was still not able to avoid the ultimate end that all individuals are going to meet someday their deaths. To make matters worse, upon being snatched away from his happiness, he was then given the punishment of working hard with no fulfillment (Camus, 1983).

It is, then, necessary to state that life is absurd, for there is a price to be for all the passions that an individual has while he is alive. Sisyphus is cursed to forever toil, pushing a rock up a mountain, only for it to roll back and he has to go down and start rolling up once again (Camus, 1983). Is fulfillment achieved at all That is the question which Camus presentsand he argues that life is absurd, for it life and human endeavor is meaningless (Cholbi, 2008).

In a sense, it could be said that death was Sisyphus enemy. For if he was able to avoid death, then he would have been able to avoid its consequencethat which involves rolling the rock up the mountain. Camus essay shows that life is meaningless, for it ultimately leads individuals nowhere, except to their deaths.

In fact, Camus has even gone to lengths to discuss that since life is, indeed, absurd and meaningless, then it must be so that suicide is the only option. It is argued that suicide is a philosophical problem for it deals with answering the question on whether life is meaningless and has to be ended or if it has meaning and should be continued. In fact, the problem is paradoxical, for there are various reasons for living which may also become reasons for dying (Camus, 1983).

In such a way, Camus (1983) concludes that man is, indeed, absurd. He has also indicated that the absurd man should live in the sense that ethical rules are not applied, for everything is permitted to an individual whose life is meaningless. It is argued that the meaning of life can only be found if one is able to understand that it is, indeed, meaningless (Camus, 1983).

If one continues to hope for something other than what one has, then life continues to be meaningless. It is only when man is able to accept what already is, can he be able to find true happiness and meaning. In the end, it is stated that one must imagine Sisyphus happy (Camus, 1983), which states that Sisyphus is fully aware of the fact that he is forever to roll that rock up the mountain and watch it roll downand that he accepts this fact, which makes all the difference. In a sense, acceptance, it seems, can make an individual experience happiness, rather than constant hoping of things that will never be.

Contrast and Analysis of the Philosophies
The philosophies of Sartre and Camus seem to be of different concerns, however, if one conducts a more in-depth analysis, it can be seen that it both philosophers are trying to target the same point. That point is the concept of choice.

It is stated beforehand that man is able to make choices, and that such choices are of value because they can determine ones course of life. While Sartre makes it clear in his discussion that he is, indeed, talking about freedom and choice, Camus seems to employ a far more indirect means to drive his point.

It is seen in Sartres discussion that he explicitly discusses that ethical issues are only to be addressed properly if the individual is able to make choices in good faith. Choices done so are those with meaning. On the other hand, Camus discussed that life is pointless and absurdhowever, he implicitly indicate that meaning is something which may be acquired if one is able to make the appropriate choices.

Both Sartre and Camus have a similar endpoint, if it their philosophies are to be analyzed it is to create meaning. It is said that life can only produce meaning if an individual uses his or her freedom in making the right choices (Sartre, 1993)and it is also stated that meaning can be found if one is able to make the choice of acceptance (Camus, 1983).

In a way, these philosophers are saying that meaning is derived from making good choices. While Sartre and Camus have different means of portraying the thought and seem to be focusing on entirely different philosophies, their discussion shows the same concept regarding the meaning of Being (Onof, 2010) or existence.

It is seen that Sartre describes choices as fundamental to the essence of Being, for it is vital to consider that ones actions are not merely for individual spontaneity (Onof, 2010), but for ones actions are valuable to the universal dimension in the singularity of a human life (Onof, 2010). It can be said, therefore, that the freedom to create choices is not merely a freedom that one may abuse, but a freedom that must be used wisely.

It is necessary to create appropriate choices because choices affect an individuals facticity. Choices which are made without acknowledgement of the fact that one has responsibility to create the right choices may eventually backfire and lessen the chances of creating an expression for the desire of being (Onof, 2010).

On the other hand, Camus, while he did not directly imply, states that choices make all the difference in ones life. As seen in the aforementioned discussion, life is absurd and meaningless, for it despite an individuals perseverance and constant endeavors it will still eventually lead to death. His example is the myth of Sisyphus, forever cursed to push a rock up a mountain only for it to roll down once again (Camus, 1983).

In a sense, what Camus is that constant perseverance in life only leads to nothing therefore, life is meaningless. However, he states that it is all about making choices when it comes to how one will perceive ones predicament. It is like a battle between hope and hopelessness, and it seems that if one keeps hoping for something else rather than choosing to accept what is, then his or her life will, indeed, become meaningless. In a way, it could be argued that Camus is contradicting himself and saying that life in fact, is not really meaningless or absurdit is only as meaningless as one perceives it to be.

It is, of course, arguable, that Camus was mainly trying to drive his point home when he stated that life is meaningless and absurd, and that to end it must be the ultimate philosophical solution. It does not necessarily mean that life has to end simply because one perceives it to be meaningless. As seen in the last paragraph of The Myth of Sisyphus, one must imagine Sisyphus happy (Camus, 1983, p. 123) this means that happinessand meaningcan be acquired if one makes the choice of accepting what one has at the moment rather than continuously searching for other options. In a sense, discontent produces the meaninglessness and absurdity of life.

As seen in the aforementioned discussion, both Sartre and Camus have different philosophies which are expressed through different arguments. Both of these philosophers, however, were able to describe how freedom and choice are valuable in an individuals life and his or her search for the meaning of existence. Sartre states that right choices can affect ones facticity and Camus states that choosing to change ones perspective can affect ones perception of the value of lifeboth of these philosophers, in a sense, are saying only one thingthe choices an individual makes can determine whether he or she will eventually find that which everyone searches for in life meaning.

On Legalizing Abortion

Part 1 Thesis
Life is the most precious thing that is given to by the Creator. People start life by having their mothers bear them for nine months in which the connection between mother and child is experienced. After spending nine months inside the womb, people are born and they live the life that was given to them. But today, there are a lot of cases of unborn children all over the world. This is because of the procedure called abortion. Abortion is a procedure of terminating the life of an innocent unborn baby. More and more are considering undergoing such procedure, but they do not see the many concerns that could be associated to this procedure. The threat to legalize abortion poses great concerns for different complications a mother may experience. There are varied reasons why abortion should not be legalized.

The legalization of abortion goes against the natural law of nature. From conception until child birth is the natural flow of nature. Abortion is one way of going against the natural flow of  life. If the legalization of abortion would be pushed through, people will also go against the natural flow of life, and most importantly against the Creator himself who gave them life.

The process of abortion could also be considered as an act of murder. If abortion is legalized, it means that people would also legalize murder. This is just a simple association between abortion and murder, but this gives all the more reason for what will happen if abortion is legalized. This only gives more reason not to legalize abortion.

Abortion is a very complicated procedure that might give different complications. The risk factor is too high for people to risk their lives just to relieve themselves of the responsibilities that comes with the birth of a child. With the legalization of abortion, more and more lives might be put in danger. Legalization would give protection because of the law that will be provided, but it will not bring back the health or life that once you had. There are too many concerns that could be encountered after the procedure that no one is sure of its short-term or long-term effects.

Abortion is something that we must never consider as an escape plan from the responsibilities that comes with the birth of a child. Abortion in itself is an act of irresponsibility. The legalization of abortion will only make excuses for people to become irresponsible. People are taught to be responsible but clearly the legalization of abortion completely disregards the act of being responsible. This is something that will happen if the legalization of abortion will push through.

There are different things to consider if one is not capable of taking care of a child, not abortion, because clearly if abortion is legalized, people will go against the natural way of life.  People should be grateful for the life that they have received, this is something to be proud of and not to be disgraced about.

Part 2 Anti-thesis
Termination of pregnancy is also known as abortion. Abortion is a long-known act of purposefully trying to cease pregnancy and the birth of a child. Most may say that this is a heinous crime against the natural flow of life that is why it has been recognized as a  crime punishable by law according to The Journal of Philosophy by B. A. Brody. Abortion may be identified as a crime but some think otherwise, they see the benefits of legalizing abortion. This is what this paper will discuss, the side of the legalization of abortion. Abortion should not only be looked upon in its negative side but rather people should open their minds to the different benefits of this procedure especially when laws will govern this act.

Abortion is now often stereotyped with crime. Abortion is an act that can be said as a misunderstood procedure. Most news or articles about abortion tackle its negative side being a crime against life as said in Andrew Lansdowns Arguments Against Abortion . This gives more reason to create a paper that discusses more the benefits of the legalization of abortion rather than to always contest it. Without even knowing the different benefits of abortion, women still go against it. This clearly shows that the public is not evenly well-informed about the good side and the bad side of abortion. In fact, there are a lot of acceptable reasons that underlie the legalization of abortion as a medical procedure.

Most people tend to oppose to the legalization of abortion not just because they know those people who commit such acts will not only be faced with criminal charges against the law, but also against the law of the Supreme Being as mentioned in the journal entitled Religious views on abortion.  Religious beliefs give more reason for people to go against abortion and not talk about the legalization of the said procedure. This act is something not only punishable by law but also, as viewed by the religious people, a crime punishable by the laws of the Supreme Being. This makes it more of a reason why people do not discuss the matter of legalization of abortion because it goes against their belief. Now, this is something more powerful than the law mandated by the government it is the religious belief that is violated, that is why to avoid discrimination and to give respect, people comply with the morals of society.

In any issue or debate, one must first consider giving points and reasons to support their side. Both those who are in favor and those who are not are given the opportunity to give facts that support their points and give a thorough explanation of their points. This shows how a topic or an issue is discussed, considering both sides and understanding each points. This is the same as discussing both the sides of the legalization of abortion. There is both sides to this issue and people view this both side differently.

What this paper intends to do is to provide information on why to legalize abortion. This is with respect to the equality of information that people receive on this particular issue. This paper intends to provide information about the benefits of the legalization of abortion as a medical procedure to those who need them, specifically about proper screening and proper procedure. If the legalization of abortion will be approved, the act will be more safeguarded as a legal act and therefore will be more monitored and controlled.

Part 3 Synthesis
They say that a conception of a child is one of the miracles of life. For nine months, a mother  carries  and nourishes a child inside her womb and after nine months a new life is brought into the world. The life that one cherishes is something that is just borrowed from the Creator. Someday, somehow, the Creator will take that life back and people will cease to exist. But some choose to control life in their own hands by taking an innocent life away. This is a procedure called abortion.            

Abortion is a procedure that goes beyond the laws of nature and is a procedure that could bring further complications to both mother and child. Death is a natural part of life taking death into our own hands is something that should not be done according to the morals and beliefs that bind a society.

Abortion could be likened to murder as it is similar to taking a life, specifically in this case, the life of an innocent child. Some may say that a fetus still does not bear life, yet in fact, once a child has been conceived, life has already been created like what Andrew Lansdown said in his article Arguments Against Abortion . The fetuses are already human beings that people kill in the process of abortion, that is why this procedure is not so different from the crime of murder. Murder is an act that goes not only against the law of society but also against the law of nature. If murder is very much likened to abortion, we can say that abortion also goes against the law of both nature and society. People would not only be punished by law, but they would also be punished morally. Still, why do people undergo  abortion

Most people undergo abortion because of unwanted pregnancy according to Joyce Arthurs Legal Abortion the Sign of a Civilized Society.  Most children who are from unwanted pregnancy have likely experienced child abuse. Mothers who carry children that they do not desire undergo abortion to relieve the child of further suffering and discrimination in life. But what these people do not put in mind is the fact that the innocent life inside the womb could also experience suffering if they undergo abortion.

The lack of a sense of responsibility to raise a child is another reason that mothers consider abortion. People claim that a woman could undergo abortion if she is not yet prepared to take responsibility and raise a child. Being irresponsible does not mean that they could take the life of an innocent child. Abortion in itself shows how irresponsible a person is because of the refusal to take responsibility of a  child. If a person feels that she is not yet ready to take on the responsibility of becoming a parent, adoption is the best way to do than abortion.

Abortion is a procedure that poses different health issues. Abortion is the process of removing from the uterus the embryo or the fetus. The process of  abortion could bring different complications especially to  the mothers. Andrew Lansdown in his article entitled Arguments Against Abortion provided different short-term and long-term complications that one can have in  abortion.  Some of the mentioned complications that can arise from abortion are hemorrhage, infections on ovaries, laceration and punctured uterus. The effects of these complications are only short term. Most of the long-term complications of abortion pose a great threat. Some of the mentioned long-term complications are heavy menstrual bleeding, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and a heightened risk of breast cancer. With all these complications, both long term and short term, it is just to say that abortion is a procedure that poses a great threat to the health of a mother.

If abortion is to be legalized people will always consider this procedure, therefore violating the right of a child to be born. People do have a right to choose an unborn child could already be considered a living person, the only difference is heshe still has no voice. This does not make the mother choose for the unborn baby. Abortion should never be considered as an option for relieving oneself of responsibility. Abortion is a crime and a crime is never legal.

Should assisted suicide be legal

In the context of this paper, I am going to address the issue of the legalization of assisted suicide. At first, I will argue that it is unethical to legalize assisted suicide. Physicians are not supposed to be given the authority to assist their patients to commit suicide. The main aim of this paper is to explore the ethical aspects of the legalization of assisted suicide by considering different perspectives in a bid to arrive at a better as well as more informed view as far as the issue is concerned. This paper will be broadly divided into three main stages. The first section will be the thesis, this is the section in which I will introduce the issue of the legalization of assisted suicide and highlight some of the related terms and concepts. I will then proceed to give the reasons why I feel that it is unethical to legalize assisted suicide. The second section will be the Antithesis, this is the section where I will consider some of the possible objections that can be cast upon my initial argument. The final section will be the Synthesis, this is the section where I will state my final argument, in light of the criticisms and objects that have been highlighted in my antithesis.

I think it is unethical to legalize assisted suicide. My basic reasons to support this opinion are, the sanctity of life, the potential for abuse, professional integrity, professional fallibility as well as the distinction between active and passive killing. I will look at these points in greater detail. To set the stage for the argument which is to follow, I will highlight some of the terms and concepts as far as assisted suicide is concerned. Assisted suicide can be deemed to be incorporating both the Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) and euthanasia. PAS involves the process where by the physician prescribes a lethal medication to his patient. The patient is then required to administer the medication himself (Palmer, 2000). If it is an injection, the patient will be required to inject himself. This is more or less similar with euthanasia, the only difference being that in euthanasia the physician takes the active role of administering the lethal injection. In both these cases, the patient is required to give his own unforced opinion of the reason why they feel they want to commit suicide. It is mandatory that the patient should be mature enough and should be mentally stable. The patient should reconfirm his opinion after certain duration, probably two weeks to ascertain that he is serious with this ambition.  The patient has to be diagnosed with a terminal illness or has to be to be deemed to be undergoing unbearable pain. The patient is required to be well informed about the consequences of his decision and its irreversibility (Mackler, 2003).

First of all, I feel that it is unethical to legalize assisted suicide as it interferes with the sanctity of life. Life is sacred and should not be terminated in any condition. In accordance to the secular as well as religious traditions, human life is not supposed to be shortened. Since assisted suicide contradicts such beliefs, assisted suicide can thus be deemed to be unethical. Assisted suicide violates the right to life. We are not supposed to destroy that which we cannot create. We are given life by God, and only God should have the option of taking someones life. Regardless of the condition of the patient, the physician should not take any active role meant at shortening or terminating the patients life (Mackler, 2003).

Secondly, there is a possibility that some patients and even physicians are likely to assisted suicide if it is legalized. Patients who are not able to access adequate care as well as support are likely to be forced to consider assisted death as the option to escape all their misfortunes. There is also likelihood that some individuals are likely to embrace assisted suicide as a means of containing their cost and cutting down medical expenses. Families which are burdened by the expenses incurred as a result of their terminally ill member are likely to embrace assisted suicide to cut down on their costs and avoid being impoverished by a terminally sick patient who is ultimately going to die (Wall, 2003). Healthcare providers who are overwhelmed by the condition of the patient are likely to encourage assisted suicide. Due to the emotions associated with having a terminally ill family member, or seeing a loved one constantly suffering unbearable pain may be overwhelming to some families and they may encourage assisted suicide to salvage their emotional wellbeing (Benjamin, 2000).

My next point deals with professional integrity. Medical profession has always attached great emphasis on the ethical aspects of their undertakings. Every practice they do is always deemed to be having some ethical considerations. It is ethically wrong for medical personnel to take life, the very thing they swore to help protect.  In their Hippocratic oaths, medical practitioners swear to protect the live of their patients and avoid any activity aimed at shortening the lives of their patients. When such personnel assist their patients in committing suicide, they are deemed to have violated the same oath. Most medical professional groups do not support assisted suicide and thus if assisted suicide is legalized, medical profession could be associated with the act and that hamper its public image (Callahan  White, 2000).

My final point is professional fallibility. There is very strong possibility that physicians are likely to make mistakes in the course of their duties. They can commit errors in the course of diagnosis as well as prognosis. There is also the possibility that the physicians may not have taken adequate measures in pain treatment and thus the patient may be vulnerable to unbearable pain. The state is thus supposed to protect the lives of its citizens from these mistakes which cannot be practically avoided. There is a distinction between active and passive suicide. Passive suicide can be equated to a case whereby a patient refuses medication and ultimately dies. Active suicide can just be deemed to be killing and thus is unethical (Callahan  White, 2000).

In this section I am going to explore two main objections to my view. The first counterargument will be on the notion of the right to die which entails individuals autonomy. The second will be concerned with justice. In what follows, I am going to address each of these arguments in detail.

Every individual is considered to have the ability of making independent decisions concerning matters which affect him. In assisted suicide, the patient is the one who decides whether or not his is willing to be involved in the act. If a person is in unbearable pain, and he feels that he cannot withstand it any longer, then he should be allowed to choose to die. In the case of terminally ill patients, they are sure that they are bound to die within a short duration there would be no point of suffering and ultimately dying (Gorsuch, 2000). They can choose to die earlier rather than endure all the pain. Why should they be denied the opportunity to find peace and rest by escaping the sufferings of life These people have the right to die. They should not be denied this right if they meet all the necessary prerequisites to determine their fate. Assisted suicide should thus be legalized, only that the patient needs to meet all the conditions. It is not ethical to deny somebody to do something which will have consequences in his life when you are not fully aware of the experience he is undergoing through. It is morally right to assist a patient to commit suicide if it is in his own unforced interest (Ganzini  Youngner, 1998).

The second point is that we have to consider the aspect of justice. Assisted suicide can sometimes be considered to be doing justice to the patient. As medical personnel, it seems unfair to allow a patient to suffer unbearable pain while you no that he is bound to die. Is it really fair to subject a patient to a painful death The law is supposed to give the physicians the authority to act in the interest of the patient even if it means assisting him in taking his life. It is just to prevent your patient from undergoing painful stress. It is also just on the side of the family members, who undergo a very difficult emotional time as they contend with seeing their loved one constantly suffering in pain (Gorsuch, 2000). They also spend a lot of money and invest a considerable amount of resources trying to salvage a situation which is ultimately destined to get worse. If a patient can be allowed to die when he refuses to take his medication and this is considered as passive death, then it is just to assists a patient to die through assisted suicide. This is more so due to the fact that refusing medication may not be effective enough in ending the lives of some patients (Benjamin, 2000).

In the context of this paper, I initially argued that legalizing assisted suicide is wrong. My basic reasons were the interference to the sanctity of life, the potential for abuse, professional integrity, professional fallibility as well as the distinction between active and passive killing. In what follows I will clarify my final argument, by highlighting what I take to be the most relevant as far as legalizing assisted suicide is concerned. Then I will justify those values, by supporting each one with a particular moral theory.  Finally, I will conclude this paper with a brief consideration of additional questions that were raised. Kantian ethics which focuses on the nature of duty is the ethical system I take to be most relevant here. Kantian system advocates for the Respect for Life.

Life is sacred and so it must be treated. There is no reason enough to warrant somebody the powers to take the life of another. If the patient cannot contend with the pain he is feeling, then it is upon him to indulge in activities such as refusal of medication to terminate his life rather than a physician taking an active role in the process. The life that they are agreeing to terminate does not belong to either of them, life is given by God. Therefore, the patient does not have any moral ground to request for the termination of his life. Only God is supposed to take life from a human being.

Legalizing assisted suicide makes it particularly vulnerable to abuse. Patients, their family members as well as health practitioners are likely to abuse such a legislation to suit their individual needs. The integrity of the medical fraternity is also brought to question when assisted suicide is legalized. The physicians will violate the very oath they swore to when they begun their profession. The practice of medicine is supposed to guard life at all costs and termination of life seems to go against the ambitions of the medical profession.

There is a possibility of professional fallibility. Some of the errors in medical profession are very difficult to completely eliminate while they may dictate dire consequences on the life of the patient. Misdiagnosis may lead the physicians to make misinformed and misleading conclusions about the states of health of the patient. The physicians may also have neglected treating the patient well to relieve the pain. This may lead the patient to contemplate engaging in assisted suicide while in the actual sense they do not deserve.

The counterargument that the idea of assisted suicide should not have a moral implication is strong. This is more so because of the fact that i t is the will of the patient. It is important that we should respect the idea of a person about something that is bound to affect him. This may be true but in accordance to Kantian ethics, we should never be compelled to terminate life regardless of the situation. The other point is that of justice, it is true from a given perspective that assisted suicide may in some occasions imply justice. But this should not give physicians the moral ground to actively involve themselves in the practice.

The counterargument has led me to modify my view so allow assisted suicide in very desperate cases if the patient is willing and the physicians have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this is the best possible solution that can be explored. This can only mean that the legal apparatus can be slightly amended to accommodate assisted suicide for very desperate cases only. Kantian ethics advocates for the respect of life. It is ethically incorrect to terminate the life.

I analyzed the issue of the legalization of assisted suicide and initially argued that it is immoral.  Then I considered several objections to this view, which encouraged me to slightly modify my view.  In the final analysis, several questions were raised, including the interference with the autonomy of the patients decision. The patient should be given the right to determine what he feels is good for him. The aspect of justice linked to assisted suicide was also highlighted. I now feel that assisted suicide should not be legalized for all the cases but some openings should be created in the legal system to ensure that desperate cases which deserve assisted suicide are attended to.


Every modern culture has its own unique concept of the ideal physical attributes. In the recent years, United States are fanatically obsessed with their image. Previously, pictures of a lean model were seen in television commercials, billboards and fashion print ads. There was a big distinction between the accepted norm of the society and superficial images on the runways. However, in todays generation, these two images collide. The media and television have created a standard with fresh culture of reality. Appearance of a person being the focus for obtaining self confidence, televisions and media have unenthusiastically impacted the sense of a healthy image of an individual especially for women.

However, according to Plato, the transcendent world to the materialization of the happiness is more important than physical appearance. He further reiterated that attending and indwelling the sense of spirituality and image as an impression that surrounds the image of a person is the basic measurement of reality. He suggested that obsession of an image (that has been rejected in the light of reason of brightness) is a mere metaphor. This vision of obsession passes through a medium that can only be comprehended in the languages of optics, physics and others. Thus, for Plato, the subject of an obsession of an image is an ideal form of a man that is timeless and unchanging.

Research shows that reality television, fashion magazines and other media related sources directly affect its consumer. Reality TV shows, for example, boosts self confidence and self-esteem of their viewer if the image in the television is the same as their image. However, these kinds of shows also contribute negative effect by setting a standard for what is considered to be ugly. Thus, Platos principle regarding the two spheres of reality (what is real and what appears to be real) is necessary in understanding the view between appearance and reality. An immediate look at the principle itself does not correspond to an immediate understanding of the meaning. In short, every individual should see himself or herself in relation to what exist and what does not. In addition, the principle is extended in the notion between truth and morality, true and false, good and bad, right and wrong, and other forms of dialectics.

Moreover, even though media is essential to the society, it may give negative feedback through the portrayals of image of being beautiful. Today, the idea of being thin is the motivation of most individual in body image and eating issues. The image that someone saw in the television and other media sources cultivates the manipulated theory of an appearance versus reality. The constant thin ideal of most individual is largely to blame for obsession with an image. In this sense, it is more similar to Platos philosophy that tackles the principle of appearance, reality and enlightenment. Its principal methods reflect evidences that have served as its measure of reality. Moreover, the principles that have been drawn from the theory of appearance and reality cannot be removed by mere substitutions and repetitive changes in fact or meaning.

Most people are aware of the societys emphasis in the significance of appearance because it is a socially generalized sanctioned standard of beauty. However, aside from the outside beauty that can be seen from a person is the reality that internalizes among strong-minded individuals that reject contemporary standards of obsession of physical appearance. As such, this principle is the fact that philosophical concept of reality and appearance is no longer turned away from any individual, but rather a new concept that is an image of future utopia.

Finding Harmony

Two-faced politicians are often ridiculed together with governments that have double-standard policies.  And yet the same people who mock these politicians or governments are guilty of the same offenses.  Why is this so People often fail to see the multi-polar components of the Self and Other, which are integrated, interconnected and interdependent.  This failure leads to hypocrisy instead of integrity.  However, for those who understand the nature of the Five Elementsthe components of a persons mind and society as a wholethey will find harmony as an individual and as a member of a community, since these two kinds of harmonies are compatible and finding one without the other is impossible due to its interconnectedness.

The interconnectedness of the universe is explained in the Dao De Jing.  The Chinese believe in the concept of Yin and Yang, abstract representations of physical opposites in the universe.  For example, Yin is female and Yang is male.  Yin could also be inferior, negative, dark, passive and so forth.  Yang would then be superior, positive, bright, active and so forth, respectively. However, Yin and Yang are not static.  They are dynamic and constantly moving as portrayed in the Taijitu or Yin-Yang symbol found on the South Korean flag.  It is like a white and black fish in union or locked in 69 intercourse with each other.  The fish eyes also indicate that within the darkness there is also some light.  And within the light, there is also some darkness.  This implies that there are an infinite amount of combinations and degrees in describing Yin and Yang, which also interchange dynamically depending on time and circumstance while continuing to maintain wholeness.   This, of course, includes the alternating forms of good and evil.  As the Dao De Jing asserts, the Dao is Nothing and Beingone is the substance and the other is the function.  You can say that both come from the Dao.  They just have different names is all (Bruya translation 31)  The Dao De Jing then further explains When people realize what beauty is, the concept of ugliness arises as well.  When people realize what goodness is, the concept of badness arises also.  Being and non-being produce each other.  Easy and difficult create each other.  Long and short reveal each other.  High and Low support each other.  Sound and voice harmonize with each other.  Front and back follow each other (Bruya translation 32-33).  Indeed, just as men and women need each other, Yin and Yang go together.  It is not possible to eradicate one and maintain the other, just as it is not possible to completely eradicate evil and maintain only good.  While most people think that this is merely a philosophical argument, the Chinese believe that this is actually a real physical phenomena or natural force, not merely philosophical (St.Michael, Chapter 1).

In the same way, the Gnostic John explains the Dao using its Greek equivalentthe Logos or Wordin Jesus.  St.John describes Jesus as the Logos in John 11-5 In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was GodThe light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it (New International Version).  Chinese Bibles translate the original Greek word Logos into the Chinese word Tao that describes Jesus duality (e.g. man and God), which seems to be contradictory from the perspective of his enemies (St.Michael, Ch 2-10).  Even until today, most Christian clergymen dont understand this concept of Jesus described by John.  The concept of the Word or Logos is a Gnostic teaching that is also described by Heraclitus of Ephesus God is day-night, winter-summer, war-peace, satiety-hunger, and it alters just as when it is mixed with incense is named according to the aroma of each (cited in St.Michael, Ch 2-10, p.72).  Heraclitus also mentions that the polar opposites of the Logos form one whole Listening not to me but to the Word (Logos) it is wise to agree that all things are one (cited in St.Michael, Ch 2-10, p.71).  Jesus also describes himself as the two polar sides of the Logos in Johns Revelation 18, I am the A and the Zthe one who is, the one who was, and the one who is coming, the Almighty (Gods Word Translation).  The Logos is also symbolized by the Vesica piscis (or Pisces) which is a diagram of two intersecting circles similar to the MasterCard logo.  The two circles symbolize the polar opposites of the universe, and the intersection at the center is shaped like a fish, which was used by the early Christians to symbolize Jesus.  Therefore, the concepts of the Logos or Word and the Tao or Yin and Yang are equivalent.

The concept of Yin-Yang in the Dao or Logos is further explained and expanded by Confucius.  Yin and Yang can be broken down into more detailed components called the Five Elements Wood, Water, Earth, Fire and Metal.  Wood and Fire are generally Yang.  On the other hand, Water, Earth and Metal are generally Yin (St.Michael, Ch 2-10).  These elements are symbolized by the Wu Xing or Pentacle of Confucius, and it is an abstract representation of various elements in the universe.  For example, as Rodney St.Michael asserts in Sync My World, Wood is a representation of the male, Scholars, Yellow race, etc.  Water is the female, Shamans, Small Browns, etc.  Earth is the lesbians, the Social Business Class, Blacks, etc.  Fire is the gays, the Military, the Militant Business Class, Whites, etc.  Metal is the bisexuals, the Working Class, the Bi Military, Big Browns, etc.  All five elements are also within each person as described by Confucius when he was asked what a complete person is Someone who has the intelligence (Wood) of the wise official Zang Wuzhong, the uncovetousness (Water) of Meng Gongchuo, the courage (Fire) of Zhuangzhi of Bian, and the talent (Metal) of Ran Qiu, together with a knowledge of propriety and music (Earth), can be considered complete (Bruya translation).  The elements also form a pyramid hierarchy with Wood or the Scholars at the top and Metal or the Working Class at the bottom.  This idea is now accepted by Western psychologists.  Abraham Maslow stated in his Hierarchy of Needs that the highest need within each individual is self-actualization or ego needs (Wood), followed by esteem or superego needs (Water), social belongingness needs (Earth), security needs (Fire), and physiological or basic needs (Metal).  Again, since all these needs are within the individual, all elements are within each person in varying degrees and combinations (St.Michael, Ch 2-10).  The Wu Xing also forms a Star.  This symbol is seen on the flags of China, Singapore, Hong Kong and North Korea.  But the star within a circle is also used internationally elsewhere as political or commercial symbols (e.g. Texaco).  Each element sits on a star tip, and the lines crossing to other elements represent conflict lines.  On the other hand, the circle surrounding the star symbolizes the harmony between the elements.  They all form an interconnected ecological system.  For example, as St.Michael asserts, males (Wood or trees) need females (Water) just as Yellows are nourished by Small Browns.  However, the overwhelming presence of females may irritate males, just as flooding may destroy or rot Wood.  Excess Water is then absorbed by Earth, just as females join lesbians.  Fire in the form of sunshine can also dry and nourish Wood, just as gays using fashion or art may help males.  But wildfire will destroy the forest, just as gays or Whites intimidating males or Yellows, or the Military harassing Scholars.  Consequently, Yellows or males may build a firewall for protection.  Metal may also chop Wood, just like Big Browns using terrorism on Yellows.  But if done properly, they can be chiseled into fine furniture, just like Indian Buddhist monks training Shaolin martial artists.  This shows that in order to create harmony, there needs to be balance among the elements, not just within the individual but also in the societal elements.  Finding this balance or ratio is like finding the mathematical ratio (265153) of the fish in the vesica pisces which symbolizes Jesus.  John narrates the story of Jesus when Peter and his disciples were doubtful of his teachings and confused about the idea of the Logos and balance.  His disciples went out fishing and did not catch any fish.  So he called out to them, Friends, havent you any fish  No, they answered (John 215).  So Jesus asked them to throw their nets on the right side of the boat because they failed to think about balance and the interconnection between Them and Him.  Jesus then asked them to bring him the fish that was caught.  And the net was full of large fish, 153 (John 2111).  This clearly shows that Jesus, just like Pythagoras who had a similar story, was teaching the Gnostic doctrine about balance and finding the right ratio through the vesica pisces denominator153.    And since they are all connected to each other, one cannot harm others without also harming the Self.  And one cannot harm the Self without harming others.
  The failure to understand this integrated system of harmony often leads to hypocrisy.  For example, Republican Senator Larry Craig was known for severely criticizing open homosexuals and heterosexual offenders until he was caught by undercover police in an airport restroom soliciting gay sex with the officer.  As St. Michael asserts, Republicans are indeed Yin (general females), which includes Water (females), Earth (lesbians) and Metal (bisexuals or closet homosexuals).  Democrats, on the other hand, are Yang (general males), which includes Wood (males) and Fire (gays).  A Shaman (clergy) is also a female function, so male priests (i.e. Catholic) have been shown lately to be bisexual pedophiles or rapists while they preach chastity or sexual morality hypocritically.  And in the military, the issue of Dont Ask Dont Tell also shows the lack of integrity in government.  If they only understood that everyone actually possesses all genders, races, and classes in varying degrees within themselves integrated with others, then they would follow the Confucian Doctrine of the Mean or the Middle Way and be tolerant of others instead of swinging from one side of the multi-polar pendulum to the other.
This is why Jesus often rebuts clergymen who do not see that good and evil are parts of the same whole.  In Luke 739, he points that whores and saints are parts of the same whole.  And in Luke 530, the greedy and the honest can work together.  Rest and work are the same too (Luke 1314-15).  Furthermore, for Jesus, family members and strangers are all the same (John 75, Luke 819-21, Mark 331-34, Matt 1246-50).  Even a gay scene from a naked boy in linen (Mark 1451-52) was edited and cut out later by the Church.  It is now part of what is called the Secret (or Unedited) Gospel of Mark.  But clearly Jesus accepted them too because as the Logos, all elements are in him.

However, psychiatrists point out the schizophrenia (split mind) and bipolar disorder of Jesus for his contradictory personality.  One of his two faces says, Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 1034 New International Version)  And yet Luke 214 announces his birth through an angel with a message of goodwill and peace Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.  So psychiatrists such as Dr. William Hirsch comment on Jesus, believing that everything that we know about him conforms so perfectly to the clinical picture of paranoia that it is hardly conceivable that people can even question the accuracy of the diagnosis.  Some people think the same way about the Dao De Jing, but as it is said, they are both the Logos and the Dao, having all elements or polar opposites within them and others.  Just like men and women, they cant live without each other.
In conclusion, the integrity of the individual and community are not only compatible they are married in inseparable ways.  By understanding the interdependence and interconnectedness of the Self and Other, people and society can achieve relative harmony without hypocrisy.