The world today is definitely a better place to live than it was one hundred years ago. Work today is not so physically demanding as it used to be, people seem to have more free time (at least, it is supposed to be so if they spend less time at work), manual house work was replaced by washing machines, dish washers and microwave ovens, communication systems made it easy to keep in touch with our relatives and friends, new technologies supplied us with a number of entertainment activities which our grandparents could not even think of. “The brave new world” of the twenty first century is definitely worth living in.
At the first glance, the old and universally known principle “an eye for an eye” seems to be perfectly logical. You have harmed someone? You will receive the same amount of harm as a punishment. But being looked upon closer, the principle leaves much to be desired.
Some people tend to say that morality isn’t necessary to achieve anything in life, because every day we see people who are immoral and yet seem to be quite happy with their lives. But the one important thing that is overseen in this viewpoint is that they are immoral from the point of view of the speaker and not their own. With the exception of some fundamentals, the image of morality for one person may considerably differ from what this image is for someone else.
To kill a person is the ultimate evil one man can cause to another, because it is not reversible and, in fact, brings the existence of a man as we know him to an end. Can such act be ever justified?
There are different opinions in what concerns this issue. Some think that killing people is inconsistent with the status of human. Some say that it is alright in any circumstances when it may be useful. Between these two extremes there is a whole philosophy of opinions, tinges of opinions, schools of thought and ideologies.
But what if we look at the question from the point of view of logic?
Throughout the history of mankind there always were people, ideologies and organizations that used the phrase “The end justifies the means” as their motto or the leading principle. Its immediate meaning is as follows – if you have high, noble, important goal, you are free to resort to anything, however immoral it seems even to yourself. It may sound logical to some people – wouldn’t a just cause, usually restrained by its own moral limitations, be more effective if it borrows something from the repertoire of its enemies?
There is a very popular with some groups of people belief that states that all the evil in the world is caused by people’s ignorance; that the only way to eliminate evil is to eliminate ignorance; once people are educated, intelligent, free of superstitions and the need to devote most of their time to satisfying their basic necessities, we will at last have a healthy society of pure happiness and harmony. These people, however, seem to have very vague understanding of human nature and history.
The definition of right and wrong is one of the most widely discussed questions in philosophy, the one that, in some ways, is the foundation of this branch of knowledge itself. Every human being, every society and every person on Earth has certain understanding concerning what is right and what is not; there are certain general ideas that direct at good and bad actions; the man can act in a certain way because he wants so, but still believe that he is acting in a way that is wrong. Why is it so, where do these ideas come from?
Egoism and altruism are almost always considered to be the two opposing ideologies or, at least, two opposing outlooks on life. But is it really so?
If we look at the definition of word “egoism”, we will see that it means an attitude towards life, the bearer of which always puts his interests before the interests of all the other people. But is it said that his interests are automatically concerned with doing everything that pleases him sensually, while torturing all the other people on the way – just for fun? Yet, it is the way most people tend to perceive egoists.
When I was expecting my daughter, I often imagined what it would be like to spend time with her. In my ideal imaginary world, I would hold her in my arms and caress her happily and she would always smile to me contently and happily. But soon after she was born, it came as a revelation to me: babies cry! The first time I watched her little face wrinkling, sweet little mouth opening and the loudest scream I had ever heard being produced, I thought: “Oh! My! God! She is crying! What shall I do?” I felt like an idiot. It seemed to me that I was the only mother on the planet who could not take care of her own child. Luckily, soon I found out that all mothers feel exactly the same.
In an adult’s mind games are associated with fun and relaxation. However, for a child playing a game is an essential and absolutely vital part of his daily routine, because this is the only way a child can develop. In order to help a baby develop by playing, it is important for parents to choose proper toys.