AryanK
Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2010
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Persian
- Home Country
- Iran
- Current Location
- Finland
Hey,
Here are a few paragraphs of my philosophy essay. I'm sure it's full of grammar mistakes, so feedback on grammar would be nice. However, the main reason why I'm asking for help is on the last paragraph. As you can see, it's a bit too long and I need to somehow split it to two or more smaller paragraphs, but I need help! From what parts should I divide that paragraph?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Here are a few paragraphs of my philosophy essay. I'm sure it's full of grammar mistakes, so feedback on grammar would be nice. However, the main reason why I'm asking for help is on the last paragraph. As you can see, it's a bit too long and I need to somehow split it to two or more smaller paragraphs, but I need help! From what parts should I divide that paragraph?
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” This quote is the first article of the universal declaration of human rights, derived from Cyrus the Great’s charter of Human Rights, which has been written in over 2500 years ago. This proves that people cared about their rights and freedom has been important to humans for since a long time ago. However, there have been many arguments about the definition of freedom and its limits. If someone is free to do whatever he wants, then does it mean that he can kill someone else? This is where rules based on morality appear, and bring another question with them. What is morality, and how does it affect one’s freedom? At this point rights come on the stage. Some believe that creatures have rights, but another problem arises here; what are rights and how are they defined? If someone decides not to kill someone else, is he granting the other person right to live? In this essay some beliefs and ideas will be discussed and, based on them, some boundaries on freedom will be presumed.
In order to learn something, you need to understand its meaning first. The word “Freedom” has several meanings, but most of the time it means the power or condition of acting without compulsion, according to Webster's Dictionary. That meaning is true and false simultaneously. If that meaning was true, everyone could do anything they want and it would produce anarchy, thus creating an extreme dystopia and making life miserable for everyone. It could be a 300 million lottery ticket with the chance of traveling the whole world, or the right to vote in Iran. There are different opinions on the meaning of freedom. Some people believe that without humans the concept of freedom wouldn't exist, so it’s just another creation of humans and the world would exist without it as well. Some others think that having freedom is essential for everyone, to a certain extent. According to their belief, your freedom ends where someone else's begins. Either way, many people believe that “freedom” stands for something much greater than just the right of doing whatever you want. The interpretation of Freedom is dependent upon the individual, or the group of individuals, like a country. A sick extreme libertarian would rape his own family for pleasure and call it freedom. A Buddhist would experience the nirvana and get completely free from karmic suffering. To make it short, freedom could be anything. Depending on the culture, religion, and government we’re talking about, freedom might stand for liberty, equality, happiness, security, et cetera.
Obviously, one cannot do anything he wants without considering the consequences first. We are the only rational creatures known so far, and as rational creatures we have the ability to think, define, and accept moralities and rules of conduct. Some very basic moral rules are: do not kill, do not cause pain, do not deprive of freedom, and do not deprive of pleasure. Common sense would agree to obey those moral rules, but there are different beliefs on the definition of what’s good and what’s bad. Utilitarianism agrees that the morally best action is the one that creates the most overall happiness or usefulness. It’s basically doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism limits freedom in a way that we’re not free to do anything that denies other people’s happiness anymore. David Hume is among the utilitarian philosophers. The opposite of Utilitarianism is Deontology, or Kantianism. According to Deontology, humans, as rational creatures, have a duty to do things which are inherently good, or follow a neutrally obligatory rule. Deontologists believe that our intentions or the consequences of our acts are not important. We don’t prevent doing inherently bad things not because they’re bad, but because other humans will imitate us and those acts will lose their usefulness when everyone does them. Deontology limits freedom in a way that we can’t do any action which would be self-defeating. A good example for comparing these two studies is the act of lying. Lying is almost always forbidden in both cases, but the reasons differ. A Rule Utilitarian doesn’t lie because, generally speaking, lying does not produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number. An Act Utilitarian can also make use of the "Do not lie” rule, but he can violate it if it produces greatest happiness of the greatest number. On the other hand, a Deontologist doesn’t lie because if he lies, others would imitate his act of lying, so everyone would lie. If everyone lies, lying loses its functionality and therefore becomes self-defeating.
Thanks a lot in advance!