You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 4 (1004 words)
Since man has met civilization, his behavior has been anything but that. Throughout the years of evolution, man has maintained and generated newer ways of making his fellow beings uncomfortable. Though this is not always done as a deliberate element, yet its effects are far-reaching, and ever-present due to the dynamic state of the human being around the globe.
On the context of hurting others, Nagel presents a moralistically sensitive stance. He believes that the best way to understand what the other person is feeling is to actualize with the feelings of the other person. Hurting another person in itself is a subjective concept, according to Nagel. Just like the concept of good or bad, or morality or even laws, the issues of transgressing the rights of another person is a matter which may not affect many if they cannot relate to it. Many people do not even tend to realize even after they have undergone the process of making someone feel unconformable. Au contraire, Kant feels that the absolute truth lies only in the good will of a person. All else is surreal, and the only true and unconditional good act is the one which is done out of true intrinsic will by a person.
The focus is on the concept of "How would you like it if someone did that to you" (Nagel, 1987. p. 64). The point emphasized by Nagel here is that a person should endeavor to step into the shoes of the other individual. Then the perspective of reality would become evident, and perhaps, the action could be avoided. He further argues that people fail to appreciate the viewpoint of the other person because their own orientation about the facts is not only specific, due to being a different person altogether1. ...
Not exactly what you need?