Introduction
The principle of utility denotes that actions or conducts are right as much as they advance contentment or enjoyment; and are wrong in the event that they result to sorrow or pain. In this case, the feelings of contentment or sadness are organic events that engage the human beings’ central nervous system, which are managed by their rational cortex. Based on this, feelings of contentment are experienced when one executes acts that accomplish organic purposes like eating and having sex. Importantly it should be noted that, the principle of utility states that in the case that there is nothing one can do to prevent death like in our case of a trolley; it is has more pleasure if you kill one person and save five.
In this case, one life cannot be equated to five others; hence it is advisable to let one person die and save the live of the many. This is because the principle of utility indicates that, it is possible for an act to offer a huge quantity of scientific contentment for a few individuals at the expense of a small quantity of scientific discomfort for everyone else. From this, I do not agree because each and every person’s life is precious and nothing should be done to terminate it. Therefore, in the case of a trolley, one should not divert the trolley to the track that could kill one person since doing this is killing, despite the fact that one was saving more lives.
Main text
On the other hand, ‘categorical imperative’ signifies a complete and absolute necessity that states its power in all conditions; both necessary and acceptable as an end in itself. In this case, a behavior is correct in the case it considers other individuals as ends in themselves, and not as ways to an end. Based on this, it is not permissible to tell a lie to another person with the intentions of getting something from him. This is because it is not right to use others as means to attain an end. In this case, one should not treat others incorrectly for his personal gains.
It should be noted that, Peter Singer outlined that animals should be given the same deliberation as the comparable wellbeing of human beings. In his arguments, Singer indicated that animals should not be used as means to an end by human beings; like being used as research objects, as foodstuff, outfits or entertainment. On the other hand, Kant said that human beings have no duties with animals and therefore unkindness to non humans is different to human being’s duty to himself. It can be argued that animals should be considered as living things and hence should not be treated unkindly. Additionally, animal rights should be respected and considered as having feelings, hence I agree with Singer’s theory.
It is of importance to note that, Sigmund Freud denoted that the unconscious mind takes an explanation of the things that are not presented to understanding like memories and instincts; which are very upsetting to the face. In this case, the unconscious is the foundation of the inspirations where people acknowledge or reject them; or deny of being cognizant of these motives which are shown only in a concealed form. Based on this it can be argued that, the girl’s motives were explained in her unconscious form; but tries to deny them in her conscious self. From this it can be said that, the unconscious explains the conscious motives of an individual.
Further, civic disobedience is the lively rejection to comply with certain rules, commands and authorities of an administration using no form of aggression. It can be argued that, civic disobedience is one way where people can become insurgent against unjust authorities for instance in India; in the case of Gandhi’s movements for sovereignty from the British domain. From this it can be said that, civic disobedience can be justifiable in some cases where the government has turned to be unjust to the citizens.
In addition, ethical relativism states that ethics are relative to the customs of one’s traditions where correctness or wrongness of an action depends on the ethical customs of the society in which it is carried out. In my case, I do not agree with ethical relativism because it contributes to murder in societies where it is practiced. For instance, as it is stated in some cultures that the husband has a right over the life and death of his spouse; it means that his culture allows him to kill her. On the other hand, homicide in some cultures is allowed where children are obliged to murder their parents before they grow very old.
It can be argued that, male circumcision is morally permissible as researches in South Africa indicated that it prevents males against the acquirement of HIV, during heterosexual intercourse. On the other hand male circumcision is culturally, medically and religiously accepted as a rite of passage. On the contrary from a health hazard perspective, female clitoridectomy has short and long-term bodily problems and emotional effects, hence not morally permissible.
Importantly, a split-brain patient is a person suffering from the corpus collosum linking the two hemispheres of the mental power; which is disengaged to some extent. In this case, the philosophical significance of a split-brain patient is that his brainpowers can have two characters and two split specialties of awareness. Based on this, each person has two awarenesses but each is merely conscious of itself.
Conclusion
Lastly, the significance of the question ‘what is it like to be a bat’ is that, bats have experiences as they distinguish the outside world mainly by sonar. In this case, their brains enable them to make accurate biases of the expanse, bulkiness, shape, movement, and touch similar to those humans make by vision. Based on this bat sonar’s, although obviously a form of awareness is not comparable in its process to any sense that humans posses. From this it can be said that, there is no explanation to presume that a bat’s sonar is instinctively like anything humans can understand or envisage.