Aristotle && Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Weakness of the Will
But doing the right thing is not always so simple, even though few people deliberately choose to develop vicious habits. Aristotle sharply disagreed with Socrates's belief that knowing what is right always results in doing it. The great enemy of moral conduct, on Aristotle's view, is precisely the failure to behave well even on those occasions when one's deliberation has resulted in clear knowledge of what is right.
Incontinent agents suffer from a sort of weakness of the will {Gk. akrasia [akrásia]} that prevents them from carrying out actions in conformity with what they have reasoned. (Nic. Ethics VII 1) This may appear to be a simple failure of intelligence, Aristotle acknowledged, since the akratic individual seems not to draw the appropriate connection between the general moral rule and the particular case to which it applies. Somehow, the overwhelming prospect of some great pleasure seems to obscure one's perception of what is truly good. But this difficulty, Aristotle held, need not be fatal to the achievement of virtue.
Although incontinence is not heroically moral, neither is it truly vicious. Consider the difference between an incontinent person, who knows what is right and aims for it but is sometimes overcome by pleasure, and an intemperate person, who purposefully seeks excessive pleasure. Aristotle argued that the vice of intemperance is incurable because it destroys the principle of the related virtue, while incontinence is curable because respect for virtue remains. (Nic. Ethics VII 8) A clumsy archer may get better with practice, while a skilled archer who chooses not to aim for the target will not. (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2s.htm)

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: the four lower levels are grouped together as being associated with Physiological needs, while the top level is termed growth needs associated with psychological needs. Deficiency needs must be met first. Once these are met, seeking to satisfy growth needs drives personal growth. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are satisfied. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized. If a lower set of needs is no longer being met, the individual will temporarily re-prioritize those needs by focusing attention on the unfulfilled needs, but will not permanently regress to the lower level . For instance, a businessman (at the esteem level) who is diagnosed with cancer will spend a great deal of time concentrating on his health (physiological needs), but will continue to value his work performance (esteem needs) and will likely return to work during periods of remission. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow)

carl hiaasen

carl hiaasen seems like a very down to earth person, like someone you would find living next door. He has been married twice with two sons, one from each marriage. he has worked at the same job, the miami harold, a newspaper, since 1976. he has written many, fiction, non-fiction, and short-stories. one of his previous novels, strip tease, even became a motion picture staring demi moore and burt reynolds.

hiaasen novels and colums, the moral landscape making almost tangible certain basic and universal values: we should be loyal to our friends, be have with civility and decency, earn ourpaychecks honestly, experience shame of we stal, preserve the world for our children, and never surrender- either our belief in these valuse or to anyone who would violate them for personal gain. Hiaasen says, "you try to be a good citizen wherever you live. Plant mangroves and dont piss in the water."

COMM 317: bong hits 4 ethics

Aristotle- Golden Mean- "virtue lies at the mean between two extremes of excess and deficiency"

-don't go overboard.
-don't go off too far in either direction

-advice for the principal "don't show your authority just because you can"

-advice for student- "don't push your luck, but don't sit back and take any crap either"

-advice for chief justice roberts- "take another look at this case, are you sure you want to make this ruling like you are?"


Immanuel Kant- based on the notion that it is the act itself, rather than the person who acts, in which moral force resides.

ties it back to the golden rule





Jereny Bentham- The consequences of actions are important in deciding whether they are ethical

spelling errors

marbale - marble

writeup - write-up

thats all i could find?

new york times v sullivan

new york times v sullivan

Facts:

Laws:

Issues:
-race
-freedom of speech
-libel
- defamation of character

why are they issues/why can they go both way?
what the ad says about sullivan is a legal conclusion.
findings of facts and findings of law, the ad doesnt even mention sullivan.

three questions

what is the clearest point you have learned in 317?
I think the clearest thing i have learnd is how to brief a case. i think when all the facts are there it easy to follow the outline.


what is the most confusing point you have learned in 317?
due process is by far the most confusing thing we have went over so far. it seems easy to understand until you start breaking down the story/case/situation/facts/etc.

What would you like to learn in 317?
i dont really have anything in mind i would like to learn, i think i am pretty open to anything at this point?

questions for reading

#1
Freedom Fries- was a short-lived name used by some in the United States for French fries, as a result of anti-French sentiment in the United States.

During the international debate over the decision to launch the 2003 invasion of Iraq, FranceUnited Nations to taking such action. The French position was not popular with certain groups in the United States, leading to campaigns for the boycotting of French goods and businesses and the removal of the country's name from products. expressed strong opposition in the

The name "freedom fries" was first used by Neal Rowland at his Cubbie's restaurant in Beaufort, North Carolina.^[1] The story made national news, garnering the attention of other restaurants as well as the United States Congress.

Liberty cabbage (also known as victory cabbage) was an American euphemism for "sauerkraut." It was introduced in the United States during World War I, but was rarely used thereafter. Similar euphemisms, some of which did not spring up until World War II, include "liberty measles" for "German measles,"^[1] "Eisenhower jacket" for "Hindenburg jacket," "Eisenhower herring" for "Bismarck herring," "liberty steak" for "hamburger" (hamburger is derived from "Hamburg", a city in Germany), and others.

This euphemism is similar to the 2003 Iraq war era "Freedom fries." Liberty cabbage is often associated with anti-German sentiment.

Musician Rufus Wainwright wrote a song entitled "Liberty Cabbage" expressing uneasiness with many American political and cultural practices.

The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the Patriot Act, is an Act of Congress that President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The acronym stands for: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).

The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law passed shortly after entering World War I, on June 15, 1917, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. It was punishable by a maximum $USD 10,000 fine (almost $170,000 in today's dollars) and 20 years in prison. The legislation was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who feared any widespread dissent in time of war, thinking that it constituted a real threat to an American victory

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the United States Congress—which was waging an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War—and signed into law by President John Adams. Proponents claimed the acts were designed to protect the United States from alien citizens of enemy powers and to stop seditious attacks from weakening the government. The Democratic-Republicans, like later historians, attacked them as being both unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism of the administration, and as infringing on the right of the states to act in these areas. They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. One act (the Alien Enemies Act) is still in force in 2008, and has frequently been enforced in wartime. The others expired or were repealed by 1802. Thomas Jefferson held them all to be unconstitutional and void, then pardoned and ordered the release of all who had been convicted of violating them.

They were all used in war times, && they all talk about say what you want as long as you say the right thingsabout our government ... or you may be punished.




#2

i think they were writing what people wanted to hear, and the politicians didnt like that, some of it might have been true, some might not have? but in one article i found it says " One of the men arrested was Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Charged with libeling President Adams, Bache's arrest erupted in a public outcry against all of the Alien and Sedition Acts. "(http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/) so, it wasnt just the aliens that were being punished it was everyone. I think today there are so many different forms of writing && people in office, if everyone was put in jail for writing something bad about someone in office, the jails would be filled up with writers instead or other crime doers.

#3

Abrams v. United States. (1919) FACT two leaflets were thrown from the roof of a building in New York, by four refugees from the pogroms and tyranny of Czarist Russia because they didn't like President Wilson's decision to send American troops in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution LAW the four defendants were charged with an attempt to harm America prosecution of the war against Germany QUOTE "punish speech that produces or is intended to produce a clear and imminent danger that it will bring about forthwith certain substantive evils..."- Justice Holmes (pg 76- 77)