Duty

Author(s):  
K. E. Løgstrup ◽  
Kees van Kooten Niekerk ◽  
Kristian-Alberto Lykke Cobos ◽  
Hans Fink ◽  
Bjørn Rabjerg ◽  
...  

This chapter focuses on the concept of duty, which Løgstrup connects to thinkers such as Kant, Nowell-Smith, and the Stoics, and which he sees as originating from the different kinds of relationships human beings are in with each other, e.g. friendships, marriage, parent–child, employer–worker, etc. Løgstrup argues against Kant that his crude opposition between inclination and duty cannot accommodate the sovereign expressions of life; the latter are more fundamental than duty and duty only enters into the relationship when the sovereign expressions of life somehow fail to be realized.

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 126-130
Author(s):  
N. V. SHAMANIN ◽  

The article raises the issue of the relationship of parent-child relationships and professional preferences in pedagogical dynasties. Particular attention is paid to the role of the family in the professional development of the individual. It has been suggested that there is a relationship between parent-child relationships and professional preferences.


Author(s):  
T.J. Kasperbauer

This chapter applies the psychological account from chapter 3 on how we rank human beings above other animals, to the particular case of using mental states to assign animals moral status. Experiments on the psychology of mental state attribution are discussed, focusing on their implications for human moral psychology. The chapter argues that attributions of phenomenal states, like emotions, drive our assignments of moral status. It also describes how this is significantly impacted by the process of dehumanization. Psychological research on anthropocentrism and using animals as food and as companions is discussed in order to illuminate the relationship between dehumanization and mental state attribution.


Author(s):  
Christine M. Korsgaard

This book argues that we are obligated to treat all sentient animals as “ends in themselves.” Drawing on a theory of the good derived from Aristotle, it offers an explanation of why animals are the sorts of beings who have a good. Drawing on a revised version of Kant’s argument for the value of humanity, it argues that rationality commits us to claiming the standing of ends in ourselves in two senses. As autonomous beings, we claim to be ends in ourselves when we claim the standing to make laws for ourselves and each other. As beings who have a good, we also claim to be ends in ourselves when we take the things that are good for us to be good absolutely and so worthy of pursuit. The first claim commits us to joining with other autonomous beings in relations of reciprocal moral lawmaking. The second claim commits us to treating the good of every sentient animal as something of absolute importance. The book also argues that human beings are not more important than, superior to, or better off than the other animals. It criticizes the “marginal cases” argument and advances a view of moral standing as attaching to the atemporal subjects of lives. It offers a non-utilitarian account of the relationship between the good and pleasure, and addresses questions about the badness of extinction and about whether we have the right to eat animals, experiment on them, make them work for us, and keep them as pets.


Author(s):  
Rainer Forst

This chapter addresses the classical question of the relationship between enlightenment and religion. In doing so, the chapter compares Jürgen Habermas's thought to that of Pierre Bayle and Immanuel Kant. For, although Habermas undoubtedly stands in a tradition founded by Bayle and Kant, he develops a number of important orientations within this tradition and has changed his position in his recent work. The chapter studies this change to understand Habermas's position better. It also draws attention to a fundamental question raised by the modern world: what common ground can human reason establish in the practical and theoretical domain between human beings who are divided by profoundly different religious (including antireligious) views?


1994 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard W. Fulweiler

Our Mutual Friend, published just six years after Darwin's The Origin of Species, is structured on a Darwinian pattern. As its title hints, the novel is an account of the mutual-though hidden-relations of its characters, a fictional world of individuals seeking their own advantage, a "dismal swamp" of "crawling, creeping, fluttering, and buzzing creatures." The relationship between the two works is quite direct in light of the large number of reviews on science, evolution, and The Origin from 1859 through the early 1860s in Dicken's magazine, All the Year Round. Given the laissez-faire origin of the Origin, Dicken's use of it in a book directed against laissez-faire economics is ironic. Important Darwinian themes in the novel are predation, mutual relationships, chance, and, especially, inheritance, a central issue in both Victorian fiction and in The Origin of Species. The novel asks whether predatory self-seeking or generosity should be the desired inheritance for human beings. The victory of generosity is symbolized by a dying child's "willing" his inheritance of a toy Noah's Ark, "all the Creation," to another child. Our Mutual Friend is saturated with the motifs of Darwinian biology, therefore, to display their inadequacy. Although Dickens made use of the explanatory powers of natural selection and remained sympathetic to science, the novel transcends and opposes its Darwinian structure in order to project a teleological and designed evolution in the human world toward a moral community of responsible men and women.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-121
Author(s):  
Rivanti Muslimawaty

Many parents do not understand the concept of faith education inchildren. This could be based on an assumption that children are stilltoo young to be educated in matters of faith. Whereas the family, in thiscase the parents, is an educational institution that is directly related tothe child since he was born. So there is a thought that the family isbelieved to have a very strong influence on children’s religiouseducation. This happens because the relationship that exists betweenparents and children for 24 hours is very important in education.Zakiah Daradjat is an education expert who also believes that theimportance of faith education is given to children as early as possible,so the purpose of this study is to find out how Zakiah Daradjat’sthoughts about children’s religious education are in the family. Byusing qualitative research methods, the author seeks to explain theeducation of children’s faith in the family according to ZakiahDaradjat. The author found that Zakiah Daradjat had clear thoughtsabout children’s religious education in the family, which aims to makechildren as human beings, through the six pillars of faith, with methodsof exemplification, habituation, wrong correction, erroneous quarrelsthat occur and reminding the forgotten. The evaluations carried out inthe form of memorization tests, tests of understanding and practice ofworship. This makes Zakiah Daradjat’s thoughts still relevant to beapplied in today’s life and become a reference for psrents, teachers abdother related parties.


Author(s):  
Thomas Teo

Critical psychology comprises a broad range of international approaches centered around theories and practices of critique, power, resistance, and alternatives of practice. Although critical psychology had an axial age in and around the 1970s, many sources can be found decades and even centuries earlier. Critical psychology is not only about the critique of psychology, which is a broader historical and theoretical field, but about doing justice in and through theory, justice with and to groups of people, and justice to the reality of society, history, and culture as they powerfully constitute subjectivity, as well as the discipline and profession of psychology. Doing justice in and through psychological theory has a strong basis in Western critical approaches, representing a privileged position of reflection in Euro-American research institutions. Critical psychologists argue that traditional psychology is missing its subject matter and hence is not doing justice in methodology, and its practices of control and adjustment are not doing justice to the emancipatory possibilities of human agency or human science. Critical psychologists who are attempting to do justice with and to human beings are not neglecting the onto-epistemic-ethical domain, but are instead focusing on people, often marginalized or oppressed groups. Critical psychologists who want to do justice in history, culture, and society have argued that traditional psychological practice means adaption and adjustment. This means that not only subjectivity, but also the discipline and profession of psychology need to be connected with contexts. Psychologists have attempted to conceptualize the relationship between society and the individual, as well as the ability of humans not only to adapt to an environment but to change their living conditions and transform the status quo. This conceptualization also means providing concrete analyses of how current society, based in neoliberal capitalism, not only impacts individuals but also the discipline of psychology. Despite the complexities of critical psychology around the world, critical psychologists emphasize the importance of reflexivity and praxis when it comes to changing the conditions of social reality that create mental life. Given that subjectivity cannot be limited to intra-psychological processes, critical psychologists attend to relational and structural societal realities, requiring inter- and transdisciplinarity in the discipline and profession.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document