6127 Shares

How do you qualify what.?

How do you qualify what.? Topic: Case surface pro
June 17, 2019 / By Alvar
Question: How do you qualify what is 'good' or 'bad.' Does it make it o.k. to do something as long as you're not 'hurting' someone else?
Best Answer

Best Answers: How do you qualify what.?

Thelma Thelma | 1 day ago
Well that seems to be more and more what I hear people advocate.. "IF I can't see any way that it will hurt someone one, then I should have the right to do it" Couple of issues with that.... First off, it doesn't advocate the use of any "principles" -- principles are those lines you draw..the value judgements you make which you won't ever violate. You analyze the pros and cons, the law of reciprocity and ideas like "categorical imperatives" etc. and you decide ahead of time.. things which you will not do or lines you will not cross, ON THE PRINCIPLE of the matter. - How often do you hear people talk about principles? hardly ever. Secondily, Judging the right and wrong merely on whether or not it hurts someone, creates an incredibly self centered and narrow minded society. It limits right and wrong to ONLY what that 1 person can see. If they can't see the logical outcome and how it will hurt someone, then they feel fully justified in doing it. If you miscalculated and some bad does come from it.. well, OOPPS,... I ddin't see that coming -- You're still OK, because you THOUGHT it was OK to do it at the time, simply because YOU couldn't see the bad that would come from it.. even if others could. Case in point is Gay marriage. Many people can't see any "bad that will come from it" -- While others claim they do. Well, without any principles involved.. those who can't see the bad, ignore those who can and all the while claiming there is no reason NOT to grant them the right to marry. But wait a minute..some people CAN see bad coming from it.. so how do we resolve this? It also creates "situational ethics" -- what is wrong in one situation, isn't wrong in another. Smoking Weed in front of my 2 year old nephew = bad...because his lungs are still developing and I'm teaching him a bad habit..so in that SITUATION it hurts someone, ergo it is bad. However, It is perfectly OK to smoke weed when my 2 yr. old nephew is out of the house..because no one is getting hurt. - well accept ME, but I have a right to hurt myself if I want...right? This type of reasoning can justify just about any behavior. IF you can construct a situation where no one gets hurt..then you are free to do whatever you want ... in that specific situation. Principles combat this by setting up lines which you don't cross. IF smoking weed in public, around your nephew is wrong... then by Principle alone.. smoking weed is WRONG, PERIOD! -- No situational ethics involved there. So you can see "so long as it doesn't hurt someone" sounds good on the surface but it a really BAD substitute for actual morals and ethics. If you don't have a Religious belief to create a strong framework for you and give you that backing you need, then simply use the "Golden Rule" "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you" But PLEASE, please.. don't use "it doesn't hurt anyone" reasoning, that is the lameless reason of all.
👍 150 | 👎 1
Did you like the answer? How do you qualify what.? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Case surface pro


Thelma Originally Answered: Would I qualify for Palimony?
"Palimony" is an idiotic term which really has no legal meaning. "Palimony" was a term created by the media. The term stems from a case from California, called Marvin v. Marvin. Basically, what Marvin v. Marvin says is that, in California, contracts between cohabitants that essentially look like marriage contracts are enforceable. Earlier, such contracts were unenforceable as a matter of public policy. The public policy was that such persons desiring this type of contract had to actually be married. If you are not actually married, then contracts that are essentially the same as a marriage are not going to be enforced by the courts. And, only a handful of states have signed on to the Marvin v. Marvin rationale. So, to qualify for "palimony," you first need to prove that you & your ex had a contract. Then, you must live in a state that will enforce such contracts. California will, but I'm not so sure about Michigan.

Rosannah Rosannah
The decision to identify something as good or bad is based on meditation upon the scriptures of the latest religions.
👍 60 | 👎 -7

Mould Mould
In the most general sense, use the ethic of reciprocity (i.e. the Golden Rule)... However, we must also abide by the law of the land...
👍 60 | 👎 -15

Lizzy Lizzy
JUST THE OPPOSITE ...if you are doing something bad you are necessarily hurting someone else. That was one of the main points of Jesus' Teaching.
👍 60 | 👎 -23

Karolyn Karolyn
IT IS BAD TO DO ANY WRONG !! WRONG IS SIN ! SIN IS ENMITY BETWEEN GOD AND MAN. SIN IS BREAKING GODS LAW OF OBEDIENCE TO HIM .. SIN VERY SELDOM DOES NOT INVOLVE SOMEONE ,,EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY !!
👍 60 | 👎 -31

Karolyn Originally Answered: Will he qualify or is he screwed?
I think he would have to return to the States in order to get the medical help. But he is still not old enough to go on Medicare! And Social Security you have to be 65 - better check on that statement, cos things change day by day! He could write to Social Security, and ask how much he was entitled to, and WHEN could he start drawing it!! I think that's the best way!

If you have your own answer to the question case surface pro, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.