In pragmatic and easy to define: Well
: What improvement in human nature. Truth
: Matching between understanding and reality. Awareness
: Compass to decide between good and evil. Freedom
: Choosing between good and evil with responsibility.
From these definitions look at what it says A. Retegui Ruiz in his book Biological Ethics, chap. 1
Freedom and the person
Basically we meet again the old question that gave birth to twenty-five centuries of philosophical reflection on ethics. This question arose from the consciousness of freedom and its significance. The man began to think of Philosophy Ethics when he realized that the exercise of his free action did not mean simply a choice about external things. This is certainly the most immediate and obvious dimension of freedom. But then it warns that its scope is more profound and decisive in the choice of this or that thing, about this or that course of action, the man is deciding about himself. It is the very person who, as a result of their choices will be made or missed achieve happiness and fulfillment or sink in disappointment. why the consciousness of freedom , with all its depth and scope, the man faces the question of responsibility .
The question that raises the modern scientific and technological development is similar to that faced by the Greek V century BC, because what we are debating now is whether the material possibilities that have lead to a more humane world, or more violent and tyrannical. We realized that our options for action alternatives we face momentous: the making and destruction. We have found abruptly with the critical responsibility of our free action.
man's ethical experience is closely linked to the experience of freedom and scope of freedom . This experience confronts the man with various ways to perform or be fulfilled, of which some are experienced as real enforcement and others are experienced as frustration. But before these alternatives, the man is not indifferent: there is no difference be frustrated. The man, every man wants to be happy. The question is how is that being happy. The experience, so often, the disappointment shows that happiness is no objective content evident. The big question of ethics is precisely determine what we want and how it is achieved. The first and fundamental issue of ethical reflection was not what acts are what we do and what to avoid, but what is that we all want. To this end the Greeks called him Well, that just was defined as "what we all want." But not everyone wants to his inclinations immediate and empirical, in all acts of will, but "what we all want in the background", ie what we all want to do things or acts as a means to something else, dear in itself, definitive.
The Truth About man as a measure of freedom
If we, to decide freely decide on the merits of ourselves, the reference that tells us about the wisdom or wrongness of our free will decision truth about ourselves. If we are right to decide according to our true and we fulfill our exercise of freedom be successful. But if we decide on a course of action that leads to the frustrating experience, then our freedom has failed. That is, the man immediately warned that their actions are at stake some assets or property of a special nature that he summoned an absolute in his capacity as a person endowed with free . It is well that man is among the "need" that are imposed on those values, loyalty, sincerity, justice, etc .- and "freedom" for its decision. Ethical experience is presented as a synthesis of freedom and necessity. Of freedom, because our will is not physically determined for any mode of action. Of necessity, because the desire for happiness, fulfillment, challenges us in an absolute and inevitable. The need is not physical, because the man is not physically forced to perform or to act in accordance with their values, but warns that it is committed to its action is not merely an external reality, but his own person as such.
Indeed, when acting man has only a psychological consciousness, some knowledge of the action in its done, but also has moral conscience, ie has knowledge of the adequacy of the act with the dignity of human condition itself. Thus, when a person betrays a moral value, conscience condemns him as a person. This is not the disappointment that follows a sectoral fail, ie moral consciousness does not say "you are bad math" or "bad athlete," but "are bad" is the basic human experience warning dignity.
Now, reflect "awareness" comes from cum scientia, refers to knowledge, and what do you know your conscience? What really open? Or put another way, what is the truth that measures awareness and commitment? These questions lead us to question the alleged neutrality of consciousness as ideological power to decide, which is as commonly understood today. Behind this approach, in effect, beat the nominalist idea of \u200b\u200bfreedom, typical of the modern age, which is in practice a pragmatic individualism. A freedom that is exercised not only outside the truth, but producing it, as if its root. There is another way, however, raise the relationship between freedom and truth, which is just the reverse. At the root, in the intimate realm and hidden from the consciousness - we put the truth , ie, the habit of opening it through knowledge, so that outward displays the branches of freedom , the set of specific decisions in order to achieve the common Well .
Activities:
1. Enter the following link and with your group makes the Webquest:
http://www.orospeda.es/majwq/wq/ver/4540
2. Your feedback is important:
0 comments:
Post a Comment