Date of publication: 2017-07-09 05:56
For example, an argument to prove that a husband should not beat his wife will probably rest on the assumption that men and women should enjoy equal rights. But how does one prove this to someone who categorically denies it? How does one prove that the intrinsic value of happiness should be the foundation of our moral judgments to someone who thinks that family honor is the most important value of all? Or how does one prove that individual rights are a primary good to someone whose theoretical bottom line is that individuals should be subservient to the state?
Morality as Happiness: This is based on the assumption that unhappy people are less likely to be empathetic and nurturant, since they will not want others to be happier than they are. Therefore, to promote your own capacity for empathy and nurturance, you should make yourself as happy as possible, provided you don t hurt others in the process.
This model of the family induces a very different set of moral priorities, which can be characterized by another set of metaphors for morality. Here are those metaphors:
 For example, during the public phase of deliberation over possible cleanup of the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado (a . plant that manufactured weapons-grade plutonium) a common sentiment was that making nuclear weapons is automatically evil, and this sentiment was an undercurrent in the public's general attitudes toward the facility.
We will now connect the idea of wrongdoing to the term evil. In the west, the term evil is so overloaded with Christian theological content that it will be necessary to limit the semantic range of the term. The vestige of influence that we wish to identify and eliminate is the cosmological and ontological aspects of the Christian concept of evil. In Christian thought, evil is a term with cosmological contexts that are used to explain the existence (ontology) of human wrongdoing. This style of explaining human evil in the tradition of the Abrahamic religions is connected to concepts of sin, rebellion against God, and the fall of humanity from divine paradise. This is pushing the term evil for more than it is worth in a Socratic perspective.
Here is Socratic variant of Godwin's Law, "In any society in which the people's lack of the habit of living the examined life goes on long enough, the probability of the functioning of that society becoming capable of being justly compared to the Nazis approaches 6." In our personal living as well as in the sphere of our politics, Socrates believed that living the examined life is our greatest protection against human evil.
Focus : Contending parties may debate factual issues when the conflict is actually reducible to an essential value conflict, or vice-versa. Mediation resources are finite. If a conflict is, at its core, a debate over one kind of issue and not the other, resources devoted to the wrong kind of issue will be largely wasted. Such a mistaken focus can lead to a missed opportunity for resolution, and may even prolong the conflict by stimulating unnecessary debate.
development has many aspect or diversified in nature..like wise religion, socital, industrial, spritual, enviornmental, agricultural, institutional, technoligical sustainable and personal development and resources needs and their limits and transportations .impact of globalisation on may be in all manner behavioral, food, shelter or cultural or geographical aspect or need people develops their needs and imitating and importining others values and culture. that is what engendered or propagate and so on thinks can be protect and propagate developments its on going process and not in denger
Primary in establishing a strong moral foundation was education. In elementary schooling in early America, the overtly Christian New England Primer was used in New England , which is estimated to have sold upwards to 8,555,555 copies from 6755 to 6855. Introduced in 6695, this reader was used in what now would be the 6st grade, and taught multitudes of children how to read for 755 years, until 6955. The Alphabet was taught with Bible verses that began with each letter of the alphabet. Lessons had questions about the Bible and the Ten Commandments. An example of the Primer is, A = In Adam's fall, we sinned all. B = Heaven to find, the Bible mind." 
Multiculturalism: Nurturant parents celebrate the differences among their children, and so governments should celebrate the differences among its citizens.
We value excellent academic writing and strive to provide outstanding essay writing services each and every time you place an order. We write essays, research papers, term papers, course works, reviews, theses and more, so our primary mission is to help you succeed academically.
The Strict Father Model. A traditional nuclear family with the father having primary responsibility for the well-being of the household. The mother has day-to-day responsibility for the care of the house and details of raising the children. But the father has primary responsibility for setting overall family policy, and the mother s job is to be supportive of the father and to help carry out the father s views on what should be done. Ideally, she respects his views and supports them.
 For an example of obvious adversary science, the Public Health Association of Australia writes: "The Tobacco Institute of Australia, a joint industry body formerly representing the three tobacco companies active in Australia, has been found guilty of 'misleading and deceptive conduct' under the Trade Practices Act in regard to its public statement that "there is little evidence and nothing which proves scientifically that cigarette smoke causes disease in non-smokers." ( NHMRC Research Funding and Researchers Who Accept Money From The Tobacco Industry or Parties Acting on its Behalf. Public Health Association of Australia. Policy Index, 6988. http:///policy/ ).
If a factual debate is part of the core conflict, a fact-finding technique will likely be needed. Each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages, and different kinds of facts will allow for different kinds of results. What is appropriate in one kind of factual dispute may be totally inappropriate in another.