Saturday, March 28, 2020

Medical Ethics Essays (1633 words) - Ethics, Philosophy,

Medical Ethics Class 1 Most people in the USA believe that we have private right. The struggle is that there is no such thing as a private right. A private right would be something that has no influence on any body else. There is no clear-cut difference between public and private. The issue is right and obligation. Pg. 367 Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek , Deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules. It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty." From a deontological point of view, he did not want to give his kidney because he was a coward and he was justifying a lie. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. "Utility" is defined in various ways, usually in terms of the well being of sentient entities, such as human beings and other animals. According to D C you find your duty by reasoning. You have to come up with reasons for what you decide. From a utilitarian point of view for the case of the 5 years old girl needing a kidney, the father should be able to give his daughter the kidney because the risk of him dying those not out weight the need for the girl to have the kidney because more people would benefits from his transplant. You cannot make a decision from a utilitarian perspective just pertaining to you. It recognizes that none of our decision is just prevent and they affect other people's lives. Categorical Imperative (in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose. Kant gives two forms of the categorical imperative: Behave in such a way that a reasonable generalization of your action to a universal rule will lead to a benefit to a generic person under this universal rule. Always treat others as ends and not means because there is value in the human life. Suppose there were a class of people who liked to be ends. Suppose these people, under certain special circumstances, would like to be treated as objects, for example, as tables. They enjoy being tables, and have tablecloths and wine glasses put on their backs, it does them no harm, and they enjoy the experience, and talk about the experience with joy and regard. Under these circumstances, knowing that you too might want to be a table at some point, would it be ok to treat these people as means and not ends, at least temporarily? Is there a precise sense in which 1 and 2 are equivalent, as they seem completely different to me. Perhaps the answer is that by respecting the wish to be means, not ends, you are treating the people as ends, not means. But then it becomes very difficult to actually determine when you are acting correctly according to imperative 2. To give more realistic precise examples, here are some things that are ok under 1 and not ok under 2: purchasing blood plasma from a poor, willing donor. lying to someone about something painful (like whether this person has cancer, or whether she is attractive in that dress, etc). prostitution, dwarf tossing, and other superficially exploitative professions. hypothetical imperatives, which are valid only in the presence of some ulterior desire or goale.g., "If you want to be well-liked, do not lie.") Why does your rationality indicate your dignity? The morally law within define our dignity. We only know it by reason. Right Theory A right gives his holder a justified claim to something and justified claim to another party. A right is identified as something that out an obligatory claim upon somebody else. Example because we have a right to life, homicide can't be justified. A right is different at different countries, for example in England if you are 80 it is going to be hard to get a kidney transplant than a 18 years old. This because we judge the value of our lives based on the natural coarse of life. Because we belief that everybody has a natural coarse of life. Beginning and ending, the

Saturday, March 7, 2020

Definition and Examples of the Middle Style in Rhetoric

Definition and Examples of the Middle Style in Rhetoric In classical rhetoric, the middle style is reflected in speech or writing that (in terms of word choice, sentence structures, and delivery) falls between the extremes of the plain style and the grand style. Roman rhetoricians generally advocated the use of the plain style for teaching, the middle style for pleasing, and the grand style for moving an audience. See Examples and Observations below. Also see: DecorumLevels of UsageOn Familiar Style, by William HazlittStyle Examples and Observations An Example of the Middle Style: Steinbeck on the Urge to TravelWhen I was very young and the urge to be someplace was on me, I was assured by mature people that maturity would cure this itch. When years described me as mature, the remedy prescribed was middle age. In middle age I was assured that greater age would calm my fever and now that I am fifty-eight perhaps senility will do the job. Nothing has worked. Four hoarse blasts of a ships whistle still raise the hair on my neck and set my feet to tapping. The sound of a jet, an engine warming up, even the clopping of shod hooves on pavement brings on the ancient shudder, the dry mouth and vacant eye, the hot palms and the churn of stomach high up under the rib cage. In other words, I don’t improve; in further words, once a bum always a bum. I fear the disease is incurable. I set this matter down not to instruct others but to inform myself.(John Steinbeck, Travels with Charley: In Search of America. Viking, 1962)Three Kinds of StyleThe classical rhetoricians delineated three kinds of stylethe grand style, the middle style, and the plain style. Aristotle told his students that every kind of rhetorical style is capable of being used in season or out of season. They warned against the too grand style calling it swollen, or the too plain style which when misused they called meagre, and dry and bloodless. The middle style used inappropriately they called slack, without sinews and joints . . . drifting.(Winifred Bryan Horner, Rhetoric in the Classical Tradition. St. Martins, 1988) The Middle Style in Roman RhetoricThe speaker who sought to entertain his listeners would choose a middle style. Vigor was sacrificed for charm. Any and every form of ornamentation was appropriate, including the use of wit and humor. Such a speaker possessed the skill to develop arguments with breadth and erudition; he was master at amplification. His words were chosen for the effect they would produce on others. Euphony and imagery were cultivated. The overall effect was one of moderation and temperance, of polish and urbanity. This style of discourse, more than any other, typified Cicero himself and would later influence us in English through the marvelous prose style of Edmund Burke.(James L. Golden, The Rhetoric of Western Thought, 8th ed. Kendall/Hunt, 2004)The Tradition of the Middle Style- The Middle Style . . . resembles the simple in striving to communicate truth to the understanding with clearness, and resembles the grand in aiming to influence the feelings and passions. It is bolder and more profuse in the employment of figures and the various emphatic verbal forms, than the simple style; but does not use those appropriate to intense feeling, which are found in the grand.This style is employed in all compositions intended not only to inform and convince, but at the same time to move the feelings and passions. Its character varies with the predominance of one or other of these ends. When instruction and conviction are predominant, it approaches the lower style; when influencing the feelings is the main object, it partakes more of the character of the higher.(Andrew D. Hepburn, Manual of English Rhetoric, 1875)- The middle style is the style you dont notice, the style that does not show, ideal transparency. . . .To define a style in this way, of course, means that we cannot talk about the style itselfthe actual configuration of words on the pageat all. We must talk about the social substance surrounding it, the historical pattern of expectations which renders it transparent.(Richard Lanham, Analyzing Prose, 2nd ed. Continuum, 2003)- Ciceros idea of the middle style . . . lies between the ornateness and perorations of the grand or vigorous style (used for persuasion) and the simple words and conversational manner of the plain or low style (used for proof and instruction). Cicero designated the middle style as a vehicle for pleasure and defined it by what it is notnot showy, not highly figurative, not stiff, not excessively simple or terse. . . . The twentieth-century reformers, up to and beyond Strunk and White, were and are advocating their version of the middle style. . . .An accepted middle style exists for any form of writing you can think of: news stories in The New York Times, scholarly articles in the sciences or humanities, historical narratives, Web logs, legal decisions, romance or suspense novels, CD reviews in Rolling Stone, medical case studies.(Ben Yagoda, The Sound on the Page. Harper, 2004)