Matching Items (1,391)
Filtering by
- Creators: Poulenc, Francis, 1899-1963
ContributorsPoulenc, Francis, 1899-1963 (Composer)
ContributorsPoulenc, Francis, 1899-1963 (Composer)
ContributorsPoulenc, Francis, 1899-1963 (Composer)
ContributorsPoulenc, Francis, 1899-1963 (Composer)
Description
In this thesis, I discuss the philosophical problem of evil and, as a response, John Hick's soul making theodicy. First, I discuss the transformation of the problem. I examine how the problem has shifted from logical to evidential in recent history. Next, I offer a faithful rendition of Hick's position - one which states the existence of evil does not provide evidence against the existence of God. After reconstructing his argument, I go on to exposes its logical faults. I present four main contentions to Hick's theodicy. First, I analyze the psychology of dehumanization to question whether we have any evidence that soul making is happening in response to the suffering in the world. Second, I argue that Hick's theodicy is self-defeating if accepted because it undermines the central point on which his argument depends. Third, I claim that Hick's theodicy is self-defeating given his eschatological views. Finally, I discuss how Hick's theodicy does not account for the animal suffering that widely exists in the world now, and that exists in our evolutionary history. My hope is to show that Hick's theodicy fails to solve the problem of evil. I claim that the amount of gratuitous suffering in the world does provide evidence against the existence of God.
ContributorsScarpa, Frank Vincent (Author) / Manninen, Bertha (Thesis advisor) / Kobes, Bernard W. (Committee member) / Pinillos, Angel (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Advocacy groups work across many aspects of “death with dignity” practice and treatment, and provide insight across multiple aspects of “death with dignity”. This study argues that key advocacy groups in the American death with dignity movement influenced the broader conceptualization of death with dignity in a way that makes patients more able to achieve it. This influence has been a dynamic process across different periods of practice starting the discussion of “death with dignity” in 1985 through today, although this thesis extends only to 2011. The question in this study is how do the three main historical advocacy groups in the US: the Hemlock Society, Compassion in Dying, and Compassion and Choices, conceptualize death with dignity with regards to patient and doctor relationship, legal and policy factors, and medical technologies and protocols? This study found that the Hemlock Society (1980-2005) characterized death with dignity as a terminally ill patient being able to “self-deliver” from suffering via autoeuthanasia regardless of medical community approval or legality. Compassion in Dying (1993-2007) characterized death with dignity as involved advocacy work with terminal patients and their communities to pursue palliative care and hospice up to the point of assisted death. This organization was also involved in the passing of Oregon Death with Dignity Act. Compassion and Choices (2007-present) characterized death with dignity similarly to Compassion in Dying but also advocated for adequate management of pain and suffering symptoms in palliative care to prevent people from desiring death over the illness. Conceptualizing death with dignity is important for understanding why patients want death with dignity and better accommodating their end of life needs when they are suffering with terminal illness.
ContributorsCohan, Hailey Elizabeth (Author) / Ellison, Karin (Thesis advisor) / O'Neil, Erica (Committee member) / Piemonte, Nicole (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Criminal Justice is a complex subject matter, and not everyone agrees on the way a criminal justice system ought to function. But one feature that is common to virtually all forms of proposed justice systems is that a true justice system treats people ethically. The question, then, is how a justice system can achieve this. This investigation analyzed two ethical theories, Kantianism and Utilitarianism, to determine which one would be better suited for guiding a criminal justice system on how to treat the people involved ethically. This investigation focused on applying the two theories to the U.S. Criminal Justice System in particular.
Kantianism is a duty-based moral theory in which actions have an intrinsic moral worth. This means certain actions are morally right and other are morally wrong, regardless of the intended or realized consequences. The theory relies on the categorical imperative to judge the morality of certain actions. It states that an action is moral if its maxim can be willed universal law and if it avoids treating people as merely a means. In contrast, Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory which focuses on the consequences of an action in judging moral worth. In Utilitarianism, the morally correct action is the one which will maximize utility; that is to say, the morally right action is the one which will produce the greatest amount of happiness and minimize the amount of pain for the greatest number of people.
After applying these two theories to moral dilemmas facing the U.S. Criminal Justice System, including the appropriate collection of DNA evidence, the use of police deception, and the use of criminal punishments such as solitary confinement or the death penalty, it was clear that Kantianism was the ethical theory best suited for guiding the system in treating people ethically. This is because Kantianism’s focus on the intrinsic moral worth of an action rather than its consequences leaves less room for ambiguity than does Utilitarianism.
Kantianism is a duty-based moral theory in which actions have an intrinsic moral worth. This means certain actions are morally right and other are morally wrong, regardless of the intended or realized consequences. The theory relies on the categorical imperative to judge the morality of certain actions. It states that an action is moral if its maxim can be willed universal law and if it avoids treating people as merely a means. In contrast, Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory which focuses on the consequences of an action in judging moral worth. In Utilitarianism, the morally correct action is the one which will maximize utility; that is to say, the morally right action is the one which will produce the greatest amount of happiness and minimize the amount of pain for the greatest number of people.
After applying these two theories to moral dilemmas facing the U.S. Criminal Justice System, including the appropriate collection of DNA evidence, the use of police deception, and the use of criminal punishments such as solitary confinement or the death penalty, it was clear that Kantianism was the ethical theory best suited for guiding the system in treating people ethically. This is because Kantianism’s focus on the intrinsic moral worth of an action rather than its consequences leaves less room for ambiguity than does Utilitarianism.
ContributorsMorett, Xavier Laakea (Author) / Manninen, Bertha (Thesis director) / Kimberly, Kobojek (Committee member) / School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Contributor) / School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
It is no secret that humans at some point in their lives will endure some sort of immense pain or suffering that continues, making life difficult to live in such a way. The question then becomes how a sufferer goes about dealing with their distress and whether or not they choose to deal with it or continue to live a life that is detrimental to them. This is a topic in which I will discuss in the terms of modern day psychology and how people who suffer from psychological disorders can embrace a new path to recovery through words and being able to rewrite their stories. Throughout this thesis, I shall argue, with the assistance of various philosophic works, that everyone is born into a story and responsibility lies within a person either to continue with a story to which they have become accustomed or choose to embark on a new journey all together. When the decision is rendered to rewrite the path one has taken, it is essential to look at what is driving the story or the goals one has been pursuing. The person suffering can then go to treatment based upon the exchange of words between them and their psychoanalyst in hopes of regaining a sense of responsibility in their lives.
ContributorsWilson, Bailey Rachelle (Author) / Ramsey, Ramsey Eric (Thesis director) / Piemonte, Nicole (Committee member) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12
Description
Techno-scientific thinking, which has become firmly grounded in modern medicine, moves towards reifying medicine as a science, losing all aspects of what it means to heal beyond curing a patient’s physical malady. A blueprint has been made on how best to interact with patients, a formulaic way of approaching medicine that seeks to get to the bottom of the patient’s biological disease. But this blueprint is the very reason doctors and patients misrecognize the potential befriending suffering has to heal the psychological dis-ease the patient feels when confronted by suffering. Thus, the process of treating patients is in need of reform. To do this, we must recover the dimension of depth that has been seemingly lost in the medical field. Doctors and patients alike should be critical of this systematic way of thinking about the doctor-patient relationship, a way of thinking that has far more implications than typically recognized. Science itself is not the problem; rather, it is thinking that says science is the only way one ought to approach and understand medicine and the only way to cure patients when there is much more to healing than curing.
In befriending suffering, one has the opportunity to re-understand herself and reorient herself to the world. Through dialogue, one can befriend her suffering and attempt to hear what it might be saying to her. Furthermore, by being a virtuous friend to her suffering, being one who is sincere, reverent, tender, and effortful, one can discover the generative aspects of suffering. By turning toward suffering together, the doctor and patient can connect in a way that better helps them understand themselves and each other. By understanding themselves and their individual suffering, each has the possibility of becoming a more authentic person and living more meaningfully in their daily lives. In understanding each other, the doctor has the potential to heal her patients—and patients, one could say, have the potential to heal their doctors as well. To do this, both must enter into conversation openly and with the virtues of friendship in mind. It may be difficult, but each one’s worldview might expand and new insights gleaned. By coming together, each has the possibility of living better individually.
In befriending suffering, one has the opportunity to re-understand herself and reorient herself to the world. Through dialogue, one can befriend her suffering and attempt to hear what it might be saying to her. Furthermore, by being a virtuous friend to her suffering, being one who is sincere, reverent, tender, and effortful, one can discover the generative aspects of suffering. By turning toward suffering together, the doctor and patient can connect in a way that better helps them understand themselves and each other. By understanding themselves and their individual suffering, each has the possibility of becoming a more authentic person and living more meaningfully in their daily lives. In understanding each other, the doctor has the potential to heal her patients—and patients, one could say, have the potential to heal their doctors as well. To do this, both must enter into conversation openly and with the virtues of friendship in mind. It may be difficult, but each one’s worldview might expand and new insights gleaned. By coming together, each has the possibility of living better individually.
ContributorsAdcock, Preston Michael (Author) / Piemonte, Nicole (Thesis director) / Ramsey, Ramsey Eric (Committee member) / School of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
Universal healthcare has become a regular feature of most developed nations around the world. This characteristic, however, does not extend to the United States, where some 28.2 million Americans remain uninsured or underinsured. In the past few years, the US has been on the precipice of major healthcare overhaul which has brought the debate on government-sponsored coverage to the forefront of political discourse. This thesis explores what it may mean to establish affordable access to healthcare as a right for all Americans. In doing so, it utilizes rule-utilitarian principles to define and assess the moral obligation of the United States' federal and state governments to provide sufficient coverage to all qualifying individuals within the country. This paper focuses on evaluating the current healthcare system in the United States while concentrating particularly on how its fragmented approach limits its success and longevity. It then offers a cross-comparison with the universal healthcare systems of Canada, France, and Japan, nations that outperform the United States in most healthcare measures such as life expectancy, infant and under-5 mortality, medical costs per capita, and disease prevalence. The free-market criticisms of government-provided coverage and its alternative private-insurance-based approach to healthcare in the US are also deliberated. In light of these considerations, this thesis concludes with a commentary on what healthcare reform could look like for the nation as well as examines how a utilitarian appeal to rights likely makes the best case for adopting universal government-sponsored healthcare coverage in the United States.
ContributorsKhan, Sameera (Author) / Manninen, Bertha (Thesis director) / Marshall, Pamela (Committee member) / School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences (Contributor) / School of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05