Self – Possession
Uncontrollable
anger:
<Matthew 8:28, "And when he was come to
the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed
with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might
pass by that way.">
A lot of times, human being were unable to speculate the
foreseeable accidents and tragedy that might give rise to any storming which is
designed and faith planning by the demon or wickness. Let say, why Malaysia is
having the aircraft accidents simultaneous happening that give rise in the
Malaysia and the proximity almost happened similarity in the Asia.
Therefore, Malaysia is to be considered as Gergesenes, it was
the locality presents many unwanted tragedies and trauma that took place in
Malaysia MH 370, MH 315 and etc.
Where the uncontrollable anger which is referred individual’s
anger, anxiety, violence’s feeling and emotion had been exceeding fierce, so
that no man can bear this endurance of emotional distress, this is because the
tragedy of Malaysia air craft accidents is quite no humanistic direction.
Therefore, asking for social justice, kindly don’t pin point this trauma and
tragedy is lied with the heaven or lord’s punishment. Instead, we should point
the finger towards to the human error due to lapse, slips and mistake due to
the quotes from Reason.
<There
met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs .>
.
The “tombs” in the neighbourhood of Gadara, hewn out in the
rock, have been already mentioned. To dwell in such tombs was, to the ordinary
Jew, a thing from which he shrank with abhorrence憎恨, as bringing pollution, and to choose such an abode was
therefore a sign of insanity精神失常.
Where
the devil’s Gergesenes, it had been emerged out “unrecognized claims” with regards
of innocent life who had been sacrified in the Malaysia 911 ended of the year
of 2010, Lai Yen jumped from the height was just to perform “social injustice’
against the whole Malaysian including to the betrayal relationship with the JTA
Eura Audit Malaysia – due to deepest love had been sowed to Jason Tan, but this
kind of intimacy love had been converted into betrayal relationship and
resulted resentments
Due to the two individual with the love spirit
“intimacy love” had creative a kind of competitive intimacy love and passionate
love had been constituted a kind of
“rebellion against their love bosses – intimacy love due to both of them
is fresh graduate which he or she had demonstrated their intimacy love into
royalty love. Howevers, I would like to make inquiry about under what
circumstances had made Lai Yen misunderstanding towards Jason Tan’s intimacy
love, is it one calling to Ernst and Young and resulted the behavior and act
constitute a kind of “betrayal relationship due to intimacy love and her
royalty to the bosses due to one unfairness and unjustice calling to the Ernst
and Young. According to the Drigotas and Barta, the betrayal relationship is
the idea of intimacy done with deception about her royalty. Drigotas and Barta
[49] defined infidelity as ―a partner’s violation of norms regulating the level
of emotional or physical intimacy with people outside the relationship.
According to Cacioppo, Hughes, Waite, Hawkley, and Thisted [67], the occurrence
of depression is an indicator of a person’s well-being and general health.
Between 13% and 27% of the population will develop depression at some point in
their life [29]. The revelation of infidelity, whether it be a voluntary
disclosure or an involuntary discovery, has been associated with a variety of emotional
reactions such as increased anxiety and depression, including suicidal ideation [68-71].
The personal rejection
felt by the deceived partner (lai Yen) will usually result in feelings of
inadequacy and unattractiveness due to one jealousy contract which is
constituted social injustice. It is common for the victim to feel that he/she
(Jason Tan Chee Siang) is responsible for the betrayal, which becomes an
experience of self-blame . Self-blame, along with harsh and negative views of
ourselves, on the other hand, are common behavioral hallmarks of depression .
ive-year follow-up
study, Tiikainen and Heikkinen [81] confirmed the link and interplay between
loneliness, depression, and a person’s perception of closeness. There actually
exists a two-way relationship between the three states. First, this team found
that the increasing symptoms of depression, which most often hits women,
eventually lead to feelings of loneliness. On the other hand, feeling lonely at
first can unravel into depression. Both instances resulted in a loss of
togetherness. In this study, loneliness appeared to be connected to reliable ,
alliance, social integration, and attachment. Depression, however, was affected
by feelings of guidance, reassurance of worth, reliable alliance, and attachment.
Interestingly, we can see that loneliness and depression share common factors,
attachment and reliable alliance, and that both loneliness and depression stem
from, in part, a lack of emotional closeness. It is, then, suggested that
infidelity often destroys a person’s self-worth, reassurance, attachment,
guidance and social integration.
Do you know why Lai Yen performed
Self-destruction to end her life?
Matthew 17:15, 18,
"Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatic(crazy), and sore
vexed(problem): for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the
water... And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child
was cured from that very hour."
Due to the advertisements in the
China Press against the Ernst & Young, Jason Tan deliberately called Lai
Yen to show off to Lai Yen that I managed to go in Ernst and Young, Lai Yen has
seen and read the press about the jealousy Contract. Her mind constituted
lunatic crazy and sore vexed problems. Suddenly, her conscious mind became broken
after being humiliated by Jason Tan, and leading she has desires to performed
self-destruction to end her life.
Six important
risk factor domains for
suicidal behavior have been identified: (Suicide and Gender,Susan J. Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.A. http://www.afsp.org/index-1.htm )
1) A history of mental or addictive disorder: including mood disorders(lost of interest in the world or felt betrayal to the world, due to her romantic love to Jason Tan had caused resentment treatment –due to social injustice to the world), which have a higher incidence among women, and substance abuse, which is more frequent in men;
2) Personality traits: aggressivity, impulsiveness, hopelessness, cognitive rigidity and antisocial behaviors; ( Jason Tan showed self-possession whose always disturbed our upcoming job due to aggressive impulsiveness and hopeless – repetitive times being sacked by new emplorer)
3) Psycho-social and environmental factors: physical or sexual abuse, decreased familial or social supports, parental loss, exposure to suicidal behavior, negative life events, chronic physical illness, pregnancy in adolescent females, or being a runaway;
4) A family history of suicidal behavior or mental illness;
5) Biological correlates including certain hormonal factors and a deficiency in the neurotransmitter serotonin;
6) the loss of employment through retirement provoking a loss of self-esteem and work-related social contacts; important contributory cause in nearly half of all suicides.
domains which increases the risk of suicide. In people who have a
combination of these overlapping risk factors a humiliating life event is
frequently the trigger to suicide; this precipitant is found in 90 percent of
cases of suicide.
Surely the craziest and most
destructive form of infidelity is the temporary insanity of falling in love.
You do this, not when you meet somebody wonderful (wonderful people don't screw
around with married people) but when you are going through a crisis in your own
life, can't continuing living your life, and aren't quite ready for suicide
yet. (Frank Pittman, Life after infidelity)
Romantic affairs lead to a great
many divorces, suicides, homicides, heart attacks, and strokes, but not to very
many successful remarriages. No matter how many sacrifices you make to keep the
love alive, no matter how many sacrifices your family and children make for
this crazy relationship, it will gradually burn itself out when there is
nothing more to sacrifice to it. Then you must face not only the wreckage of
several lives, but the original depression from which the affair was an insane
flight into escape.(Frank Pittman,Life after infidelity)
<For ofttimes he
falleth into the fire, and oft into the water... And Jesus rebuked the devil;
and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.">
Elsewhere in
her work Nussbaum argues that the possession of various “capabilities” is
necessary for a human being to have “a life worthy of human dignity.” Here
dignity seems to be a certain status we have by virtue of being human that
entitles us to certain forms of treatment, including being provided with the
capabilities, or with the conditions for having them. I would like to make a hypothesis that “ those person is being humiliated including MBS, would constitued a fire aversion to their spiritual and bodies, if he or she ‘s act, behavior and spiritual departed from the preaching of lord, Jesus would rebuked the devil, i.e Lord has the right to dig the life of who’s phase had fallen the wording “falleth into the fire, and oft into the water”.
According to Velleman wrote : If individual viewed himself as “lacked of capacity to cope or those stressors rise from his life, and yet he felt that he need to perform self-destruction if his human dignity had been challenged or could not sustain both life and dignity. Yet, those person whose developed cognitive impairment whose radically his life had been against someone individual which allow him to bring death due to his live from continuing to undermine their human dignity.
A lot of times, those transcendent person or successful person constituted a life that is worthy of human dignity” which his possession can be challenged against individual expectation’s nobility, ranking, upwards equalization of ranking which the ordinary people can accept, but nobility person cannot accepted due to his human dignity had been challenged. For example, MBS cannot accepted the fact that those nobility person which achieved successful recognition and claims from their respective students and teachers, due to he unable to accept the human dignity’s humiliation and sarcastic comments from students.
Human’s expectation against his
desire results which is not attainable, where the results is just self-direction. A lot of
time, individual self-direction
is questionable, challenged about his status quo, then his life also loss of
control, human dignity’s had been challenged including unjustly humiliated or
avoiding humiliation due to stressors is quite intensity. The he or she
would provide a basis for commit
suicide, according research work by work of Jürgen Habermas and Avishai
Margalit) either at the
hands of human tormenters or because of the inevitability of mental or physical
deterioration.
Another factors that triggered
all those readers of my fifi0058@gmail.com
blogger.com, those person who read my articles would constitute the suicide
symptom due to the “incomparable worth- human dignity” is triggering according
the Kant. This is because what a transcendent person felt that “he or she
cannot be balanced or compared at all” with anything of price off value”
This is because our dignity is
grounded on rational nature , which any items to be exchanged off would have a
price, value, unconditional value with others that are required to comply with
rational nature, Kant. Howevers, according to the tragedy Malaysia 911, those
articles is being unreasonable traded off by Malaysia government, which the
value is being labeled the value extremist which involved one billion per
articles, such as Enron collapsed, just the value is being trade off is leading
a lot of person felt upward jealousy,
just that one articles sold off such as high value, will consider “those
successful person or professionalism expertise would felt that their success is
“incomparable worth against their human dignity”. Some times her human dignity
is being challenged and triggered and resulting not just and reasonable.
He then comments that “the
violation” that respect must motivate us not to commit “can be conceived as
that of using the object as a mere means to other ends.”
And precisely this violation
occurs, he claims, When a person commits suicide to avoid pain, suffering, or
further life that would be, for whatever other reason, intrinsically bad. “To
destroy something just because “it no longer does one more good “, just to
destroy and harm the enemies that which is as an weapon apparatus of individual
interest.
Thus, to destroy oneself as a means of
avoiding harm is to use an entity that has dignity as an instrument in the service
of a lesser value, one that has mere price and hence cannot outweigh, or even
weigh against, the literally incomparable worth of dignity. Respect for
dignity, in other words, always has lexical priority over the protection or
promotion of well-being.
In these
quoted passages, Velleman emphasizes the claim that one who commits suicide to
avoid an intrinsically bad life uses herself (her person, her rational
nature, her humanity, etc.) instrumentally in the achievement of her
end. This is because when our life is facing the helpless and hopeless, where
she perceive every act, behavior, and action constitute a failure in her life,
view them as worthless, unable to compete with others due to human dignity is
being severely humiliated and insulted, resulting them losing their ego or
self-identity, until losing their self-esteem as a result of unhealthy social
comparison within the unhealthy same category.
Those person is performing
self-destruction of rational nature, where his desire is violated against his
human dignity which is individual opportunistically harm, eliminating the
potential victim or her conscious mind about the rational nature has risen side
effect which triggered his base-line orientation which constituted humiliation
and insultation harming.
According to
Kant, human dignity cannot be challenged through wrongdoing. If an individual
culpably Suppose that a person will culpably and without justification cause a large number of people to suffer, or to become paralyzed, unless he is killed. The harms that he threatens to cause would neither destroy nor even impair the victims’ rational natures.
They would affect the victims’ well-being, but that is a matter of price. Despite his imminent and egregious wrongdoing, the threatener retains his human dignity, and killing him would destroy his rational nature.
Killing him as a means of protecting values that have only price would, therefore, be a violation of the requirement of respect for his human dignity. It seems to follow that neither the victims nor third parties may permissibly kill him in defense of his intended victims.
Kant, or perhaps contemporary Kantians, might formulate universalizable maxims intended to show that both self-defense and other-defense would in this case not only be permissible but also be duties. (Unlike some other moral philosophers, Kant insists that there are duties to the self, such as the duty not to kill oneself. He can therefore recognize a self-regarding duty of self-defense.) But the problem is to explain how the recognition of such duties could be consistent with the view that respect for human dignity is lexically prior to the protection of well-being.
The problem of justifying defensive killing may be more tractable in war than in cases of individual self-defense, as soldiers tend to pose lethal threats, which are threats to rational nature. But there are other problems that are well illustrated by examples drawn from war. One such example has long been seen as a challenge to the view that suicide is immoral – namely, the example of the soldier who flings himself on a grenade as a means of saving his comrades.
Traditional attempts to show that self-sacrificial action of this sort is not within the scope of the prohibition of suicide – for example, because the soldier does not intend his own death and so does not commit suicide at all – tend to be undermined by consideration of the parallel case in which the soldier throws, not himself, but another soldier on the grenade; for, by parity of reasoning, if the soldier does not intend the death of the one he throws on the grenade, he cannot be guilty of murder. But whether the soldier commits suicide by covering the grenade is not the relevant issue for the Lexical Priority Argument. The problem is, rather, that if the explosion of the grenade would not have killed any of the soldier’s comrades but would grievously wounded them (for example, by tearing the limbs off of a great many of them), his shielding them from these harms would destroy his rational nature but would protect only values of price. In these conditions, his self-sacrificial action would not be noble but immoral.
Similarly, suppose that resources in the health care system are limited and that doctors can either save one person’s life or prevent hundreds of people from becoming quadriplegic. If the protection of rational nature has lexical priority over the prevention of any amount of harm that is merely a matter of price, then doctors ought to save the one person’s life rather than prevent any number of people from becoming paralyzed.
Finally, there is the problem of risking one’s life. Kant himself, after stating the Formula of Humanity and explaining why it prohibits suicide as a means of avoiding harm, explicitly passes over one question about risk. He writes, in a parenthesis, that “I must here pass over the closer determination of this principle, needed to avoid any misunderstanding, e.g., of amputating limbs to preserve myself, of putting my life in danger to preserve my life, etc.; that belongs to actual moral science.”27
The challenge to the Lexical Priority Argument, however, comes not from the possibility of risking one’s life as a means of saving one’s life, which is to risk one’s rational nature for the sake of rational nature, but from the possibility of risking one’s life in the pursuit of goods with prices, which we do continually. When one drives to the store to buy ice cream, one exposes oneself to a greater risk of death than one would have been under had one stayed at home. But if one’s rational nature has lexical priority over happiness, as Kant seems to say it has and some contemporary Kantians say it has, then it must be impermissible to risk the destruction of one’s rational nature for the sake of one’s happiness. Just as the notion of lexical priority implies that the value or worth of one’s rational nature cannot be outweighed by any amount of happiness, so it also implies that there is no risk to one’s rational nature that is sufficiently small that it can be outweighed by some sufficiently large probability of some amount of happiness. Driving out to buy ice cream, rather than staying at home and doing without, is therefore a violation of respect for human dignity. I take this to be a reductio ad absurdum of the Lexical Priority Argument.
4.3 The Mere Means Argument
12
Kant does not explicitly state or endorse the Lexical Priority Argument. When he discusses suicide in the Groundwork, he argues that its impermissibility is implied by two of the formulas of the Categorical Imperative. The argument based on the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature does not directly appeal to the notion of dignity and seems to me wholly implausible, even in Kant’s own terms.28 For these reasons, I will not discuss it here.
The important argument for our purposes is that which is based on the Formula of Humanity. That formulation of the Categorical Imperative is:
So act that you use humanity, in your own person as well as in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.
After stating this principle, he immediately draws out what he takes to be its implications for the permissibility of suicide:
According to the concept of necessary duty to oneself, someone who is contemplating self-murder will ask himself whether his action can be consistent with the idea of humanity, as an end in itself. If to escape from a troublesome condition he destroys himself, he makes use of a person, merely as a means, to preserve a bearable condition up to the end of life. But a human being is not a thing, hence not something that can be used merely as a means, but must in all his actions always be considered as an end in itself. Thus the human being in my own person is not at my disposal, so as to maim, to corrupt, or to kill him.29
It is evident from this passage that, in articulating the Lexical Priority Argument by reference to the notion of using as a means (that is, opportunistic agency), Velleman is being faithful to Kant’s own language. But, as we have seen, a person who kills herself to avoid a future that would be intrinsically bad for her does not use herself as an instrument in the service of her well-being. She does, however, kill herself as a means of avoiding misery or suffering. The relevant question for Kant, therefore, is whether, in killing herself as a means, she in fact treats herself merely as a means or, as Kant says, as a mere thing.
It seems obvious that she does not. Rather, she commits suicide for her own sake. Her reason for killing herself testifies to her conviction that she matters in her own right, or for her own sake – that is, that she is an end in herself rather than a mere means.
In a book I published some years ago, I argued that the same is true when a person assists another to commit suicide or kills him at his own request with the intention of benefiting him. There I wrote that, according to Kant,
it may be permissible to treat a person instrumentally provided that what one does is compatible with his status as an end. This should in fact be obvious, for, as others have pointed out, we regularly treat people instrumentally without denying their worth. We do this when we use them for our purposes but in ways that are compatible with the
13
acknowledgement that they matter in themselves just as we ourselves do – that is, in ways that are respectful of their good, their autonomous will, and their status as rational beings. ... [So], even if to kill a person when this is both what is best for him and what he autonomously desires is to treat him instrumentally in the service of his good, it is also at the same time to treat him as an end. We defer to his will and secure his good precisely because we recognize that he matters in himself. If we kill him precisely in order to promote his good in accordance with his autonomous desire, it is hard to see how we could be treating him merely as a means, as if he did not matter in himself.30
These points still seem to me essentially correct. When a person commits suicide to avoid a future life that would be intrinsically bad for her, or when another person assists her to do so for the same reason, neither uses her instrumentally and neither treats her as a mere means. Both treat her as a being who matters for her own sake – that is, as an end in herself. It seems to me, therefore, that Kant’s appeals to human dignity provide no better groundsgrgrgrgrogrounds for objecting to the permissibility of suicide and assistance in suicide than the arguments considered in earlier sections.31
No comments:
Post a Comment