Free Cyber Ethics Question & Answer: Top-Quality Sample To Follow

Such relationship as friendship has so many “faces” that we rarely pay our attention to notice them or consider the meaning of their displays. Nevertheless, Cocking and Matthews have properly analyzed this very issue and consequently – have found out key features, which do constitute the core of friendship.
In particular, the main accounts are the following: the disclosure of self in friend, the disclosure of self to friend, and the drawing view of friendship. The first account may be a good explanation for the reason of initiating friendly relations with the one, who has been just a stranger until a particular moment. Actually, we frequently become friends with those, who have similar to our views, the same interests, advocate the same values etc. We become closer and closer, as in friend we tend to see an own reflection.
The second account is extremely important for genuine friendship, as this feeling can be built exclusively on the ground of trust. Therefore, we allow a friend to be a part of our private world, showing both our strong sides and weaknesses. The drawing account complements two previous features, being a logical consequence of them. Actually, friendship, if it is a genuine one, influences not only this period which friends spend together, but it has a mutual impact on the whole personalities of friends (e.g. the interpretation issue is to be mentioned as well).
2. What is also crucial for friendship is its marvelous ability to make us see more. The point is that sometimes we just cannot evaluate particular own habits, traits fairly – someone is too self-confident, whereas others are bound with excessive self-criticism. However, an external observer – a friend, whom we let in our private world (the second account) – can easily pay attention to those things in our personalities that we are unaware of. This may result in even closer friendship (if the noticed feature is pleasant) or friend will help you to cope with it (if it concerns a particular problem). Such reflections prove the theory of the drawing account.
3. Little lies may be destructive for genuine relationship. Despite the fact that they are intended to smooth out rough edges, but the result frequently is opposite: the half-truth is no longer the truth; hence, there is a place for dishonesty, but no more space for intimacy and trust. If friends are brave enough in order to be honest without using those little lies, they will get an opportunity for constant personal growth due to the fair support a loyal friend.
4. However, we usually use some words as synonyms, but actually almost every word has a specific shade of sense. For instance, “dangerous act” means that a certain level of threat exists (and nobody can’t precisely claim that real negative consequences will take place), whereas “harmful act” refers to the behavior, which caused a damage. To make it more clear, driving car at breakneck speed is dangerous, but not inevitably harmful, but during such driving e.g. a little kitten on the road will be injured, the act automatically becomes harmful as well. In addition, “risk increasing” refers to situations, when there are some prerequisites to make a future situation more dangerous, and even – more harmful (e.g. the driver, who has taken too many pills from fewer, which distracted his attention, is more likely to cause an accident with a kitten).
5. No doubt, utilitarianism has a great acknowledgement, but its philosophy faces opposeless obstacles in the proving of the immorality of violent video games. Actually, as utilitarianism always struggles to find the most useful way to act, it is needed to prove that the gaming belongs to risk increasing activities as well as the negative effects are stronger than benefits from this very activity. If the first statement is possible to be proven, than the second is extremely ambiguous, therefore, philosophy of utilitarianism is impossible to be used as an argument of those, who are against violent video games.
6. In spite of the fact that McCormick’s arguments sound rather convincing, Schulzke has rather critical view on such opinion. Obviously, Aristotelian ethics can be really applied, however, only in some cases. Of course, violent games are possible to affect characters at first, making their core evil. Nevertheless, it is not an absolute answer for all situations, as contemporary games have complicated scenarios, under which a player is to take a moral decision as well, hence, it cannot be stated that such gaming affects human characters.