Sample Solution
Dualism is a philosophical concept that suggests there are two distinct types of substances in the universe–mind and body. It posits that the mind and body are separate entities but interact with each other to form a unified experience (Fischer et al., 2019). While this idea does make sense to me, I find it difficult to fully accept as fact because there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding how these two components may actually come together. For example, how do thoughts influence physical processes? How can an emotion be felt without any type of physical sensation? These questions have yet to be answered definitively by scientists which is why it’s difficult for me to wholeheartedly believe in dualism at this time.
From my understanding, if Dualism is true then reality would consist of both mental and physical components that work in tandem with one another. The mental component would represent our inner world—our beliefs, values, hopes and dreams; while the physical component represents actions we take such as walking, talking or eating. Both aspects cannot exist on their own due their mutually dependent nature so they must constantly interact in order maintain balance between them (Kaku 2018). This means we must actively strive towards perfecting our inner selves while also taking care of our bodies through proper nutrition and exercise so we may live happier lives overall.
Ultimately, Dualism makes sense to me however I understand why others might not agree given lack evidence supporting its claims along with many unresolved issues related its core concepts. However, if Daulism does prove to be true then what it tells us about reality could potentially have profound implications for our day-to-day experiences—informing us on ways we should focus our energy when attempting achieve personal growth or even offering insights into how best treat illnesses from both psychological physiological perspectives.
e army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can
