|← Leon Ransmeier and Gwendolyn Floyd||Research Utilization Plan in RN staff ratios →|
The idea of God’s will is a very complicated. God’s will has to do with the role of the creator of the role of God in creation. According the Christian belief understanding Gods will require the understanding of Gods will as the source of all living things (Christmas, 2003). As the bible states, “God created everything in the world for himself” (Prov, 16:4). In this regard God being the owner of John and all he had before for his misfortunate hard a reason for what happened. Because he is the author of what exists in the world is likely to have knowledge of what occurs on the planet prior to its occurrence. As such, what happens is a product of what God desires and he is able to determine the course of all event that take place on this planet. This is certainly a merit to the God’s will point of view in explaining Johns suffering. God being the author of John’s wife and children simply exercised his will on his creation.
However, this point of view has one great limitation. No one creates something so noble just to destroy it later (Christmas, 2003). Therefore, it is hard to believe the God could create people and later destroy them in what looks like a blood birth. It is hard to believe that God would bring such suffering to John immediately after blessing him with a lottery wing and sons at the university. Certainly Gods will out not to be this destructive. According to what Christian faith teaches God created humans to leave for 70 years. If his will is to have people live for 70 years, it is then not understandable why He would let his creation, John’s sons and wife before they could realize there designated lifespan.
Karma is the belief that the events that occur in every ones life are weighed and tailed against the individuals (Firth, 1997). However it is very difficult to use Karma to explain John’s predicament. Karma is just a belief but in reality, there is no evidence that the force actually exists. Furthermore, there is no evidence there exists an entity that keep track of peoples sins so that you can get into heaven or fail to get to heaven or heavenly place. Despite being deficient, the idea of karma can still be very important in explaining to john his situation and a getting him to feel better or even worse as he might get to blame himself. Actually everything a person does has a repercussion. If a person carries out good deeds good things are likely to happen to him or her. In this regard it can be said that John is suffering due to something wrong he did somewhere. It is just retaliation to his actions.
From Firth’s (1997) view, the suffering John is experiencing could as well be bad luck, or his Karma inherited from the previous generations in his lineage. According to the Belief of Karma, bad luck, blessing, talent, ill health and others are passed down from ones ancestry. In this regard, John predicament could be a product of what his parents; ancestor e.t.c did long before he was born. It this case what has happened is his fate and therefore could not have avoided it. However, the luck of convincing evidence that what ones parents or ancestors did could affect a person’s life makes it quite difficult to believe that john is suffering for what happened before. Also, John may have done nothing wrong to warrant a retaliation of this magnitude just when he was enjoying great success together with his family. In this regard therefore, the merit of Karma is that it can shade some light to the source or John’s misfortunate however the theory has a great limitation in its inability to substantiate what it states.
Surviving on the boat
From the formalistic approach I would consider my friend unfortunate and let him fall into the water since he has brought it to himself by stating that he has the number 1. Any body who suffer for doing that which brings pain to him really deserves the pain he gets (Gillespie, 1992). And my friend in the boat on this occasion has fallen from grace because of quick to state that he has the number one. I will therefore not disclose the number that I have picked and wish him well.
From the contextualist point of view the event occurring in the boat are relative to the prevailing circumstances (Gillespie, 1992). At the point of picking number, it is common knowledge to the three of us that one of us must be sacrificed and sine one has already state that he has the number one, I will keep quiet with my picking of number one since someone else has the number too an has already made it known to us that he has the number one therefore giving the solution to the dilemma.
From the relativist perspective, it appears that despite having picked the number one, it is not yet my day to die as someone else has the same number and has been kind enough to volunteer his death by stating that he has the death number. To him it appears that he is ok with having to sacrifice himself in order to save the two of us. As the relativist theory state what appears to be right to me is right for my situation and what appear to be right for the other party is right for that particular party (Gillespie, 1992). In this regard keeping my number secret and surviving is right and serves my situation while for my colleague stating he has the death number thus sacrificing himself is the best situation for him.
The biggest problem society in regard to these perspectives
In the society today there are several problems associated with the formalistic, contextualism, and relativism perspectives.
The formalistic approach in practice can lead to victimization of heroes, individuals or leaders that make mistakes as being required to suffer for their mistake, i.e falling from grace. Formalism will tend to justify wrong doing and as such may encourage praying on individuals’ ignorance.
On the other hand contextualism will tend to make people act according to the dictates of the moment. There will be no standard way of doing thing and people will tend to act according to what best gets them out of the circumstances they find themselves in. as such, people may engage in criminal activities, corruption, murder and others. As such, contextuualism is not a concept that can be used with in social situations or in any thing within the society.
With relativism it becomes difficult to define what is wrong in the society. This is mainly because what is wrong and what is right in the relativist perspective is dependent on the perception of the individual in question thus relative. In this context people may favor different vies, for instance, while some my find terrorism unsuitable because it does not suit their situation, other will find it noble because it suits their circumstances. It therefore become difficult to come up with an agreement as to what is right and what is wrong an issues that may bring instability in the society.
Certainly all this philosophies or perspectives may encourage egocentrism as people within the society will tend to use the idea to give themselves a leeway or gain advantage over other and justify their mistakes
Solutions to the problems associated with these perspectives
Certainly these perspectives lead to many problems within the society. In dealing with such problems, it is wise to not that the society needs to understand the need to have a common agreement on what is wrong and what is right for the societal members. As seen before, people subscribing to these perspectives will tend to have their own idea of what wrong is and what right is. This perception of right and wrong can bring problem within the society. However, with a common understanding on what is right and what is wrong the society can be unified under same values. As such it may be useful to the society to thwart away the three philosophies since they are full or divisive notions that are not healthy to a homogenous society. Getting people to think in the same line is also a good idea. This can help people to have the same stand irrespective of the perception or ideology they subscribe to. Having a common point of reference amounts to accepting to be governed by same principle and this can encourage order in the society.
The best perspective amongst the three
Of the three, formalism, contextualism and relativism, formalism seem to be the best perceptive. This is because in formalism people fall from grace due to their own doing. On this regard it can be said that people who commit crime deserve punishment, leaders who fail in the leadership should be voted out of power for their inadequacy among others. Certainly formalism could provide a good reference point for