Reviews for Isoxicam in clinical perspective

The average rating for Isoxicam in clinical perspective based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2011-07-04 00:00:00 Shane Scott In volume II, Spencer anchors ethics in what he regards as sound biological principles. This means that (a) "the preservation of the species takes precedence of the precedence of the individual," (b) those individuals who are the fittest benefit the species the most; (c) the fittest individuals are those who are responsibile for their own welfare, and (d) the fittest (strongest, skilled, responsible) survive and the weak die out. Spencer is clear enough that everyone has an equal chance to make the team, so to say, and his principle of justice is meant to ensure that kind of fairness: "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." Spencer acknowledges "gregariousness," fellow feeling, and private altruistic acts, but opposes such actions if they inflict injustice on the strong or artificially support the weak. Not to do harm is negative or primary altruism and this is justice. Providing beneficence is positive or secondary altruism and this is where there are problems for Spencer because such acts (e.g., government welfare) take from the strong and give to the weak. The problem with the golden rule is that, while it prescribes limits, it does not recognize that any inequality resulting from benefits received due to one's own efforts is legitimate. Kant's categorical imperative likewise is a problem because it "indirectly assumes that the welfares of other men are to be considered as severally of like values with the welfare of the actor...." Whether you like his message or not, Spencer is thought provoking, particularly in his argument about the biological basis for freedom and the line that can be drawn between freedom and infringements on that freedom. The problem with his theory, however, begins with his premise. On what grounds does a philosopher justify that the good of the species takes precedence over the good of any individual? Biology doesn't give a hoot one way or another, so why should we? Moreover, we are social with all sorts of emotions that lead us to love and care for those who are less fortunate than we are and this contributes to the fitness of all. The group enables the individual to survive; and the group survives because individuals survive. There's an implicit social contract at work that brings loyalty and commitment, strength and solidarity, to the group - knowing that we or our loved ones will be supported if our fate should take a turn for the worse. Because of his opening premise, Spencer can't see it that way. He goes in the opposite direction and argues that, ideally, if there were not the obvious problems with it, we should "clear away the degraded." Presumably, Spencer would thus shoot his kids (though I think he was childless) if they were not up to snuff. The biggest concern about Spencer's theory is that the strong without a heart have no internal restraint against pushing beyond the line, despite Spencer's attempt at caution in this volume. Manipulation, overpowering, and deception are all fair game if one can get away with it, thereby unravelling Spencer's sense of justice. Spencer wants to rid society of the "degraded," but by his own argument about infringements on freedom, we should rid society of the strongest who play by their own rules (e.g., droit du seigneur), and don't - can't and won't - play by the rules of fairness. How are these types not degraded?

Review # 2 was written on 2019-02-25 00:00:00 Lloyd Braswell one of the top books of the 1800's for Ethics