Nietzsche ‘s critique on the traditional concept of responsibility is heavy handed and sometimes quite harsh. It’s ludicrous to believe in this traditional notion, firstly because responsibility and moral judgement is merely a construct and, secondly, free will cannot account for a cause to an action or effect. Nietzsche criticises western notion of responsibility through deconstructing conceptuality and causality. Both are concepts which are, such as language, manmade constructs- fictions. Language is used to communicate, but not to thoroughly explain.
If your step was forward, it does not mean that your next step will also be forward. He argues that Kant’s claim that faith can go beyond understanding and reason leave us with scepticism. Hegel never agrees anything irrational would govern you blindly. He also said, it makes no sense to talk about something
In his characterization of the “free man” at the end of part of the Ethics, Spinoza argues that a perfect rational being “always acts honestly, not deceptively”. Spinoza reasons that if a perfect rational being misleading, he would do so “from the dictate of reason” but then it would be rational to act in that way, and “men would be better advised to agree only in words, and be contrary to one another in fact”. One problem that this argument raises is conflict between Spinoza’s claim that a perfect rational being would always act honestly and his claim that such a being would never do anything that brought about its own
Immanuel Kant, the creator of Kantianism, was an absolutist, meaning that he believed rules were not to be broken, no matter what. Also, the Kantian theory differs from utilitarianism and Aristotle’s virtue ethics because it does not believe happiness is the chief good. In Kantianism, the chief good is good will, which can be defined as a human will that a person commits out of respect for moral law. An action has moral worth when it is done out of good will. Kant believed that the actions that are done out of good will are not only moral, but are also our duty (Kant,
In Schindler’s List, it can easily be seen that the Nazi’s are ethical relativists. The Nazi soldiers only believe what they are told by their superiors and what is said in the community. In the movie, the Nazis believe they are just, because their country and society says what they are doing is right. An example of absolute relativism in Schindler’s List is when Goeth tells his soldiers to kill the Jewish foreman on a construction project.
Morals may be an examination for ethical quality, originates from the out of date "ethos" significance custom or inclination. It might be an examination for speculations concerning the thing that may awesome and severe dislike on humankind's immediate. There is no particular arranged from guaranteeing laws portraying the thing that may moral and the thing that may be not, in perspective there may be no straight on the other hand terrible reaction. Those second feeling about morals talk of "codes of morals", which would an arrangement of principles serve as bearing with individuals, every now and again to fields from guaranteeing callings for instance, such that advantages of the business or remedial. Moral differentiations for untrustworthy
In relation to the Formula of Humanity, this example articulates the importance of respecting others’ ends as we would respect our own, and the treating of others as ends in of themselves and not as mere means or instruments to our own
His past involved disagreement with Jews which led to Hitler accusing the Jewish for losing the First World War and the creation of the Treaty of Versailles. With a goal in mind Hitler prepared for the Holocaust by first destroying the Treaty to free Germany, which made the mass killing possible. In the final analysis, even though the evidence points to Hitler intending and planning the Holocaust in 1925, it is still debatable due to the lack of physical evidence of Hitler ordering the Holocaust. But no matter what opinion you choose, he is still liable for the deaths of millions of Jews as the head of the Nazi
Yet, the constructivist view of Kantian ethics may present a contradiction: if morality is entirely constructed by human rationality, then there should not be a universal principle which one would need “to receive” in order to regulate decisions. Thus, as Kant rejects authority and experience, through reason and textual analysis, drawing both from Kant’s writing and Augustine’s City of God, it is imperative to reconcile the conflict between the realist—that morality exists independent of rationality—and constructivist readings of Kant’s ethics. That “in practical common reason, when it cultivates itself, a dialectic inadvertently unfolds [...] and one is therefore [unable] to find rest anywhere but in a complete critique of our reason” lends credence a constructivist
In the January 29, The Stanford Daily editorial Stanford, California, it debates the different essential of the principle of morality and identified Brock Turner had applied a use of force in raping an unconscious woman behind the dumpster. Furthermore, the young man attended Stanford University and participated in his college swim team dreamt of partaking in the Olympus. The victim heartfelt statement during the trial is disregarded because he comes from a class of privilege and is a man. Not to mention, Brock Turner’s father wrote a letter to expressing the universalizability to court saying, “my son’s life shouldn’t be ruined over 20 minutes of action (Dreher,Rod).” Therefore, Aaron Persky who is a California judge implemented an ethical decision that contemplated the clarity around both the specific choice and decision then declared a six months sentenced ruling.