In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us. He then goes on to expand on the consequences of the Basic Argument.
Even the answer of Eichmann demonstrates how wrong Kantian ethics had been misused and misinterpreted by him. Nevertheless, according to Kantian ethics, a personal life should not have a confliction with the law which is another reason that indicates that Eichmann was not a true “proper”
Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative and John Stuart Mill’s view of utilitarianism are two very different approaches to ethics and morals. In fact, they are the opposite of one another. Kant’s view of ethics is an ethics of pure reason- a deontological theory of ethics. He stresses that feelings and emotions should have no part in ethics because they are unreliable, changeable, and uncertain. He states that ethical principles must be universal and that ethics are distinctively human.
To have a goal, or a set of goals in one’s mind is of concern in Tillich’s mind. Outside itself, the concern must not have any goods to make this “ultimate”. God alone can be the ultimate desire of the human soul because God alone is permanent and absolute according to St. Augustine. Temporary and changing are contracted by the objects of creation. Therefore, essences are identical to God’s existence.
According to Galen Strawson, moral responsibility to punish some of us with eternal torment (hell) and rewards others with eternal bliss (heaven). I am going to argue that we cannot be morally responsible for our actions which is also Strawson’s argument. He has a basic argument that claims you perform the action that you perform because of the way you are, in particular mental respects. To be truly morally responsible for your action, you must be truly morally responsible for your character, personality, and motivational structure or in other words, who you are. We are born with determined predispositions that we are not responsible for and we are exposed to certain influences that we are not responsible for.
Kant’s second formulation of Categorical Imperative by using the language of means and ends summed is basically do not use people. Kant states “Always treat people as ends in themselves and never merely as a means to an end.” which basically means let people make their own informed decisions. Do not use others to get what you want. Each persons has the right to make rational informed decisions about our own life (Class notes, Module 05, Pg 2). This second formulation means do not take advantage of people or just become friends with them because you need something.
The main difference between a collectivists society and Equality’s philosophy of Objectivism is priority. Collectivists believe everyone should live for their brother, and we should give our love away, whereas Equality believes love, honor and respect should be earned. Equality believes you should have the right to choose your friends and ones you will love, but you should neither command or obey
Politics, by its very nature, cannot infer natural and moral rights upon men. These rights exist inherently in men both inside and outside of politics. Humans alone possess logos, rationality which allows them to craft moral judgements about the world. Logos facilitates the formation and practice of politics, but it exists independently outside of politics. Logos gives birth to rationality, upon which natural and sacred rights hinge, for “reason, which is that law [of natural rights] teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions”.
Free will vs. Determinism The incompatibility thesis states that determinism is incompatible with any significant sense of freewill. Therefore, having free will is a necessary condition for the ascription of moral responsibility. In other words, free will dictates the level of responsibility we claim for our actions. If outside forces were to be in control of the choices we make, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions. However, if we have total freedom over the choices we make, then we certainly must claim responsibility over our actions.
The Judge states, “Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test” (McCarthy 261). This quote is significant because it further indicates how the Judge is trying to make evident that moral law is weak. As well as possibly suggesting that something that is not valid should not dictate ones actions over the values of historical law.