The rulers have appealed to their people with such idealism, promising a world free of jealousy or unfairness. “I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others. I covet no man’s soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet. ”(96)
Secondly, the author claims that a common thread of values is identifiable in every culture. Like how the law of gravity tell us about behavior of physical objects, the author contrasts the moral law with the natural law which tells us how to behave (C.S. Lewis, 1952, p. 17). Lewis states that moral law exists and is independent. The moral law presses upon us to do the decent thing, even if it causes us discomfort. The natural law directs the objects that exists whereas the moral law controls on how we behave towards others, how we live our lives and so on (C.S. Lewis, 1952, p. 20).
He presents neoliberalism as a concrete and stagnate, arguing that there is no room for evolution and institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are just ciphers for these theories onto the rest of the developing world. Harvey presents neoliberal as having the presumption of perfect information and a level playing field, a utopian-esque view that results in the concentration of wealth and restoration of class power. A contradicting binary between possessive individualism and the desire to live a collective life is born from neoliberal policies. He argues that although individuals are free to choose what they want, they are only able to choose what the state has put forth as the neoliberal substitute. Simply put, neoliberalism uniformly promotes the pursuit of individual freedoms through the shift of power from the state to unaccountable institutions.
 In the book written by Adam Smith, “The Wealth of Nations”, Smith supported that entrepreneurs should be allowed to act in a self-interest manner, free from moral restrictions. Egoism here is not embraced as an ethical ideal, it rather means towards a desirable end – common good. If moral constraints on self-interest behaviour is removed to promote common good this will only happen if the interests do not conflict and that there is an alternative behaviour constraint. Egoism is not an ethical ideal either.
There can be no doubt that people should be morally free to live their own lives and pursue and develop their own interests, to a certain degree at the very least. This necessitates then that a person is morally permitted to dedicate one’s time, energy, and money to activities that don’t directly have an impact on famine relief or similar worthy causes. For example, it could frequently happen and has happened whereby certain pursuits and recreations have beneficial and favourable outcomes and consequences that could not have been foreseen. My argument lies with the issue that if people are not free to follow their intellectual interests when it is not obvious what positive impact they might have, or whether they would have any positive repercussions at all, humanity in general could be worse off than we actually are. This is tied to Singer’s argument if people are obligated to do as much as they possibly can, to aid famine relief, they would have to give up many of their own special projects and interests in order to do so.
He goes on to explain that we should be neither for, nor against this. That we as individuals are caught in a bound economy where we do not know where our food, or any products come from. It is not as if we do not care, but rather we are obviously to what is happening around us. He exams some of Milton Friedman’s writings on freedom. He shows some problems with ideology, but there is no point in rejecting the free market.
Kierkegaard 's view of people having no character is incorrect, at best it’s flawed. In the Present Age his critique “no character and neither has abstract intelligence”, is due to passionless people having no values. Ambiguity arrives when Kierkegaard 's equates ‘being carried away’ to folly. Kierkegaard identifies character as something that is fixed ‘engraved’ and is largely based on people having global character traits that are influenced by society and one 's environment. My argument revolves around a particular question: Why is there common ambivalence regarding character?
The first is the Harm Principle. This idea is “self-regarding”, meaning that it only concerns the individual in action. Thus, whatever an individual sees as fit for them is what they should do, even if others frown upon such an action. However, one must note that whatever action is committed cannot harm another individual (this is the only exception). Next we examine the Legal Paternalism Principle.
In this essay, I will argue from a compatibilist perspective arguing that free will does exist, and it is consistent with determinism. Compatibilism means that free will can exist with determinism . Incompatibilism means that it is not possible for free will to exist with determinism . Free will occurs when people’s actions come from their second order volition . Second order desires requires you to first desire something, and to then have a desire about your first desire .
The court adopted the buyer’s argument in part, holding that although sophisticated business parties have the freedom to contract out of a claim of rescission for unintentional contractual misrepresentations within a contract, “when a seller intentionally misrepresents a fact embodied in a contract—that is, when a seller lies—public policy will not permit a contractual provision to limit the remedy of the buyer to a capped damage claim. Rather, the buyer is free to press a claim for rescission or for full compensatory damages. ”111 So the ABRY case held that in acquisition agreements with exclusive remedy provisions, (1) a seller who makes a representation cannot limit its own liability when that seller intentionally misrepresents a fact, or “lies”, and (2) a seller not making the offending representation will be liable when that seller “knew that the Company’s contractual representations and warranties were