The Abolition of Man The main argument of “The Abolition of Man” is the idea of natural law and subjectiveness. C. S. Lewis believed that the western world was falling down a path to the destruction of natural law and objective rights and wrongs. He believed that if the western world continued to follow down that path, it would be the destruction of itself. Whether or not that is still happening today is another topic to discuss. C. S. Lewis saw that the belief of subjectivism was being incorporated into the educational system.
Utilitarianism acts where the greater value is between either pleasure or pain. He is also applying the Principle of Double-effect under its guideline where there must be sufficient reason grave enough calling for the act to be done, and the intention of the agent is honest. This was seen in the scene where he decided not to concur on the Captain’s command, as he wanted to know and verify first the new order that was disrupted
The second, Socrates asks Euthyphro, have you known what a piety is if your attitude is confident that you indict your father for a crime. (Plato (1997), p.77.). Socrates tries to look for one standard definition of piety. Let, have a look at what piety means to Euthyphro. He comes up with the several suggestions about piety: “to prosecute a wrongdoer is pious and not to prosecute is impious”; “what all the gods hate is impious, and what they all love is pious”; “where there is piety there is also justice” (Plato (1997), p.88.).
This point also embraces the Kant 's idea that motivation of action is more important than consequences. Kant clarifies that consequences are not important, the primary thing in action is intentional. In this issue, it is not possible that all people help the hungry because of that they have these intentions. There is always one who says that nobody can blame me because of that I did not make them hungry. Moreover, Kant classifies the duty according to its certainty.
In the Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer-Landau, chapters written by Michael Walzer and Alan Dershowitz express their knowledge and opinions on the topics of terrorism and torture. Is it possible to justify and defend such acts? In the chapter “Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses”, author Michael Walzer shuts down four excuses that attempt to justify terrorism. In the chapter, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?”, Alan Dershowitz defends his theory that it is necessary to torture a terrorist if that means saving the lives of innocent people while protecting their civil liberties and human rights at the same time. Terrorism can never be moral because it violates all “excuses” and torture is an acceptable tactic to save lives.
This means that if a man believes himself more qualified to govern than the sovereign, then he will come to the rational conclusion that he should break his covenant and overthrow the commonwealth. This type of reasoning can apply to any situation and allow man to convince himself that he does not have to obey any covenant. In fact, it would be beneficial to break his covenants, especially if everyone else was obeying them, for he would then have an advantage over his fellow men and “of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself” (Hobbes 86). Since Hobbes refutes
We can look to Antigone and partake in civil disobedience in order to make a movement to prompt change for the better in our world today. Today we are all called to enact on our own civil disobedience when we are faced with injustice and unfair laws, we are called to make a stand and a declaration to stand up for what we believe
The other theory is Deontology, Immanuel Kant a German philosopher; he develops a theory that the only thing that has intrinsically value is a good will. In this theory an action only can be good if it is maxim and if you can universalize it. This have 2 distinct issues the intentions that are worthy of praise or blame and the actions that can be good or bad. (Fundamentals of Ethics, 162) Kant says: “what has intrinsic value? Act only on universalizable maxims.
who concludes that ‘rational nature cannot be valuable in a Kantian world’. Actually, there are Kantians working on issues whether rationality could identify moral law. According to Hill, aside from Korsgarrd’s objection to realism, there are mainly two doubts whether Kant implies value realism. The first doubt arises from epistemological concerns. Kant states that it is possible for all of us to possess moral knowledge; given that we construct value it is clearly plausible that we can know what is valuable.
Kant offers that his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals “is nothing more than the identification and corroboration of the supreme principle of morality” (4:392). He maintains that people must use “practical philosophy”, or careful reasoning, in order to delineate the precise principle of human morality, which Kant later identifies and formulates as the categorical imperative. To understand this supreme principle of morality, Kant asserts the truth in two things: there exists morality, which regulates human behaviors and signifies good actions, and that this morality can be only understood through reason. Assuming that these are both true, it is not entirely clear what the ontological relationship is between human rationality and morality—whether