Galen Strawson's Analysis

This course of action cannot simply be justified through consequentialist views such as the DDE, where the overall outcome is the only important decision factor. Non-consequentialist factors are of equal importance in the morality of an action. When viewing MacAskill’s cases and his response to the harm-based objection, it is important to consider the non-consequentialist, right-based theory of Libertarianism that maintains if an act violates a right, then it is morally wrong; individual rights are a fundamental element in deeming an action morally permissible. Libertarians do not focus on consequences when evaluating actions, instead believing that rights are so important that they must not be violated even to produce better consequences. This belief goes directly against the DDE, which evaluates an action solely based on the consequences produced.

Two wrongs to not make a right. The problem is that we have to consider if something is wrong in the mind of the person committing the act. It is true that we cannot get back what has been done to us, even if we retaliate or don’t do anything about it. The most important thing is to live honestly and morally; not simply living, but living well. But choosing to partake in this lifestyle is harder than it seems.

Ethical egoism is a normative theory that states an individual 's actions should be accomplished from the perspective to maximize one’s self-interest. Ethical egoism requires that people give themselves special treatment and that they have a task to fill their self-interest. Ethical egoism says that a person should only act when the action benefits themself, and they should, therefore, avoid actions when the act they are trying to fulfill provides no benefits for the individual. When an action that one performs is wrong it seems the opposite of the action performed would seem to be correct. If helping a person would prevent your own self-interest, this would seem to make it morally permissible for a person to perform harm to others in situations where their self-interest would benefit from the action.

We can agree that whoever choses the second option would be considered as a moral monster. He then provides us his maxim: “It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and not to promote what is good, and it requires this from of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is from the moral point of view, comparably

There is something in this idea that can be applied to morality. Some actions, like journeys, have value regardless of the outcomes they produce. Williams brings this point about to show how the utilitarian’s focus on consequences might not be the best way to assign value to actions, since it has no way of accounting for the intrinsic values actions may have. Here I have to agree with Williams. The manner in which consequentialist judge actions does not seem to allow any room for considering a person’s intent behind choosing to commit that act.

It is essential however to understand that Rearden is not merely an egotist with his own good in mind; rather he acknowledges the good found when any person refuses to sacrifice their own good. This is the essential part to note as it displays that every part of freedom he wishes for himself he also desires for every other individual. Objectivism acknowledges the dignity of individual beings. These beings have the purpose of achieving their own good. This is naturally inconsistent with altruism, which denies individual rights and considers acting for ones own self as morally

There are people that believe, there are absolute moral rule that everyone should follow, no matter what the situation is. Immanuel Kant a philosopher pushed this concept and believed that no one should break moral rules, even if it is to save people. He believed that we will never know the true outcome of anything, so we should always follow moral rules and late fate play its role. But most people don’t believe in this because it seems obvious that breaking some moral rules can have some real benefits from it. Furthermore, it would be impossible to follow every single rule because some rules can contradict to themselves.

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.

As a result, ethics would be crumbling without foundation as good and evil is not justified and accounted for. Professor John Lennox clearly shows here that it is not possible for atheist to derive their ethics from anywhere else besides God, the absolute moral giver. The fact that we have a common set of morality across humankind is in itself evidence that we are moral beings made in the image of our

I strongly believe that irrespective of religion, race, or place in society, right action must guide decisions that are made in life. Sin, albeit an ambiguous concept, generally defines as actions which are immoral or install negative consequences toward another individual. Regardless of whether one interprets sin biblically or legally, individuals in society must respect the rights of others and cannot impose their will onto them. Without a sense of individual morality, a social Darwinistic struggle embodies society and humans will never be able to live well. Those who sin, whether consciously or unconsciously, ultimately receive punishment in the end, as the texts; King Lear, “To Build a Fire,” and “Riding the Rap” demonstrate.

I affirm that Kant believes praising truthfulness above all other duties because he believes it is morally wrong to hurt the dignity of others. Even though Kant makes some good points, I disagree with his notion of always

As Parfit states, “Since these two choices will be worse for no one, we need to explain why we have a moral reason not to make these choices. This problem arises because, in different outcomes, different people would exist. I therefore call this the Non-Identity Problem” (Parfit, 378). One of the caveats that exists for the Non-Identity Problem is that we cannot appeal to these future people’s rights for different reasons. For example, we cannot appeal to the rights of future people because there is no way we can communicate with them.

As people who have dignity and view and define ourselves are moral, we must stop using these forms of language simply because it doesn’t respect the dignity of others. Although Kant and Mill are drastically different in their approaches, I believe, based on some of their core arguments that they would interpret society as having an ethical obligation to restructure the vernacular used in regards to

People must have free will so they can maintain morality. “The notion of free will is indispensable to our choosing, deciding, and judging...This is the case with our apprehension of the ‘moral law’...Before any act I should ask myself: Would I approve if all men do this? Any action that can be universalized can be accepted as ethical” (p247 text). Without free will, people will lose the capacity to abide by “moral

The act of acting in accordance with moral obligations defined by the state for the very reason that they have been defined by the state is in conflict with our moral autonomy and protection of individual liberties, which was the supposed goal in the construction of political authority.An individual’s perception of morality and ability to make moral decisions are compromised by the fact that political authority has already perceived it for us, despite supposedly being equal and free persons. Hence, we rely on the justification of political authority for reason to be subordinate to its ideas of morality, but are faced with troubling