Ayn Rand also had an argument against ethical egoism believing it is a mistake to treat the interest of some individuals as being less important than the interest of others. She thought on the fact that your interest is yours is not relevant to their importance relative to the importance of the interest of others. So, it is a mistake to treat your own interests as if they are more important than the interest of others. Personally, I agree with Ayn Rand’s view supporting ethical egoism. I’ve realized that I only do whatever I choose to do for my own self benefit and self-interest.
I do agree with Strawson and I think that he is right. I do not believe that someone can be truly morally responsible for anything that they do; however, it would be appropriate and well deserving is moral responsibility held a standard. If someone does something that creates a great change in the world, they should definitely have true moral responsibility for it. Ultimately, I know that that is also impossible because making a great change in the world come from the way we are, and we are not truly morally responsible for
Personally, I strongly disagree with this claim due to the overwhelming amount of evidence against it. Folk psychology is a commonsense theory of the mind that explains people’s behavior in terms of mental states, such as belief and desire. This theory also assumes that we have beliefs and desires which affect our behavior. Eliminative materialists reject these assumptions because they believe that beliefs and desires cannot affect our behavior. The first flaw I find in this theory is that materialists believe in their rejection of folk psychology, but they do not believe in beliefs as a whole.
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.
I stand to agree with the statement, it is not acceptable to anyone to commit a wrong against the other, it is wrong for one to fail to observe ethical principle for not believing in the existence of God. One can affirm to theological voluntarism while being morally skeptic cannot affirm without being morally skeptic. The statement is correct, one can do what is generally expected of morally, he/she can be skeptical or not, but fundamentally should observe moral principles. Normative theological voluntarism and moral skepticism is not a coherent combination of views. The two can exist divergently, for the view of being morally skeptical and believing in normative theological voluntarism or believing in normative theological voluntarism and not being morally skeptical.
And yet, the science and reason that brought us this invention are not enough to force humanity to accept it in all facets of life. Something potentially responsible for this phenomenon is the Backfire Effect. David McRaney describes the Backfire Effect with great accuracy in his article “The Backfire Effect”: “coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead” (1). This unbreakable resolve for maintaining beliefs in contradiction to logic prevents us from seeing truth effectively.
Stop Political passivity, but know what you stand for when you actively oppose the authority. THOREAU True prestige is in independent thought as we live in a constantly imperfect world Not to say “down with conformity” for uniquenesses sake, as this would simply be an emerging perspective of circular logic, both conformity and individuality are neither inherently good or bad, but thinking critically on a deeper level, past the surface is an essential part of developing as an individual. Why do we have an attachment to free will and individuality? -useful in
“Never ignore a gut feeling, but never believe that it’s enough” Robert Haller. This quotation suggests that an instinctive judgment is not enough to draw conclusions. Ways of knowing need to verify our gut feelings. Before we can actually jump to conclusions, we require ways which we can use to understand the world around us, these are ways of knowing. Sometimes we need to make sure that what our innate feelings tell us; is true.
Next, he puts forward a more moderate version of the principle by replacing equal moral significance with anything of moral significance. The nature of the principle, according to Singer, is contentious, for if applied has the potential to change everything about our values and lives. One of the reasons as to why that is the case is that the principle does not care for the proximity of the one
Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory. Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to