Galen Strawson argues in his work, The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility, the theory that true moral responsibility is impossible. This theory is accurate whether determinism is true or false. Strawson describes this argument as the Basic Argument. He claims "nothing can be causa sui- nothing can be the cause of itself" (212). Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility.
Egoism being the theory that believes that selfishness is the foundation of morality. Robert Bass claims that Rand does not create a compelling case to convince her audience that egoism and rights go together. Bass believes that Rand made a mistake when “she posited, as the alternative to egoism, a doctrine that she labeled altruism” (Bass, 330). Unlike Rand, Bass
Subsequently, I will proceed to form an argument on the first part of Mackie’s argument from queerness, the metaphysical component. I will show that although the conclusion follows from the premises, not all the premises are true. Similarly for the epistemological component of Mackie’s argument, I will prove that the premises from his argument can be refuted. With the failure of both components, I will show that Mackie’s argument from queerness does not succeed in proving that objective values do not exist. Mackie’s argument from queerness is founded upon a naturalistic account of the world.
(Miller, p. 215) The main thrust of Locke's criticism against innate knowledge is against the possibility of innate theoretical principles. Locke's argument against innate knowledge makes it difficult to say that if, in fact, there are any innate principles, then everyone would assent to them. There cannot be innate principles,
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”
This expression is the exact opposite of the Kantian view on enlightenment and the idea of humans needing to be autonomous. Foucault views the Kantian way of thinking about enlightenment to have a certain attitude or ethos. Foucault says that this ethos or attitude about enlightenment is “described as a permanent critique of our historical era.” Foucault puts in it two general ways or options to think about the enlightenment. “You either accept the enlightenment and remain within the tradition of its rationalism or else you criticize the Enlightenment and then try to escape from its principles of rationality” In my personal opinion both of these essays and their authors have their strong points, I personally believe that I side more with Kants views in his essay about freedom and autonomy. People should be able to stand up for themselves and have a strong presence in politics, government, and religion.
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.
moral concerns and specifically stresses the concept of treating humanity not merely as means but as ends. However, Silber, like most Kantian formalists denies the possibility of supplementing C2. In Silber’s view, C2 as a limiting condition on valid maxims expresses merely a negative condition that one never treats others as means. Kant also explained that C2 acts solely as a limiting condition. In the idea of an absolutely good will [one] good without any qualifying condition (of attainment of this or that end)—complete abstraction must be made from every end that has to come about as an effect…And so the end must here be conceived, not as an end to be effected, but as an independently existing end.
Nozick's Counter-Argument to the Principle of Fairness In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick takes up a counter-argument against Herbert Hart's “principle of fairness”1 Nozick contends that the general framework of Hart's principle of fairness, is incoherent, because it produces special obligations that force others to behave as if they were obligated under a presupposition of a right, in general, not to be coerced. Nozick explains this as, On the face of it enforcing the principle of fairness is objectionable. You may not decide to give me something, for example a book, and then grab money from me to pay for it, even if I have nothing better to spend the money on.2 Prima facie, this counter-argument intuitively seems correct. As an example, consider the wearing of a remembrance poppy on Memorial and Veteran's Days. In the days prior to these “holidays,” there are always volunteers at the entrances and exits of nearly all commercial venues.