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.
First of all, King believes that one has the moral responsibility to defy laws that are unjust. He believe that if we continue to follow the rule that unjust things will continue to occur. The only way to stop this unjust things is to disobey the laws that are unjust. King also believes that an unjust law is not a law. Therefore, he believed that if a law was unjust that it would not be a law therefore you can disobey it but must be ready to accept anything that follow.
It is everyone's personal responsibility is not to interfere with the rights of others but to pursue their own happiness. Compromise is also a form of interference and therefore is infringing on the right to pursue one’s own life. In The Fountainhead Ayn Rand provides an example of the ideal
Kant also said that if someone did the right thing because they wanted to, their acts would have no moral worth. Kant’s arguments aren’t
In Immanuel Kant’s (On Political Reactions) he states that “It is a duty to tell the truth”. Kant also continues on to say that the concept of duty remains inseparable from the concept of right. One being corresponding to the rights of another qualifies as a duty.
Emerson strongly believes following one's own path, “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think” (Emerson 24). People can not let others get in their heads. Other people’s comments should not concern one. Comparatively, Mr. Keating emphasizes that being a free thinking frees a man (Weir). People need to stop worrying about what other people think and do.
There are many different reasons for lying. One of the most common, although, is to lie to protect someone else and their feelings. If we didn 't have white lies, our friendships would be ruined and people would begin to not like each other based on their true opinions. Lying is very justified, because without it, friendships
So it seems that those who deny the moral permissibility of torture, in such cases, are conceding to the moral permissibility of killing. The argument is based on the following premises: 1-Torture is necessary to protect the people. 2-It is in the people’s interest to take moral precedence over others’ interests. 3-Hence, it is morally permissible to go forward with torture.
Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high
Neutrality is avoiding being see as picking a side. It also emphasises the need to avoid any political, racial, religious or ideological controversies that may allow people to perceive the humanitarian actions as not being neutral. An organisation may not disclose their funders or use their sponsor to ensure the safety of their workers and show that they are following the principle of
Can anyone say they’ve never lied before? No, everyone has told a lie at least once in their life, but does that make it okay? Well, the german philosopher, Immanuel Kant, strongly feels that lying destroys the liar’s human dignity and that under no circumstances is lying excused. Brad Blanton, the author of “Radical Honesty,” agrees that we shouldn't lie. He believes that lying puts an unnecessary stress on our lives, but he disagrees with Kant’s remark that lying is never justified.