The theory is consistent with either with the affirmation or with denial of theism and moral skepticism. Taking either positive or negative stand on metaethical theological voluntarism cannot prevent anyone from doing what is morally right. The principle is not for theist only, and or not for only moral non-skeptical, it is for all of us, let us utilizes it for the common good. It can be argued historically that moral concepts equal theological one. Idziak 1979, (pp. 8-10) argues that theological and moral principles are sourced from divine principles.
Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible. Strawson 's whole purpose of writing the article is to change anyone 's mind who says that we should be responsible for the way we are and what we do as a result of the way we are. He believes we are lacking freedom and control of doing so. He argues that if we do something for a reason, that is how we are, so we must be responsible.
According to Galen Strawson, moral responsibility to punish some of us with eternal torment (hell) and rewards others with eternal bliss (heaven). I am going to argue that we cannot be morally responsible for our actions which is also Strawson’s argument. He has a basic argument that claims you perform the action that you perform because of the way you are, in particular mental respects. To be truly morally responsible for your action, you must be truly morally responsible for your character, personality, and motivational structure or in other words, who you are. We are born with determined predispositions that we are not responsible for and we are exposed to certain influences that we are not responsible for.
“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.
He describes the nature of Moral Responsibility as an illusion. There is an argument which he calls “Basic Argument” which proves that humans can not be morally responsible for their actions. No matter if determinism is true or false Strawson still holds the view on validity of the Basic Argument. The Basic Argument is as follows.
And the same can be said of desires. Our grounds for having beliefs and desires are the same states as our bases for self-attributing those beliefs and desires. Fernandez suggests merely that we should not believe a proposition if we have no grounds for believing it. Furthermore, we should not believe a proposition is we have grounds for believing the proposition is not the case. A subject’s grounds for believing a particular belief is her total, weighted set of grounds for that belief.
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
According to Rachels, it does not seem like people disagree with the theory of cultural relativism as much as it would seem to be. The arguments he proposes as to why
When considering a logical argument, I will make the consideration whether I can logically argue the topic without making a rhetorical fallacy. There, in my opinion, is no point to trying to argue a topic if the person knows that they will have no reasoning to back up their opinion, thus they have to commit fallacies. To make a "fallacy-less" logical argument I would try to stick to the facts that can prove why I was right on that topic, instead of appealing to emotions. McInerny warned us in Being Logical about the dangers of what can happen when someone appeals to the emotions instead of using logical, rhetorical strategies, "It is particularly important to note that fallacious reasoning can often be very persuasive, sometimes more so than
The main arguments that Davis Lennard has placed out for this introduction are the constructive views of normality versus disability. To summarize Lennard’s argument, he states that the majority of a population and/or society must be similar, to be recognized as “normal.” What is then “normal” is now seen as average, thus, creating a false illusion for one to “idealize” for something that is considered better than what is known as the average. And because we are constructed to have an ideal type of a body, we see a disabled body as the “problem,” even though that is not the case. Lennard states that the disabled body becomes a body that is less than an average body (aka normal body).
In Mark Twain’s, The Damned Human Race, it is said that man is the lowest stage of evolutionary development. The human race hasn’t descended from lower animals, but has descended from higher animals. This idea may be strange to some, however it has a fair about of evidence and is quite compelling. Twain has actually convinced me to believe that man has come to this unpleasant conclusion and is nothing more. At this point, most people would ask “how is a chicken or anaconda at higher level than us?