Illustrating, this proves that we take the responsibility for actions that we did not do, and should not feel any remorse, but that the people who have done wrongdoing, should have this feeling of guilt. We should not be held accountable for the actions that we did not mean to do in survival
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.
Do you agree with Feinberg’s assertion that “you have to draw the line somewhere?” I totally agree with Feinberg’s assertion that “you have to draw the line somewhere”. But the situation here requires the company to morally act rather than think rationally. This is because, if they act rationally and not morally, then it would go against the image of the company. Thus in this case I agree that the line has to be drawn at humanity and not at rationality. If the company would have spent a little more to make good the psychological loss of the people, the situation would not have been hiked to this great an extent.
With adventuring and seeking thrill, accidents are common. A topic of question is whether or not the victims should pay for the damage or expenses of a rescue team. A logical solution is to make the person or people who caused the mishap pay for what they’ve done, but sometimes they are the victims. If they were being careless beforehand and leading up to the incident, then they should pay for it, or at least part of it. However, if they had no part in it and was just unlucky enough to get injured, then they should not pay for the expenses.
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
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.
This theory acts under the assertion that individuals should only do things if they expect all individuals to make the same decision and perform the same action if presented with the same situation (Beauchamp & Kahn, 2014). Since either situation is morally wrong as they both will result in the loss of life, making a decision to change the course of the trolley would actually be more immoral because the individual would be consciously making the effort to change the trolley’s course. By taking no action they would not be responsible for the consequences of what happens, but by changing the trajectory of the trolley they would be acting against the principle of not killing an innocent person as they would have played a part in the individual’s
These beliefs are what collectivists believe, along with that being alone “…is the great transgression and the root of all evil” (Rand 17). Also, they believe that if you are not needed by your ‘brothers’, -the people around you, figuratively speaking- there is no reason
If the consequences of karma is based off our actions, then choosing not to act at all is not a way of resolving karma. This is because it is not possible. It 's all about the attitude that causes the behavior that 's important. Karma 's law does not apply to God. This is because God does not act out of desires or wants because there isn 't anything he does not have.
Sometimes people excuse the damage they cause by saying this was a mistake or that they did not mean to cause the damage. Is this a valid excuse to avoid liability for damage caused? Explain your answer. • This is not a valid excuse to avoid liability the reason being that negligence or been carelessness should not be an excuse for an individual receiving damaged or being injured. All individuals are required to behave and act responsibly and reasonably.