Morality is a topic that will always contain a variety of viewpoints, conversations, and problems, but it is a subject that will never have a factual or concrete answer. Although it has history and many similar general understandings, morality is, simply put, an idea, to which people have different perceptions within their lives due to information gained from their experiences and the thoughts of others. Friedrich Nietzsche describes his view of the issue in On the Genealogy of Morals, creating a main talking point through detailing the difference between “master” morality and “slave” morality. He describes this separation by showing that originally, people of power dictated what was good and bad, as they valued qualities such as physical strength and courage, while slaves, or weak people, resented those qualities because they did not, and could not possess them. Nietzsche ideas about these two types of morality, at their core, relate back to origin, mindset, and action in variety of evident ways that clearly illustrate his mental landscape on the matter.
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.
He who governs by his moral excellence may be compared to the pole star which abides in its place while all other stars bow towards it. Deciding for oneself between what is right and what is wrong has always been an important part of life. All throughout history this subject has been debated and there have been many who have attempted to discover an absolute solution. Among these is the remarkable German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Applied correctly, Kant’s moral principles, specifically the categorical imperative, would greatly alter one’s view of life and due to this it may help to not only make the world a better place, but to also bolster individual lives.
Change, motion, and even time are all just constructs of the human mind, with the purpose of aiding us in interpreting and navigating our world. Where Bertrand Russell deviates from Zeno is in determining what these views mean for the state of the world as a whole. Russell assumes Zeno would believe that world remains in the same state, and says that this interpretation is incorrect. This means that Russell believes the world can be different state to state, however it is unclear by what mechanism since he denies the universe being subject to change. A possible explanation would be that the states of the world are of
He links the use of reason with freedom and this use of reason helped us achieve a system of morals. However, Nietzsche disagrees with Kant and mocked the idea that using reason can help us since reason is something created by man and his view of the world, therefore none of these concepts can have true meaning. He wanted to know how and why did such morals come to have this value and this is how through the use of Nietzsche’s philosophy, I will critique Kant’s moral
They no longer took what they were told as a given, they used their intellect and rationality to find the truth. This is an asset to every human being, a curiosity of the unknown. We should not loose touch of this and continue to use both our reason and logic in modern times. Immanuel Kant’s definition of The Enlightenment, focuses on the point that we should not just expect others to question and scrutinize the world as we know it, but to actively get involved also. “Enlightenment is the liberation of man from his self-caused state of minority.
Generally, there must be a belief in its ground and that belief must be true but obviously, this is not enough to form it. As stated by Plato in Theaetetus where the nature of knowledge is discussed, true belief must be justified for turning into the knowledge.1
All of us have an innate knowledge, concepts, forms, or universals that are an essential and inborn part that compose our mind. Without this rational knowledge would be impossible. Innate knowledge is a field of epistemology, which is the study of how human person can know something. According to Aristotle’s critical study of Plato’s theory of knowledge could not exist by themselves, but only in particular things. Since substances must be capable of independent existence, it appears that they cannot be universals but particulars.
Hayward (2006) adds to this that Lukes wrote that absolute power is being able to get others to desire what you want them to desire. Both Morris (2006) and Hayward (2006) identify that for Lukes the relation between power and responsibility are crucial to his radical view. Furthermore, Lukes denies the notion of ‘power to’ and thus his exclusive notion of power is that of ‘power over’ while in fact ‘power over’ is merely a sub-set of ‘power to’. (Isaac, 1987; Morriss, 2006). Hayward (2006) and Morriss (2006) revisit Lukes’ book on Power as Lukes revised and republished the book.
It is essential however to understand that Rearden is not merely an egotist with his own good in mind; rather he acknowledges the good found when any person refuses to sacrifice their own good. This is the essential part to note as it displays that every part of freedom he wishes for himself he also desires for every other individual. Objectivism acknowledges the dignity of individual beings. These beings have the purpose of achieving their own good. This is naturally inconsistent with altruism, which denies individual rights and considers acting for ones own self as morally