Non Formal Impartiality Analysis

However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person. Thus, I argue if Kant’s theory were true, it would be very difficult to be a good person as utilitarianism do not allow for acts that go beyond duty. Kant’s argument suggests that good will is the only thing good without qualification. First, Kant begins to distinguish between things that are good without qualification and things that are good only under certain qualified conditions.

While the former highlights such elements as argument analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, the latter refute ego-centrism in favor of fair-mindedness. In other words, the weak-sense critical thinker is a pseudo-intellectual in that although he is highly skilled, yet egoistically motivated to achieve his selfish goals without taking into account the moral consequences. On the other hand, strong-sense critical thinker employs logic to solve the problems. He does not include his selfish intentions in the way he sees problems. In fact, he fair-mindedly unravels the stumbling blocks in a reflective and systematic

Suffering to Nietzsche is necessary for cultivating excellence, but not to be understood as a value in itself . In this sense, a universal morality is detrimental precisely because it stifles the potential of those who can cultivate excellence by their internalising the norms of such a morality. The „revaluation of values” is aimed at the practical impact and origin of the virtues and moralities which they found. Those who adopt such „moralities”, that devalue suffering and value happiness, nurture a ressentiment not only for their lives, but for those who rise above it, who have the power to will so. For example, envy is deemed to be bad, and consequently, a form of eliminating the fact that one has more than the other is manifested through a norm which demands that all are equal (e.g in the eyes of

Spinoza’s emphasis on power in the Short Treatise and the Correction of the Understanding has proven a thorough argument. He expounds his thought in an array of syllogisms, they can be encapsulated in the following: The more reality something has, the more existence it involves. The possible existence Descartes proposes has finite degrees of perfection while necessary existence has infinite perfection. Whatever has the power

When discussing whether consequentialism and deontology are tenable, I have reason to believe that they can both be justified and implemented in certain situations in order to achieve the best outcome: whether this be happiness, utility, or moral judgment. For a consequentialist, ‘happiness is conceived of as the ultimate good’ (Hospers, 1997) however the language of morality is perceived as deontological. Regardless of the situation there is always an ethical axiom which is ‘killing innocent people is wrong’ (Markham, 2007). With both of these views exercised every day, we are faced with many possibilities, leading to problems and opportunities. Nevertheless, if we didn’t have both views, the world would be a very different place as we know it to be now and people would not be faced with the same opportunities.

His attitude is surprising considering that he proclaims to value truth above all else in the case of the noble lie at least societies values the halt and security of the state over truth perhaps he realizes that without a stable

In order to perceive logic through the process of a rationalist it has to be fallacy proof and should be free from critical thinking. Biasness and emotions have no place in rationalism. People confuse free thinking and rationalism but the literal meaning does not connect them together. Free thinking is a non restrictive definition on the other hand rationalism is a restrictive

Existentialism maybe a response to the on problem of technology. For, according to Sartre, “existentialism is a humanism.” That is further analyze by Don Ihde, and he notes that “existentialism is a humanism which calls for the re-interpretation of our existence in such a way that our actual experience is not disregarded or belied. Man is the measure who transcends himself- only on this basis is existentialism possible.” Humanism a “term freely applied to a variety of beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human

Deontology only focuses on an action that is right or wrong without regarding the consequences On the other hand, consequentialism consists on having the most positive outcome on every situation. (“Deontological Ethics”). The patient and doctor relationship should be based around trust and honesty. Every patient should tell the truth when they are asked about if they have changed their lifestyle and how they have progressed with medicine.

Free will also creates a standard and moral responsibility for people to conform to. Free will causes people to hold themselves and others more responsible for their actions, as they agree that harsh consequences should follow if moral rules are broken. Free will encourages people to take responsibility for their moral actions and the potential consequences encourage more positive moral

Kant states that by “arranging different representations together, and comprehending what is manifold in them under one form of knowledge” imputes the synthesis to the transcendental logic (A77). Synthesis is the act of putting together the concepts of “sensibility a priori” (conditions of receptivity of mind) in manifold with Transcendental Aesthetic to reach pure understanding and representation of objects with possibility of affecting those concepts, which without those concepts, it would be without content and therefore, appearing empty (A77). Kant asserts that the manifold is not given empirically, but a priori in time and space (B103). Before we can do an analysis of our representation, their concepts must be given since no concepts can arise analytically (B103).

If the choice causes them to be worse off, it is still better than not existing at all. Lastly, even if the action is considered morally wrong and harms the future person, it is still morally better to choose this action as opposed to denying this future person the right to live. The choice you are worried about will not affect the existence of these future people, but rather, it will only benefit or damage them but not violate them existing. (Serada, class notes). As Parfit states, “Since these two choices will be worse for no one, we need to explain why we have a moral reason not to make these choices.