Ayn Rand presents an argument against individual rights in her essay, Man’s Rights. She believes that these rights do not actually exist outside of the right to life and the right to property; or less specifically, the right to action. Many critics see flaws in her argument however, finding flaws in her reasoning. Rand attempts to argue that egoism and rights entail each other.
Mackie’s Arguments Against Ethical Objectivism According to the book The Fundamentals of Ethics, it is stated that ethical objectivism “is the view that moral standards are objectively correct and that some moral claims are objectively true” (Shafer-Landau, p. 294). It is the belief that each individual or person has their own set of moral principles. J.L Mackie explains two arguments against ethical objectivism, which include the argument from relativity and the argument from queerness. In addition he explains and defends his error theory.
A perfect duty is moral truth that must be followed at all times, while an imperfect duty is one that should be followed some of the time depending on the circumstance. Kant expresses that we have perfect duties to respect other’s freedoms and we have a perfect duty to tell the truth. The AHA uses these two duties in their discussions on teaching and the shared values of historians. First off, the AHA states that presenting multiple perspectives on history are parts of the truths of history, therefore according to Kant we have a perfect duty to truth and presenting multiple perspectives. Secondly, the AHA explains the importance of dialogue and respecting opposing viewpoints.
According to Dr. Crockett, we can deduce different manners by which reason can become corrupted. There exist three ways by which individual reason can be corrupted and two ways by which societal reason can be perverted. The three individual reasons are by passion, evil
If you base your moral standards off everyone else’s, even when in truth you think in a different way, then in the eyes of an existentialist, you have been degraded and reduced to an object. “We must act and judge in ways that do not violate the actually existing solidarity of mankind” (Bruehl 193). The main protagonist in Albert Camus’ the Stranger, ends up being sent
According to the Nizkor Project a person can substitute a claim intended to create a sense of pity for evidence found in an argument (Nizkor). This fallacy is known as an Appeal to Pity. The arguer appeals to an audiences feelings in a sympathetic way. This appeal is also known as “argumentum ad misericordiam, the sob story, or the Galileo argument.” (Logically Fallacious)
All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality" ("Letter"). The first sentence is an appeal to 'higher law'; King claims if a law devalues someone, it is contrary to natural and eternal law, so the law cannot be just. Then, Martin Luther King Jr. argues that because
Egotistical behavior tends to be looked down upon, and is considered to be corrupt and reprehensible. It is also considered wrong to put your own opinions and ideas before others’, especially if it will affect others negatively. Odysseus evidently has demonstrated that his actions are for his own best interest of appearing to be
(Gavai 2009, 14) From my understanding economics is a foe of ethics mainly because everyone is a psychological egoist, this is where individuals act in manner that is only in their best perceived material self-interest. As a result, it seems that it would be very difficult to have any ethical standards in place, mainly due to the fact that ethics requires individuals to act against our own material self-interest. In Norman Bowie's book Economics, Friend or Foe of Ethics, he mentions that ethics would be pointless if psychological egoism is true.
According to Professor Douglas W. Portmore, a rule consequentialist, “holds that the rightness of an act depends not on the goodness of its consequences, but on whether or not it is in accordance with a certain code of rules, which has been selected for its good consequences” (Portmore, par 3), which provides that so long as rules prohibit lying then it would be wrong. As to when lying would be permitted, it would solely depend on if the lie adheres to specific rules that have been established. For instance, in the bible one of the Ten Commandments prohibits lying, therefore, with respect to the divine command belief, it would be pertinent to a rule consequentialist (who believes in the divine command theory). On the contrary, if a rule consequentialist
There were two prominent ideas from the Sandel text that applied to the ethical issue I chose to examine. John Stuart Mill had two theories about Utilitarianism and the valuing of life in regards to harm and autonomy. Secondly, was Kant’s determination of the moral valuing of life. Mill, a Utilitarian, discussed the notion of justice and that all people are cognoscente beings and, as such, are entitled to self-defense. Mill’s assertions are important because he determines that everyone has a right to act of their own volition, provided that they do not harm others.
He is very anti-lying and shows us this in Metaphysical Principles of Virtue, which he provides us with a whole section on the topic. He bases it on the idea of categorical imperative. This is the idea that if one person does an action then everyone does the action. This is not to be taking literal. If this was applied to lying then there would be no trust and communication would become impossible and communities would fall apart.