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.
The two can exist divergently, for the view of being morally skeptical and believing in normative theological voluntarism or believing in normative theological voluntarism and not being morally skeptical. 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.
It is everyone's personal responsibility is not to interfere with the rights of others but to pursue their own happiness. Compromise is also a form of interference and therefore is infringing on the right to pursue one’s own life. In The Fountainhead Ayn Rand provides an example of the ideal
Many of the opponents of Obamacare completely overlook how beneficial it is for women. Pre-existing conditions like C-sections, insurance plans with maternity services and the equality of insurance costs for men and women are all included in Obamacare. However, before Obamacare was executed, women’s costs for health insurance could be 1.5 times that of men, according to Wharton. Obamacare prohibited this immoral discrimination in 2014. If Obamacare were to be revoked, women would suffer much higher rates of insurance due to this unethical presumption that they are more “expensive”.
Helping others is actually a fear of how we might end up, and if we help them, they will help us in return when the times comes. However, there are also arguments against psychological egoism as well. In face, a large measure of effort is spent in growing up to resist the natural instinct to act in our own self-interest without first thinking of the other person. A selfish person, for example, most likely wouldn’t have been terribly concerned for the piglets drowning. And, as you look for deeper motivations on why someone would help the piglets, you will generally run into the conclusion that the person cares about what happens to others.
To quote our text, virtue ethics focuses “not on what to do, but on what to be.” Therefore, virtue of ethics is not a set list of rules to which we look to help us in making good decisions, but rather a guide to obtaining “excellence” in character. The idea is to do all things good for no other reason than to be good, not to obtain something else. His reasoning is a bit circular in the sense that he does not give a clear-cut definition of what qualifies a person as virtuous. However, to be virtuous is to be pure, good, saintly, and essentially have a high moral standard, and having that characteristic alone will guide persons to make good decisions. Being virtuous, then, is doing something for no other reason than to be good.
Free will vs. Determinism The incompatibility thesis states that determinism is incompatible with any significant sense of freewill. Therefore, having free will is a necessary condition for the ascription of moral responsibility. In other words, free will dictates the level of responsibility we claim for our actions. If outside forces were to be in control of the choices we make, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions. However, if we have total freedom over the choices we make, then we certainly must claim responsibility over our actions.
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.
Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory. 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