By the way, of contrast to Heidegger, Sartre sees authenticity in connection the structure of human existence, a combination of facticity and freedom resulting in what he calls bad faith. Bad faith is when a conscious being denies their own freedom to choose from among an array of possibilities or denying an aspect of their own facticity, thus acting inauthentic. The two types of bad faith are, being-for-itself, and being-in-itself, both unavoidable, Sartre remarks, as the structure of human consciousness are a ubiquitous feature. For example, a murderer who refuses to acknowledge that they are a murderer, when his mother visits his holding cell and asks, with all sincerity, if he did murder people.
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
Even judging by actions is not right because things can be meant to help, but can instead result in something going wrong. Something that one person sees as disastrous could be seen as good by another person based on what each person knows and the intention. Thus, judging by actions is still not an effective way to judge a person, one must only judge by what is unseen; personality, morals, and intentions. There are many places where one can see how judging based on appearance affects people. The message, wherever it may be, is still the same.
In this paper I will explain how Hume defends his claim on causality, or in other words, how even though we see that two events occur in union -one after the other- through our immediate senses at a specific instance, there is no way for us to know the nature of their connection. Given Hume’s claim, I will raise a concern about how this claim might be challenged. Hume explains how we confuse experience with causality. In other words, we often assume that if we tip over an open container then the object inside will scatter but that is merely a speculation and, an assumption that we are seemingly witnessing cause and effect.
In his philosophical thesis, of the ‘Mind-Body dualism’ Rene Descartes argues that the mind and the body are really distinct, one of the most deepest and long lasting legacies. Perhaps the strongest argument that Descartes gives for his claim is that the non extended thinking thing like the Mind cannot exist without the extended non thinking thing like the Body. Since they both are substances, and are completely different from each other. This paper will present his thesis in detail and also how his claim is critiqued by two of his successors concluding with a personal stand.
On the teleological argument, McCloskey’s claim that “to get the proof going, genuine indisputable examples of design and purpose are needed” is not reasonable. Why does one side of the equation need examples and the other does not, is not a fair assessment of a problem. There should always be examples to prove that each side is disputable or undisputable for the premise. A person can assume that a statement is true but that does not make the argument true and in all fairness why would that argument be considered true without some type of proof. The teleological argument is to show probability of theism, exhibit purpose of order, design and infer that the cause must be an intelligent
Unlike utilitarianism, deontology requires that you set certain boundaries to one 's actions. Fried describes that the deontological perception involves taking into account how to achieve its goals because the act has a moral significance. Unethical acts like lying, slavery, denying, and harmless innocence can not be justified, although it could lead to a lot of good in some cases. For example, a follower of deontology would not argue that a person is happy if this happiness was caused by the suffering of an innocent person. Utilitarism, on the other hand, believes it is permissible to inflict an innocent person harm if this causes more happiness as a consequence of the action.
One of the situations has to be immoral. Objection/Reply Someone who agrees with Hume might object to this argument by saying morality is not based solely on what is rational because people have feelings. He or she may say that people have feelings and are subjective, not objective (Hume). This means that we can’t base our moral code off of what an individual can will universally because that isn’t concrete if everyone has different opinions on what they can and can’t will.
Descartes Methodological Doubt and Meditations Methodological doubt is an approach in philosophy that employs distrust and doubt to all the truths and beliefs of an individual to determine what beliefs he or she is certain are true. It was popularized by Rene Descartes who made it a characteristic method of philosophy where a philosopher subjects all the knowledge they have with the sole purpose of scrutinizing and differentiating the true claims from the false claims. Methodological doubt establishes certainty by analytically and tentatively doubting all the knowledge that one knows to set aside dubitable knowledge from the indubitable knowledge that an individual possesses. According to Descartes, who was a rationalist, his first meditation
This is something that the subject is going through they are being deceived on a emotional level, as they were not informed about the study directly, in this case it is unethical as the subjects privacy and rights have been violated as the experiment denies that on part of the subject , lacking in consideration for the subjects welfare and emotional well being from the experimenter. Action and Competence of researchers:when one is conducting a test ,they must conduct themselves in an ethical behavioural manner,eg when working with others they should not be biased. They should be able to justify themselves in a justifiable manner as well as be able to conduct themselves with sufficient knowledge about what they were researching. Although the Behavioural Study of obedience in my opinion was not ethical in many ways the results were proven to be precise and concluded with the desired
- There are things such as Just and Beauty that exist and cannot be detected by the human eye. So, whatever prepares a person best to grasp this concept will come the closet to achieving knowledge. A true philosopher believes that there is some path to guide us from evil and confusion. We need our body to nurture us throughout the journey, but as long as we have a body, the soul is under sin and temptation (“the body causes war, civil discord, and battles” 66c). -If we are to obtain pure knowledge, we have to escape from our bodies.
Results: Are Walzer’s Arguments Effective? Whether or not Walzer’s arguments are effective is obviously a subjective question; realists would argue no, but Walzer would say yes. I feel they are effective, because they expose the unusual and faulty logic of the realists as a base and shameful way of justifying the wrongs they choose to engage in.