Sartre's Perception Of Existentialism

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.

Justified, true belief knowledge is only real if there is no conceivable doubt, but nothing can truly be inconceivable fact. In “Mediation I: What can be Called into Doubt”, Descartes tries to find solutions to this, but he only raises more questions about the world. Skepticism arises to challenge the idea of a perfect knowledge and to question the human mind and the world. Descartes reflects on the countless falsehoods he believed that became his knowledge about the world and wipes everything out of his mind to begin anew. Descartes starts with the foundations of knowledge, deciding only to accept opinions as truths when there isn't any conceivable doubt in his mind.

(Swinburne, pg.84) Theist would disagree. The second piece that counters Swinburne’s argument is by John Hicks and it is called “Evil and The God of Love”. Hicks takes a pro-freewill stance and believes in the “Soul-Making Defense” (Hick, pg.85). The author central argument is the belief human beings are not completely fulfilled with the creator’s likeliness. Humans must endure life and its ups and downs in order to become a finished product worthy of God’s kingdom.

So, in order to restore order within one’s individual life, one must defy the social norms that distance themselves from nature to find harmony with it. Furthermore, his use of tone to exemplify his argument is also effective as he condemns people for living rushed, unfulfilled lives for the sake of prosperity and materialistic possessions. When Thoreau says that ”when we are unhurried and wise, we perceive that only great and worthy things have any permanent and absolute existence, that petty fears and petty pleasures are but the shadow of the reality,”(279) he employs a critical tone by stating that people are blinded by these petty things that misconstrue

Though hidden in the footnote, to avoid creating a tangent in the overall argument and worse falling to the counterargument that “it's just semantics,” Foster Wallace throws these pieces in as curveballs- evidence that a reader was unlikely to expect nor be prepared to process. While intentionally he intentionally trespasses’ the readers comfort zone of their own communication, he makes his article relate, if only through these footnotes, to the ways in which they’ve previously engaged with the matter. As Foster Wallace situates the reader in the moral conundrum, he draws from the them a greater awareness of self and skepticism of the multiple party’s motivations which contributes to the overall multidimensional analysis of the

Even the answer of Eichmann demonstrates how wrong Kantian ethics had been misused and misinterpreted by him. Nevertheless, according to Kantian ethics, a personal life should not have a confliction with the law which is another reason that indicates that Eichmann was not a true “proper”

Nozick's Counter-Argument to the Principle of Fairness In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick takes up a counter-argument against Herbert Hart's “principle of fairness”1 Nozick contends that the general framework of Hart's principle of fairness, is incoherent, because it produces special obligations that force others to behave as if they were obligated under a presupposition of a right, in general, not to be coerced. Nozick explains this as, On the face of it enforcing the principle of fairness is objectionable. You may not decide to give me something, for example a book, and then grab money from me to pay for it, even if I have nothing better to spend the money on.2 Prima facie, this counter-argument intuitively seems correct. As an example, consider the wearing of a remembrance poppy on Memorial and Veteran's Days. In the days prior to these “holidays,” there are always volunteers at the entrances and exits of nearly all commercial venues.

In simpler terms, this argument is stating that Cicero believes that what is truly a just human nature, becomes corrupted, and therefore unjust, once applied to the changing roles of humanity and their lives in a polis. On the other hand, a reasonable counter argument can be made which would propose a similar answer, but with a variation of the ultimate reason. Although Cicero testifies that human injustice directly opposes human nature, he asserts that it is bound to happen when human beings bang together and centralize into

The theory of Deontology has its flaws as well and this essay will present three criticisms of deontology namely that deontology relies on moral absolutes, allows acts that make the world a worse place, two permissible duties that are right can conflict with each other and will demonstrate these flaws with relevant case studies and dilemmas. To begin with, this theory relies on moral absolutes which can be defined as actions that are entirely right or entirely wrong. Deontologists cannot consider the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences of a particular action bring about more harm than the act itself. Deontology theory says that certain types of actions are either absolutely right or wrong, but provides no way in which to distinguish which action may be right or wrong and thus duties and principles can conflict (Preston, 2007). For instance,

It is due to the intuitive dislike that utilitarianism prompts in the minds of many, that it has been subject to several criticisms. In this essay, I will use both moral intuitions and examples in attempt to outline three of the strongest objections to utilitarianism. I will furthermore attempt to show that such objections render utilitarianism to be unsuccessful. To achieve this it is, however, necessary that I discuss the concept of utilitarianism, as well as how such a theory influences the decisions and actions of moral agents. Utilitarianism is a moral, consequentialist theory in that it holds that the right action to perform is that which produces the best consequence, namely the greatest amount of utility – otherwise known as wellbeing