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.
I do agree with Strawson and I think that he is right. I do not believe that someone can be truly morally responsible for anything that they do; however, it would be appropriate and well deserving is moral responsibility held a standard. If someone does something that creates a great change in the world, they should definitely have true moral responsibility for it. Ultimately, I know that that is also impossible because making a great change in the world come from the way we are, and we are not truly morally responsible for
That man in his natural state seeks to contribute to the common good. That since human corrupted values is a product of society, we need to critic society and its institutions and strive towards the conceptual idea of a “natural” society. John Locke another influential political philosopher, also argues that “beliefs, like other human differences, [are] largely the product of environment” and thus the fault of human irrationality is to be blamed on society. This theoretical reasoning is based upon the huge assumption that Man is naturally morally good. Blaise Pascal another major influence to Mainstream enlightenment reasoning, published his influential book Pensées posthumously in 1670, in which he tries to objectively convince that its better to believe that God exists, for you will be faithful and rewarded by God in the case he does exist.
The idea behind Kantian Ethics is that doing the right thing is not about the consequences of our actions but rather the principle motivating the action. Actions must be performed out of duty, that is, it is done solely because we have an obligation to perform such action out of respect for the moral law. As explained by Immanuel Kant, “the moral worth of an action done out of duty has its moral worth” (105). Kant argues that to act morally, then, is to “act only on the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (108). Utilitarianism, developed by John Stuart Mill, is one of the most commonly used approaches in making moral decisions.
In this essay, I will explain the moral theory utilitarianism and outline its main claim; then I will present the most serious objection to utilitarianism: that it does not value justice; next, I will present utilitarianism’s refutation to the critique; lastly, I will evaluate utilitarianism’s reply and argue that utilitarianism can sufficiently answer this objection. While there are different schools within utilitarianism I will be focusing on its most common version: act utilitarianism (from this point on I will refer to it simply as “utilitarianism”). Utilitarianism is a moral theory that tells us what we should and should not do—more specifically, what is a virtuous or vicious action. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that
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”
Immanuel Kant and John Samuel Mill have various similarities and differences on how we see the world. Where both will have, different ideologies referring to the cases of rescue I and rescue II. Kant and Mill are similar in multiple ways where both recognize the moral rules where Kant calls them duties and Mill calls them subordinate principles. Both have the subordinate principles where not to lie, no to stealing, and deprive from liberty from others. Appealing the consequences of the derived duties, where Kant considers the consequence of Maxim to become a universal law of nature, Mill considers the consequence of kind action.
He argued that the first precept of this natural law was that “…good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided… [and] there is in man an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him”. Additionally, he stated that “...the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits”. C.S. Lewis’ concurs with this idea of reason and heart through his illustration in The Abolition of Man: “The head rules the belly through the chest”. In this illustration, each of the anatomical features represents aspects of the nature of man.
Was his lie just? To evaluate this question I would rely on Immanuel Kant 's deontology that state we should treat humans as an end and never merely as means. After explaining it, I will argue that lying to the Vichy authorities was the right thing to do because the value of life is higher than the duty not to lie. I will defend this argument by discussing one of the critiques on deontology. The goal of deontology is to find a categorical, unconditional imperative that will enable the creation of universal laws of nature, legislated by rational and free beings.