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 examined both articles closely and considered which one made the most sense to me. I believe that both authors, in their own way are correct, but I also found flaws in both William James paper and William Kingdon Clifford’s argument. William Kingdon Clifford states that a belief
There are two traditions: empiricism, which holds that our knowledge is primarily based in experience, and rationalism, which holds that our knowledge is primarily based in reason. Although the modern scientific worldview borrows heavily from empiricism, there are reasons for thinking that a synthesis of the two traditions is more plausible than either of them individually. How are our beliefs justified? There are better and worse ways to form beliefs.
Nothing can be causa sui ( meaning nothing can be the cause of itself.) In order to be truly morally responsible for one 's actions one would have to be the cuase of itself,at least in certain crucial mental respects. Therefore nothing can be truly morally responsible.
By using this somewhat complicated and confusing method, Anselm was able to make a reasonable argument that supported the existence of God. The first two possible reasons for existence just don’t make nearly as much sense as the third. He was able to use the first two to contradict each other leaving the third as the only logical explanation. But getting to this conclusion was a long and wordy process. He realized that this idea of Monologian may be somewhat complicated and wanted to simplify and be more clear about his notions.
Wolf proposes the sane deep-self view states that for an individual to be morally responsible for some action they have committed, if and only if (1) this individual is able to control that action by their desires, as well as such desires are governed by their deep selves, and (2) the individual’s deep self is sane. Consequently, Wolf’s proposal evidently proves why JoJo cannot be held responsible for his actions committed. Hence, JoJo is an insane individual. For one to be considered sane, Wolf claims one must have an idea of what one is doing and to have beliefs/values that correctly correspond with the way the state of the world is. JoJo’s beliefs and values essentially do not match up with how the state of the world is and thus he is considered insane and is suffering
We would not be doing what is right “freely.” If this “righteous free will” were true then the point of laws, rewards and so forth would be pointless. There has to be an opposite for them to choose between. It possible that there cannot be a world containing moral good but no moral evil. Rather than looking at God and evil as incompatible the two should be seen as
Moral Law in the most general terms that can be imaged is a person ’s need to right in the world. In the terms of C.S. Lewis, Moral Law is not a fact about human nature and it is not an ideal image of how humans should behave. This law creates a reality that cannot be clearly understood. It is a real law that we as individuals did not make ourselves that is pressed upon us to do what is right.
Ody´s men are not loyal because they don't trust that Ody will give them a fair share of riches upon return to Ithaca. They open his bag, hoping to find treasure that they can split while Ody is asleep, but instead they are sent all the way back to the Aeolian Island. Their disloyalty doesn't stop there though. When they are trapped by a storm of Thrinacia, Ody´s men disobey his one request for the island: Don´t harm Helios´ cattle.
It is a controversial topic as some people argue that it is unnatural - thus unethical. Assuming that all that is against the nature is wrong, would it not mean that saving a person is also unnatural. Inaction in this case would be natural way, therefore ethical thing to do. The practice shows that it is unethical to be inactive when a person is in a danger, otherwise there would not have been a law that punishes for inaction. It does not mean that inaction is wrong, but only it question where the boundaries should lie.
Have you ever been on a cruise ship? Did you wake up early without your parents to go eat? Well, what if you had the whole boat to yourself? In Avi’s True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle, the Seahawk could have been very dangerous for Charlotte to go on by herself. For example, the ship could have been taken over by pirates or Charlotte could have gotten sick during the voyage.
Faulkner creates the sense of autonomy in As I Lay Dying by using multiple symbols that revolve around the Bundrens. One of the most common symbols in As I Lay Dying is Addie’s coffin. According to critic Homer Pettey, her coffin is said to be the main reason and “the focus of the Bundrens' efforts, frustrations, and fixations”(3). Pettey repeats that Addie’s coffin is an object that causes the rest of the Bundren family exasperation and aggravation from its ability to throw the world into “absolute chaos”(8). Many times throughout the novel Addie’s coffin causes situations that cause the family to have great misfortunes.