In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us. He then goes on to expand on the consequences of the Basic Argument.
5. No rule for what we should do when our inclinations and duties are the same V. Prima Facie Duties A. How is “good” Determined (what does it say right/wrong) - we have certain prima facie duties (at first glance) we must always follow unless serious conditions or explanations tell us to do otherwise. Duties include fidelity, reparation, gratitude, justice, beneficence, self-improvement, and non-maleficence (non-injury). B.
Individuals form a Commonwealth to escape the state of nature so that “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense” (112). This leads to the question: to what extent does Hobbes’ theory of self-interest contradict an individual’s supposed obedience to his sovereign? According to Hobbes, the sovereign assures security to an individual through his absolute power, but obedience to the sovereign does not always correlate with an individual’s self-preservation. Due to the state of nature being violent, it is optimal for individuals to relinquish their rights to an absolute sovereign. If one agrees with Hobbes’ theory about life in a state of nature being “nasty, brutish, and short” (82), then
What makes authority legitimate or illegitimate? When putting your life and trust into someone else or a government and submitting to their authority, you better make sure they are legitimate. I believe that authority is legitimate when it is knowledgeable, has the ability to coerce people in unity, and to be morally just when doing so. The Secret Sharer, Antigone, and Gattica all have examples of a legitimate or illegitimate authority. The first aspect of a legitimate authority figure is that they are knowledgeable.
Impartiality is a principle of justice that focuses on the main criteria or overall goal of what one is trying to accomplish without being bias or prejudice against someone. Universality simply says that I should only act in ways that I believe others should act as well.
It appears to violate the law of causation: Every effect must have a cause; the same cause always produces the same effects. Free Will denies that it is a cause due to the effect of something else. Since a person 's choice is not an effect, we can assume that the law of causation is not relevant to free will. What is the relationship between the law of causation and free will? In a sense, causality is needed for free will to exist, because an essential part of free will is the idea that we cause our own actions.
In the case of lying, in order for the lie done out of fear of consequences to be of moral worth, the maxim would have to specify that in certain circumstances it is ok to lie. Since this is situation dependent it cannot be universal and because of this it cannot work within Kant’s philosophy (Kant 70-71). Kant believed a good will is good in itself and not due to the outcome or its effects (Kant 62). In comparing the two situations of telling the truth, one done for the sake of duty is done in good will and the other for fear is done for its outcome. The point of his work is to establish the groundwork and guidelines to a person’s actions and in this quote, he shows that in order for the maxim to be universal there must be not stipulations to it, even if the result is the
Every person/thing that has the ability to act and think rationally should use their judgment to govern themselves and how they act with each other (4:439) If every rational being acts rationally (morally) they ought to not interfere with another 's autonomy of will Rational beings have the ability to cause unique events or interactions through the actions of free will. Autonomy & Freedom [4:446-448] How is the concept of Freedom key to explaining the role of autonomy in Kant 's theory? Kant argues that heteronomy (a military state, lack of democracy) is immoral because people are not following rational will (SEP,
In answering this theory, to preserve individual property, a governmental authority is needed. As he mentions, “For in government, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possessions of land is determined by positive constitutions”( Locke,CP21) The role of Locke’s property doctrine is a way to emphasize the need for a set of laws that protects man;s property and solves the problem presented
Psychological egoism may be a self-centered and self-motivated act but there are also theory that proves that egoism is acceptable and these are; the conditional and rational egoism. Conditional egoism was described as ethically acceptable or right if it leads to ethically satisfactory ends while rational egoism claims that the promotion of one’s own interests is always in accordance with reason. However, in relation to the counter-argument the utmost and greatest provocative protagonist of rational egoism is Ayn Rand which he claims