But unlike earlier philosophers, such as Socrates who were concerned with how to live a good/ethical life, and famously said ‘the unexamined life is hardly worth living’, both Nietzsche and Sartre are concerned with being and existence. The first and most important tenet of Existentialist thought is that Man Is Free. Nietzsche believed that the ‘will to power’, was the primary drive and the source of all creative activity and the key to human freedom. It was the all-important way to achieve freedom of the individual and that absolute objective truth of the world was an illusion and our search for such a truth is bred from fear. While having much in common with Nietzsche, both are atheistic existentialists, Sartre proposed that man is nothing but what he makes of himself and therefore by taking responsibility for his actions he can change his life and create a new Man.
A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
It does not settle the west. It does not educate.” Thoreau also uses powerful imagery in order to persuade his readers towards his ideals. He believed that one must be conscious of the laws they choose to obey and disobey, whether or not they are in the minority. The people should not be tricked into believing that neither the government nor the majority will know what is right and what is wrong. Instead, Thoreau remarks that it is up to every man to decide for himself what is right based on his moral standards and ethics.
In this case with healthcare, based on what Kant is about and the way he goes about ethics, I do not see him being in favor of this act of giving healthcare to all citizens of the United States. The deontological theory also states that happiness does not matter when it comes to making decisions regarding rules and regulations, Immanuel Kant could care less about whos happy and whos not with the decisions he makes. Therefore, Kant would not be supportive of this theory of healthcare for all of those who care concerned. Pleasure and pain also are not valid in Kants theory so whether he is providing units of pleasure or units of pain, it really does not matter to him. That is why Mills is the perfect fit for this concept of healthcare to all concerned because he wants to provide the highest unit of hedons to the
Categorical imperatives leave no room for ifs, they are absolutes, however morality is a concept that is relative to human beings, is it a concept of our mind? Can we ever know the answer to my previous question? Kant believes that there is just one maxim that each action embodies, so we can test the morality of the act by looking if we can universalise the maxim, however there are so many variables of those maxims that may lead to a given action, some of these may be able to universalise, some won't be, and that in itself is a flaw of Kant's categorical imperative. Kant stated himself: "One should only act on a principle that one can will to be universal law". This is how that quote works: If we decide to lie, we imagine what would happen if everybody lied, lying itself would become normal, and the concept of truth (and lying itself) would disappear.
Joseph Fletcher a theologian, who first articulated situation ethics through the bases of absolute love, agape. He believed that there are no universal moral rules because each case and situation is unique and therefore deserves a unique solution or approach. His ethical theory was based on the six fundamental principles; the first principle is that ‘love only is always good’ which is the belief that “Only one ‘thing’ is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all.” This belief that nothing else has intrinsic values, allows flexibility of a moral decision. For example a lie isn’t intrinsically wrong; it’s wrong if it hurts someone but it can be right if it’s for the “best interests” of that person. This explains why Fletcher strongly disagrees with Intrinsic Fallacy which asserts that ‘good’ or ‘bad’ properties are in the actions e.g.
Rand says “Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears…” (qtd. The Ayn Rand Institute 1). Consciousness, therefore, is to distinguish reality, not to fashion or form it around a personal belief. Consequently, Objectivists reject all forms of a supernatural or any beliefs unfounded in fact. In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach.
“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification.
Milgram’s conclusion really advocates King’s belief, because the surprising conclusion of obedience to authority is what King does not believe to be the way of social relations. In the period of segregation, no one was doing anything even though they knew it was wrong because the government was the authority. So King opposes obedience based on his
He decided that not taking any action is the best action. While source one and source two feel like they have a collective responsibility to the world, source two believes that if he does nothing to harm the world he does not need to do anything to help make it better. Source two also leads on source three’s statement that cannot find the correct explanation and theory as to why the world is the way it is. Source two believes the world is a mess because of what people DO to it and does not think that maybe it is a mess because of the people that DON’T do anything. Therefor he is only just acting on his theory and doing nothing, whilst source three would argue that maybe he should go back a look at the situation again and look for a different theory as to why the world is the way it is and act on the new theory.