Kant talks about the Summon Bonum, ‘’the real object of our will’’, he says that we cannot achieve this without our own morality entering into the equation for making decisions. This means that any set of absolute rules for everything would not allow us to
The issues with this option mainly deal with the definition of a theistic God. If morality is independent of God and God’s commands only exist because the moralities of actions are predetermined, then God is no longer sovereign. If morals are independent of God’s commands then God is not sovereign over morality. This goes against the definition of a theistic God which defines God as the creator and ruler over everything. It also puts limits on God’s power.
If you are being governed than you are not truly independent. In my belief to be truly independent you must be able to do what you want when you want and have nobody tell you what you can or can not do. The only true way to have independence is to make your own decisions instead of basing your decision on what society thinks. How can a person be truly independent if they have to do what other people think is the right thing to do? The answer to that question is that they can not be independent.
Distribution is one the most controversial matter in Political Philosophy as far as Social Justice is concerned. In this essay, I will discuss about the capability approach as the plausible factor to consider when devising a distribution scheme. The capability approach takes a comprehensive or holistic approach which considers the abilities, functionings, opportunities, the being of an individual and other factors as well. The capability approach is a theoretical framework that involves two central normative claims that the freedom to attain well-being is of fundamental moral importance; and it needs to be understood in terms of people's capabilities, that is, their actual opportunities to do and be what they value and have reason to sustain
Are they merely expressing opinions or stating matters of fact? Can we really tell right from wrong? Many people would answer this by stating that what is believed to be right or wrong is essential for any discussion about our behavior. If this is the case then we could never have a meaningful discussion about morality. Ethical statements are not just about observable facts, but are often statements about what we believe should happen and so are not very easy to establish as true or false, as they are expressions of points of view not shared be everyone.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
Open Roads Peter van Inwagen thinks a compatibilists position is confusing, considering that it should be reason and logic how “choices” of an individual will determine free will and how it is that they define free will and a physically possible choice may determine an outcome. It is not clear when free will and determinism are compatible. For this, Inwagen demonstrates two views to understand and clear the confusion about compatibilist position. He says the easiest view to understand is the first one that gives a clear idea about futures that do not have a physically possible connection with the present are “open” to and individual. Second view is more difficult because compatibilist talk about reasonable futures.
Something important to consider when looking at the theory of relativism is that it is just a theory. I personally believe it to be a good theory in general, but it should not be interpreted as a foundation for a belief structure. Nor should it be applied to every set of circumstances encountered throughout life. It is purely illogical to assume that one single theory will provide us with the proper guidance required to successfully negotiate every “right or wrong” decision. Relativism allows people to understand that individuals develop belief structures
Because it engages the whole self without a fixed yardstick it can be called a personal reflection…. [I]n this reflection the self is in question; what is at stake is the definition of those inchoate evaluations which are sensed to be essential to our identity (117). Taylor makes this claim about responsibility for self in opposition to Sartre’s characterization of the human condition as nothingness and absolute freedom. Sartre derives from this condition an understanding of freedom as the radical, infinite openness of the freedom of our choices and concludes that it is this freedom that characterizes our fundamental moral dilemma. Taylor argues that it is not the weight of the openness that defines our moral selves or the moral dilemmas we face, but the fact that various choices necessarily blind and pull us in different directions.
In the question being analyzed, we are meant to find out how to determine the “knowledge that we value”. But what does it mean to value knowledge? Does something have to be true for us to value it? Knowledge is defined as acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience or report. But is this necessarily the same as truth?