Superson’s goal is to defeat the skeptic and does not believe self-interest is sufficient enough to do so. I understand the approach Superson is making about self-interest but I don’t think she is looking at all aspects of the topic. I think people will always act in self-interested ways regardless of the circumstances; people act according to their dispositions, not by force, unless they are being coerced of course. It is human nature to instinctively maximize our personal utility. We act in ways that we see fit, whether or not an act is considered moral is completely dependent upon the individual.
These flaws are usually associated with the fact that they are unable to fulfil the need to gain the answer since they may be biased, however even when these two ways of knowing are put together, they may contradict each other, or do not share the same view on the same exact case, this is what is considered as the conflict. In order to understand and find the answer to the question, the question must be clearly defined, in terms of emotion and reason as well as the idea of the conflict. Emotion is defined as any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking. Simply, emotion is the representation of one's mind when it comes to decision making or confronted with any other serious situation, and it occurs whether the individual consciously or subconsciously aware of it. Such example would be when one feels angered by the fact that the two choices given are not the choices that one desires or when confronted with an insulting joke, one would laugh at the joke, but disgusted or angered by the insult.
Off the Precipice into the Gorge: Why Utilitarianism Can’t Save Us Introduction In his article, “A Critique of Utilitarianism” Bernard Williams is concerned that consequentialism has found plausibility in people’s minds due to a misunderstanding of and negative reaction to non-consequentialist theories.  Though he does not offer an alternative ethical theory, Williams successfully takes on the project of exploring how utilitarianism and those who uncritically embrace it have accepted an unworkable standard for defining right actions. Williams offers a unique and penetrating thesis: to define right action only by reference to whether it produces a good “state of affairs” necessitates a fundamental clash between an agent’s moral character and that allegedly right action.  In its attempt to compensate and maintain viability as a moral theory, utilitarianism smuggles into its calculus the agent’s non-utilitarian-based moral feelings. For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance.
Another weakness is the consequences, in some situations when consequences are too severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful thing to happen. The theory is too rigid, sometimes the consequences can change the rightness or a wrongness of an action, but in this theory the person is judged on the action which can be unfair. It’s inflexible as you should be able to break a rule if the individual’s circumstances warrant it. There is no consideration to human emotion, there are situation where individuals break rules because of emotions, for example if a person is scared they may lie to protect themselves which in Kant’s eyes this would be morally wrong. The theory is a priori, some claim we out our duty a priori but it is also argued we need to refer to experience to work out what is right.
One’s perception is ‘attention dependent’, which means if our attention is elsewhere, we may not notice something that is significant. Therefore, a detail that is significant to one person might be completely insignificant to another. This illustrates the inaccuracy of trusting one’s perception. Another knowledge issue related to the trusting our perceptions is that our biases and emotions play a strong part in colouring our reasoning. Everyone is bias one way or another to certain things in life.
“Sentience” is poorly defined and even more poorly understood. Some people make fine philosophical distinctions among sentience, consciousness, self-awareness, and cognition, whereas others are more careless in using these terms. Fortunately, we need not argue here over how to define these concepts. In whatever sense the pro-choicer means the word he chooses, it invariably has to do with some sort of mental activity. We can distinguish among three levels of “having” mental activity, and, for a dialectical defense of the pro-life position, the distinction among these three levels is more important than distinctions among different types of mental activity.
The focus of the relationship shifts from “this is what I want, so I'll give everyone the same thing" to "let me first understand what they want and then I'll give that to them." It is a more considerate and sensitive moral guideline than its predecessor which ignores the wishes of the recipients in favour of imposing the giver's preferences onto others in a misguided attempt at kindness. The Platinum Rule, or at least its name, might be unfamiliar to most, but
This entails that the identity of the agent often seems relevant to ascertaining what he or she is obligated to do. Deontological moral systems are characterized by a focus upon adherence to independent moral rules or duties. To make the correct moral choices, we have to understand what our moral duties are and what correct rules exist to regulate those duties. When we follow our duty, we are behaving morally. When we fail to follow our duty, we are behaving immorally.
We can keep our assumptions to ourselves but unless we consider all aspects of the situation we are not thinking critically. It is also important to recognize when you have made an assumption and attempt to rid yourself of the assumption, keeping it there will only make matters more difficult. • Fallacies are a mistaken belief, especially one based on an unsound argument. Fallacies in written arguments generally come from some type of news source: Biased material that tries people to believe something though it may just be for their gain. Fallacies in oral arguments are similar to written arguments.
Also, a Satirist should not be confused with a moralist. A moralist has a specific purpose, to reprove in order to correct, and at times may use satiric devices to make his work interesting, yet there is a limit to his use of these devices. The more he uses them, the more destructive his method becomes and ultimately he may fail to achieve his end. A satirist, on the other hand works the other way round. The