In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
Despite being a theory which seemingly encourages acceptance and moral rationality, subjectivism is deemed as flawed on two predominant levels. Firstly, it assumes an infallibility for the speaker that is not justified. And secondly, subjectivism seemingly renders moral disagreement and therefore advancement impossible. Whilst these two objections may seem solid on a logical level, they pose little threat to subjectivism as an undeniable fact of reality. The first argument, that subjectivism creates infallible moral agents, reads as follows.
Nonetheless, both articles are idealistic. In another phrase, they are morally wrong. To get a true understanding of what an essay is saying we must concern ourselves with is what the author is truly trying to convey. There are often hidden messages in writing that inexperienced readers often look over and take for granted. This is the issue that is at stake with both readings of “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift and Garret Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics.” Hardin’s essay that is serious in tone, while Swift’s offers similar views appears to be poking fun by starting at in a serious tone at first glance but in reality is far from it.
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
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.
Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175). That is, Singer is trying to establish that if a being is not sentient, the idea of extending moral consideration to it makes no sense. This negative argument is important, because one common criticism of Singer is that his criterion ends up excluding humans who are no longer sentient (like those in an irreversible coma); Singer is content to accept that consequence, but it is important that he show why the exclusion of some humans by his criterion is not problematic, given that he has criticized other criteria
The issue here is whether a deontological ethical system is the only one which is defensible, i.e. whether it can be defended and accepted philosophically when teleology cannot. This statement is claiming that it is, at the same time implying that teleology is not a defensible ethical system. People may agree with this, as one reason that philosophers might give for saying that a deontological ethical system is the only one that is defensible is because although humans are motivated by their happiness, the problem with this is that it can seem selfish to only think of ones own happiness and it could be argued that being moral involves more than happiness, and more satisfaction can be gained long term from doing something moral than doing something for your own happiness. However, other people may disagree with this and believe that a deontological ethical system is not defensible because it cannot encourage human beings to act morally, as they will not gain enough satisfaction out of doing so, as they would in a teleological ethical system where the ultimate end or goal is human happiness.
), who said “It is exercise alone that supports the spirits and keeps the mind in vigor.” On the other hand, some people hold the notion that exercise is not of specific value to the spirit or the body and they believe that is useless waste of energy. Mark Twain, American writer and humorist (1835-1911), is evidently an advocate of the second opinion as he
This depression would leave him as useless and dull. Passion can motivate us to do wonderful things, but how we harness that passion is what defines us as
Particularly striking in this conception is the notion of inventory, which suggests multiple ontologies and the need to collate. The assumptions about the nature of the world in sociology can be classified into two broad orientations, realism and social constructivism. Realism posits the existence of an objective reality independent of human thoughts and beliefs. Contrary to this position, social constructionism is of the view that reality is not independent of human thoughts and beliefs; rather, it is socially constructed (Oxford dictionary of sociology, 552-553, 609). Berger and Luckmann (1967:15-22) argue that social relativity is inherent in reality and knowledge, hence, its collection is defined by social contexts imperative for sociological analysis.