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.
The answer to this question will vary. Some people are moral realists and hold that moral facts are objective facts that are out there in the world, these people believe that things are good or bad independently of us. Moral values such as goodness and badness are real properties of people in the same way that rough and smooth are properties of physical objects. This view is often referred to as cognitive language. Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false.
Opposition also exists within man and his self, separating the mind and the body. Plato believed the world existed as a “reflection of an ideal world existing on some other plane”. On the other hand, Plato and Lao-Tze agreed on several different aspects. For one, both thinkers believed leaders should be picked based on their knowledge, i.e., the greatest minds present. Thus, leaders should be enlightened philosophically.
Rachels discusses Descarte’s thoughts on the dreaming state, and how if we can be made to believe that our senses are correct there, than they cannot be trusted. The author discusses Philosophical thoughts on Idealism, in which it is considered that our perceptions of physical objects are not “real”, they are only mental ideas as recorded by our senses and imagined by our brains. Rachels discusses the attempts by Descartes to find a foundation for knowledge by identifying absolute truths, and concludes that the task may too difficult, or impossible. Quotes: I found it intriguing where the author wrote, “The mind does not simply record what passes before it; instead, the mind actively interprets experience according to certain built-in principles. Therefore, what we think of as “simple”
On the other hand, the school of freedom or free will believe that the behavior of humans is unpredictable on the basis of precedents but it is a choice of an individual. He can choose to behave and act the way he wants to do such action. Therefore, free will hold the individual responsible for his or her action and behavior. Now, the theory of free will is subjective in its nature and, thus, rejects the scientific explanation of the behavior. The history is full of philosophers who are advocates of determinism, but the freewill school of thought has also been a subject of argument in the history.
Instrumentally rational action is when a goal is not desirable but an induvidual still works out the best way to reach it. Value rational action is when an individual works towards a goal although doesn't know what the outcome will be. Traditional action is a routine action which is done out of habit whilst affectual action is action which is expressed by emotion. Although Weber takes into account the individual choice and focuses on understanding (meanings) when explaining a persons behaviour the four catergories are hard to apply to real situations. Also as we are our own selves and cannot put ourselves in the shoes of someone else we can never really fully understand someone's actions.
Schechtman goes on to say that even though Locke’s view is extremely hard to not to believe, it is not truthful. She then goes on to that even though Locke theory is not true it is also impossible to believe that one can have experiences that they cannot easily recall. Many other philosophers do not completely agree with Locke’s view and work to further elaborate on it. The new philosophers’ views change Locke’s original views on identity. This happens because new philosophers focus more on the concept of memories and not those of consciousness.
They tend to achieve their objectives due to force which eventually causes economic depression and government reforms. These wars are nothing but robbery. The leader thinks that they have to take away the country’s resources and land to feel as if they have conquered this country so others do not try and rise to gain power. There are several reasons why a war will/may be started. For example, a very prominent factor in the starting of war is the want of power.
Berkeley was troubled by the opening of the door to atheism and skepticism as a consequence arising from Locke’s argument. Locke’s view proposed that all knowledge rested on the existence of material objects independent of minds or ideas. Locke held that objects produce ideas in our minds, and that our ideas resemble objects in the material world, but some qualities that objects appear to have are not in the objects but depend on our minds. Meaning, material objects may in reality possess measurable qualities, such as size and weight, but their sense qualities such as color, odor, and taste, depend on human perception. Berkeley felt the distinguishing between material objects and the ideas through which we perceive them does not provide
There has always been great tension between the Rationalists and Empiricists in the quest into knowledge upon the existence of innate ideas and experiential knowledge. Most representatively, Locke, an empiricist, proposes that the doctrine of innate ideas is neither necessary nor conceivable whereas Leibniz objects that it is both reasonable and necessary for accounting for knowledge. In close scrutiny, however, Leibniz does not seem to be engaging directly with Locke’s proposal due to the slight discrepancy in focuses – scope of experience; and content and the psychological understanding of versus the ontological framework or structure needed for the understanding of truths – thereby making Leibniz’s objections futile. In the openings of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke radically propounds against the rationalists that there is no such thing as innate speculative principles and, that all the knowledge we are capable of attaining are derived from “experience” (I.2; II.1.2). Locke tentatively takes “innate principles” to be the very primitive notions or characters that are engraved into the mind from the very beginning of the existence of the soul and therefore refers to that which can be considered inherent to the soul (II.2.1).