Frankfurt justifies his statement that there are no moral obligations specifically ascribed or associated with love by making three considerations about love; the first being “a person who loves has no obligation to continue loving” (pg. 5) and uses this consideration to go on and say that falling out of love does not constitute a breach of any moral imperative, despite whatever pain our leaving may cause to the other half of the relationship. The second consideration is that “love may make no difference whatsoever to the beloved” (pg. 6). In this he is discussing the absence of moral responsibilities in the context of unrequited love. Frankfurt’s third and final consideration in his argument is that “the importance of loving does not derive …show more content…
His first consideration is that we are entirely capable of falling out of love, which is a completely correct statement when you take it at face value, we can do that, it’s a fact. However when Frankfurt states that this justifies his statement of the absence of a moral imperative it becomes quite a bit more complex. On a very basic level something can be considered immoral when it causes another person harm, therefore even when one stops loving another the moral obligation to “let them down gently” is there, this notion that even though you do not love the other person anymore is inconsequential to the fact that you are morally obliged to endeavour to cause as little harm to the other person as possible, and why? At one point you loved them. There is a residual effect that love has on the ending of a relationship that is ignored throughout Frankfurt’s argument which can perhaps best be understood by examining the relationship of a parent and child, in this example the parent and the child have no love for each other, and now the parent is on his deathbed. Most likely the child will visit the parent he no longer loves, not because he is obliged …show more content…
But Frankfurt makes two assumptions that render this argument as flawed: he limits the scope of his philosophy to people loving people, and he assumes that for a moral obligation to exist in a loving relationship, love must be reciprocal. The error of these assumptions is apparent if you examine the way patriotism works. A patriot will be willing to die to protect his country; they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice because they love their country. Looking at the other side of this situation and the country does not even know who that patriot is, the sacrifices and moral obligations a patriot makes and fulfils, to defend his country make very little to no difference to the country. this makes a large part of Frankfurt’s second theory redundant however taken at the level that Frankfurt presents it at there is definitely some truth to his opinion that moral obligation is absent from situations of unrequited personal love. His third consideration is his most legitimate one, where he says that he believes “that it is possible to give a better explanation of the unquestionable truth that loving
The conclusion is that since God exists (due to the theistic nature of Divine Command Theory), then morality is determined by his word.
...t then, a page later, assumes without argument that altruistic considerations provide everyone with prima facie reasons to act. Understandably, he then treats "Why should I be moral?" as something more complicated than a request for a reason. The trouble is that Sterba’s "altruistic reasons" are among the things Foot calls moral considerations. Thus, he has not engaged Foot’s argument; he has made exactly the assumption her argument challenges.
Now, against Unger’s Pretty Demanding Dictate, there might be conflicting views proposed by the defenders of Murphy and Cullity. Murphy and Cullity would both agree that Unger’s Pretty Demanding Dictate is too demanding on us and therefore should have a limit at which point we become free from moral obligations. However, each author holds a different reason for supporting this over-demanding objection; Murphy argues for fairness as a constraint on moral obligation while Cullity argues for self-interest as a constraint.
thus know what is best not to do to someone else. (i.e. don’t need to
that he sees his love as a confusion of emotions, and that it is not
too was not a love but rather an attempt to find something in his life
However, in 1972 a woman named Phillipa Foot presented an argument against this claim in her paper entitled, “Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives.” Although she asserts in the paper that Kant is incorrect, an analysis of her argument may reveal that she does actually agree with him to an extent, but merely considers his account of categorical imperatives to be incomplete. In other words, moral imperatives may be categorical in the sense that they are unconditional, but not in the sense that they themselves provide agents with reasons to act in a certain way.
In the book The Reason for God, Timothy Keller touches on and debates many issues that arise on both the religious and non-religious sides. From Kellers’ writing, it is clear to see that having a moral obligation is a result of the existence of God. This is backed up by the points of God being the playwright, the clue of beauty, and the issues surrounding human rights and dignity.
To begin, “On Morality'; is an essay of a woman who travels to Death Valley on an assignment arranged by The American Scholar. “I have been trying to think, because The American Scholar asked me to, in some abstract way about ‘morality,’ a word I distrust more every day….'; Her task is to generate a piece of work on morality, with which she succeeds notably. She is placed in an area where morality and stories run rampant. Several reports are about; each carried by a beer toting chitchat. More importantly, the region that she is in gains her mind; it allows her to see issues of morality as a certain mindset. The idea she provides says, as human beings, we cannot distinguish “what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’';. Morality has been so distorted by television and press that the definition within the human conscience is lost. This being the case, the only way to distinguish between good or bad is: all actions are sound as long as they do not hurt another person or persons. This is similar to a widely known essay called “Utilitarianism'; [Morality and the Good Life] by J.S. Mills with which he quotes “… actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.';
many times men and women alike sacrifice their lives for morals and values that are to
It looks as though, even in this deliberately simplified case, means-end reasoning, combined with some knowledge of the world, is enough to tell us something about what he ought to do. This is not, to be sure, a moral ‘ought,’ but we seem to have generated a normative conclusion, an ought-judgment of a modest sort, without appealing to any mysterious non-natural properties ...
In order to understand divine command theory we must first understand the nature of God and Morality. So we will start by taking a look at what makes an action moral. Once we understand what makes an action moral, we can then try to understand the author's’ viewpoint on the divine command theory of ethics. Understanding the viewpoint will allow us to dissect the author’s viewpoints and come up with counter-arguments that the author must then contend with.
Hate, a passionate dislike for something or someone, has taken part of every war in the world, whether it is a political or civil one. Macklemore, the rapper of the song “Same Love”, uses powerful lyrics and imagery in many of his songs. It is in “Same Love” that he raps about a social issue that the world has been dealing with since, some could argue, the beginning of time. In the song “Same Love” he uses his rap to speak to everyone who can make a change in this world. “Same Love” by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis bring awareness to the unjust issue of homophobia by giving people the information they need to obtain a voice and stand up for humans who have had their rights stolen.
No love is greater than mom's love, no care is greater than dad's care." With these stories both characters have problems with their parents, from one parent dead to another parent asking too much.
leaves a stain upon the heart of a child and one that the child will always question his /herself if