Hume would argue that man may have a duty to be happy, but the degree to which we are happy cannot be judged morally. It is not true that the happier one is the more moral one is. Hume argued in his Treatise that reason doesn’t influence the will, but Kant says that reason influence the will, but does not guide one’s actions. Hume’s position on passions governing moral judgments fits today’s society well. Socrates and Plato may have wrote on what was true in their society, but their positions on reasoning being the criterion for moral actions is no longer valid in the 20th Century.
According to Baron Kant’s position on acting from duty is disturbing to some opponents because there would be no difference between the person acting solely from duty and the person acting from duty and wanting to act Baron also offers an explanation that many people may have trouble with Kant’s position on morality or duty because they do not understand what Kant was speaking of. ‘Duty’ for Kant does not mean social expectations or adhering to laws but rather the actions a person would take if they were fully rational In other words the actions a person would take absent from obligation, inclination, or any other pull that does not constitute
It would be wrong, for example, to make a promise with the intention of breaking it because if everyone did that, no one would believe anyone's promises. In ethics, Kant tried to show that doing one's duty consisted in following only those principles that one would accept as applying equally to all. Kant objects most of all to the principle that one's own happiness can be the ground of morality. He rejects this possibility because well-being is not always proportionate to virtuous behavior. By this I mean that one manÕs well being is not always universal to all.
His counterclaims to some theories are rather redundant and weak. He clearly disagrees with Nietzsche’s take on truth, but did not provide convincing backup claims to defend his position of why the question “What is truth?” is unnecessary. In addition, Lynch’s argument towards the redundancy theory is also not clear and satisfactory enough because simply dismissing objections as blind generalizations gives a sense that he has nothing better to say to defend his position. One of the theories mentioned believes that power is the source of motivation behind truth to which I have to disagree. There are many factors, like self-interest, morality, and knowledge, that motivate the will to truth and power is only one of the many and cannot be used as the overarching factor.
Strawson argues that determinism, which is the idea that any and everything is predetermined and inevitable in nature, does not necessarily have to be true in order for us to claim that we are not morally responsible for any of our actions. In essence, whether or not there is an external force that determines our actions, we cannot be held morally responsible for being who we are. First, moral responsibility is deserving to be praised or blamed for one’s actions based on one’s moral obligations. By his standards, our predetermined fate is ultimately morally responsible for what we do and who we are. According to Strawson, free will is simply not real because that would result in us being truly responsible for our actions as a result of being able to exercise that will.
Skeptics believe that is impossible to verify truth, thus we can have no knowledge since do not have truth(Henry 2002,101-102). They do believe that we can have beliefs, as seen by the fact that they believe we cannot have ... ... middle of paper ... ...e was an agreement. But if it was only a second than it cannot be considered knowledge as knowledge is always a true and can be maintained as such. Therefore the agreement is not knowledge as it is not able to remain true, even if such an agreement had been made. Due to this Henry’s argument is incorrect.
Ingratitude is certainly not a matter of fact then, and so it must be discounted because it “arises from complication of circumstances w... ... middle of paper ... ...f his inner being. His sentiments, if only for himself, remain within him. “One thing can always be a reason, why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection” (87) In conclusion, I believe that Hume thinks that reason, while not completely useless, is not the driving force of moral motivation. Reasons are a means to sentiments, which in turn are a means to morality, but without reasons there can be still sentiments.
As well, Glaucon also wants to prove that an immoral life is better than a moral. He provides few examples to support his theories toward Socrates during their battle of wits. While I understand his theories I choose to disagree because there are underlining circumstances that show why a man may choose to be immoral. And in many instances those choices are not selected by preference but by necessity. I agree with Glaucon to the extent that wealth and power tend to lead individuals to immoral actions, but I disagree that this observation applies to all individuals if they were to face the same obstacles.
In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.
Just by our attempt to answer this question we would already be displaying the need to act morally. This is more clearly seen with the difficulty is asking a similar type of question, “Why act rationally?” According to Singer many philosophers reject the question “Why act morally?” because it is parallel to this question of acting rationally. It would take rationality to explain why one should act rationally. Thus defeating the need to explain the importance of rationality in the first place. “…it needs no justification, because it cannot be intelligibly questioned unless it is already presupposed” (Singer 316).