The intentions of lying to a friend when seen through Bok’s eyes are accepted because there is no hidden agenda for the person to be harmed in the end. Bok would view lies that are told to friends as white lies, which he feels is acceptable. Lies are told to friends to try and shield them from being hurt; therefore you are caring about their feelings and caring about their well-being over all.
3) What is the relationship between freedom and rationality according to Fried? Freedom, Rationality, and Consent almost always go together (for example, social contract theory). Does Bok's argument about consenting to deception undermine this relationship? Why/why not and How/ how not?
Fried says that freedom and rationality are basis for moral personality. When a man is free he is able to make rational decisions because his judgment perceives his actions to be correct. The rational man judges what is alright and what is correct for himself. We are free when we use our rational judgment to come to a conclusion that is best for us. Freedom and rationality are the same aspects of moral capacity.
Moral capacity is an important feature of what it means to be a human. Moral capacity is the capacity which is to recognize the choice to act and to recognize the results that will come about from the choices that have been made.
The social contract theory, is where a persons' moral and/or political obligations are based on a contract among them to form the society that they live in. Freedom, Rationality, and Consent plays a role in the social contract theory because without those three things the contract could not exist the way it does. A rational individual voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain benefits of political or...
... middle of paper ...
...of truth, because there is a group of people coming together to set up what is true for other individuals. The individuals following the discourse of true are living in the truth. For the conception of reality, the individual cannot live in the truth because they know that they are lying to themselves because they want something to be a reality. An individual cannot live in the truth when they know what they are trying to make reality really is not.
In the discourse, there are things that can really be true so no one second guesses it. Each society has its regime of truth which are the “general politics” of truth, which is the type of discourse which accepts and makes functions true. So with these general politics of truth being set up from the beginning, individuals are more likely to live in the truth because they follow rules that have been set up before them.
In order to succeed one needs truth. Everyone is capable of making decisions, however, truth is a key accessory to making such decisions better. One must be aware that what one believes, imagines, and desires to be true, are all different (Blackburn, 2009). Defining truth is difficult for some claim truth is concrete and can be proved in a structural manner. Others simply avoid the definition saying it is too abstract to be narrowed down into a single statement the world can agree on. For example, students have different ways of learning, thus to each student, a particular learning style is the best way to learn, and that is the student’s truth. Many have tried to tackle the definition of truth and from it came about the Correspondence Theory,
"Forms of life resemble what I call, 'realities'. Forms of life are always form of life forming. Realities are always realities becoming" (Mehan & Wood, Five Features of Reality, 65). What is Reality? Is reality what everyone believes in or does everyone have his or her own reality? Can your reality change what you believe in? Is reality a belief, or is it what you believe in your reality? Can your reality be right or wrong?
Some Philosophers believe that free will is not required in moral responsibility. John Fischer states that “human agents do not have free will, but they are still morally responsible for their choices and actions.” Fischer is basically saying that moral responsibility is not as strong as free will (Timpe).
Everyone always thinks they hold the truth. The Word of God can be a convincing argument for those who rely on faith to survive. The word of man, however, makes a stronger point, as it demonstrates how foolish and artificial our beliefs can sometimes be, and how they can change and evolve with time.
Returning, the social contract is an ideology that developed centuries ago. This contract is still very prominent in today’s society. When we are born and declared a “United States citizen” your rights are automatically protected by the government. As you age new forms of the social contract develop, for example, when a man approaches the age of 18 he can give up certain liberties, like voluntarily signing up for the military, to enroll into the draft. In return for signing up for the draft, he will be able to collect monetary, social security funds when he reaches a certain
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines a social contract as an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each. Social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes defends the claim that it is never rational to behave unjustly. According to Hobbes, our human nature prevents us from naturally living at peace with one another. Hobbes depicts this by describing a pre-political state of nature in which people constantly war. To move beyond this state of nature, we recognize the need to seek peace, the need to give up our hostile rights, and the need to keep our agreements. Accordingly, we enter into a social contract with one another and establish a
For ages, Philosophers have struggled with the dispute of whether human actions are performed “at liberty” or not. “It is “the most contentious question, of metaphysics, the most contentious science” (Hume 528). In Section VIII of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume turns his attention in regards to necessary connection towards the topics “Of Liberty and Necessity.” Although the two subjects may be one of the most arguable questions in philosophy, Hume suggests that the difficulties and controversies surrounding liberty (i.e. free will) and necessity (i.e. causal determinism) are simply a matter of the disputants not having properly defined their terms. He asserts that all people, “both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy” (Hume 522). Hume’s overall strategy in section VIII is to adhere by his own claim and carefully define “liberty” and ‘necessity” and challenge the contemporary associations of the terms by proving them to be compatible.
Truth by dictionary definition is a wholly objective concept: it’s described as “that that is in accordance with the fact or reality,” assuming a single reality-defined as the conjectured state of events-viewed through an omniscient and impartial lens. However once you introduce individual humans with all their prejudices into the equation the truth becomes subjective, every person allowing their personal set of ideals to cloud their judgement and act on their definition of the “truth”, whatever it may be. This unfortunate yet inescapable quality of humans is explored in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, a novel in which each character’s set of ideals and prejudices governs their behaviours and allows it to get in the way of the truth. Set
Thomas Hobbes’s social contract theory is minimally related to that of cultural relativism. Both deal with human nature and the search for peace. But while cultural relativism is in some ways a noteworthy theory, the social contract theory is the only one of the two that could logically work in an active environment.
Freedom is a human value that has inspired many poets, politicians, spiritual leaders, and philosophers for centuries. Poets have rhapsodized about freedom for centuries. Politicians present the utopian view that a perfect society would be one where we all live in freedom, and spiritual leaders teach that life is a spiritual journey leading the soul to unite with God, thus achieving ultimate freedom and happiness. In addition, we have the philosophers who perceive freedom as an inseparable part of our nature, and spend their lives questioning the concept of freedom and attempting to understand it (Transformative Dialogue, n.d.).
Friend, Celeste. "Social Contract Theory [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hamilton College, 15 Oct. 2004. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. .
Truth can be defined as conformity to reality or actuality and in order for something to be “true” it must be public, eternal, and independent. If the “truth” does not follow these guidelines then it cannot be “true.” Obviously in contrary anything that goes against the boundaries of “truth” is inevitably false. True and false, in many cases does not seem to be a simple black and white situation, there could sometimes be no grounds to decide what is true and what is false. All truths are a matter of opinion. Truth is relative to culture, historical era, language, and society. All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths) and there is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true (Hammerton, Matthew). A thing to me can be true while for the other person it may not be true. So it depends from person to person and here the role of perception comes into play. As truth is a vital part of our knowledge, the distinctions between what is true and what is false, shape and form the way we think and should therefore be considered of utmost importance. We often face this situation in real life through our learning curves and our pursuit of knowledge to distinguish between what is true and what is false. The idea of there being an absolute truth or also known as universal truth has been debated for centuries. It depends on many factors such as reason, perception and emotion.
c. Depth: what extent of freedom are we talking about? The freedom that is given by the constitution or the freedom that is given as a natural right.
To what degree is a rational agent allowed to pursue his own goals or to choose one action over another? Both Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill answer the question of what makes a person free. Two different conceptions of individual freedom and autonomy are present by them and for this reason these philosopher differ on why it is that freedom and self-governance should be valued. In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant puts forward a normative conception of freedom and autonomy where by one has the capacity to deliberate and give himself laws. It is based on this claim that he makes his argument that autonomy should be valued because it is the sole principle of our moral law. In On Liberty, Mill propounded that freedom was doing as one pleases, and unlike Kant promoted a personal account of autonomy wherein an individual is encouraged to decide for one’s self one what ever course of action they desired- often regardless of a particular moral. The good consequence of progress was the core reason that Mill felt that one should value this type of autonomy.
The title as given by IB implies that there is a difference between something that is true and something that is believed to be true. It suggests that different ways of knowing can portray a truth. This point is problematic, because I do not think that something that is believed to be true and truth itself can be differentiated. In fact, I believe that it is difficult to acquire logical, unbiased truth; I think that the closest man can gather about truth can also be called “consistent knowledge”, meaning that the information is knowledge that is unchanging. To what extent can different ways of knowing affect a display of truth?