The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretions, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume. There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. Determinism, or the belief a person lacks free will and all events including human actions are determined by forces outside the will of an individual contrasts the entire premise of free will. Rene Descartes formulates his philosophical work through deductive reasoning and follows his work with his system of reasoning. David Hume analyzes philosophical questions with inductive reasoning and skeptism with a strong systematic order.
Human Nature as Competitive. Pg. 217-222) Presbey Gail M., and Karsten J. Struhl, and Richard E. Olsen, The Philosophical Quest: A Cross-Cultural Reader, United States of America: McGraw-Hill, 2000. (John Hospers. Free Will and Psychoanalysis.
Undoubtedly, there is a strong link that connects these concepts, but it is apparent that there is no absolute definition on how they should operate and interact, so it is up to each individual to decide for him- or herself what is morality and how - if it does - it leads to justice. It is highly subjective and inconstant, as nothing in our world is eternal and everything changes with time. It is essential to have the ability to be flexible and be able to bend the accustomed principles in order to be just and moral in relation to others, as we live in times of such a great diversity of opinions. What one thinks is fair and ethical, might be unjust and immoral for the other. Ideally, that is where the law comes in to mediate the divergence of opinions, if the law itself is
An Existentialist Meaning of Life Arguably one of the most pondered questions in philosophical thought has been, “What is the meaning of life?” Humans have been put on this earth with the knowledge of self awareness and the ability to manipulate the environments that they inhabit to a greater extent than any other species on the planet. Ultimately one must wonder what purpose there is to one’s own existence and define what it means for them to be. Presupposing the existence of different human beings in the external world, there would undoubtedly be varying opinions regarding the ultimate purpose of existence. Several key thinkers in modern existentialism provide the necessary framework for establishing a so-called “meaning of life”. Marcel, Sartre, Heidegger and Camus, refer to the theoretical frameworks of subjectivity, freedom, responsibility and purpose, in modern existentialism.
Quine's Physicalist Epistemology Quine, in his article "In Praise of the Observational Sentence," claims to establish naturalized epistemology and the work of science as a realist mapping of the world. Invoking Rorty's criticisms of foundationalism from Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, this paper analyzes Quine's observational sentence by discussing the unresolved issue of justification. It discusses whether a causal explanation can be a justified true belief and adequate "grounding" of knowledge. I suggest that the criticisms of Quine bypass similarities between Rorty's position and Quine's. Such polemic positions - characteristic of the postmodern/modern debate - imply a false dichotomy.
Rather, I argue that both types of utilitarianism could avoid the conflicts mentioned before, and could account for the significance of justice and honesty. It is suitable to define justice and honesty before evaluating act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. To our common understanding, justice is that people should get what they are due (Audi), while honesty requires one to tell the truth, and to be trustworthy. Although in extreme situations, the limits given by justice and honesty can be reasonably crossed, it is still widely accepted that this kind of limits should be well-respected (Deigh 102). In short, justice and honesty are moral rules that can rarely be violated.
: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Dworkin, R., “Liberalism,” in Public and Private Morality, ed. S. Hampshire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 127. Feinberg, J. “The Idea of a Free Man,” in Education and the Development of Reason, 161.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011. Web. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/#BasDis. Kant, Immanuel.
He believes that there are no objective and independent values in the world, but he believes that statements about moral (and aesthetic) judgments are quite literal in claiming objective facts. Basically, Mackie is an error theorist, so he believes that judgments have a truth value even though there are no possible objective values that could ever make them true. The crux of his position is an ontological view about the absence of objective values. Mackie?s second step in defining his position is to set its boundaries. When he speaks of values, he means not only moral values but any sort of values that may be believed objective, such as aesthetic ones, though his focus is on the moral ones.
The problems of interaction argument is a well structured rebuttal against property dualism, mostly because it brings about the issue that the mind is not a physical entity, thus it 's not possible for a non-physical substance to interact with a physical substance. According to scientism, this statement is correct but it can be refuted through a different perspective. A dualist could respond to this and bring out multiple points. The first one being that yes, the mind does act upon or bodies and the issue is only apparent, and does not exist. A good example of this can be pain.