Normative self-government is the level of intentionality that must contain a very strong sense of control over one’s purpose. The control of the decision one makes, not basing it purely on desire and emotion, is what makes that decision moral. That is why the concept of normative self-government helps guide Christine M. Korsgaard’s understanding of what morality should be shaped like. For instance, Korsgaard believes that a normative self-government helps distinguish the morality between humans and animals (112). The complexity with which we act on a certain action, according to Korsgaard, is not exactly based on one’s intention, but deciding whether to act upon that intention determines whether its moral or not, bringing back this idea of …show more content…
The argument that humans contain morality is not what Korgaard is facing, but rather she is defending her understanding of how morality is achieved inside of a humans mind. Hence, the reason for the normative self-government, which she argues, is the building block for the moral decisions humans make. When discussing the topic of the connection of morality to normative self-government, Korsgaard battles de Waal’s own interpretation of morality. I am not going to dive deep into de Waal’s understanding, but a key point to understand is that he believes that morality is based on emotion. Using de Waal’s understanding, Korsgaard makes normative self-government more clear when she says, “…we can be seen as having adopted that purpose. Our purposes may be suggested to us by our desires and emotions”(112). While noting de Waal’s understanding that emotions come into play with our decisions, Korgaard wants to make the point that acting upon those decisions is what really determines morality, concluding that the consideration of desires while making a decision is a deeper level of assessment that humans clearly possess (112). The ability to make a deeper level of assessment, according to Korsgaard, provides the basis of moral decisions in humans. When normative self-government applies to a decision made by a human, the essence of morality is shown based on …show more content…
Normative self-government seems present a complex way of thinking where one’s moral decisions are not just based on the desires or emotion. Emphasizing the point that making a moral decision after the consideration of one’s desires or emotions is what Korgaard wants to convey through this understanding of normative self-government. Explaining normative self-government through humans and animals, while also distinguishing what separates them, makes the effect on morality more prevalent. The normative self-government brings out this idea of a more complex thinking that can be subjective to the species depending on their level of consciousness. As shown, there can be flaws in the concept of normative self-government but for the sake of her argument it is credible. Normative self-government emphasizes on the importance of the control of one’s action. That control over the action, whether it can or cannot be taught or developed over time, is what makes that decision
“Religion Gives Meaning to Life” outlines how life is given meaning through theistic religion in Louis Pojman’s opinion. In this short reading, autonomy is described as in the meaning of freedom or self-governing and argues how it is necessary for ideal existence. By being honest and faithful with ourselves shows how we can increase our autonomy. “I think most of us would be willing to give up a few autonotoms for an enormous increase in happiness” (553) shows our willingness to practice good purpose.
Whereas people and certain things such as our heart pumping blood have purposes as well but just different types of purposes. Each purpose is determined at whatever the object, animal, or person’s intentions are. Each movement has a purpose or intention depending on how you look at it. I see this correlated to her argument of normative self governing because animals can not follow or create self governing laws just like humans because they serve different purposes and have different desires. Each animal however, does have their own morals that they follow depending on their desires. Some animals have different customs and things they find important in order to fulfill their intentions. At this rate the animal is aware of it’s purposes and how to achieve them. She believes that human beings are the only animals who live under the type of society where people follow a specific set of morals. When humans become aware of the morals they become aware of evaluations, consequences and self consciousness. As a Kantian, Korsgaard favors whether the end result will be beneficial. The reason she believes in intentions and desire is because of that fact that she believes in looking at the end goal in order to figure out the right and wrong
Decision-making would be so much easier if we all maintained our autonomy in making the decision, however, because our decisions do not always abide by autonomistic values paternalistic intervention must occur. The purpose of autonomy is to allow us to choose to do things that affect only ourselves and does not negatively affect those around us. Unfortunately, many choices do, whether we know it or not, involve those in our environment. Paternalism is in place to protect the rights that are in our best interest and that will benefit us in the long run. Paternalistic intervention occurs when decisions are no longer in our best interests. If the decision is like to be regretted and irreversible in the future, paternalism is again justified. Autonomy is a fleeting concept, for as soon as someone chooses to do something that will later cause an addiction, his or her autonomy is lost. They no longer have the decision to do or not to do the action; it becomes a need.
Are our decisions subject to the inclinations of our past actions, as behaviorist would proclaim? Or do we have governance over our actions, or in other words, free will, as Humanists would argue? Furthermore, what is “right?” Is it to succumb to the societal and religious expectations of “good?” Or is it to act on one’s own intent? These are the questions that Alex from Stanley Kubrick’s Film adaptation of Burgess’ “A Clockwork Orange” and Hamlet from Shakespeare’s celebrated tragedy both struggle in answering as they
In this society, one does not think, speak, or act, in a way that is beneficial for oneself. Every single citizen is indoctrinated with the belief that by acting for one’s own benefit, they are sinning. From a young age, they are taught the mantra of their society, “We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State. Amen” (21).
She calls her view of free will the Asymmetry of Reason View, giving people “responsibility depend(ing) on the ability to act in accordance with the True and the Good.” Wolf believes that when an individual is faced with a decision between right and wrong, if they arrive to making their choice, right or wrong, based on “psychological determination,” then that constitutes as freedom in a deterministic world. This freedom can still exist if there are no alternative decisions available, Wolf argues. In her Deep Self View, Wolf uses the source of ones decision making to determine one’s responsibility for their actions. Deep-self, or a person’s moral responsibility, is what makes one responsible for their actions. This only applies if this person’s actions, however, are “within the control” of his will, and these desires then have to be acknowledge by or “deeper” self. The acknowledgement and decision making process of acting on these desires is what makes us responsible for our actions, Wolf asserts. Sane deep-self, the way to control one’s desires of the deep-self, is proposed by Wolf after the problem of JoJo the Dictator. JoJo’s father was his role model, and when he grows knowing no other way to control his people, and uses the same methods his father used when he was dictator. Wolf believes that JoJo cant be held responsible for these terrible things because
In this essay I shall explore the question of moral responsibility and free will, by looking at, and comparing, ideas that stem from a Kantian philosophical position, and those that stem from a naturalist philosophical position. I will also consider the implications that follow from each position, when considering the issue of punishment. Furthermore, I will show that although Kantian and naturalist philosophers typically differ in some aspects, such as their concept of the source of free will, they find themselves in much the same position when it comes to determining when moral responsibility is applicable. However, when we turn to applying moral philosophy to the important practical issue of punishment, the Kantian position becomes incoherent as soon as we consider the possibility that free will does not exist. Conversely, a naturalist position, particularly one of the consequentialist tradition, remains capable of answering such an important normative question, regardless of whether its notion of free will turns out to be correct or incorrect. Ultimately then, I will suggest that it is the naturalist philosopher who is in the better position to tackle the normative question of punishment, that arises in applied moral philosophy.
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
On the one hand, it was investigated how this principal of liberty and autonomy challenges the need for state control, embedded in paternalism. Mill shows that individuality ensures freedom and a regulatory system for a functional society that would be compromised by paternalism or outside coercive forces. Self-development and social progress are the core principles of Millian Utilitarianism, which restricts state control to a single problem of harm to others, leaving a very limited space for regulation of individuals. However, at the same time limits and boundaries of his 'harm principle' are rather unclear, and there is a strong evidence to suggest that all acts are social acts that involve affect others. Hence, Mill's solutions within the harm principle can be interpreted in a similar way to soft paternalism
In Korsgaard’s article on The Authority of Reflection, Korsgaard presents the idea that all rational beings have a unique ability to reflect on our actions and how it plays a role in determining what obligations we have. This means that rational beings can weigh the pros and cons of our options before we decide on what to do, influencing what obligations we will have. This is opposed to acting on one’s first instinct without reflecting on the action first. This essay expands on Korsgaard’s argument on practical identity, moral identity, and the different characteristics of these identities that influence how one acts.
The conclusion presented by Nagel is that the theory of obligation can explain special features of public morality. Also those individuals can take steps to restrict certain choices. Nagel also concluded that the institutional structure shields indi...
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism according to Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it.
In the late eighteenth century, with the publication of his theories on morality, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy in a way that greatly impacted the decades of thinkers after him. The result of his influence led to perceptions and interpretations of his ideas reflected in the works of writers all around the world. Kant’s idealism stems from a claim that moral law, a set of innate rules within each individual, gives people the ability to reason, and it is through this that people attain truth. These innate rules exist in the form of maxims: statements that hold a general truth. Using this, Kant concluded with the idea of autonomy, in which all rational human wills are autonomous, each individual is bound by their own will and in an ideal society, people should operate only according to their reason. Influenced by Kant’s ideas, an american writer by the name of Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote his own call to individual morality through an essay on Self-Reliance. In “Self-Reliance”, Emerson tells individuals to trust in their own judgments, act only according to their own wills, and to use their own judgment to determine what is right. Emerson’s Self-Reliance and Kant’s autonomy differ to the extent of where reason comes from. However, they agree on its purpose in dictating the individual’s judgment and actions. As a result, Autonomy and Self-Reliance have essentially the same message. Both Kant and Emerson agree that the individual should trust only their own reason, that they are bound only by their own free will, and that the actions of an individual should be governed by reason.
The unique ability that each and every individual possesses that enable him/her to control their actions is known as free will. Free will is directly connected to two other vital philosophical issues: freedom of action and moral accountability, which is the main reason why the debate is so vital. Simply stated, a person who has free will refers to an individual’s ability to choose his or her route of action. However, animals also appear to suit this measure, further adding to the debate because free will is typically thought to only be possessed by human beings (Broad 1990).
Many theories bombarded in an attempt to set a moral code by which people are ought to live by. Plenty of controversies and arguments are raised against each one. One of the controversial moral doctrines is egoism, or simply preferring one's self interest over other's interests and desires. The doctrine seems to be reasonable to a certain extent at first, yet it fails drastically when having a second thought about it. Throughout my essay, I will explain the different types of egoism, and argue for each one of them. Finally, I will provide counter arguments for each type along with my personal opinion and analysis.