As a result, failure ... ... middle of paper ... ...d in the discussion of promise keeping and beneficence, identifiable logical or practical contradictions arise when attempting to universalize morally impermissible maxims (according to the CI). Mill argues that the CI only shows “that the consequences of [the maxims] universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” This is erroneous for there is no such “choice” available. The logical and practical contradictions that Mill fails to recognize produce an outcome (rejection of the maxim) necessitated by rationality and a free will. It is not that the consequences are unpleasant, but that their production is irrational. Works Cited Christine Korsgaard.
Plato rejects the contractarian reconciliation of morality with individual rationality primarily because the thinks that the contractarian conception assumes that a person's motives for being just are necessarily based her self-interest, while our concept of the just person holds that to be truly just one must value justice for its own sake. The contractarian account is also unacceptable because it has no foorce in the case of the Lydia Shepherd. (3) Finally, Plato holds that we must reject the contractarian account because a better account is available to us, viz., his own account of justice. But to show this Plato must establish each of the following: 1. There really is a difference between perceived self-interest and actual self-interest, that there can be a difference between what one believes to be in one's interest and what really is in one's interest.
It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly.
Socrates argues a universal definition is needed to evaluate all constituents of a group. However, Socrates deliberately uses an incorrect proof to illustrate the hazards of an inconsistent and universally false argument. Like the attainability of knowledge, Meno should have argued against Socrates proof that excellence is attainable through proper investigation and pursuit. However, Meno agrees with Socrates that determined excellence is not similar to knowledge. Yet, the very process of equating excellence with knowledge for the purpose of evaluation signifies the values are similar.
Eventually, the difficulty with Socrates' arguments is that they rely on associating things on to the next in a chain that eventually leads back to the original proposition. But, the logic of these connections seems built more on assumptions than on objective truth. Thus, within keeping his stance that ultimately what he says is right is right because he is a philosopher, and therefore is by his nature right. The dialectic seems more of a game to get the audience to go along.
Kant claims that humans cannot see things in themselves due to the cognitive limitations that they have, (Grier). Using his theory of transcendental idealism, he proves transcendental realism wrong. Kant’s ‘Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics’ constitutes his theory of knowledge, while disproving any scepticism caused by Hume, by claiming that knowledge of objects are independently determined by how they are perceived by us. To better understand its meaning, transcendental idealism needs to be defined against other forms of idealism. Idealism, in general, is the claim that reality is dependent on the mind and their ideas, (Morrison).
Mill writes that “… when he begins to deduce from this precept [the universal law test] any of the actual duties on morality, he fails … to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct” ( Troyer 97). In defending his own moral theory, Mill gives a similar example to Kant’s, explaining how the principle of utility does not justify lying. Mill writes that “… it would often be expedient … to tell a lie. But inasmuch as the cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity is one of the most useful… and inasmuch as any, even unintentional, deviation from truth does that much toward weakening the trustworthiness of human assertion… [a person who lies] acts as one of their own worst enemies” (Troyer 112). Mill’s rejection of lying as right course of action is based on the negative consequences it
The subject becomes very sloppy and seemingly endless to the point of no solid conclusions on free will and determinism. In response to both sides I remain neutral and believe both sides are flawed in their argument's because even though incompatibilists bring a slightly stronger argument to the table there is also a lot of underlying confusion such as the Libertarian Dilemma. Compatibilits have a weak argument because they believe free will and determinism can co exist but I do not see how it is possible because they are conflicting ideas. How can free will exist in a pre determined society when we do not have a clue if we are part of a causal chain or physical chain? There are no real facts or conclusions on both sides.
Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally. In Perpetual Peace, Kant writes, “all politics must bend the knee before right” (Kant, PP pg. 125). He claims that morals, in the sense of the doctrine of right, should demand more significance in political decisions, or even be the predominant consideration.
Plato thought that such a qualification reveals the inconsistency of the whole doctrine. His basic argument against relativism is called the "Turning the Tables" (Peritropé, "turning around") argument, and it goes something like this: "If the way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me, and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you, then it appears to me that your whole doctrine is false." Since anything that appears to me is true, then it must be true that Protagoras is wrong . Relativism thus has the strange logical property of not being able to deny the truth of its own contradiction. Indeed, if Protagoras says that there is no falsehood, then he cannot say that the opposite, the contradiction, of his own doctrine is false.