In the reading of The Sources of Normativity, Christine Korsgaard discusses four basic theories for the justification of morality: Voluntarism, Realism, Reflective Endorsement, and the Appeal to Autonomy. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defining Voluntarism, outlining the argument that Korsgaard presents for Voluntarism, and explain her criticism for why it fails. First of all, let me start off by defining the meaning of Voluntarism. Voluntarism is the theory that God or the ultimate nature of reality is to be conceived as some form of will (or conation). This theory is contrasted to intellectualism, which gives primacy to God’s reason. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) The will, as referred to in the previous context can be defined as the authority or higher power that creates a purpose or intention and makes decisions and choices.
Voluntarism according to Christine Korsgaard is the theory that “moral obligation derives from the command of someone who has legitimate authority over the moral agent and so can make laws for her” (24). The moral agent can be described as someone or something that is
…show more content…
Unless defused, the bomb will explode, killing thousands of people. As a Kantian, it would not be morally permissible to torture the soldier to get him to reveal the bomb’s location. To explain why, first let’s define Kantian ethics and its value in regards to human life. Immanuel Kant, an eighteenth century German philosopher, believed that each rational human beings are worthy and demand certain rights to be respected. Kant calls his Supreme Principle of Morality the Category Imperative, in which, the version known as the Formula of the End in Itself states as follows:
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end (O’Neill,
“The truth is that nothing can give us what we think we want, and ordinarily think we have. We cannot be morally responsible, in the absolute, buck-stopping way in which we often unreflectively think we are. We cannot have "strong" free will of the kind that we would need to have, in order to be morally responsible in this way” (…).
“Treating others the way you wish to be treated” is a saying that is very often thrown around. In Carson McCullers’ short story, I found that she used her characters to show her readers that by not treating others the way you wish to be treated that they too will forget how to treat you properly. I felt that this was a very important message throughout the short story for many reasons.
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.
“With malice towards none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as god gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nations wounds; to care for him who shall borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphaned child-to do all which may be achieved and cherished a just and a lasting peace among ourselves, and with all other nations”-Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address (Great Documents of America 19).
In his second imperative he stated that we have to “always treat rational beings as an end and never as a means only” (Vaughn, p.114). Of course they’re true, in this situation we would be using the child as means to an end. Since we’re torturing him to locate the terrorist. However I can also argue that this is where Kant’s theory is too absolute. In this situation would you save millions of lives by torturing one child or be the reason why millions and many more had to die because you couldn’t torture one
The divine command theory is an ethical theory relating to God and how his commandments should guide the morality of humankind. Objections to this theory include objections to the nature or existence of God or to the nature of his character or commands. For the purposes of this paper, I will present the divine command theory, introduce a serious objection evident in Genesis 22, propose and explain an alternative to the divine command theory that is the divine will theory, explain why this theory avoids the objection, and critique and respond from the perspective of a divine will theorist.
One cannot help but think about how these principles can be utilized in one’s personal dealings. Loyalty, decency, and lifting up of your fellows are wonderful ideals to strive for in friendships, marriage, and in the rearing of children. It is difficult to think of any place in our lives that these ideals would NOT be applicable.
... men Good-Will’” (186). This last statement emphasizes his appeal to pathos in assuming that a goal of people overall is to strive toward World Peace. In saying that, readers may agree that generosity toward all is a step toward peace.
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.
I think in the end people need to treat others as they want to be treated and think before they act.
At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is to do what is best for the greater good, then there is no question that we would torture this one man so that we may save thousands. Take a step back and look at this situation from another angle. What truly is the greater good here? Let us focus on the idea that “if punishing John will do no good, then John should go free” (Pojman, 2002, p.109). What is the chance that a captured soldier is going to give away the secret location of the bomb? It is highly likely he has been trained not to speak under any circumstances. If he does not speak then you have just diminished utility for every single person involved.
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.
As I experience college life, I realize my morals are different from others. When crossing the street, I always wait for the cars to pass and if I do cross I make sure they see me. This is also a safety precaution that I was taught because drivers are frequently distracted and do not see pedestrians walking. On University of Northern Iowa’s campus, drivers are used to waiting for pedestrians; instead, I find myself waiting for the cars to go when really they are waving me to cross. Other students mindlessly walk across the street not even thinking about the cars. Another moral of mine is the golden rule; treat others how you would like to be treated. However, other kids did not grow up in a town that taught this. So, I let others in the door first, open the door for others, or let them cut in line. While everyone else takes advantage of what I am doing for them and do not receive a “thank you” back I brush it off because I know better. For my culture system to survive and thrive well we need to treat others well. This is part of the functionalist perspective that Emile Durkheim describes with the Arunta tribe. He understood the role that religion had on
“Selfless Service and Service to Others.” Our Ultimate Reality. 16 Feb. 2009 http://www.ourultimatereality.com/selfless-service-and-service-to-others.html>. ThinkExist.com - ThinkExist.com Quotations.
As human beings, the author says we are like other creatures on earth that are governed by laws of gravity, or certain biological laws that govern things on this earth; we have no choice but to obey. There is, though, one law that we can choose to obey or not. It is a law that we call the law of human decent behavior. It doesn't matter what part of the world we live in, Dr. Lewis says, people differ very little when it comes to right and wrong as related to the law of human decent behavior. We do not always take it into consideration when we should be doing it to other people; nonetheless, we recognize indecent behavior when we are expecting it and do not receive it. There are two things, the author points out, that all human beings all over the earth have in common: (1) this idea that they are to behave in a certain way, and they cannot really get rid of it; and (2) they do not in fact behave in that way — they know the law of nature and they break it.