...Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche are known to be two of the greatest nineteenth century existentialists of all time. Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe. It regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche both felt that life is irrational. They were problem thinkers who chose not to follow the systematic approach to philosophy as their predecessors did. In this regard, they stood on common ground. Both realized that no system of philosophy operates in isolation of its creators inherent prejudices. Any subjective viewpoint is biased; therefore, objectivity is impossible in any moral example. They both recognized that God no longer exists in religion in present-day expression. Men and women go about their daily lives in a manner irreverent of the possibility that there is an all-powerful God governing their affairs. Surprisingly, they proclaim their devotion to God when questioned about it. However, in their attempts to resolve this moral affliction Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are different in their quest for a cure. The very foundations of their moral constitutions were built upon conflicting ideologies: Kierkegaard put his in Christianity, while Nietzsche’s in individualism and self-determination. Kierkegaard saw the problem of religious...
Words: 2004 - Pages: 9
...the reading assignments, if possible. Each response should be at least one half of one page in length and utilize APA format. 1. What is the difference between moral motivation and moral justification? · The difference between moral motivation and moral justification is that moral motivation involves feelings. It also uses judgments, which makes us feel whether something is good for us, and affects decision making and reason to act a certain way. Moral justification defends a moral theory; it helps persuade ourselves on believing that our actions are right. 2. Explain the difference between natural morality and transcendent morality. · The difference between natural morality and transcendent morality is that natural morality is interpreted by human reasoning; it follows what is best for human nature, searching for happiness and fulfillment. Transcendent morality is being superior and above something, being beyond a normal or physical level. 3. What is the difference between a moral judgment and an aesthetic judgment? · Moral judgments are opinions formulated on whether something is good or bad. An aesthetic judgment is also an opinion, but differs because it judges the quality or status of someone or something. 4. What does it meant to be an "objectivist" regarding moral feelings? · What is means to be an objectivist is having an ethical theory that moral precepts are valid, or that moral good is real. 5. Describe the difference between...
Words: 534 - Pages: 3
...religion your parents are or the morals and values in your culture. Morality and values differ from person to person or culture to culture. In this essay I will argue that morality can be objective or subjective in a sense that we get some of our morals from what God gave us but we also learn our morals from different people and our daily influences. Morality and personal values vary from religion. In many different religions we all have similar values and morals because our faith all stems from one main source.But there are different branches where are faith and morals differ. For example, as a Christian we believe in many things that God said in the Bible. Our morals and values are very concrete and we should follow those ‘rules’ to the best of our abilities. Some of those set ‘rules’ are do not have sex before you married or follow the 10 Commandments. Those rules or morals are set in place to so can go to heaven. But in other religions such as Islam they don’t have the same morals or values as we Christians do. In the Islamic religion girls at a certain age have to start to wear the hijab. The hijab represents modesty. These morals and values vary in many other different religions. I think that if you are bonded to one religion is represents you and makes you feel like you are a part of something special. Religion can be represented in many different ways and many religions vary in values and morals. Morality can be defined by our surroundings. When we are younger the way we...
Words: 688 - Pages: 3
...something similar. They say, for instance, that businesses operate under their own system of morality. What is deemed to be right by some business IS right for that business. This makes morality relative. For instance, if one society says cannibalism is morally wrong, while another says it is morally permissible, then the fact of whether or not cannibalism is morally wrong will just be a relative one—namely, whether or not it is wrong for someone will just depend upon which society they are in. We will now ask the question: Does some action become right or wrong just because one’s society, or employer, SAYS it is right or wrong? Or rather, is it the case that there are some moral standards that apply to ALL businesses and societies, regardless of whether or not those societies believe in those standards? 2. The Argument From Disagreement: Why believe that morality is relative? Relativists often say that widespread moral disagreement proves that their view is true. They say: 1. Different people have different beliefs about morality. 2. Therefore, there are no objective facts about morality. Lots of people disagree about moral issues. There are heated debates and bitter arguments between people, and wars between civilizations, over what the morally right and wrong actions are. The relativist’s claim is that this disagreement is an indication that THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE FACT OF THE MATTER about...
Words: 2510 - Pages: 11
...Case Study: Week 1 Franca Thomas PHIL 347: Critical Reasoning Professor Bret Fuller Chamberlain School of Nursing Case Study: Week 1 Identify the main point and the supporting points of each argument: 1. Throughout history, people have disagreed about moral issues. This isn’t true about science, because science is objective, and people can come to objective agreements. If morality is not like science, and science is objective, morality must be subjective. Morality, then, is just a matter of opinion. Main point: If morality is not like science, and science is objective, morality must be subjective. Supporting points: Throughout history, people have disagreed about moral issues. This isn’t true about science, because science is objective, and people can come to objective agreements. Morality, then, is just a matter of opinion. 2. We should help people that are starving in other countries. We have plenty of things that we can share without adversely affecting our own lives, and we are morally obligated to help people who are less fortunate than us if we can do so without giving up anything of comparable importance to the aid that we are giving. Main point: We should help people that are starving in other countries. Supporting points: We have plenty of things that we can share without adversely affecting our own lives, and we are morally obligated to help people who are less fortunate than us if we can do so without giving up anything of...
Words: 620 - Pages: 3
...the extreme position by arguing that moral choices, judgments, and resolutions are so subjective that discussions, contemplation, and deliberations on morality are useless is called a _______ subjectist Cynical A______truth is dependent on the subject’s own experience. Subjective A person who believes that whatever an individual says is right for that particular individual is called a _____ Relativist Hume believed that the only kind of truth that can be known is a _____ Truth Subjective The notion of ethical _________which is often mistaken and confused with Ethical relativism, doubts that any acts are right or wrong. | | Skepticism Moral decisions, determinations, and judgments are acknowledged and established in a cultural context, and these positions are subject to change depending on one’s cultural Relativism ______is the notion that there is no concrete certainty the sphere of knowledge and truth. Relativism An objective______ is a truth that is independent of an observer. Truth _________ is the notion that truth depends on context—the time, place, and the identity of the observer. Relativism The certainty of Descartes’ rationalism leads to the idea of absolute truth In the never-ending debate between relativism and dogmatism, most people agree that the solution for inclusivity is moderation People who argue that ethics and morality are subjective, and moral choices should be made on individual assessment, or societal allowances...
Words: 1397 - Pages: 6
...self-satisfaction—seeking to propagate political correctness, tolerance, and an increasing rejection of authority—the concept of subjective truth is preferable to the narrow framework of objective morality. Rather than seeking absolute truth, information that accurately corresponds with reality, many are content reducing the essence of truth to a matter of personal preference. Unfortunately, this dangerous and deceptive philosophy has crept into every facet of the human experience in America, and the spirit of relativism has even infiltrated the Christian Church, an institution founded upon the doctrine of absolute truth and objective morality. This essay will explore the fundamental principles of relativism/subjectivism, showing the philosophy to be logically inconsistent, while demonstrating its incompatibility with Christianity. A Definition of Terms Before conducting a systematic analysis of relativism, a distinction between...
Words: 689 - Pages: 3
...schools have the rights where do their rights begin and end JAMES What are the rights of the parents where do their rights begin and end JOE 3. Team conclusion- 4. Justify conclusion, why was one side more compelling than the other MIKE 20 min presentation * Construction (4 out of 10 points) * accuracy * COPY OF PPP 3 slides to each page NOTES Metaethics: understanding where do our ethical principles come from Normative: Study of ethical theories Applied ethics: examination of specific controversial ethical issues- practical application Ethics= search for the truth Ethics= what you do when no one is looking Ethics= involves values, honesty, integrity, character, trust & respect Ethics is the study of morality: Ethics is the discipline that examines one’s moral...
Words: 1126 - Pages: 5
...situations. • Objective, deontological, universally applicable – Kant • Universalisability. • LOUIS POJMAN – only one rule needs to be absolute. • Exist independently of human experience. • Motives, consequences, mitigating circumstances don’t count. • E.g. rape, torture and murder are always wrong, intrinsically wrong, because break a moral rule. • Illogical, if torture is morally acceptable in one country, but unacceptable over the border. • Plato – moral absolutes like goodness and justice exist, forms are the true reality. • 3 main types of absolutism: human rights, Platonic idealism, religious. a. PLATO – theory of forms, concepts that are eternally constant, unchangeable. Reducible to one, single unalterable ideal, the Form of the Good. b. RELIGIOUS ABSOLUTISM – Natural Law, Divine Command Theory, Bible commandments. c. HUMAN RIGHTS – JACK DONNELLY: humans have certain unchallengeable rights, e.g. protection by the state; JOHN FINNIS: right to have children, being free from threat of murder. Today human rights affect every moral decision. Primary and secondary rights: • CULTURAL ABSOLUTISM – ultimate moral principles do not change from culture to culture, e.g. value of human life, family. 2. Main features of relativism, pointing out differences with absolutism as you go. • Moral command / prohibition alter depending on time, place, person. All situations may be different. Different cultures express different moral codes of conduct. • Subjective, teleological...
Words: 459 - Pages: 2
...The existence of god has been a question that has plagued mankind since it began to think logically. Many philosophers argue that there may or may not be a god, or that there may even be different types of gods. It is difficult to say whether or not god can exist because there is a lack of knowledge or limited knowledge regarding the issue. Mankind has only been around for so long and only has little pieces of history left to study. So who knows what we could be possibly be missing in this quest to find the ultimate answer. Yet our way of thinking has evolved enough to allow us to grasp more complex ideas to make up for lost history. And maybe just maybe, be able to come to the conclusion of whether or not god can or cannot exist. The Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a hot and dense condition at some time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. My question is what put it there? Time could have not decided to one day say, “I think I’m going to create life in a thing called a universe.” And magically particles come out of nowhere, more and more build up until it’s screaming hot, and then BANG! Time begins and so does everything as we know it today. Something had to place it there. Something had to have planned out the whole process involving the beginning of time. Everything is too complex and precise to not have been created by an intelligent being. I do believe in “God” but not the god referred to in the bible. I believe...
Words: 1092 - Pages: 5
...The existence of god has been a question that has plagued mankind since it began to think logically. Many philosophers argue that there may or may not be a god, or that there may even be different types of gods. It is difficult to say whether or not god can exist because there is a lack of knowledge or limited knowledge regarding the issue. Mankind has only been around for so long and only has little pieces of history left to study. So who knows what we could be possibly be missing in this quest to find the ultimate answer. Yet our way of thinking has evolved enough to allow us to grasp more complex ideas to make up for lost history. And maybe just maybe, be able to come to the conclusion of whether or not god can or cannot exist. The Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a hot and dense condition at some time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. My question is what put it there? Time could have not decided to one day say, “I think I’m going to create life in a thing called a universe.” And magically particles come out of nowhere, more and more build up until it’s screaming hot, and then BANG! Time begins and so does everything as we know it today. Something had to place it there. Something had to have planned out the whole process involving the beginning of time. Everything is too complex and precise to not have been created by an intelligent being. I do believe in “God” but not the god referred to in the bible. I believe there...
Words: 1087 - Pages: 5
...Professor White PAR 101 December 7, 2015 A Moral Realism Believer Ayer claims that any talk about right and wrong, good and bad, is just a matter of “emoting” or expressing one’s feelings while a moral realist would think the total opposite. A moral realist believes that all moral questions are real questions and every answer to those questions can be either true or false. Ayer is labeled as an anti-moral realist due to his fervent claims to his belief. Regardless of anyone’s feelings or emotions, I believe that there is always a reason why the answer should be true and a reason for why the answer should be false. Ayer’s view on moral claim is incorrect because a moral claim is one that attempts to define what is right or wrong. Anti-moral realists believe that emotivism is more influential and moral realists believe that there should be a legit reason behind every answer. The debate between moral realists and anti-realists assumes a variety of claims can be recognized as moral claims. In my opinion, moral realists have common sense. With that advantage, there are a number of powerful arguments on why moral realism is the right way to go which include: the knowledge of a moral realist, the realism/antirealism debate, moral cognitivism and descriptivism, and the truth in moral judgements. “A moral realist believes that there is at least one moral fact, and moral facts are not reducible to non-moral facts. Moral statements are true or false, and at least one moral statement...
Words: 1304 - Pages: 6
...imperative. Kant rejects these traditional theories of morality and argues instead that moral actions are based on a "supreme principle of morality" which is objective, rational, and freely chosen: the categorical imperative. Kant’s clearest account of the categorical imperative is in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant argues against traditional criteria of morality, and explains why the categorical imperative can be the only possible standard of moral obligation. He begins with a general account of willful decisions. The function of the human will is to select one course of action from among several possible courses of action (for example, my choice to watch television right now instead of going jogging). Our specific willful decisions are influenced by several factors, such as laziness, immediate emotional gratification, or what is best in the end. Kant argues that in moral matters the will is ideally influenced only by rational considerations, and not by subjective considerations such as one’s emotions. This is because morality involves what is necessary for us to do (e.g., you must be benevolent), and only rational considerations can produce necessity. The rational consideration, which influences the will, must be a single principle of obligation, for only principles can be purely rational considerations. In addition, the principle must be a command (or imperative) since morality involves a command for us to perform a particular...
Words: 1163 - Pages: 5
...one culture based on our own culture. We cannot say to a particular culture that their actions are wrong just because it opposes our culture. A cultural relativist would say we should always be tolerant of them since morality varies for each culture because each society adapts differently according to their environment. For example, the Callatians ate the bodies of their dead fathers out of respect and to have their father’s spirit live in them even after they’re gone, while the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded it as the natural and right way of letting go of the dead. Like what Rachels said, “What is thought right within one group may horrify the members of another group, and vice versa.” (p.14) To support this argument, Cultural Relativists have stated (1) Different cultures have different moral codes. (2) Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality. Right and wrong are only matter of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. (p. 18) However, Rachels doesn’t agree with this because the conclusion doesn’t follow the premise. He used the example of the Greeks and Callatians. The Callatians believed that it was right to eat the dead, but the Greeks believed it was not. Just because both parties disagreed, doesn’t mean there is no objective truth. He said that one might just simply be wrong. Just like in the example of the earth’s shape to different societies. One society may believe that the earth is flat while another society may believe that it is a...
Words: 464 - Pages: 2
...For speculative reason, the concept of freedom was problematic, but not impossible. That is to say, speculative reason could think of freedom without contradiction, but it could not assure any objective reality to it…Freedom, however, among all the ideas of speculative reason is the only one whose possibility we know a priori. We do not understand it, but we know it as the condition of the moral law which we do know ( KpV3-4). With a completely different strategy in the First Critique where freedom was explicated in order to confirm the possibility of morality, Kant reverses this doctrine by noting that the moral law is the grounding of the possibility of transcendental freedom. Kant reverses the doctrine of the First Critique, i.e., freedom is possible only under the conceivability of acting in accordance with moral law when he writes: For had not the moral law already been distinctly thought in our reason, we would never have been justified in assuming anything like freedom…But if there were no freedom, the moral law would never have been encountered in us ( KpV4...
Words: 5485 - Pages: 22
