What is the strongest objection to utilitarianism? How persuasive is this objection?
200687205 PHIL1002 Introduction to Ethics November 2012 What is the strongest objection to utilitarianism as a theory of moral rightness and wrongness? How persuasive is this objection? The strongest objection to Utilitarianism is that it ignores the rights of the individual. When making moral decisions, the majority’s happiness often deprives individuals of their rights. I believe this objection is persuasive because it is difficult to contemplate a life where individuals only act in order to create “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” (Mill, 2002) Utilitarianism states that when making a moral decision, you must assess the value of consequences in terms of overall pleasure over pain. This is presented by the Principle of Utility, where “acts are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, 2002) As happiness is portrayed as the only intrinsically morally valuable thing, we should only act to produce the greatest available net happiness. (Dr Pekka Vayrynen 2012) The main philosopher who this objection was influenced by was John Rawls. In his book, “A Theory of Justice”, Rawls argues for “the separateness of persons.” (Rawls, 2005: 23-24) He argues that people are individuals with their own desires and needs, and that “the violation of the liberty of a few might
Abortion Ethics
Alfred Chami English 203-14 9/3/2014 Essay 1 Draft Abortion Ethics Every year, fifty million abortions take place worldwide. Abortion, the methodical closure of a human pregnancy, remains a highly debatable issue in modern society. This controversy is philosophically based on the origins of two ends, pro-life, and pro-choice. Support for abortion comes from pro-choice perspectives, claiming that all women deserve free rights, whereas opposition comes from pro-life viewpoints, declaring that one has no right to deprive a fetus from its future of value. The future of value approach justifies the wrongness of killing by claiming that aborting a fetus deprives it from the future goods it may have experienced had it not been killed. Abortion in this perspective is seen to be as a misfortune since the fetus will not experience the good things life has to offer in the coming future. Some arguments state that the wrongness in the killing is based in the fact that a human is being executed. However, “being human is merely a biological characteristic”(Marquis, 422). Being human, by itself, does not justify the wrong in the
I will argue the empathic access theory by presenting the shortcomings of other psychological continuity theories of personal identity, and showing how empathic access can overcome these.
Topic 4: Empathic Access Introduction In this paper I will discuss a certain view of personal identity: empathic access. In particular, I will introduce empathic access and describe its nature and criteria. I will then consider the view in detail, examining the strongest arguments for, the strongest objections to and the responses to these objections. I will end by summarising the defence for empathic access this paper has crafted. View The empathic access theory is the view that in order to preserve an identity, one must have empathic access to the states of their former self. Empathic access refers to a compassionate connection to the past, one that is not just memories, but that holds a fundamental sympathy for the remembered states. Accordingly, it is more than just recollection, but essentially requires one’s former psychological make-up to be used for future decisions (Schechtman, 2001, p. 102). Considering people experience change in their values, and characteristics over time, it is necessary for psychological identity defining theories to measure the extent to which change is identity destroying. The empathic access theory is not a theory designed to solely define personal identity, but rather an attempt to strengthen the psychological continuity theory by clarifying identity-preserving and identity-destroying change. Essentially the empathic access theory
Do we have to learn to think scientifically in order to find the truth?
Do we have to learn to think scientifically in order to find the truth? To analyze the question "do we have to learn to think scientifically in order to find the truth", I think that it is vital that I identify what the question implies by 'the truth'. I believe that it requires looking at every type of truth that could exist, but I have decided to focus on the truth which tells us about the existence of human beings and how and why things take place on earth, because I believe that this is the truth which people strive to discover. I will be looking at which areas of knowledge are more effective for finding this truth, which I regard as being the truth. I would like to identify the ways in which thinking scientifically compares with thinking using History and Religion in finding the truth about the world. How can we verify claims said to be true by using these areas of knowledge? Sometimes I ask myself, 'how come I am thinking the way I am now, when 16 years ago I didn't even know who I was and wasn't aware of my surroundings?'. Is it because I somehow acquired knowledge during my life? But then I ask where I have gained this knowledge from? Perhaps one thing that plays a part is inductive logic, because we are born with the capability to adapt, whether it is to adapt to our surroundings or living in a modern society and accepting rules. We learn due to our mistakes and
The Ontological Argument
The ontological argument. The ontological argument is an argument for God's existence based entirely on reason. According to this argument, there is no need to go out looking for physical evidence of God's existence; we can work out that he exists just by thinking about it. Philosophers call such arguments a priori arguments. It attempts to prove God's existence through abstract reasoning alone. The argument is entirely a priori, which means it involves to empirical evidence at all. Rather, the argument begins with an explication of the concept of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God exists on the basis of that concept alone. Anselm was a Benedictine monk and Archbishop of Canterbury. He therefore started from a theistic ('believing') stance. Anselm's argument was based on the premise that God does exist - he set out to show that not believing in God is an absurd position to hold. This was a reduction ad absurdum argument - it tried to show that the existence of God could not be denied because to do so would involve adopting a nonsensical argument. Anselm's starting point was to propose a definition of the word 'God'. From this point he tried to show that it is absurd to suggest that God does not exist. His argument was in two parts, formed around an objection raised by another monk. Anselm says 'God is the thought than which nothing greater can be thought'. Even the
The middle ages.
The middle ages After a week with nothing else from Alberto, on Friday May 25th, a postcard from Hilde's father lands on her windowpane. It dates from June 15th, and he tells Hilde he hopes it is still her birthday, and that a "week or two for Sophie does not have to mean just as long for us." He also tells her to say hello to Sophie, who, unfortunately, does not yet understand everything that Hilde perhaps does. Soon after, Sophie gets a call from Alberto, who tells her they must meet in person since Hilde's father is getting to close to them. She sleeps over at Joannas and then goes to meet him from her house. Although she does not understand him, he says Berkeley will be the key figure and that they must get Hilde on their side before her father returns. The next morning, she meets Alberto at a church where he tells her about the ten centuries of the Middle Ages. Although people in the Renaissance called this time the Dark Ages, Alberto points out that universities and schools were established in the Middle Ages. In addition, nation-states became established, with their major cities. There was a period of cultural and population decline, as feudalism set in and bartering once again became the form of payment. But the Pope was set up as head of the Church, and kings began to become very powerful. Greco-Roman culture split up and then came together
Life after Death
Life after Death . When you're dead, you're dead! This is the view held by atheists and materialists. It mans that when you die, there is no spirit than continues - the whole of the human consciousness is in the brain and when that dies all aspects of the being die too. This is probably the most scientifically viable view, but then there is no real scientific way of proving it. This could be bad view because it gives no meaning to life, and would mean that you are living for nothing. It would probably make people live life to their own ulterior motives because there is no punishment after life. There is no spiritual dimension to life and everything is taken at face value. As I have no religious beliefs this statement is close to my view on life after death. 2. The body dies but the spirit continues. This is where the spiritual part of the body with no form continues to live after the body has died. This would be the part of the being that is contacted during seances and by mediums. The weakness would be that, when you die, if your spirit remains, what does it do? Does it just float around a bit and scare people? Wouldn't eternal existence get a bit boring after a while? However this is probably what people come into contact with when they see ghosts or have spiritual encounters. Another strength is that when people have temporarily died and have an out of body experience,
Religion and Morality
Religion and Morality Religion and morality have much in common. Both arouse deep passions and are marked by personal commitment. Religious and moral claims aren't the sort of 'claims' we 'prove' by reference to our five senses. There are also differences between religion and morality. Morality, that is, in the sense of making 'moral' judgements seems unavoidable whereas religion seems to be optional. Some form of morality is an almost universal feature of human life. This is not true of religion - especially in the West since the Enlightenment - religion is no longer seen as 'compulsory'. Since then (and Kant) morality has increasingly been regarded as having an autonomous status - independent of religion. Few now quote Dostoyevsky, "If God is dead, everything is permitted". Many now think that morality exists and can be pursued independently of any religious profession. Historically, it is accepted that ethical awareness has been greatly influenced by religious beliefs. A variety of relationships between religion and morality: * For some (R.M. Hare) religion is a form of morality. Hare reduced religion to a commitment to an agapeistic way of life. Religion becomes a commitment to an ethical lifestyle. * For others, morality only makes sense if religion is true. Many think that to behave morally is pointless if there is no God to reward or punish us. * For
Outline the Ontological Argument for the existence of God and consider the view that, while it may strengthen a believer's faith, it has no value for the non-believer.
Outline the Ontological Argument for the existence of God and consider the view that, while it may strengthen a believer's faith, it has no value for the non-believer. The argument was thought up by a Benedictine monk, who was also Archbishop of Canterbury. He based his argument on already established by him fact that "God exists". It is a priori argument; this feature makes it very different from other pro-arguments. A Priori argument requires no past experience and is based entirely on logic. The Ontological Argument is theoretical, which aims to prove God's existence using language. St. Anselm thought it would be absurd to suggest that God does not exist; he backs up his argument by saying that even if we try and suggest that God doesn't exist we still require the concept of God in our mind. Making God "That which is nothing greater can be conceived" "aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari poss it" God's main quality being existence. To be a perfect being, existence adds to the perfection (goodness) because it is good when something exists in your mind and in reality. Anselm said that if we have a perfect image of a perfect being in our mind, we cannot think of anything greater because God made all these other perfect beings due to him being the most perfect being, therefore he is above all these perfections. Anselm suggests that by interpreting the world and its perfection
Aristotle’s Account of Virtue.
In this paper I will aim to accomplish three things. First, I will describe Aristotle's account of virtue, highlighting its connection to reason. Second I will elaborate the idea that the particular is epistemically prior to the general. Finally, I will show how Aristotle's account of virtue requires the epistemic primacy of the particular over the general. Aristotle's Account of Virtue One of Aristotle's main ideas is that all things have an end, or highest good to which each activity is aimed that, and that good has value in itself (intrinsic value). The final end or good for us is eudemonia, which can only be achieved by living a virtuous life, by being a virtuous being. Eudemonia has historically been translated to happiness but a more direct translation would be: the stable living of the best possible life. The virtue of something lies in its ability to perform its function with excellence. Our function has to be one that is distinctively human, -- excellence in activity of the soul, reason. It is this ability to think and reason that distinguishes mankind from animals. Virtue, then, is our ability to use reason to see a situation and its collective circumstances, be able to perceive its factors correctly and choose the kinds of actions in varying degrees, relative to the particular situation at hand. And how do we know what the right way to see things and to
