Impossibility Of Moral Responsibility By Galen Strawson

Ethical egoism is a moral theory focused on improving a person’s well-being. There are many arguments for ethical egoism such as the Self-Reliance Argument and the Best Argument for Ethical Egoism, both presented by Shafer-Landau in The Fundamentals of Ethics. However, in this paper I will discuss how objections presented by Shafer-Landau and Dr. Thomas Carson are fatal to ethical egoism, while keeping in mind arguments for this moral theory. I will discuss objections such as ethical egoism permitting or sometimes requiring murder, theft, or rape, in order to promote oneself’s well-being, egoists subconscious belief of their lives being more important than others, and an argument presented in class that if egoists must do what is best for their

However, if the man is responsible in the situation where his desires and beliefs are present then he is also responsible

In the paper “Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility”, Susan Wolf discusses her ideas on what is necessary for an individual to be responsible for their actions. She argues that in order for the person to be held morally responsible for their actions, they need to be morally sane. To consider one to be morally sane, this individual must have an ideology that is able for them to distinguish right from wrong. Hence, a morally sane person must be able to reason and have a sound mind. Furthermore, Wolf establishes the sane deep-self view by applying other philosopher’s ideas.

In this paper I am going to explain what Divine Command Theory is. Then I will explain an objection to it called the Euthyphro Objection. Lastly I will explain Quinn’s response to the Euthyphro Objection and raise an objection to his treatment of the objection. Before I explain Divine Command Theory first I want to explain morality according to Quinn. Quinn states that morality is based on three concepts: rightness, wrongness, and obligation (515).

“Every experience, no matter how bad it seems, holds within it a blessing of some kind. The goal is to find it.” This quote from Buddhism depicts the idea of the short story, Shooting an Elephant, by George Orwell. In the story Orwell committed the crime of shooting an elephant, which legally he had the right to do, but morally felt guilty about killing an innocent animal. According to Everything's an Argument, a correct causal argument needs to have a claim, warrant, and evidence.

The case of Robert Alton Harris, a convicted murderer who was executed in 1992 for his crimes, raises profound questions about free will and moral responsibility. In this essay, I will argue that Harris did not exercise free agency when committing the crimes, that he could not have done otherwise, and that he is morally responsible for his actions despite his background. Moreover, I will show how this scenario can be used to shed light on the possibility of free will and moral responsibility in a deterministic universe. First, let us consider the facts of the case.

Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.

Guilt and innocence only matter if someone has the ability to stop themselves from carrying out their desires. If life has determined a person to make that choice no matter what, then how can anyone blame another person or find them guilty of that act? Society can disagree with their actions, but society cannot blame them for it. Basically, a criminal justice system in a society with no free will would be redundant. It would be an illusion of justice.

Both within Deontological and Utilitarian Ethics, the regulatory ideal implies an objective inherent value which justifies the possibility of making moral judgements. Nietzsche marks a shift in paradigm by reframing the regulatory ideal and implicitly the fundaments of its justification. To better understand what Nietzsche’s Moral Philosophy is, we must also take a brief overview of his Philosophical paradigm. For the purposes of this paper I will only use and highlight particular aspects, as a full, in-depth description would risk a deviation from the point which needs to be made.

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions.  There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions.  Are we responsible for some of our actions after all?   If so, under what circumstances?

Yet, one must be causa sui to achieve true moral responsibility. Hence, nothing is able to truly be morally responsible. Strawson 's whole purpose of writing the article is to change anyone 's mind who says that we should be responsible for the way we are and what we do as a result of the way we are. He believes we are lacking freedom and control of doing so. He argues that if we do something for a reason, that is how we are, so we must be responsible.

I do agree with Strawson and I think that he is right. I do not believe that someone can be truly morally responsible for anything that they do; however, it would be appropriate and well deserving is moral responsibility held a standard. If someone does something that creates a great change in the world, they should definitely have true moral responsibility for it. Ultimately, I know that that is also impossible because making a great change in the world come from the way we are, and we are not truly morally responsible for

This is the form of commensurability that consequentialists accept and advocates of the incommensurability thesis repudiate. Wright asserts that denying the ability of ascertaining morally correct choices amid rationally grounded choices, by weighing the basic values against each other, supporters of the incommensurability thesis undercut the prospect of non-arbitrary results in cases of morally significant choice. Despite Wright’s opinion and the opinions of consequentialists, I maintain that the incommensurability thesis does not lead to the proposition that choices between rationally grounded options are necessarily

Thesis Statement: Origin of Morality Outline A.Universal Ethics 1.Karl Barth, The Command of God 2.Thomas Aquinas, The Natural Law 3.Thomas Hobbes, Natural Law and Natural Right 4.Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative B.Morality and Practical Reason 1.Practical Reason a.Practical Reason and Practical Reasons C.Evolution of Morality 1.What makes Moral Creatures Moral 2.Explaining the Nature of Moral Judgments F. Answering Questions 1. What is the origin of Morality: Religion or Philosophy? 2. What does religion say about morality?

Introduction When considering the various applications of David Hume’s moral philosophy, his discussion on the morality of suicide has a great effect on the discussion of ethics and morality more than two-hundred and fifty years later. Our modern Western society is reevaluating its moral code from the ground up year by year in various social issues, which means that it is also becoming unclear what actions are morally permissible. Thus, a critical analysis of Hume’s argument for the moral permissibility of suicide is rather timely. In his essay on suicide, Hume refutes a three-part claim of Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic philosopher and theologian.