Danielle Lizenby
Ethics
Professor Hartmann
8/16/16
Discussion Board: Section 1
1. For King, which condition(s) must be met for lawbreaking to be just? What point does King intend to make by citing Hitler’s Germany?
Dr. King talks about to different types of law in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He explains that you have “just” laws and “unjust” laws. Both are man-made laws but have one major difference. An “unjust” law does not line up with our moral law or the law of God. When encountered with an “unjust” law, Dr. King finds lawbreaking to be “just”. The example given was segregation. Saying all segregating laws is “unjust” because it destroys a person’s soul and personality. It can give the segregator the false sense of empowerment …show more content…
An ethical egoist argues that? A psychological egoist argues that? How does Rachels argue against these positions?
Before explaining the arguments of psychological egoist, I would first like to share Rachel’s definition of psychological egoism. “Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, that is, that the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self-interested.”(Cahn 72). There are two general arguments that psychological egoist give to try and show all actions are motivated by self-interest.
The first argument is even when given a choice between selfish or unselfish act, assuming the action is voluntary, and the agent will choose what they want the most. By doing what the agent wants, they are acting selfishly no matter the act. For example, if a person chooses to take care of their sick mother instead of going out of town, this individual is acting selfishly because that is what they truly wanted to do. In the first argument in proving psychological egoism, Rachel points out that even if all voluntary action is motivated by selfishness, doing something for another is the definition of selflessness. Rachel also points out that if a person is acting on their wants. It is what they want that determines selfishness or not. For example, if a person’s actions reflect the good fortune and happiness towards another is this not an example of …show more content…
Claiming that the benefits of living in a society based on people’s rights and interest is a greater advantage then living without them. Even if you feel you could get away with it, an ethical egoist would claim it is too great a risk and will maintain the sort of society which they will benefit. The problem with this is that an ethical egoist cannot benefit in a world based on people’s rights if everyone also adopts the same way of thinking. How can you benefit from others if they are only out for themselves as well? In my eyes this is a world of chaos and cannot be adopted universally. You cannot tell your oldest daughter to destroy your youngest daughter because it benefits the oldest; then turn around and tell your youngest daughter to destroy your oldest because it benefits the
Ethics
Professor Hartmann
8/16/16
Discussion Board: Section 1
1. For King, which condition(s) must be met for lawbreaking to be just? What point does King intend to make by citing Hitler’s Germany?
Dr. King talks about to different types of law in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He explains that you have “just” laws and “unjust” laws. Both are man-made laws but have one major difference. An “unjust” law does not line up with our moral law or the law of God. When encountered with an “unjust” law, Dr. King finds lawbreaking to be “just”. The example given was segregation. Saying all segregating laws is “unjust” because it destroys a person’s soul and personality. It can give the segregator the false sense of empowerment …show more content…
An ethical egoist argues that? A psychological egoist argues that? How does Rachels argue against these positions?
Before explaining the arguments of psychological egoist, I would first like to share Rachel’s definition of psychological egoism. “Psychological egoism is the view that all men are selfish in everything that they do, that is, that the only motive from which anyone ever acts is self-interested.”(Cahn 72). There are two general arguments that psychological egoist give to try and show all actions are motivated by self-interest.
The first argument is even when given a choice between selfish or unselfish act, assuming the action is voluntary, and the agent will choose what they want the most. By doing what the agent wants, they are acting selfishly no matter the act. For example, if a person chooses to take care of their sick mother instead of going out of town, this individual is acting selfishly because that is what they truly wanted to do. In the first argument in proving psychological egoism, Rachel points out that even if all voluntary action is motivated by selfishness, doing something for another is the definition of selflessness. Rachel also points out that if a person is acting on their wants. It is what they want that determines selfishness or not. For example, if a person’s actions reflect the good fortune and happiness towards another is this not an example of …show more content…
Claiming that the benefits of living in a society based on people’s rights and interest is a greater advantage then living without them. Even if you feel you could get away with it, an ethical egoist would claim it is too great a risk and will maintain the sort of society which they will benefit. The problem with this is that an ethical egoist cannot benefit in a world based on people’s rights if everyone also adopts the same way of thinking. How can you benefit from others if they are only out for themselves as well? In my eyes this is a world of chaos and cannot be adopted universally. You cannot tell your oldest daughter to destroy your youngest daughter because it benefits the oldest; then turn around and tell your youngest daughter to destroy your oldest because it benefits the