Hi everyone!
My biggest reaction to the readings was Glaucon and Hobbes’ three counts of how we live in a selfish society. The first issue, “(1) Humans choose to live in a society with rules because they are concerned with their own safety and for no other reason,” (Rosenstand, pg. 178). This makes sense to me, and I do not see what purpose most rules would serve a purpose for in our society if it did not help preserve our safety. There could be exceptions of l those that are supposed to help us with the environment, preserving biodiversity, etc.. However, egotists would argue this is to preserve our Earth that in turn preserve us.
The second count was “(2) humans are by nature self-interested, and any show of concern for others hides a true …show more content…
178). This was the declaration that I believe can be the most easily argued against. Through the ideas of how falsification not always being possible and how not everything we can do is selfish, we see holes in this argument. Rosenstand suggests that we all do things for selfish reasons, and we could help strangers on the road for example because we wish to heaven (Rosenstand, pg. 180). Yet, as Rosenstand mentions through there can be actions some people do for other reasons other than self-preservation. as a person who helps another and they do not believe in heaven (pg. 185). Sure, this is an assumption. However, the idea of “whatever you’re doing, you’re doing it for an inherently selfish reason” can assume a lot of things about a person to justify that philosophy. I personally cannot imagine using the invisible ring that could be against my own moral code such as doing harm
My biggest reaction to the readings was Glaucon and Hobbes’ three counts of how we live in a selfish society. The first issue, “(1) Humans choose to live in a society with rules because they are concerned with their own safety and for no other reason,” (Rosenstand, pg. 178). This makes sense to me, and I do not see what purpose most rules would serve a purpose for in our society if it did not help preserve our safety. There could be exceptions of l those that are supposed to help us with the environment, preserving biodiversity, etc.. However, egotists would argue this is to preserve our Earth that in turn preserve us.
The second count was “(2) humans are by nature self-interested, and any show of concern for others hides a true …show more content…
178). This was the declaration that I believe can be the most easily argued against. Through the ideas of how falsification not always being possible and how not everything we can do is selfish, we see holes in this argument. Rosenstand suggests that we all do things for selfish reasons, and we could help strangers on the road for example because we wish to heaven (Rosenstand, pg. 180). Yet, as Rosenstand mentions through there can be actions some people do for other reasons other than self-preservation. as a person who helps another and they do not believe in heaven (pg. 185). Sure, this is an assumption. However, the idea of “whatever you’re doing, you’re doing it for an inherently selfish reason” can assume a lot of things about a person to justify that philosophy. I personally cannot imagine using the invisible ring that could be against my own moral code such as doing harm