It is believed that nobody knowingly chooses evil. A great example is the great tragedy oedipus rex. It is fated that Oedipus will kill his father and mary his mother, so his father gets rid of his son (banishing). One day he ends up in a battle and kills his father unknowingly, (his father is a stranger) and later marries his mother. In those moments he did not choose to do evil, he believed he was doing the right thing but was ignorant to the world.
Sartre states that existence comes first, and we are forced to define the meaning always.
People experience anguish the person who involves themself and realizes they are not only the person they choose to be but also a law maker choosing the fate of the world cannot help but feel a sense of total …show more content…
I’ll live in the house for a while and then default.
Maxim: Everyone takes out a loan they cannot afford and will default.
Then you test it for logical consistency, what would happen to the world if you took this and applied it to EVERYBODY
In this scenario loans lose all meaning if no one ever pays off a loan what is the point of a loan.
This is an immoral act because there is a logical inconsistency. You want a world with loans and act in a way that will remove loans from the world.
If you want a World that is A and act in a world to have world B that is logically impossible and the act is immoral.
There is a general concept of a person, all people are or should be rational. All dependent (we rely on others, mechanics, doctors, etc.). Kant believes that rational people desire happiness. We all want health, we want our life preserved, we want our basic needs met, and we want some degree of freedom.
Action 2: Kaiser denies all people with pre-existing conditions health care …show more content…
I want a world where companies don’t cover those with pre-existing conditions, while at the same time the desire for happiness involves having health and life, so at the same time I want a world where if I had a pre-existing condition I would want coverage.
Want a world without coverage while wanting coverage for yourself or loved ones.
Action 3: I don’t donate excess (available non-necessary) money in an effort to aid refugees in an attempt to have food and shelter.
Universal maxim: Nobody should provide excess money in an effort to aid refugees in an attempt to receive food or shelter
I want a world where no one donates money to refugees though if I was a refugee myself I would want money to be donated. World not donating money, though wanting help in the same boat
This would make action 3 immoral, hoarding money and being greedy.
Version 2:
“Act so that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as [merely] a means to an end”
For example, people using other people as a means to an end. By killing yourself you are using yourself as a mean to end your
Sartre states that existence comes first, and we are forced to define the meaning always.
People experience anguish the person who involves themself and realizes they are not only the person they choose to be but also a law maker choosing the fate of the world cannot help but feel a sense of total …show more content…
I’ll live in the house for a while and then default.
Maxim: Everyone takes out a loan they cannot afford and will default.
Then you test it for logical consistency, what would happen to the world if you took this and applied it to EVERYBODY
In this scenario loans lose all meaning if no one ever pays off a loan what is the point of a loan.
This is an immoral act because there is a logical inconsistency. You want a world with loans and act in a way that will remove loans from the world.
If you want a World that is A and act in a world to have world B that is logically impossible and the act is immoral.
There is a general concept of a person, all people are or should be rational. All dependent (we rely on others, mechanics, doctors, etc.). Kant believes that rational people desire happiness. We all want health, we want our life preserved, we want our basic needs met, and we want some degree of freedom.
Action 2: Kaiser denies all people with pre-existing conditions health care …show more content…
I want a world where companies don’t cover those with pre-existing conditions, while at the same time the desire for happiness involves having health and life, so at the same time I want a world where if I had a pre-existing condition I would want coverage.
Want a world without coverage while wanting coverage for yourself or loved ones.
Action 3: I don’t donate excess (available non-necessary) money in an effort to aid refugees in an attempt to have food and shelter.
Universal maxim: Nobody should provide excess money in an effort to aid refugees in an attempt to receive food or shelter
I want a world where no one donates money to refugees though if I was a refugee myself I would want money to be donated. World not donating money, though wanting help in the same boat
This would make action 3 immoral, hoarding money and being greedy.
Version 2:
“Act so that you treat humanity whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as [merely] a means to an end”
For example, people using other people as a means to an end. By killing yourself you are using yourself as a mean to end your