Hi, please see the attached

Victor

Question Do you agree with Moral Absolutism? Or do you think that Moral Relativism is correct?

Top of Form

I have to say that I find it very difficult to agree with moral absolutism. To say that the nature of moral principles are universally binding, no matter the circumstance, is to push aside the purposes for certain actions. Even if said action is rightious and for the well-being of others it is still immoral. I believe that Moral Relativism is the one that I agree with more. I think circumstances are vital in determining whether an act is immoral or not. In some circumstaces an action would be immoral and in others it could be considered morally right. This is especially true when it comes to the differences between cultures and religions. Some things are moral and other are not in the scope of certain religions and cultures.

Joshua

Mill's claim of a fool satisfied verse Socrates unsatisfied?

Top of Form

I do agree with Mill’s claim that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied verse a fool satisfied because of the difference of ability between the factions. To appeal to the higher pleasure of being “knowing” in any regard is always better, both in morality and logos, than the opposite. This is a Virtue ethics standpoint, granted, that reasoning most excellency is the highest good, and the fool, perhaps with inability or lack of motivation to do so is content with lowly pleasures in ignorance. This is contrarian to the greater good, as Mill and Aristotle would agree that this form of happiness is animalistic and contrary to the nature of Human reasoning and progression. A fool satisfied is arguably the responsibility in Utilitarianism of the reasoning person to correct. To make a Matrix reference, Morpheus should have never made a choice of offering the pills, it was his responsibility, for the greater good, to force the red pill without alternative.

Meghan

Do you agree that Authenticity is a viable goal in life?

Top of Form

I do agree that Authenticity is a viable goal in life. To be authentic in life means to be original and true to oneself. When I think of authenticity, I think of being real and not trying to be someone that I’m not. In the lecture, we learned that an authentic individual is one who has freed themselves from the Crowd. To overcome the Crowd, authentic individuals will independently define themselves and veer away from mass mentality. I think of trends on social media and individuals pretending to be someone they’re not to complete a certain idea or view in life. The lecture also mentions that individuals may ignore their responsibilities in a case where the Crowd impacts their mentality. As a viable goal in life, I believe taking care of one’s responsibilities is important. Authenticity also means an individual overcomes Despair, realizing their life is not free. I believe authenticity is a viable goal in life because it indicates individuals are free, unique, and true to themselves.

Bottom of Form

Katelyn

L1. Evaluate the notion of Existential Despair.

Top of Form

(Question 2): Are the existentialists correct to say that we do not have a pre-determined essence? That is, do we have a strong sense of freedom and responsibility?

I am curious as to the second part of (Question 2) - wherein "a strong sense of freedom and responsibility" enters as the expressed alternative to the existence of a pre-determined essence of the human being.

On what basis is this alternative predicated? The notion of 'crowd mentality' is cited in lecture as a predecessor to the emergence of existential despair, as described in a linear interpretation of existentialist philosophy.

I question if the notion of Existential Despair and the sense of freedom and responsibility as destination; exist independent of each other. Might the latter as sense hold the space of what might be called an essence, or does it indeed hold the space of destination?

I cite the following two excerpts from the posted reading. Both are referenced to be definitive of the concept of humanism:

"One may understand by humanism a theory which upholds man as the end-in-itself and as the supreme value." (Paragraph 32).

"Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting and losing himself beyond himself that he makes man to exist; and, on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendent aims that he himself is able to exist. Since man is thus self-surpassing, and can grasp objects only in relation to his self-surpassing, he is himself the heart and center of his transcendence. There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of human subjectivity." (Paragraph 33).

Sartre, Jean-Paul, 1946. "Existentialism Is a Humanism." Source: Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, ed. Walter Kaufman, Meridian Publishing Company, 1989. Accessed: June 1, 2022.

Bottom of Form