Mortal Questions by Thomas Nagel

Thus, Nagel distinguishes between agent-neutral and agent-relative values to attempt at explaining the paradox. An agent-neutral value is consequentialist in form: if x is bad or wrong then it implies that we all work together toward a common goal to reduce or minimize x. In this case, it means that it is permissible to commit x to anyone if that contributes to the common goal of reducing x. On the other hand, an agent-relative value is deontological in its form: if x is bad or wrong then what is implied is that the agent himself is not

James Rachels claims that morality is absolute. In his article Mortality is Not Relative, he discusses the fallacies of Cultural Relativism as well as the Cultural Differences Argument. Rachels believes that all cultures have some values in common and that there is way less disagreement between them than it seems. He brings up the example of the Eskimo’s and how they choose to kill the infants that they cannot take care of, “The Eskimo’s values are not all that different from our values. It is only that life forces upon them choices that we do not have to make” (Rachels). Another example of this would be how in some cultures it is wrong to eat cows because they believe that the souls of their ancestors and deceased are reincarnated into the cow. In our culture we would not eat our grandparents either, the only difference is we do not believe that they become cows, thus we would have no problem eating cows. “Now do we want to say that their values are different than ours? No, the difference lies elsewhere. The difference is in our belief systems, not in our values” (Rachels).

The novel, “Afterlife” by Gary Soto was mostly about how this guy named Chuy who was killed in a Club, Club Estrella to be specific. He was killed in the men’s bathroom for complimenting someone else’s shoes, which were yellow. He got stabbed 3 times, and was left there till dying. He then became a ghost, a ghost who couldn’t be heard, seen or touched. He could see everything that was going on, but couldn’t do anything about it. After the ambulance had taken him away, he was already dead, or i mean the body was already dead. When his parents got the news Chuy went to visit them to say one last goodbye, he also visited his school, and the girl he used to like for a long time. He then found this girl named Crystal, who had killed herself taking

“What doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger” (p. 28). In the scientific novel Survival of the Sickest by Sharon Moalem with Jonathan Prince, self-acclaimed “Medical Maverick” Dr. Moalem makes in-depth analyses of current human diseases that, ironically, may have led to the survival of mankind in the past. He presents a novel concept that greatly contradicts what have been universally accepted beliefs surrounding biology and the process of human evolution for a long time. With the use of myriad scientific studies and research, he formulates surprising theories about a positive correlation between disease and humanity. Moalem narrates the scientific world’s findings that strongly exemplify his assertions, however arbitrary they may seem at first. Three of the diseases that he examines, hemochromatosis, Type 1 diabetes, and favism, could have been particularly useful for resistance against other illnesses and survival in a historically harsh environment.

A hero is not only someone with superpowers but can be anyone. It can be anyone like you or me. A hero is someone who is willing to stand up for other people. The book, A Lesson Before Dying, takes place in Louisiana and is about an innocent Black man convicted and sent to the electric chair. In the story there are real people that Ernest Gaines alludes to. Ernest Gaines makes an allusion to Joe Louis and Jackie Robinson. Beside these two, Mamie Till also stepped up and was audacious. They were all fearless and gave hope to many other people because of what they were doing. These heroes took a stand against society and changed the world for everyone.

In The Natural by Bernard Malamud, Malamud displays the magnitude of how an individual’s decisions can influence their life. Malamud’s main protagonist, Roy Hobbs, is the leading example of this idea, as Hobbs continually faces both his internal struggles stemming from his desire for success, and external struggles attributed to his roller-coaster of a professional baseball career. Malamud uses Hobbs and the sport of baseball as a metaphor for typical American life by depicting Hobbs’ struggles as similar to any average American. Therefore, through the life of Roy Hobbs, Malamud alludes to the average American and explains how moral attitude can lead to a person’s success or downfall.

Humans enjoy choices. Whether that choice is putting on a coat in the morning or choosing to participate in an exhilarating activity like skydiving, every decision starts with the idea of free will. The question of free will essentially asks who is in charge of our choices. While the origin of fate and free will remain a mystery, these ideas can be traced back for centuries and found in our daily lives: in our code of ethics, politics, and religions. Kurt Vonnegut wrestles with the coexistence of fate and free will, ultimately arguing fate dominants.

An individual’s legacy, in many ways, is predetermined by the primordial “Fate.” A sort of judge and guide that some people have subscribed to for centuries. This guide develops a certain permutation for an individual’s life which is only influenced by one’s ability to compose judgements and decisions about obstacles which appear everyday. This decision making process is cyclical in that it always leads to another question to answer or problem to solve. One decision may edge the next until it yields to fate, the ultimate philosophical judge. Fate is a permanent path and one is stuck on its course. The same could be said for the Wes Moores’ of the work The Other Wes Moore: One Name, Two Fates. Throughout the work, the Wes Moores’ made complicated

The short story the dead is written by James Joyce an Irish writer who lived between 1882-1941,he is best known for his modern writing techniques, with stories such as “The Dead”, this story is well known for its deep analogy of Irish culture, history, and how the story relates to life struggles, the difficulties of time and age and dealing to forget the dead ones we have lost.

Williams also delivers the idea of agent-regret which, to him, matters to the person in the unlucky case more than any extrinsic moral judgments. Agent-regret is defined as “thought being formed in part by first personal conceptions of how one might have acted otherwise”, (Williams, p.27), and required “a first-personal subject-matter” and “not yet merely a particular kind of psychological content, but also a particular kind of expression”, (Williams, 27). Hence, even if the driver A is morally treated as equal as driver B, the agent-regret of guilt may follow him to the

In “Human Freedom and the Self,” Roderick M. Chisholm takes the libertarian stance, arguing that freedom is incompatible with determinism, that determinism is in fact false, and that humans do posses the kind of freedom required for moral responsibility. Chisholm argues that a deterministic universe, where all events, including human actions, proceed from prior events without the possibility that they would proceed differently than they do prevent the possibility that humans are responsible for their actions. To validate his libertarian beliefs, Chisholm sets out to prove that humans are responsible for their actions and also the thoughts that lead to those actions. In order to answer this problem, Chisholm believes we must make some assumptions about the man who preforms the act.

Generally speaking, it is equated with good things coming to you, but what about when luck saves you from a negative situation. It would be easy to say that luck can’t come from bad things, but it is a fact that it happens. In an example, similar to Spelman, if a person was texting and driving and hit a car head on, killed the other person, but survived, would that make them worse than someone who was texting but missed the other car? If you asked someone this today, they would automatically say that the person that was responsible for a death is both more ethically and morally wrong. This all would fall under the type of moral luck Spelman refers to as resultant moral luck. However, if you scrutinize the details, you start to wonder, did the driver that missed have more luck or was he better at texting and driving? In, all reality both drivers were texting and driving, regardless of the outcome they were both wrong, just in different capacities. So, since I believe this, Spelman would say I am not a follower of resultant moral luck. In my opinion, this does define both

Eliade, in his book “The Sacred and Profane,” poses an interesting conjecture that all people are inherently religious. What one does and the decision they make in their lives are all reflections on what they find sacred. Sacred in this context is an extension of one’s belief held up in high esteem to the point where what is deemed sacred is god like. Religion is the frame that interprets what is sacred and gives it a name and a face. Christians, for example, view Christmas as a sacred time as it is the season of the birth of their savior; Jews view the Passover as sacred as it represents a time in their religious history where God passed over the Jews while sending a message to their enemies. What is sacred can manifest itself in any shape, form, or time; truly entering the fourth dimension of space. If something sacred is god like, what is sacred to those who do not have a God? How can something be sacred if there is not a frame of reference for the thing to be sacred? How can every decision a person makes be reflect what they find sacred, if they do not have a religious language to reflect this phenomena?

The philosophical term free will explains how we are free to choose our actions, and be in control of our behaviors. The determinist approach explains how our actions and behaviors can be predictable because they are caused by prior factors, like our organization. In class, we have discussed Baron d’Holbach and John Stuart Mill’s point of view on determinism and free will. Therefore, I have chosen free will and determinism as my topic to discuss it from Freud’s point of view.

In this essay I will explain why I think the strongest position of the free will debate is that of the hard determinists and clarify the objection that moral responsibility goes out the door if we don’t have free will by addressing the two big misconceptions that are associated with determinists: first that determinism is an ethical system, and secondly that contrary to common belief determinists do believe in the concept of cause and effect. I will also begin by explaining my position and why I believe that the position of the indeterminist does not hold water as an argument and the third