The Limits Of A Pragmatic Justification Of Praise And Blame

Philippa Foot, a philosopher, argued that moral judgments have a rational basis. The choices we make in our lives are based on a number of varying and different factors. Theories such as the principle of double effect are meant to back up the choices we make in society. The doctrine of the double effect relies strongly on the difference between what a person “foresees” as an outcome of their individual actions, and what they actually intended the outcome to be (Timmons, 2012, p. 93). This theory refers to two very identifiable results. The first, is that the action may produce the “one aimed at”, and second, “the one foreseen but in no way desired.” Foot further explains that “oblique intention” and “direct intention” are often determining factors in the principle of double effect. Through oblique intention, a person brings about an effect that was unintended and through direct intention a person brings about an effect intentionally (Timmons, 2012, p. 94).

Hart on Internal and External Aspects of Rules Hart introduces a distinction between “external” and “internal aspects of rule”, the latter of which see rules as akin to reasons. By making “the idea of a rule” central to the concept of law, Hart gives “a fresh start” to jurisprudential theory, which

Shakespeare’s Othello exemplifies the imperfection of human nature, focusing on the result each one’s fatal flaws controlling their actions, which distorts their individual perspectives. The audience views this through the character development of each individual, whose actions consequently erupt in chaos by the end of the play. In

Sartorius contends that Hart surely is aware of the inadequacy of defining law and morals in formal terms. The two minimum conditions for the existence of a legal system, Sartorius struggles, are relevant neither to Hart’s concept of a legal system nor to his concept of law:

Desires and Moral Responsibility We have certain notions of what free-will is. But before we can discuss the notion of free-will, we need to establish the meaning of this term. Having free-will refers to one’s choices or desires (O’Connor, “Free Will”). A person who is able to act according to the determinations of their will (i.e., choices or desires) is free (Russell, “Hume on Free Will”). But is it always fair to blame people for performing morally wrong actions when they act on the basis of their own desires? In this paper I will defend that those who perform morally wrong actions on the basis of their own desires are exercising free-will, and are therefore responsible for their morally wrong actions. To further bolster this case, I will argue for the Principle of Alternative Possibilities by re-evaluating Frankfurt’s case of the Unwilling Addict. I will then refute the notion of determinism by referring to Wolf’s JoJo example by taking a compatibilist approach.

When we consider what could alter our reactive judgements on behalf of the agent we happen to be interacting with, examples are needed to emphasize when this is the case. So, for the moment we will consider how the judgements we make in our reactive attitudes are suspended in order to retain a more objective outlook on that person. Strawson presents some examples for how this might be the case, “He’s only a child… He’s a hopeless schizophrenic” Strawson argues that from these examples, “They invite us to view the agent himself in a different light from the light in which we would normally view one who has acted as he has acted.” This is one way in which we can justify, or rather base, our reactive attitudes on that we can consider as alternative factors on our moral considerations and inter-personal relationships. What we can see from these examples, as mentioned before, is that it does not concern our reactive attitudes how the person we are dealing with came to be as he is. Rather, our concern is with how he is, when we form our attitudes and judgements. However, perhaps it is possible to argue that if determinism is proved false, and that the agent concerned is a schizophrenic partly down to some bad choices that he was free to make, then, our attitudes may reflect this.

A substantial debate over the law’s relationship with morality exists within the legal system. This debate gained new perspective when Oliver Wendell Holmes published The Path of Law in 1897, which outlined his view on the relationship between the law and morality. This paper will first consider whether or not Holmes believed that a writing must be moral in order to constitute a law. Next, we will explore my general agreement with Holmes’ view on this matter. Then, the paper will consider an objection to my agreement with Holmes, and then reply to that objection. Finally, we will end by analyzing the discussion of the relationship between morality and law. In this paper, I will argue that Holmes does not believe that a writing must be

People tend to respond in an acceptable manner to situations based on trust and are often guided by norms of society and what is or is not acceptable to reasonable people. For instance, a person’s moral conscious may surface during an episode when, as a shopper, they leave the store and unwittingly neglect to pay for a product that may not have been scanned by the checkout counter. The shopper will generally return the item to the store (depending on when it was initially discovered). Time and distance may also serve as factor. An instance of one’s guilty conscious working is when someone accidentally leaves the store with an item. Another common event occurs when the attendant at the checkout counter gives the shopper too much change back. The shopper will generally remind the attendant that they handed too much change and make the appropriate correction. During these instances, a person is placed in a contemplative situation and feels compelled to return the item or monetary change because the internal conscious is cognizant that reminds the person that it is only right to rectify the situation. Most people do not enjoy the constant reminder of the undesirable outcome being guilty and

When we are emotionally attached to something, we tend to make extreme decisions towards or about them. One example of this is our emotional attachments to our body shape and looks. In “How salad makes you Fat,” Alex Hutchinson responds that people who want to lose weight tend to reward themselves after a workout as a way to “balance it out”(Hutchinson). Although, many do believe that if you put your mind to it, you can refrain from the “balancing.” This decision is unquestionably illogical from our point of view but people make that decision unconsciously. They believe that they have worked for the reward. We take this action immediately “when one decision swings too far from self-concept”(Hutchinson). Self-concept is what we are accumulated to in our daily lives. I corroborate with the author’s view in the stance that hard work does push for a reward. The reward although, isn’t usually a good choice. Instead of a fruit smoothie or a sandwich, they tend to choose food items in the genre of candy and sweets. Another way that emotional attachments affect snap decisions is in criminal murder cases. Usually, murder cases are deeply personal and paramount to the convict. This deeply personal relation causes snap decisions to be made that we can not control. Our emotions get the best of our sub conscious mind and make the decisions for us. This is exceptionally dangerous especially because it can not be consciously controlled. I have noticed this same experience throughout the news and various crime shows. When something or someone personally affects you, your decisions will also be drastically affected. Emotions are overly powerful and usually can not be changed. Although, some do believe that emotions can be changed if a drastic event occurs, our split decisions regarding our emotions will most likely be the same whether we

For decades, moral psychology had been heavily influenced by theories emphasising on the role of reason and emotion in making moral judgements. Moral reasoning was thought to be defined as a slow, conscious and deliberative mental process that involved effortful and controllable manipulation of given information to arrive to a

Hume's Argument on the Distinction Benevolence and Self-love In his Enquiry Concerning the Principle of Morals, Hume rebukes the arguments of skeptical, philosophers who deny the existence of moral distinctions. He doubts that an individual can be so indifferent that he or she is unable to distinguish between right and

In this paper, we will look at two philosophers discussing the existence, foundations and conditions of a legal system. The first philosopher we will look at is John Austin, who develops what is known as the command theory (Culver, 83). This theory argues that the law is a command that is given by a “sovereign,” with the threat of a penalty or consequence imposed if these laws are disobeyed (Culver, 83). He views the validity of a law by the source of the law and not the laws benefit to the citizens within a society. On the contrary, a philosopher we will look at who disagrees with John Austin on the foundations of a legal system is H.L.A Hart. Hart believes that acceptance plays a huge role when it comes to legal systems. He views a valid legal system as a union between primary and secondary rules (Culver 139).Hart believes the acceptance of officials is critical, and must include them adopting the internal point of view and citizens merely need to accept the law by obeying it.(Culver,

The Psychodynamic Theory, or psychoanalytic as it is also referred to, stresses the influence of unconscious forces on human behavior. It is the systematized study and theory of the psychological forces that underlie human behavior, emphasizing the interplay between unconscious and conscious motivation (Gallop & Reynolds 2004). Its roots focus on the roles of unconscious sexual and aggressive impulses as a motive for choice and self-direction. The theory presents itself as our way of trying to balance our feelings, the unconscious being the reason why aggressive impulses are common reactions to the frustrations of daily life and that we seek to vent these impulses on other people. But because we fear rejection and retaliation, we put most

Lord Phillips makes it very clear that decisions in cases are tied to legal rules, however what is the role of legal rules in judicial decision making? There are different schools of thought with regards to that question. This essay will explore those differences. Firstly we shall consider the perspectives of the formalists, what was their view of applying rules. Continuing onto the American Legal Realists ' views, assumptions and looking at their two main critiques of formalism, rule and fact scepticism. We shall also review the theories of H.L.A. Hart regarding the application of legal rules. By analysing some modern day cases and examples we will further compare and contrast formalism, realism and Hart. Finally we shall review aspects of the essay and draw conclusions.

From time to time there arises a school of legal thought which undermines the errors of the past and establish truth. In the 21st centaury, this movement has been ongoing under the name of American Legal Realism. Legal realism, is a school of legal thought that is opposed to the dominant mechanical conception of adjudication and conventional view. The realists insist that on considering how courts really decide cases, it can be revealed that the decisions are not primarily based on law, but on the judge’s sense of what is “fair”. Least to say, those who agree with this theory claim that the judge himself is who creates the law. This paper will discuss theories of American legal realism discussed by theorists: Oliver Wendell Holmes and Jerome Frank. Secondly, the paper will focus on a few significant objections that one might have against the theory. To conclude, a strong opinion disagreeing with the objections against legal realism is depicted.