This Ppt about the concept of Moral and Consequence by Immanuel Kant and the concise notion of human dignity, Categorical imperative by storytelling approach.
Topic: DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICAL THEORY
Contents:
A. Historical Origin
Early beginning of human civilization
• The word of the king is the law
Deontological
Greek word “dein” or “deon” meaning “To be obligated” or simply “duty”
B.Kants’ Major Contribution to Deontological Theory
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
• Avid defender of deontological theory
• Contributed as many important and brilliant ideas to the philosophical study of ethics
C.The Good Will: The Core of Kant’s Ethics
Morality of an action lies on the inner motive rather than the external effects
Kants’ ethics primarily based on good will
Duty must be done out of pure reverence to the moral law
D.Duty over Inclination
“A person is only acting morally only when he suppresses his feelings and inclinations and does that which he is obliged to do”
Inclination
means doing the things that one’s feels like doing, and thus no obligation exists.
Example:
Helping your neighbor to fix her flat tire.
• Three possible reasons of helping:
1) Expectation of the reward-immoral
2) Pity-immoral
3) Duty-moral
1 is done out of desire to get a reward and 2 is done out of emotion thus, the acts are considered immoral. On the other hand, 3 is done out of obligation and this makes the act moral.
E.Duty is Superior to Happiness
“Our duties cannot consist simply in following rules that promote pleasure and avoidance of pain as the utilitarian’s claim, since that would make right actions depend upon consequences, on how well they satisfied our desires”
Example:
1) Lying
2) Breaking promise
The above examples are immoral actions not because it can create bad consequences but because these are wrong in itself.
F.The Categorical Imperative: The Universalizability Principle
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
Maxim is a personal and subjective guiding principle
We must universalize our moral judgement
G.The Principle of Humanity (Respect for Persons)
Also known as ’Principle of Ends’
Concerns respect for the dignity of persons
Rational beings are ends in themselves
Do not treat others as means
H.Autonomy of The Will (Kingdom of Ends)
“For without personal autonomy, Morality becomes an impossibility”
Autonomous will
The will becomes autonomous when the genuinely moral actions are chosen:
• Freely
• Rationally
• By The Self (Autonomously)
Kingdom of ends
It is a moral universe of the moral beings in which:
• Respect for Intrinsic Worth
• Respect for Value of All Persons
is exercised by everyone.
Deontological Theories And Moral AutonomyAswin A V
Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"[1]) is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules.[citation needed]
It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty."[2] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism,[3] virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.
The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by C. D. Broad in his book, Five Types of Ethical Theory, which was published in 1930.[4] Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it in c. 1826 to mean more generally "the knowledge of what is right and proper".[5] The more general sense of the word is retained in French, especially in the term code de déontologie "ethical code", in the context of professional ethic
This is a work that I made in 10th grade about Kant and his theory. Portuguese version available. I hope you like it and share it.
P.S.: In the biography, instead of actually saying it, we did a little role playing of an interview to the philosopher in which on member is the interviewer and the other is Kant. While we were doing the interview the following songs were playing:
- U Can't Touch This
- Just give me a Reason (for the more emotional part)
When it's done well, it has a great impact in the class room. The script is at the end of the presentation.
Hope you like it and please share.
This Ppt about the concept of Moral and Consequence by Immanuel Kant and the concise notion of human dignity, Categorical imperative by storytelling approach.
Topic: DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICAL THEORY
Contents:
A. Historical Origin
Early beginning of human civilization
• The word of the king is the law
Deontological
Greek word “dein” or “deon” meaning “To be obligated” or simply “duty”
B.Kants’ Major Contribution to Deontological Theory
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
• Avid defender of deontological theory
• Contributed as many important and brilliant ideas to the philosophical study of ethics
C.The Good Will: The Core of Kant’s Ethics
Morality of an action lies on the inner motive rather than the external effects
Kants’ ethics primarily based on good will
Duty must be done out of pure reverence to the moral law
D.Duty over Inclination
“A person is only acting morally only when he suppresses his feelings and inclinations and does that which he is obliged to do”
Inclination
means doing the things that one’s feels like doing, and thus no obligation exists.
Example:
Helping your neighbor to fix her flat tire.
• Three possible reasons of helping:
1) Expectation of the reward-immoral
2) Pity-immoral
3) Duty-moral
1 is done out of desire to get a reward and 2 is done out of emotion thus, the acts are considered immoral. On the other hand, 3 is done out of obligation and this makes the act moral.
E.Duty is Superior to Happiness
“Our duties cannot consist simply in following rules that promote pleasure and avoidance of pain as the utilitarian’s claim, since that would make right actions depend upon consequences, on how well they satisfied our desires”
Example:
1) Lying
2) Breaking promise
The above examples are immoral actions not because it can create bad consequences but because these are wrong in itself.
F.The Categorical Imperative: The Universalizability Principle
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
Maxim is a personal and subjective guiding principle
We must universalize our moral judgement
G.The Principle of Humanity (Respect for Persons)
Also known as ’Principle of Ends’
Concerns respect for the dignity of persons
Rational beings are ends in themselves
Do not treat others as means
H.Autonomy of The Will (Kingdom of Ends)
“For without personal autonomy, Morality becomes an impossibility”
Autonomous will
The will becomes autonomous when the genuinely moral actions are chosen:
• Freely
• Rationally
• By The Self (Autonomously)
Kingdom of ends
It is a moral universe of the moral beings in which:
• Respect for Intrinsic Worth
• Respect for Value of All Persons
is exercised by everyone.
Deontological Theories And Moral AutonomyAswin A V
Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty"[1]) is the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules.[citation needed]
It is sometimes described as "duty-" or "obligation-" or "rule-" based ethics, because rules "bind you to your duty."[2] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism,[3] virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.
The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by C. D. Broad in his book, Five Types of Ethical Theory, which was published in 1930.[4] Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it in c. 1826 to mean more generally "the knowledge of what is right and proper".[5] The more general sense of the word is retained in French, especially in the term code de déontologie "ethical code", in the context of professional ethic
This is a work that I made in 10th grade about Kant and his theory. Portuguese version available. I hope you like it and share it.
P.S.: In the biography, instead of actually saying it, we did a little role playing of an interview to the philosopher in which on member is the interviewer and the other is Kant. While we were doing the interview the following songs were playing:
- U Can't Touch This
- Just give me a Reason (for the more emotional part)
When it's done well, it has a great impact in the class room. The script is at the end of the presentation.
Hope you like it and please share.
TEDx Manchester: AI & The Future of WorkVolker Hirsch
TEDx Manchester talk on artificial intelligence (AI) and how the ascent of AI and robotics impacts our future work environments.
The video of the talk is now also available here: https://youtu.be/dRw4d2Si8LA
9.5 Moral TheoriesAll moral claims are grounded in some moral th.docxransayo
9.5 Moral Theories
All moral claims are grounded in some moral theory. It is the nature of such claims that they are based on a system of beliefs about what is right and wrong, just and unjust.
The table below lists a handful of the moral theories you are most likely to encounter in ethical arguments today. It’s important to note that each one has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Moral theories give you general guidelines, but you still usually have to apply moral reasoning in individual cases to test them out. For example, none of these theories explicitly claim that killing is wrong. The theories are more about how you would ground your claim that killing is wrong.
Moral theories are also not mutually exclusive. The argument that killing is wrong could be grounded in all of these theories.
Whether they know it or not, everyone has a moral theory. It is inescapable. Even if their moral theory is that there are no morals, that still represents a moral theory. But not all moral theories are equal—some hold up to critical thinking better than others.
You may see wisdom in all of these perspectives, or you may strongly identify with a single one. Regardless, it's important for you to recognize the potential weaknesses in any moral theory you favor, and it's helpful for you to understand why others find legitimacy in the moral theories they employ.
Theory
Criticisms
Kantian Ethics
· Immanuel Kant put forth the categorical imperative, which states that you should only act on moral principles that you would be willing to turn into universal laws mandating that everyone act the same way.
· This is a version of the question, “How would you like it if everyone did that?”
Any two people who want to get married should be able to.
· This theory is so absolute that it sometimes goes against moral common sense.
It’s wrong to kiss my spouse because I would not like it if everyone kissed my spouse.
Utilitarianism
· The morally right course of action is the one that will produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
· The only thing that matters is the consequences of the action, not the intentions behind the action (the ends justify the means).
· Ignores people’s rights, duties, and intentions.
· Could be used to justify an act that most would consider morally wrong because it inflicts harm on one person unjustly, even if it brings great happiness to many others.
It’s okay to steal money from my neighbor and take my family on a vacation, because then my whole family would be happy, and only my neighbor would be harmed.
Ethical Egoism
· Doing whatever is best for your own interests or would make you happy.
· This is not necessarily the same thing as doing whatever you want in the moment, because that might not be in your best interests in the long term.
· Can be used to justify terrible actions.
Ethical Altruism
· Doing whatever is best for others or would bring the greatest amount of happiness to people besides yourself.
· Some.
158 MoRALITY AND sELF-INTERESTunselfish, that you give up .docxhyacinthshackley2629
158 MoRALITY AND sELF-INTEREST
unselfish, that you give up your happiness to the selfishness of someone else, or that
the person demanding it has just never thought it out.
'W'hatever the reason, you're not likely to convince such a person to stop his
demands. But it will create much less pressure on you if you realize that it's bis self-
ish reason. And you can eliminate the problem entirely by looking for more com-
patible companions.
To find constant, profound happiness requires that you be free to seek the grat-
ification of your own desires. It means making positive choices.
If you slip into the Unselfishness Trap, you'll spend a good part of your time
making negative choices-trying to avoid the censure of those who tell you not to
think of yourself. You won't have time to be free.
If someone finds happiness by doing "good works" for others, let him.
doesn't mean that's the best way for you to find happiness.
And when someone accuses you of being selfish, just remember that he's
upset because you aren't doing what be selfishly wants you to do.
Srunv QursroNs
1,. Browne claims that when we behave unselfishly we, more often than not, sacrifice our
own happiness. Do you agree? 'Why'or why not?
2. Browne says that everyone is selfish because we all do what we believe will make us feel
good. Critics of egoism such as James Rachels claim that what makes an act selfish or
unselfish is its obiecf, not simply that it makes you feel good. If you are the sort of
person who feels good when you help others, then you are unselfish. If you feel good
only wben helping yourself, then you are selfish. Discuss the issue that divides Rachels
and Browne, and assess their respective positions.
That
only
Egoism and Moral Skepticism
James Rachels
James Rachels (194I-2003) was Universiry Professor of Philosophy a
the Universiry of Alabama. He is the author of several books, includin
The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality (1.986), Created from Animal:
The Moral Implications of Darwinism (1990), and Can Ethics Prouid
Answers? And Otber Essays in Moral Philosopby (1997).
EGorsM AND MoRAr sKEprlcrsM From A Neut lntroduction to Philosophy by James Rachels. Edited by
Steven M. Cahn (Harper and Row, 1,971,). Copyright @ 1971, by Steven M. Cahn. Reprinted by
permission of Steven M. Cahn.
of someone else, or that
ch a person to stop his
t realize that it's his self-
'looking for more com-
L be free to seek the grat-
>ices.
good part of your time
rose who tell you not to
or others, let him. That
remember that he's only
r to do.
ften than not, sacrifice our
we believe will make us feel
hat makes an
^ct
selfish or
J. If you are the sort of
unselfish. If you feel good
: issue that divides Rachels
rfessor of Philosophy at
several books, including
,), Created from Animals:
and Can Ethics Prouide
v $997).
ry James Rachels. Edited by
r M. Cahn. Reprinted by
JAMES RAcHELS: EGorsM AND MoRAL sKEprrcrsM 1S9
Psychological egoism is the view that h.
Informal Fallacies
Enterline Design Services LLC/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe the various fallacies of support, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
2. Describe the various fallacies of relevance, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
3. Describe the various fallacies of clarity, their origins, and circumstances in which specific arguments may not be fallacious.
We can conceive of logic as providing us with the best tools for seeking truth. If our goal is to seek truth, then we must be clear that the task isnot limited to the formation of true beliefs based on a solid logical foundation, for the task also involves learning to avoid forming falsebeliefs. Therefore, just as it is important to learn to employ good reasoning, it is also important to learn to avoid bad reasoning.
Toward this end, this chapter will focus on fallacies. Fallacies are errors in reasoning; more specifically, they are common patterns ofreasoning with a high likelihood of leading to false conclusions. Logical fallacies often seem like good reasoning because they resembleperfectly legitimate argument forms. For example, the following is a perfectly valid argument:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in Paris.
Therefore, you live in France.
Assuming that both of the premises are true, it logically follows that the conclusion must be true. The following argument is very similar:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in France.
Therefore, you live in Paris.
This second argument, however, is invalid; there are plenty of other places to live in France. This is a common formal fallacy known asaffirming the consequent. Chapter 4 discussed how this fallacy was based on an incorrect logical form. This chapter will focus on informalfallacies, fallacies whose errors are not so much a matter of form but of content. The rest of this chapter will cover some of the most commonand important fallacies, with definitions and examples. Learning about fallacies can be a lot of fun, but be warned: Once you begin noticingfallacies, you may start to see them everywhere.
Before we start, it is worth noting a few things. First, there are many, many fallacies. This chapter will consider only a sampling of some of themost well-known fallacies. Second, there is a lot of overlap between fallacies. Reasonable people can interpret the same errors as differentfallacies. Focus on trying to understand both interpretations rather than on insisting that only one can be right. Third, different philosophersoften have different terminology for the same fallacies and make different distinctions among them. Therefore, you may find that others usedifferent terminology for the fallacies that we will learn about in this chapter. Not to worry—it is the ideas here that are most important: Ourgoal is to learn to identi.
1. Examine Hofstedes model of national culture. Are all four dimeAbbyWhyte974
1. Examine Hofstede's model of national culture. Are all four dimensions still important in today's society as it relates to the success of the multinational manager? Why, or why not? Which do you think is the least important as it relates to multinational management? Why?
2. More companies are seeking to fill multinational management positions due to the influx of business growth abroad. If you were offered and accepted a position as a multinational manager, what would you do to personally prepare for the culture of a different country? Where would you seek information? What overall responsibilities would you expect of the job? How do you think the managerial responsibilities would be different from those you would face in the United States?
3. Multinational managers encounter many levels of culture. Which of the culture levels do you think might be the most difficult to manage? Why? Share an example. Which culture level do you think might be the easiest to understand? Why? Give an example of this.
4. In your own words, what is your perception of free trade? Think about the advantages of free trade; what are two benefits that result from free trade? There is also a downside to free trade; what are two disadvantages resulting from free trade? Provide reasoning for your choices.
5. What are the three major economic systems that nations utilize, and what is the role of each? How does each affect and influence individuals, multinational managers, and corporations?
6. How would you define ethical convergence? What are the four basic reasons for ethical convergence? Which might be the most difficult for multinational companies to follow, and why?
7. Describe the four major world religions. What are the impacts of each religion type on an economic environment? What do you think makes religion a concern in societies?
8. If you were a multinational manager, and you encountered an ethical dilemma within the multinational company, what heuristic questions would you use to decide between ethical relativism and ethical universalism? Of the different heuristic questions, which one do you think is most important? Explain your reasoning.
1
Week Two Instructor’s Notes
PHIL 1103 Summer
This week you will be learning in detail about the four different moral perspectives that
we will use to analyze moral questions.
Notice two things right at the start. First, because normative ethics is our main focus this
term, we are not going to attempt to settle the question of whether any moral perspective at all
could be correct or known to be correct—that is a task for metaethics. Our task in this second
week is to learn in some detail about four different kinds of consideration or value that often
seem relevant when we try to decide what is morally right or wrong in particular cases, namely:
(1) Respect for the rights and autonomy of the persons involved
(2) Increasing the overall well-being of the most individuals possible
(3) Asking wha ...
1. Examine Hofstedes model of national culture. Are all four dimeMartineMccracken314
1. Examine Hofstede's model of national culture. Are all four dimensions still important in today's society as it relates to the success of the multinational manager? Why, or why not? Which do you think is the least important as it relates to multinational management? Why?
2. More companies are seeking to fill multinational management positions due to the influx of business growth abroad. If you were offered and accepted a position as a multinational manager, what would you do to personally prepare for the culture of a different country? Where would you seek information? What overall responsibilities would you expect of the job? How do you think the managerial responsibilities would be different from those you would face in the United States?
3. Multinational managers encounter many levels of culture. Which of the culture levels do you think might be the most difficult to manage? Why? Share an example. Which culture level do you think might be the easiest to understand? Why? Give an example of this.
4. In your own words, what is your perception of free trade? Think about the advantages of free trade; what are two benefits that result from free trade? There is also a downside to free trade; what are two disadvantages resulting from free trade? Provide reasoning for your choices.
5. What are the three major economic systems that nations utilize, and what is the role of each? How does each affect and influence individuals, multinational managers, and corporations?
6. How would you define ethical convergence? What are the four basic reasons for ethical convergence? Which might be the most difficult for multinational companies to follow, and why?
7. Describe the four major world religions. What are the impacts of each religion type on an economic environment? What do you think makes religion a concern in societies?
8. If you were a multinational manager, and you encountered an ethical dilemma within the multinational company, what heuristic questions would you use to decide between ethical relativism and ethical universalism? Of the different heuristic questions, which one do you think is most important? Explain your reasoning.
1
Week Two Instructor’s Notes
PHIL 1103 Summer
This week you will be learning in detail about the four different moral perspectives that
we will use to analyze moral questions.
Notice two things right at the start. First, because normative ethics is our main focus this
term, we are not going to attempt to settle the question of whether any moral perspective at all
could be correct or known to be correct—that is a task for metaethics. Our task in this second
week is to learn in some detail about four different kinds of consideration or value that often
seem relevant when we try to decide what is morally right or wrong in particular cases, namely:
(1) Respect for the rights and autonomy of the persons involved
(2) Increasing the overall well-being of the most individuals possible
(3) Asking wha ...
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Honest Reviews of Tim Han LMA Course Program.pptxtimhan337
Personal development courses are widely available today, with each one promising life-changing outcomes. Tim Han’s Life Mastery Achievers (LMA) Course has drawn a lot of interest. In addition to offering my frank assessment of Success Insider’s LMA Course, this piece examines the course’s effects via a variety of Tim Han LMA course reviews and Success Insider comments.
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
2. Contractualism
●Argumentation ethics is usually studied
separately by libertarians, but it can
usefully be considered together with the
contractualist views we have been
considering.
●Hoppe and van Dun are trying to adapt
to libertarian use a well-established way
of doing ethics.
3. Habermas and Apel
●Hoppe was a student of Juergen Habermas
who developed discourse or argumentation
ethics.
●Another German philosopher, Karl-Otto Apel,
came up with a very similar approach.
●These writers aren’t libertarians, Habermas
began as a Marxist associated with the
Frankfurt School. Although he has become
more moderate than he was in his younger
days, he is still well to the left-of-center.
4. A Fundamental Mistake
●Discourse ethics, as Habermas and
Apel develop it, is an attempt to
discover the rules of conduct toward
one another that people would
reasonably accept.
●It is not an attempt to show that certain
moral judgments are requirements of
logic, i.e, that if you reject AE, you are
5. Types of Reason
●When we talk about reason, we can mean:
●Logical consistency. Here, someone who
violates logical laws has gone against reason,
but not otherwise. Suppose, e.g., that
someone does something very much against
his interest, e.g., walk into moving traffic.
Unless you can show that doing this violates
a logical law, it isn’t irrational in the logical
sense.
6. Hume on Reason
●Hume was famously skeptical about the
possibility of showing that actions were
irrational in this logical sense:
●“Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the
destruction of the whole world to the
scratching of my finger. ‘Tis not contrary to
reason for me to chuse my total ruin, to
prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or
person wholly unknown to me. ‘Tis as little
contrary to reason to prefer even my own
acknowledg’d lesser good to my greater, and
7. Instrumental Reason
●Reason can mean something other than
logical consistency. It can deal with whether
your means will achieve your ends.
●Given that I want x, I should do do y. Mises
uses this meaning of reason. He argues that
given the ends people have, we should
establish a free market.
●Gauthier also is an instrumentalist about
reason. He asks, why is it rational for us to
have moral dispositions? By “rational”, he has
in mind instrumental reason.
8. Reason and the Good Life
●Another sense of reason goes beyond
instrumental rationality. Here, the claim is that
reason can establish the nature of the good
life for each person.
●Aristotle can be viewed in this way.
●Ayn Rand thought that values depend on
each person taking his own life as the highest
value. Other values are instrumental to this
value.
9. Argumentation Ethics and
Reason
●AE uses a different sense of reason from the
ones discussed so far.
●Here the issue is, what would it be
reasonable for people to agree on, under the
requirement that they agree on rules that
apply to everyone equally.
●This is very much like Scanlon’s rules we
couldn’t reasonably reject. These rules
express our respect for persons.
10. AE and Reason, Continued
●The basic idea here comes from the second
version of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. This
requires us to treat every person as an end-
in-himself, not as only as a means.
●AE says that they way we do this is to reason
together about the norms that should apply in
our relations with each other.
●AE applies only to this part of morality. It
doesn’t apply to ethical issues that concern
how to lead a good life.
11. Two Mistakes to Avoid
●AE is not trying to answer the “what’s in it for
me?” question. It isn’t an attempt to argue
that it’s in our self-interest to observe the
rules it comes up with. That is a different
approach to morality.
●AE isn’t an attempt to say that you are
violating the laws of logic if you violate its
rules. As we’ll see, this leads to trouble later.
12. How to Get the Rules
●Habermas and Apel have an interesting
idea on how to find out what rules
people would agree on. They say,
doesn’t the process of trying to find out
the rules itself impose certain
requirements on us?
●This is what they mean by discourse or
argumentation ethics.
13. Another Mistake
●The claim they make is that
argumentation for this purpose, i.e., to
decide on universalizable rules,
imposes certain norms.
●AE doesn’t cover every use of argument
or communication, e.g., trying to
deceive someone. It doesn’t cover
Danny Sanchez’s fable of the lion.
14. An Objection
●One objection sometimes advanced against
AE is that the norms it come up with apply
only to the process of argument itself. If, e.g.,
you have to recognize that everyone is a self-
owner when he argues, why does this apply
once you stop arguing?
●This misconceives what AE is trying to do.
The point is that the norms of argument
suggest what the general norms should be.
15. Hoppe’s Innovation
●Hoppe and van Dun suggest that the
AE norms would be libertarian.
●Wouldn’t people accept the rule that
everyone was a self-owner? If someone
suggested that one group of people
should enslave others, this wouldn’t win
agreement. This is an important point.
16. Performative Contradictions
●To understand the next argument we have to
grasp the notion of a pragmatic paradox or
performative contradiction.
●This is different from a logical contradiction, e.
g., “HHH is both German and non-German”.
●A performative contradiction is a statement
that is false if you say it. E.g, you could say “I
am totally unconscious”, only if you were
conscious, so your saying it shows the
statement is false. Note that the statement
need not be self-contradictory. I could be
17. Self-Ownership and
Performative Contradiction
●Is it a performative contradiction if you deny
that you own yourself? Suppose you say, “I
don’t own myself.” Could you say this only if
you do own yourself?
●Why is there supposed to be a performative
contradiction? The contention is that in order
to say something, you must have control over
your own body. But just what you are implying
if you deny that you own yourself is that you
don’t have such control.
18. A Bad Objection
●Some people have objected, “Maybe
you only need part of your body in order
to speak, so you are not guilty of a
performative contradiction unless you
deny that you own any part of yourself.”
●Both the original claim of performative
contradiction and this objection suffer
from the same mistake.
19. What Is Self-Ownership?
●The statement “I own myself” is
deceptive in its form. It appears to be a
descriptive statement, one stating a
fact, like “I am an old man.”
●But it really isn’t descriptive. It’s a covert
ought-statement, something like, “I
ought to be the person who gets to
decide what to do with my body, not
20. Why Is This Relevant?
●If this is kept in mind, we’ll see what is
wrong with the claim that if you deny
you own yourself, you have fallen into a
performative contradiction.
●If someone denies that he owns
himself, he is saying, “It’s not the case
that I ought to be the person who
decides what to do with my body”.
21. Relevance Continued
●Then, if you say to this person, “But
you’re speaking!”, you haven’t pointed
to a contradiction.
●If you say, “It’s not the case that I ought
to be the person who decides what to
do with my body,” this is consistent with
the fact that you are deciding what to do
with your body.
22. William Wollaston
●Why might one think that there was a
contradiction?
●You might think that if I’m doing something,
this implies that I think I have a right to do it ,
but this need not be true. If a thief steals your
wallet, he need not in doing so implicitly claim
to own it.
●The English philosopher William Wollaston
(1659-1754) argued that all immorality rests
on lies. A thief has made the false claim,
“This property is mine.” This is the fallacy we
23. Property
●This leaves intact the basic contention
that it wouldn’t be reasonable for people
seeking agreement on universal
principles to reject self-ownership.
●Also, it seems reasonable to think that
people might agree on a libertarian
homesteading principle. But why need
this be the only logically possible rule?
24. Property Continued
●All sorts of rules are logically possible.
What’s contradictory about saying, the
third person to own property acquires
it? This would not make property
acquisition impossible.
●Of course, the libertarian principle is
reasonable, but we shouldn’t make
stronger claims for it than are justifiable.