Philosophy Answers to the Questions

Question 1

Advantages and Disadvantages of Ethical Egoism

Answer Example

Ethical egoism is defined as a prescriptive view of events. It looks at things as how they should be as opposed to how they are. According to normative type of philosophy, ethical egoism is concerned with what is right notwithstanding the situation at hand (Fero, Herrick, and Jie 200). Ethical egoism includes both the advantages and disadvantages. Among the pros, there is a fact that egoism impacts people’s actions. Since it is based on how one should act and not how to behave, this kind of egoism serves as a justifier for activities that one undertakes. For example, the one who engages in an affair simply has to justify it by help of their ethical egoism.

Another advantage of ethical egoism is that it fosters self-awareness. Human beings know what they need as well as what they want in life. Equally, each human being strives to understand the desires and wishes of their people in an imperfect way. In essence, moral philosophy tries to dictate to people the required behavior. This keeps people on toes as far as moral norms of the society are concerned. On the other hand, one of the pros of ethical egoism is that it does not allow accommodation of other people’s feelings or wishes. For instance, when an egoistic person finds a person in a delicate situation, their ego shall not allow them handle the situation as it is. As a result, chaos may arise due to whims of ethical egoism.

Lastly, ethical egoism seems to advocate for a split of the world into two categories: that is the rest and I. It implies that ethical egoism wants to have people who care about their affairs at the expense of others. For example, an ethical egoist would satisfy their wants before thinking about others. This does not foster the general good of the society (Fero, Herrick, and Jie 324).

Retrievered from

Question 2

Kant’s Duty Ethics

Answer Example

This is a deontological ethical theory propounded by a German citizen known as Immanuel Kant (Mizzoni 104). It states that the only good thing on the globe is the good will. As a result, Kant enthuses that what can be termed to be intrinsically good is that what advocates for the moral good of the general society. He further says that the moral good should act on all people notwithstanding their interest or roles in the society. This was illustrated in the universability principle. This principle has it that for an act to be permissible, it must be applied equally to all people without causing any kind of contradiction whatsoever.

Kant was categorical in his delineation between duties and inclinations. According to him, duties are those activities that one executes while being regulated by the moral law. On the other hand, inclinations are the wishes or feelings that one has towards a given activity. Inclinations are not regulated in any manner. Thus, they allow one to behave or work according to their whims and or wishes. Under inclinations, people act to satisfy their interests. Acting out of the moral duty, according to Kant, can only be achieved if one knows what the moral law is. The moral law can be known through the categorical imperative.

Immanuel Kant was right to argue that people should act out of the sense of duty as opposed to inclinations, since the former advocates for accountability. Apart from that, a sense of duty is regulated by the moral law, making it hard for people to transgress while executing their chores. In contrast, indiscriminate attributes characterize the sense of inclinations. In essence, the sense of duty serves the entire society, while the inclination sense is limited to serving an individual (Mizzoni 134).

Retrievered from

Question 3

How God’s Foreknowledge Presents a Problem for Human Freedom and Moral Responsibility

Answer Example

It is factual that God exists. He is indeed omnipresent as well as omniscient. As a result, God dictates what people do in their daily lives. Apart from that, God possess an inherent ability to foresee out future events. This means he knows all plans that human beings have. Apart from that, God knows the destiny and fate of each one of people (Rudavsky 34).

From the above facts, human beings have got an extremely delicate situation in their daily activities. It makes it difficult for them to exercise their freedom, given the ability of God to foretell the future of man. Freedom refers to the permission to execute duties without any form of restriction. During his creation, God gave this attribute to humanity. Unfortunately, he did not give it fully, since he has the ability to monitor human actions. Men are forced to remain accountable for their actions. Apart from that, it is only God who has knowledge as far as the future of each person is concerned. From the above truth, people cannot claim to be free. In any case, they have to keep relying on God for any aid that they may require. Their freedom is also limited, since they cannot influence their future. Thus, such events are solely left to God to decide for man.

God expects his people to take moral responsibility at all times. The problem arises where man is expected to be morally responsible, yet they do not know what the future holds for them. This exhibits a similar problem where humanity is forced to submit everything to God. Hence, no one would claim to be free or morally responsible when God knows what they will be in the future. All in all, humanity should depend on God’s mercy as opposed to their effort to appear morally responsible (Rudavsky 122).

call us
scroll to top