Question 1: You have the opportunity to lie in order to (presumably) save a life
Question 1: You have the opportunity to lie in order to (presumably) save a life
Question 1: You have the opportunity to lie in order to (presumably) save a life. You cannot predict the exact outcomes of your decision, of course. Taking a Kantian stance, do you think that Kant would approve of your decision? Would it be a moral decision, for Kant? Why? (You should engage with Kant’s categorical imperative.) Suggestions: The Kantian perspective: the CI is notoriously rigid in its design, so on the face of it, Kant would not approve of lying to, presumably, save a life. The hard part is to justify your answer. You need to engage with the CI (whichever formulation you find is most appropriate here) and demonstrate in-depth understanding of how Kant’s CI works. Definitely consider the connection between moral decisions and consequences. Ask yourself this: where does Kant stand on the consequences of one’s moral actions? You can give an example if you wish. But try to think like a philosopher, that is, beyond the surface of such declarations as “I would 100% lie to save a life.” or “I would never ever lie.” Question 2: Reconstruct (not copy and paste!) Sartre’s argument stating that existence comes before essence and explain how this is related to his thesis that God is of no consequence and we, humans, are abandoned. (Since the topics of abandonment and freedom are very big topics in existentialism and in Sartre’s philosophy, in particular, focus on how Sartre argues about it in the text.) Suggestions: Since this question is based on the text; it’s a matter of following the text itself and making sure that you understand all the connections Sartre makes between the human condition and God, and the human condition and abandonment, respectively. You can talk about the paper-knife example, or the cogito principle; anything that illustrates Sartre’s understanding of existence preceding essence. As far as why humans are abandoned, and how God fits into all this, you can propose (and justify!) that God, existing or not, has nothing to do with the human condition. The human condition is one that presupposes responsibility for the other and this comes with certain sentiments (such as despair, for example). Explain why that is the case. You can also link abandonment to Sartre’s notion of freedom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Get 15% Discount When you Order Assignments From Us.