In a world with such a vast amount of people their exists virtually every different belief, thought, and ideology. This means that for every argument and every disagreement that their exists two sides of relative equal strength. It is through these disagreements that arguments are formed. Arguments are the building blocks in which philosophers use to analyze situations and determine theories of life. For the purpose of this paper I will try and argue my personal beliefs on a specific argument. This argument is presented in a form of a question and upon examination of the contents of this question, several different and unique questions arise. In order to support my theory as to the answer to this question I will attempt to answer the three subquestions which deal less with the content of the question itself and more with the reaction to reading the question. Also key to the support of my theory is the concept of existentialism. I will go into the foundations of this ethical theory throughout the remainder of this paper. Subquestion one, "E --> C", simple asks whether it is true or false that if you have an ethical theory then does it have to be consistent. Subquestion two, "(?) --> H", poses the idea of what makes up the essence of being a human being. Subquestion three, "E --> (H --> M)", asks whether it is true or false that it is ethical to assume that humans should be given moral priority over animals.
I order to support my interpretation and answer the topic question, I will try to explain my personal ethical theory. We were given several different theories in which to emulate or pick pieces of in order to define such words which have different meanings to different people. For such vague words such as `right' and `wrong', the context in which they are presented are vital pieces in order to define them. It is my belief, and a necessary requirement of this paper to somehow define these two words. It is obvious that these two words must be opposites of each other. Therefore, the understanding of one will easily lead to the understanding of its opposite. However, the words themselves will never be anything more than five letters grouped together. This is because your ethical theory and someone else's ethical theory could possible conflict causing for a discrepancy in the definitions of these words. Therefore, throughout this paper I will try not to use such vague words such as `right' or `wrong'.
Most of the Philosophers and ethical theories presented in Sober held that the highest ethical good is the same for everyone. Kierkegaard, who was the first writer to call himself existential, reacted against this tradition by insisting that the highest good for the individual is to find his or her own unique vocation (Web 2). I agreed with many of the different ideas of the ethical theories but I was not able to overlook the ever present idea of God. Personally I am a anti-religious person who feels strongly that religion in general is filled with corruption and too often leads to a misguided life. It is my belief that, "Blind faith is the CHILD of ignorance"(Quote, ?). It was therefor impossible for me to look at any of the theories which involved the mentioning of God. However, I did find many interesting ideas encompassed in the theory of atheistic existentialism. Existentialism is the popular name of a philosophical attitude primarily associated with the 20th-century thinker Jean Paul Sarte, but with a history that goes back to the 19th-century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegarrd.
All existentialists have tried to stress the importance of passionate individual action in deciding question of both morality and truth (Warnock). They have insisted, accordingly, that personal experience and acting on one's own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth. Thus, the understanding of a situation by someone involved in that...