The Answers of Philosophers to Some Questions in the 19th and 20th Century

     The questions are undoubtedly one of the most important aspects of philosophy. Until today, many philosophers have come and gone through this world with their questions and answers. Especially, five philosophers Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Nagel, Sartre made a crucial impact in the past centuries. In this regard, five questions can be drawn from the works of these five philosophers, in which they seek answers.

Firstly, Immanuel Kant seeks answers to the question of what could be a principle, underlying a universal moral law. In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that “pure philosophy” is based on priori principles and moral metaphysics is a branch of it (1). In other words, we do not learn the principles of morality through external experience. Also, Kant claims that because of the fact that moral principles are priori; they are valid in any case, regardless of the empirical situation (2). Think of a moral principle that says “do not steal”. From Kant's point of view, if a principle is valid for specific person or situation, this can be considered as empiricial situation and cannot be considered as a moral principle of the moral law; because there cannot be a moral law which is valid for one person and not for another person. Moreover, Kant brings the term of “categorical imperative” that is we should act in a way that we will this action to be a universal law (24). To explain the maxim, Kant gives us an example in which a person can get rid of a trouble by telling a lie, and Kant argues the person should ask herself if she wants "the act of lying" to be a universal moral law, in order to act morally good (11-12). In other words, someone who behaves with the duty will act, thinking whether she would want "the act of lying" to be an universal moral law.

Secondly, Arthur Schopenhauer seeks an answer to the question why we should alleviate pain of others. In his masterpiece The World as Will and Representation, Schopenhauer argues that the world and every object we see in the world is a representation and tells us that this will, the force lies beneath everything in nature, and all actions, desires come from the will (110). In other words, the will to live is in everything, and. For example, there is the will in the dog we see in the street, in our mother, in our father, in a person we do not like. Moreover, Schopenhauer argues that the best we can do to someone is to alleviate the pain, stating that our desires lead us to pain (375). This means that we are doomed to pain in this life. Next, Schopenhauer emphasizes that if a person is being aware of the knowledge that he is carrying the will to live with everyone else, no pain is strange for such a person; unlike the selfish person (379). To give an example, if you give harm a person, you do not understand his/her pain because you are not aware of the fact that you carry the same will with that person. Actually, you are nothing different than the one you hurt. Therefore, it would be a better choice to alleviate the pain of others.

Thirdly, Nietzsche, as a nihilist philosopher, questions whether the moral rules imposed by outside benefit the individual. In Gay Science, Nietzsche focused on how individuality is actually excluded in “the herd”, and emphasized that the free will of individual is equivalent to bad conscience in the herd (117). In other words, an individual with her/his free will could make a choice against the herd in a place where there must be rules for the benefit of the herd. That is not desirable for the herd. We can say that it is the choice of the herd that is expected from the individual in the society, not the benefit of the individual. Furthermore, in Gay Science Nietzsche criticizes Kant’s moral law and emphasizes that nobody can impose his own judgment as a universal moral action (265). For example, you have judgments about how to behave about a situation, but not everyone might judge like you. Maybe something that applies to you can be harmful to another individual. Instead, in the book, Nietzsche recommends that the individual creates good values for herself and get rid of this whole set of moral values of actions imposed on us from the outside (266). Thus, it can be seen how Nietzsche puts individuality at the forefront.

Apart from Nietzsche, Thomas Nagel looks for an answer to the question of whether a person can morally be held responsible for.  In “Moral Luck”, Nagel argues that there are conditions, “temperament”, previous conditions and the results of actions that people cannot control, thus people cannot be held morally responsible in such situations.[1] In the viewpoint of Nagel, the situation you encounter, your personal tendencies, the events you have experienced before and the consequences of the actions out of your control are open a discussion regarding how morally responsible you are. This means that we make judgments about a person is not guilty or guilty as a result of the action regardless of factors that cannot be controlled. Contrary to Kant, Nagel emphasizes the effect of people's characteristics such as envious unkind on moral behavior and mentions that this is a matter of bad luck in this sense.[2] In other words, being jealous will have an impact on your moral behavior. You might endeavor more than a person who does not have jealous temparement, for example, to avoid harming someone because of your jealousy.

Lastly, in “Existentialism Is a Humanism”, Sartre questions whether people’s actions can be based on a given specific human nature.  In this text, Sartre claims that existence precedesses essence; thus, that man creates his own actions regardless of a specific human nature (5). In other words, as a person, you create your own essence after it exists; thus, it is in your hands to choose your character, decisions, actions. Also, Sartre says that since there is no God who created man with a conception, a specific human nature cannot be mentioned (3). Still, Sartre says that Sartre defends his ideas on existentialism without discussing God's existence; saying “Not that we believe God does exist, but we think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself”. This is important because existentialism is actually a philosophy that tells people to take care of their actions even though it is sometimes perceived as a result of atheism or something that is wholly about atheism. Next, Sartre argues that man is nothing but a series of undertakings (8). In other words, you attempt to exist with your actions. If we think from the perspective of Sartre, such an example can be given: if you want to be a humble person, do humble actions, but you cannot sit down there and claim that you are humble by nature. Thus, Sartre brought a controversial view of philosophy regarding human nature.

In conclusion, these five different philosophers bring answers to these five different questions. Still, these questions asked by these five philosophers do not lose their importance. Although all these thoughts are open to debate, in my opinion, there are important things we can learn from them.

References (Except course material)

Williams, B. A. O., and T. Nagel. "Moral Luck." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 50 (1976): 115-51. Accessed July 1, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/4106826.

[1] Williams, B. A. O., and T. Nagel, "Moral Luck," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 50 (1976), 140. Accessed July 1, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/4106826.

[2] Ibid, 146,147.