Existentialist Themes Of Anxiety And Absurdity Essay -- Philosophy Phi

Existentialist Themes of Anxiety and AbsurdityIn a world with such a vast amount of people there exists virtually any different belief, thought, and ideology. This means that for everyargument and every disagreement that their exists two sides of relative equalstrength. It is through these disagreements that arguments are formed.Arguments are the building blocks in which philosophers rehearse to analyzesituations and determine theories of life. For the purpose of this paper I testamenttry and argue my personal beliefs on a specific argument. This argument ispresented in a form of a gesture and upon examination of the contents of thisquestion, several different and unique questions arise. In order to countenance mytheory as to the arrange to this question I will attempt to answer the threesubquestions which deal less with the content of the question itself and morewith the reaction to reading the question. Also key to the support of my theoryis the concept of existentialism. I w ill go into the foundations of thisethical theory throughout the remainder of this paper. Subquestion wiz, E --C, simple asks whether it is consecutive or glowering that if you have an ethical theorythen does it have to be conformable. Subquestion two, (?) -- H, poses theidea 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 assumethat humans should be given moral priority over animals.I order to support my interpretation and answer the topic question, Iwill try to explain my personal ethical theory. We were given several differenttheories in which to emulate or pick pieces of in order to define such terminologywhich have different meanings to different people. For such vague words such asright and wrong, the context in which they are presented are vital pieces inorder to define them. It is my belief, and a necessary requirement of thispaper to somehow define these two words. It is obviou s that these two wordsmust be opposites of each other. on that pointfore, the understanding of one willeasily lead to the understanding of its opposite. However, the words themselveswill never be anything more than louvre permitters grouped together. This is becauseyour ethical theory and someone elses ethical theory could possible conflictcausing for a discrepan... ...kill as a means of survival. At thispoint in time it is only necessary to kill certain animals as a form of foodsource and for other luxury items. There have been times when it was necessaryfor humans to kill an animal for food. I wonder if a person who did not eatmeat would starve to cobblers last if the only thing to eat was meat? And as long as wedo not over kill a certain species then they will continue to reproduce and thefood chain will continue to work. Being descendants of other living things,humans must insure that nature is let to work on it own, continuing to do whatit has done for many years.In respon se to subquestion one, I do not feel that it is possible toremain consistent in any ethical theory in which you live by. This is mainlybecause every ethical theory that I now of is entirely too cerebrate and usuallynot completely relevant to every circumstance. The more broad your definitionor theory is then the closer you come to the only one that will always work.The less you say what you can and cant do, the closer you come to saying nothing.Once you have generalized your theory so overmuch that you eliminated everythingthen you are stuck with