Existentialist Themes Of Anxiety And Absurdity Essay -- Philosophy Phi

Existentialist Themes of Anxiety and Absurdity In a world with such a vast amount of people there 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, â€Å"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, â€Å"(?) --> H†, poses the idea of what makes up the essence of being a human being. Subquestion three, â€Å"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 discrepan... ...kill as a means of survival. At this point in time it is only necessary to kill certain animals as a form of food source and for other luxury items. There have been times when it was necessary for humans to kill an animal for food. I wonder if a person who did not eat meat would starve to death if the only thing to eat was meat? And as long as we do not over kill a certain species then they will continue to reproduce and the food 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 what it has done for many years.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In response to subquestion one, I do not feel that it is possible to remain consistent in any ethical theory in which you live by. This is mainly because every ethical theory that I now of is entirely too focused and usually not completely relevant to every circumstance. The more broad your definition or 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 much that you eliminated everything then you are stuck with