Existentialist Themes Of Anxiety And Absurdity Essay -- Philosophy Phi

Existentialist Themes of trouble and AbsurdityIn a world with such(prenominal) a Brobdingnagian amount of people there exists virtuallyevery divers(prenominal) belief, thought, and ideology. This manner that for everyargument and every disagreement that their exists two sides of relative get evenstrength. It is through these disagreements that arguments atomic number 18 formed.Arguments are the building blocks in which philosophers use to examinesituations and determine theories of life. For the purpose of this paper I forgettry and beseech my soulfulnessal beliefs on a specific argument. This argument ispresented in a form of a question and upon examination of the contents of thisquestion, several(prenominal) different and unique questions arise. In crop to support mytheory as to the consequence to this question I will attempt to answer the threesubquestions which grass less with the content of the question itself and morewith the reaction to reading the question. as w ell key to the support of my theoryis the concept of existentialism. I will go into the foundations of thishonorable theory throughout the inhabitder of this paper. Subquestion one, E --C, frank asks whether it is true or false that if you generate an ethical theory then does it have to be consistent. Subquestion two, (?) -- H, poses theidea of what makes up the essence of world 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 all 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 wordswhich 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 needful requirem ent of thispaper to somehow define these two words. It is obvious that these two wordsmust be opposites of each other. Therefore, the understanding of one willeasily lead to the understanding of its opposite. However, the words themselveswill never be anyaffair more than five letters grouped together. This is becauseyour ethical theory and person elses ethical theory could possible conflictcausing for a discrepan... ...kill as a means of survival. At thispoint in time it is further needful to kill certain animals as a form of feedsource 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 non eatmeat would starve to death if the only thing to eat was meat? And as long as wedo not over kill a certain species then they will outride 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 t o do whatit has done for many years.In response to subquestion one, I do not feel that it is possible toremain consistent in any ethical theory in which you sound by. This is mainlybecause every ethical theory that I now of is whole too focused and usuallynot completely relevant to every circumstance. The more broad your definitionor theory is then the enveloping(prenominal) you come to the only one that will always work.The less you take what you can and cant do, the closer you come to saying nothing.Once you have generalized your theory so much that you eliminated everythingthen you are stuck with