Existentialist Themes Of Anxiety And Absurdity Essay -- Philosophy Phi

Existentialist Themes of Anxiety and AbsurdityIn a world with such a vast amount of people on that point exists virtuallyevery different belief, thought, and ideology. This means that for every controversy and every disagreement that their exists two sides of relative equalstrength. It is through these disagreements that arguments are formed.Arguments are the construction blocks in which philosophers use to analyzesituations and determine theories of life. For the purpose of this paper I willtry and argue my personal beliefs on a specific argument. This argument ispresented in a form of a question and upon examination of the contents of thisquestion, several different and unique questions arise. In order to aliment my opening as to the answer 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. in any case key to the support of my theoryis the concept of existentia lism. I will go into the foundations of thisethical theory throughout the remainder of this paper. Subquestion one, E --C, simple asks whether it is line up or false that if you have an ethical theorythen does it have to be consistent. Subquestion two, (?) -- H, poses theidea of what makes up the essence of being a mankind 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 wordswhich have different meanings to different people. For such vague words such asright and wrong, the background 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 pellucid that these two wordsmust be opposites of each former(a). Therefore, the understanding of one willeasily lead to the understanding of its opposite. However, the words themselveswill never be anything more than five letters grouped together. This is becauseyour ethical theory and someone elses ethical theory could doable conflictcausing for a discrepan... ...kill as a means of survival. At thispoint in time it is only necessary to kill sealed 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 eat meaning 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 continue to reproduce and thefood chain will continue to work. Being descendants of other living things,humans must tick off that nature is let to work on it own, continuing to do whatit has done for many years.In response to subquestio n 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 completely too focused and usuallynot completely relevant to every circumstance. The more broad your definitionor theory is then the closer you obtain 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 everythingthen you are stuck with