Name
Instructor
Course
Date
The fallacy of Damnation and its corresponding Cardinal Virtue
The fallacy of damnation is built around the idea that when an individual has a feeling that something is wrong with him or herself or when one has a feeling that somebody else has a problem, it means that individual or the person he or she feels has a problem must be worthless (Feinberg, John, Paul, and Aldous, 123). The fallacy goes further to ask questions such as: at what point does one conclude that another person is worthless? Is it right to criticize somebody who performs evil actions simply because one wants him or her to change their behavior? Is it right to compel somebody to do what one thinks is the better way of behaving? Is it right to criticize somebody just out of anger by using his or her wrong behavior as an excuse? The corresponding cardinal virtue for Damnation fallacy is prudence, which is all about prudence. It guides people to decide between right and wrong, given any particular situation.
Kant’s Deontology as an ethical theory
This ethical theory was formulated by Immanuel Kant. It is considered deontological due to a number of reasons. The first reason is that Kant argues that for an individual to behave in a manner that is morally right, he or she must act out of some duty. Kant also argued that it is not as a result of people’s actions that make them wrong or right but as a result of the intentions of their actions. Kant argued that morality is prescriptive. His ethical theory is very vital in the sense that it helps people to know which actions are their duties and which ones are forbidden. Moral statements are very categorical in the sense that they can prescribe actions in spite of their results (Barber, 96). A hypothetical imperative does not demand or prescribe any action. He argues that people should never be used as a means of getting to an end since they are moral being who require human treatment.
How Kant’s theory can serve as an effective antidote for the fallacy of Damnation
The theory of damnation is all about treating people with high morals and avoiding to judge others for what they do just based on perceptions. According to Feinberg, John, Paul D, and Aldous (98), people should never become personal with others to the point of revenging on them under the pretext of correcting their wrong behaviors. They should rather treat others based on moral principles since this would give them the wisdom of telling between right and wrong. What Kant’s theory stands for is not very different from the principles of fallacy of Damnation. Kant says that humans are at the highest point of creation and are rational. They for that matter demand unique and equal treatment. Kant further says that one person’s happiness should never be promoted at the expense of another person’s. People should treat others how they expect to be treated.
The fallacy of Jumping on the Bandwagon and its corresponding cardinal virtue
Bandwagon fallacy is a situation whereby people tend to change their views concerning something irrespective of whether they are factual or not and join the views of the majority to avoid being considered the odd ones out. It has the simple belief that “being that everybody is doing it (or thinking it or saying it); you should also be doing it”. The fallacy argues that the majority is all times right and if a majority is doing something, then, any other individual should be doing it, being that he or she will be part of the majority, which is always right. The argument may be problematic because the premise stating that “the majority is always right” cannot be said to be true (Feinberg, John, Paul, and Aldous 79). The phrase appears stupid and very few people would admit falling for it but it is an easy trap that people would not realize they get into. It is a bandwagon that very few individuals would realize they are jumping into. The cardinal virtue associated with this fallacy is that of justice since it is concerned with the will. People should have their personal opinions listened to without being subjected to the will of the majority.
Sartre’s Existentialistic Ethics
The main concept in this ethical theory, as brought out by Sartre, is that existence precedes essence; subjectivity is the beginning of ethics. Sartre says that anything that is human essence only comes after human beings have existed and have made their choices. This is an ethical theory that is radically different from other theories previously encountered. It is not as prescriptive as other theories such as those of Kant and Aristotle; it rather makes comments towards the nature of ethics. Existentialism ethics are created by man, they can never exist without being created by man. According to Barber (102), if at all God created humans for a purpose then they have some essence. Humans have a purpose before they are born. But Sartre argues that there is no God and humans cannot have essence before they begin to exist. He writes from an atheistic point of view and makes people wonder if there is any essence of ethics without God.
Why Sartre’s theory serves an effective antidote for the fallacy of jumping on the Bandwagon
Feinberg, Paul, and Aldous (123) have the opinion that fallacy of jumping on the Bandwagon majorly dwells on the idea of being influenced by peer influence to follow whatever the majority is doing even if it is not right, while Sartre’s theory talks about the essence of ethics and how human existence is significant in the formation of any ethics. Sartre’s theory becomes an effective anecdote for the Bandwagon fallacy because it talks about human nature and human behavior and what affects ethics, which is much related to Bandwagon’s aspect of acting as a majority to influence ethics and human behavior. Sartre has the opinion that human beings have a purpose for existence and should for that matter create their own ethics and behavior without having to follow the majority.
The fallacy of Jumping on the Bandwagon and its corresponding cardinal virtue
The fallacy of Bandwagon fallacy is a situation whereby people tend to change their views concerning something irrespective of whether they are factual or not and join the views of the majority to avoid being considered the odd one out. It has the simple belief that “being that everybody is doing it (or thinking it or saying it); you should also be doing it”. The fallacy argues that the majority is all the times right and if a majority is doing something, then, any other individual should be doing it since he or she will be part of the majority, which is always right. The argument may be problematic because the premise stating that “the majority is always right” cannot be said to be true (Feinberg, John, Paul, and Aldous, 112). The phrase appears stupid and very few people would admit falling for it but it is an easy trap that people would not realize they get into. It is a bandwagon that very few individuals would realize they are jumping into. The cardinal virtue associated with this fallacy is that of justice since it is concerned with the will. People should have their personal opinions listened to without being subjected to follow the will of the majority.
Mill’s on Liberty
This is a philosophical work that was developed by John Stuart Mill, a British philosopher. It applies Mill’s ethical principles of utilitarianism to the state and the society. Mill seeks to explain the standards for the relationship existing between liberty and authority. He tries to emphasize the significance of individuality, which is considered as a prerequisite for high pleasures. Mills also attempts to criticize the aspect of “tyranny of the majority” in his attempts to defend individualism. His works revolve around the fundamental liberties of individuals, legitimate objections to any form of government intervention, and the relationships existing between an individual and the society. This theory is about the struggle between liberty and authority. Mill says that the tyranny of the government should be controlled by the citizens’ liberties. He has the belief that control of the authority should be divided into two mechanisms: the necessary rights of the citizens, and the establishment of constitutional control mechanisms in relation to the consent of the whole community. According to Feinberg, John, Paul, and Aldous (98), there should be a sort of representative body to express the interests of the society in the governing power. Mill proposes that it is important for individuals to be left to rule or control themselves; the society should be immune to tyranny.
How Mill’s position in On Liberty servers as an effective antidote for the fallacy of jumping on the Bandwagon
Mill’s On Liberty is very effective in the sense that it mainly advocates for individualism rather than tyranny or following a majority. It has the belief that individuals are rational beings and should be left to make their own decisions and control themselves. Mills argues that individuals should have liberty and not subjected by the authority to do things against their will. In relation to the fallacy of jumping on the Bandwagon, Mill argues that the tyranny of numbers or the majority should never be left to influence or dictate individual interests. Barber (99) says that individuals should never be scared to stand for what they think is right simply because they are not part of the majority; majority is not always right, as believed.
Works Cited
Barber, Sotirios A. The Fallacies of States’ Rights. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2013. Internet resource.
Feinberg, John S, Paul D. Feinberg, and Aldous Huxley. Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2010. Print.
