1. Philosophy 1000 Final Assignment
Name: Adham Abdel Moneim
Professor: Iva Apostolova
Student #: 100865929
Course: Philosophy 1000
Institution: Carleton University
Due Date: April 7th
2015

2. Adham Abdel Moneim
Phil 1000 final assignment
#:100865929
QUESTION ONE:
Hume’s exploration of causality happens in the setting of thinking about what and how
we can know about matters of fact. He claims that all such knowledge can only be founded on
this casual relation by suggesting that we cannot deduce the cause of something or what
something will cause by investigating it alone. If that entity is completely new to someone, the
person will not be able, by the most precise investigation of its sensible qualities, to discover any
of its causes and effects. You might think that you are able to tell, for instance, that a single
billiard ball bumping with another would move it. However, you are being persuaded by your
own knowledge in a situation like that. In the absence of any knowledge or experience of what
takes place next, assuming or imagining that the next ball moves is arbitrary; this is because
there are several things that it could as well do. For instance, the ball could possibly remain
motionless while the first ball bounces off of it. According to this view, just considering the
qualities of the causes, the following effects must appear entirely arbitrary (Stevenson 224).
Hence, from investigating the first object, we cannot infer the thought that it causes the action
that happens next.
The causation idea is the idea of a relation between events or two objects. In order to find
the causal relation between events, we should then use the experience. However, it is significant
that we comprehend the kind of experience that might give us this knowledge. We cannot infer
that the first event caused the next to happen if we only witness one event followed by another in
one instance. It would have been possible if there were two or more witnesses talking about the
same instance. It is only under these circumstances that inference is possible.
Hume tells us that experience does not always tell us much. Using the two events: A and
2

3. Adham Abdel Moneim
Phil 1000 final assignment
#:100865929
B, it can be said that event A will cause event B to take place when the two occurrences always
happen together. That is if the two events are conjoined. Therefore, whenever we find A, we are
certain that we have also found B and assume that the conjunction will keep on happening.
However, it is close to unmanageable to rationally or empirically verify that the subsequent event
took place due to the first one. Hume believes that casual obligation is a delusion; our minds are
conveyed by routine, upon existence of one event, to anticipate the normal attendance as well as
to be certain that the event will take place. By the power of routine, we tend to scheme need on
to persistent concurrence (Stevenson 224).
Kant, on the other hand, avoids Hume’s skeptical solution. Kant agrees that casual
connection cannot be proved. However, he claims that the existing association is not as Hume
suggested as a mind routine that we got empirically from the impression of frequently related
occasions. Casual obligation is a priori mind condition of the entire imaginable familiarities. Our
minds, through the comprehension, categorically as well as universally apply this to all the ruling
of substances of sense. Therefore, clearly, Kant does not end up with Hume’s skepticism because
he revives the a priori. He suggests that the a priori plays a structural role in our experience
(Bayne 202). Kant thinks that Hume has ignored this idea. The priori knowledge, or priori idea
was a term used during the western philosophy time which is a Latin phrase initially derived
from the word experience. This term was used to show the difference between arguments from
causes and arguments from effects.
According to Kant’s model of the mind, the causal relationship is one among the twelve
categories; ideas that are essential to all knowledge. He suggests that they are mental roles that
make sense out of our different views by forming them into the method in which we can
3

4. Adham Abdel Moneim
Phil 1000 final assignment
#:100865929
experience the world. The categories in unity form ‘the understanding’- faculty form making
practical judgments. Lastly, the categories are clean ideas, in the logic that they are not as Hume
had suggested, developed from experience, but have their source in the very composition of the
mind itself (Bayne 220).
QUESTION TWO:
Killing a murderer to prevent a murder is an act that needs great understanding of morals.
Kant and Nietzsche have different arguments of morals. However, there are various actualities
that should be made clear before we can articulately comprehend the existing encounter between
these approaches concerning the foundation of morals. It is significant that we know that Kant
was the principal thinker who originally came up with the moral theory. He claims that there are
certain values that have fundamental values by themselves. Kant follows these values as he goes
ahead to suggest the following. ‘Duty holds absolute necessity in itself’. Going by this claim
alone, it carries the entire moral perception of his moral account. This marks the first point that
Nietzsche first differs with. Nietzsche does not believe in the same values as a given fact and
goes ahead to make what he suggests to be his next move. This is to ask how and why the values
like duty came to have their value (Fitzsimons 570).
However, evaluating Kant’s argument, an action is directly linked or tied to an outcome.
Therefore, each action can be measured morally in different ways; whether the weight is put on
the action itself or on the consequence of the action, and particularly by its utility to its
beneficiaries. Kant defined the worth of morality by scrutinizing the principles that lie behind it,
regardless of the aftermath that follows. He sets off his justification by defining the meaning of
goodwill. He then suggests that goodwill is not just good due to what it is able to achieve, neither
4

5. Adham Abdel Moneim
Phil 1000 final assignment
#:100865929
is it good because of its ability to realize a proposed end. Kant suggests that goodwill is only
good through its willing, that is, it is good in itself (Fitzsimons 570).
Therefore, putting the will to be the primordial power existing behind all the choices
gives him the authority to suggest that an action’s moral worth is always measured by the worth
of the will that is behind it and has very little in connection to the results of the action. He puts
his theory into practice using the ‘duty’ idea as the supervisory control that by itself stands for
good. Therefore, any action that takes place strictly from duty is a moral act. Developing from
the duty morality, only when an act made from duty is considered moral, he claims that duty
holds absolute necessity.
For instance, when a person with absolute immunity from punishment confronts in a
condition that allows him to carry out a crime that is profitable, yet he decides to decline
committing the crime, this behavior can be said to be moral. However, when another person with
no such immunity confronts such a situation, his unwillingness to perform such a crime is likely
to be attributed to the fear of punishment and not morality. Kant suggests a moral action strictly
takes place only when one follows the universal law instead of going by one’s personal desire or
inclination (Fitzsimons 577).
Nietzsche on the other hand talks of master morality and slave morality. Master morality
tries to assess actions on the basis of good and bad aftermath. On the other hand, slave morality
assesses actions on the basis of intentions: good and evil. Therefore, going by Nietzsche’s take
on morality, my actions and response to the murderer would be evaluated on the basis of my
intentions. In this case, I intent to stop the murderer from committing murder. It is not clear the
kind of murderer the person is. The murderer might kill and kill again. Therefore, killing the
5

6. Adham Abdel Moneim
Phil 1000 final assignment
#:100865929
murderer would be a justified action according to Nietzsche. This is because my intentions are
good according to Nietzsche’s morality theory. Also The Universal Law will definitely call for
the elimination of such a person- a person who sees no good in other people’s life. My action
will be determined by the principal will that lies behind it and not by the outcome (Fitzsimons
580).
QUESTION THREE:
Nietzsche claims that there are two important types of morality. Master morality and
slave morality. Master morality tries to assess actions on the basis of good and bad aftermath. On
the other hand, slave morality assesses actions on the basis of intentions: good and evil. Ancient
sates derived the value of actions from the aftermath of the action. However, in the long run,
there exist no moral phenomena, only moral clarification of the phenomena. In accordance to
these tough-willed men, the good is the noble and powerful, whereas the timid and the weak are
essentially the bad.
In master morality, good takes the glorious as well as proud state of mind. Therefore, in
the first instance it concentrates on people rather than the actions. On the other hand, bad refers
to the despicable people and is mainly concentrated on what is useful and not what is
pronounced. Good-bad recognizes a hierarchy of people, the great and honorable masters and the
common people. Therefore, the noble person only identifies moral responsibilities towards their
equal. Then the manner in which they treat people who are below them is not a matter of
morality. The great and honorable people have the sense of fullness, power, wealth etc. Noble
persons experience themselves as the main origin of value, hence making decisions on what is
good or bad. Good instigates in self-affirmation, a festivity of one’s greatness as well as power.
6

7. Adham Abdel Moneim
Phil 1000 final assignment
#:100865929
They do not need other people to say they are good or not. They respect themselves and have
devoutness for whatever is great. However, this is not self-indulgence. Any signs that show
weakness are scorned, and harshness, as well as severity, is treasured. Noble morality is said to
be a morality of gratitude, as well as retaliation. Friendship comprises of mutual respect and
refusal of over-familiarity, whereas the enemies are necessary, in order to outlet feelings of
jealousy and aggression. All these qualities mean that the good individuals justly arouse a
respectful distance in people who are their equals and fear in people who are not their equal
(Crandell 100).
On the other hand, Slave morality starts with the rejection of the master morality. Slave
morality does not and cannot stand on its own. The qualities of the noble person are evil and
their absence is what is good. This mainly focuses on the relief of pain and suffering. Whatever
is useful or opposes oppression is morally good. Therefore, pity, altruism, as well as a lack of
interest in oneself are considered good. In differing with the noble morality, it encourages
humility as well as patience. It questions the deceptive happiness of the noble people; it rejects
hierarchy and claims that morality is the same for everyone. However, it is negative about the
human condition, suspicious of the goodness of this life, and so it perceives people as weak and
disgraceful. Therefore, it has to look for the future and have faith in things getting better than
they are. Finally, when this kind of morality dominates, there is an inclination to good actions to
be taken as senseless or simple minded (Kirkland 580).
When compared to the early thinkers like Aristotle, it is not easy to accept Nietzsche’s
theory of morality. Aristotle himself would not accept this kind of morality theory. Aristotle
believed in the significance of community. At times he is also referred to as a communitarian.
7

8. Adham Abdel Moneim
Phil 1000 final assignment
#:100865929
This is likely because he always placed the well-being of a community up above an individual’s
well-being. Therefore, people existed as a community and stood by one another. According to
him, the abandoned and the isolated cannot survive on their own. This on the other hand can
work for Nietzsche. He cannot stand Aristotle’s morality theory on communalism, as he is likely
to argue that his theory gives self-empowerment. An individual has only one’s self and one’s
own will to power. Therefore, in this order, every individual would want to be in control of his or
her own destiny.
QUESTION FOUR:
Sartre’s argument states that existence comes before essence. However, before looking
into this, it is important that we get to understand what essence is and what existence is. It is then
significant to look at what makes Sartre conclude this. Essence in this case refers to the old
philosophical idea (it is closely connected with Plato) that everything has a predefined, ideal set
of characteristics. For example, the essence of a chair is that people sit on it and it has four legs.
However, not all the things match their essence. It is possible to have a chair that no one sits on,
has three legs and a broken back. The actual details of a certain chair make up its essence.
The notion that the existence comes before the essence states that for humans, there
exists no predefined outline in which we have to adapt to. As human, we all lead our lives, and
that actually describe us, not any venerated fixed or agreed upon characteristics. This is the
notion that forms the center of Sartre’s existentialism version. The implication states that as
humans, we have to create our own sense and meaning. It also states to put our own worth on our
acts and that our individual freedom is unqualified and boundless (Abdurrahman 30).
8

9. Adham Abdel Moneim
Phil 1000 final assignment
#:100865929
Therefore, although as an atheist, bring out what we can say to be the best description of
God. He describes God as the union of existence and essence. This means that God is the full
existential comprehension of every perfect, ideal or essential attribute of God. He describes that
as impossibility, but we can say that it is also a great explanation of what believers believe God
to be (Kakkori 357).
This can as well be explained by the cogito principle that brings all our beliefs into
doubt. This is an exercise that is meant to get us free from our reliance on the senses in order for
us to start contemplating purely intellectual truths. Descartes initiates the doubtfulness in two
phases. In the first phase all our beliefs received from a sensory perception are brought to doubt,
while in the second phase even our intellectual beliefs are brought to doubt.
To sum up; Satre believes that existence came before essence which forms the notions
center of Satre’s existentialism version. Satres also describes God as a union of existence and
essence, which proves that god is the full existential comprehension of every perfect, ideal or
essential attribute of god. Finally referring to human conditions we feel abandoned shown in
many arguments such as the Cogito argument and revolves around the idea that god exists
through his essence, which is not a visible thing and sometimes leads humans to feel abandoned
rather than protected by a higher power. Also the extensive sense of freedom people have in their
daily lives leads people to feel that they are alone or abandoned and free to do whatever they
want, rather than feeling constraint by a higher power (God).
9

10. Adham Abdel Moneim
Phil 1000 final assignment
#:100865929
Works Cited:
Abdurrahman, U. Quest for Identity in Richard Wright’s The Outsider: An Existentialist
Approach. Western Journal Of Black Studies [serial online]. Spring2006 2006;30 (1):25-
34
Bayne, S. Kant’s Answer To Hume: How Kant Should Have Tried To Stand Hume’s Copy
Thesis On Its Head. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy [serial online]. June
2000;8(2):207-224.
Cooper, I. Reading Beyond Community: D. F. Strauss's Das Leben Jesu And Nietzsche's Also
Sprach Zarathustra. Modern Language Review [serial online]. April 2008;103(2):456-470
Crandell, G. Beyond Pity and Fear: Echoes of Nietzsche's "The Birth of Tragedy" in Tennessee
Williams's "A Streetcar Named Desire" and Other Plays. Southern Quarterly [serial
online]. Summer2011 2011;48(4):91-107
Ertl, W. Hume's Antinomy And Kant's Critical Turn¹. British Journal For The History Of
Philosophy [serial online]. November 2002;10(4):617
Fitzsimons, P. The ‘End’ of Kant-in-Himself: Nietzschean difference. Educational Philosophy &
Theory [serial online]. September 2007;39(5):559-570.
Kirkland, P. Nietzsche's Honest Masks: From Truth to Nobility Beyond Good and Evil. Review
Of Politics [serial online]. Fall2006 2006;66(4):575-604.
10

11. Adham Abdel Moneim
Phil 1000 final assignment
#:100865929
Kakkori l. and Huttunen, R. The Sartre-Heidegger Controversy on Humanism and the Concept of
Man in Education. Educational Philosophy & Theory [serial online]. June
2012;44(4):351-365
Kirkland, P. Nietzsche's Honest Masks: From Truth to Nobility Beyond Good and Evil. Review
Of Politics [serial online]. Fall2004 2004;66(4):575-604.
Roche, A. Kant's Principle of Sense. British Journal For The History Of Philosophy [serial
online]. September 2010;18(4):663-691.
Stevenson, L. Freedom of Judgement in Descartes, Hume, Spinoza and Kant. British Journal
For The History Of Philosophy [serial online]. May 2004;12(2):223-246
11