PHILOSOPHY OF RESPONSIBILITY – BOOK REVIEW
When discussing the compatibility of free will and determinism , the author presents the first readers distinguish between simple causal relationships and, second , the connections between events that identify all causal , as complex as the ‘crossing and can interweaving many causal chains . “Subsequently , the author notes that sometimes causal laws connecting events (Event – type) always , but sometimes there are individual cases of simple events , even if the events of the respective types are not always associated this type of the result of the . author calls ‘ non – causal – deterministic and finds it is often found in people , the difference is so complex and the author does not suggest that the problems of complexity Given some oft ” Recent masterful by philosophers of causality ” and ISM compliant treatment. . ! – This chapter makes painful reading . Part II of the book , the part that deals with issues of specific moral and social policy , not the problems in the form of depth so I again rewarding to solve . For example , in the first chapter of the second part entitled ” existential responsibility” , the author does not agree with Professor Samuel Shuman , who . According to the author , stated that issues health’u ” not objectively decidable , and that paternalism is justified for governments to reduce health care everyone . The author seems unaware that these reactions only serve to add strength to the argument Shiunan at mid nonohjectivity ! functions , and at the same time contradicts the assertion of his first book, which is , as I said , that people generally morally accountable for their behavior , good or bad .
The remaining chapters of the handle of the book , topics such as responsible already and family relationships and responsibilities to the civilized world . In one of the most philosophically ambitious chapters book, the author suggests that! Ethical principles universal behavior does not represent absolute rules , statistical laws hut which account for the majority of cases ( p < ) 5 ) keep in the event of any conflict between the principles of the author advises to choose the principle important. When principles that conflict are equally important, the author recommends use of the judgment.