It is possible to do this? Write in one or two pages the following questions based on the reading of Frankfurt – On Bullshit What is the thrust of Frankfurt’s argument? That is, what is he arguing fo
Dear All –  Below I’ve posted a few sample RRP models to give you a more concrete idea of what you should be aiming for.  None are perfect, but that is not the point.  What is important is that the author is attempting to answer the prompt posed and is doing so by presenting a developed thought that supports itself with progressively consistent reasoning.   II. Williams argues that a truly amoral person is extremely rare, that it doesn’t take much for someone to become a moral person, and that morality is an integral part of the human experience. He explores this claim through a hypothetical: a man who only cares about his own self interests. This man cannot think about justice or other people’s needs. He can’t even think of his mindset as better or worse than other peoples’, because that would be considered his moral reasoning. He is severely limited in what he can think about as to not develop a sense of morality. According to Williams, this amoral person cannot even question his own mindset too much because “…it will be very difficult for him to pursue those questions very far without thinking of the general interests and needs of his fellow human beings, which would land him once more into the land of moral thought…” (p. 5). Therefore, it is almost impossible for such a man to exist because of how many thoughts would immediately compromise his status as amoral.  Williams also makes the point that social conditioning is what causes us to develop morals, and that this conditioning is unavoidable. He claims that everything that makes up a person is the result of conditioning, down to the language they speak. Society and its inevitable influence on us is what gives us morals. “For, in general, there can be no society without some moral rules, and he needs society.” Williams makes the point that morality and man are inseparable. He refutes the idea that the depraved, morally reprehensible behavior of people who are struggling to survive is the true reflection of human morality. He questions why we test the true nature of man through how they would act in extreme circumstances, when our true selves are arguably seen in how we act day to day. These true versions of ourselves are the ones with regard for morals, therefore amorality is hard to achieve.   III. In Williams’s essay, the Amoralist, we look at what he believes are challenges to moral philosophy. The Amoralist is a person who doesn’t follow societal norms of morality. Morality usually guides the actions of all of us, but the Amoralist is different. From what I can understand, if the Amoralist would choose not to lie, it wouldn’t be because of morals or because of the idea of right vs. wrong but more out of self-interest or personal wants. Some common moral considerations are caring about other people’s interests, telling the truth, or keeping promises that don’t suit them. Still, the Amoralist does not believe in these norms, thus leading Williams to compare the Amoralist to a stereotypical gangster. The amoralist acts for other people from time totime but it all depends on how he happens to feel. Williams suggests throughout the entire article that the amoralist is theoretically possible but basically practically impossible.   IV.   Williams argues that one cannot simply use regular reasoning or rationalization when confronting an amoralist. The word amorality itself is defined as an indifference or incapability for morality. Throughout his argument Williams consistently brings up the issues with how rationalization and reasoning are different to an amoralist. This is because as one uses reasoning or rationalizes to answer questions, morality plays a major role in one’s reasoning . However, in the example Williams gives the subject is an amoralist therefore, basic reasoning is already made complicated as one cannot simply rely on the morality of the subject to provide an answer. In this scenario Williams states, “We should perhaps also leave out a more formal aspect of morality,”. Williams suggests is that one should remove the concept of “right and wrong” for the argument as an amoralist as an amoralist is supposed to be indifferent to morality. This means the idea of “right and wrong” would not have an affect on any reasoning one presents. Furthermore, Williams’ states, “What he cannot consistently do is resent it or disapprove of it, for these are attitudes within a moral system.”. Williams’ writes this because it furthers the idea that to argue with an amoralist, one must remove morality from their argument. The quote suggests that since one knows what a moralist cannot consistently do is “resent” this can be used in an argument as if an amoralist were to “resent” an argument it would completely against their ideal. By getting an amoralist to break their ideals of amorality, one can begin to argue with an amoralist using morality in the argument. In addition to this idea, Williams’ writes, “the more basic moral rules and conceptions are strongly internalized in upbringings, at a level from which they do not merely evaporate,”. What Williams’ is suggesting is that one cannot simply lose all morality and become completely indifferent to morals. By knowing this Williams’ states that morality still may be used in an argument with a  moralist, as it would be difficult for a moralist to be completely indifferent to morality despite their ideals and standing on morality itself