Experimental Philosophy and Karl Marx
Karl Marx and Private Property
Private property generally plays a significant role in promoting efficiency by offering the owner the right to the resources within the property hence serving as a source of wealth to the individual. The one thing that sets apart private property from public property is the fact that the ownership of the former is by a non-governmental entity while the state owns the latter. The conception of private property by Karl Marx has been influential in various economic theories and has even led to the prevailing relationship between private property and capitalism. In Marxian economics, private property is referred to as a means of production where there is a social relationship where the owner of the property takes possession of any product that another individual or a group of people within that property. The ownership of private property. The concept of private property then holds a pivotal role in arguing the means to an end when it comes to ownership of private property. According to the arguments presented by Karl Marx regarding private property, it means that leads to unequal share of production and consumption of goods because the parties that own private properties gain significantly from those operating on the property itself (Wisman, 2018). At the same time, the concept of private property is an exploitative system that is radically dynamic that it transforms what was inherited from the past and its nature so that it only empowers the producers (Wisman, 2018). Therefore, the role of private property to Marx is the foundation and the backbone of capitalism that promotes unequal access to the production of goods through ownership and control of the means of production.
Experimental Philosophy
The primary knowledge of experimental philosophy stems from the need to understand how the mind works and the operation of moral judgment. The presented video on experimental philosophy argued that the central aspect in this philosophical approach is the fact that the different attitudes that people have towards an ethical issue are based on variations in the moral character of people (Experimental Philosopher, 2008). The moral differences in the two scenarios affect people’s moral views towards the company president’s action based on the outcome. It is believed that humans are and should always be innately driven with the need to do good, and this is based on the principle of universal morality, along with the arguments presented in Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics. It is this that makes a virtuous character. Therefore, the moral attitude that the president’s decision to harm the environment was intentional is grounded in the idea that when a person pursues a course of action, and the outcome is harmful, then it was their selfish intention to cause harm. However, the dilemma comes in when the same course of action is taken without altering the elements of decision-making, and the outcome is positive. In this case, people would argue that it is always necessary that any course of action taken must always bring good to society as it is every person’s responsibility whether they are conscious or unconscious about it. It is through this perspective that it becomes clear that there were moral differences that affected people’s moral views on the intentions of the company president and his quest to accrue profit for the organization. Therefore, the different moral views are influenced by the outcomes of the decisions made by the company president.