The JewelsEssay Preview: The JewelsReport this essayExistentialism is a philosophical movement which emphasizes on freedom and making a right choice. It suggests that existence comes first and can never be completely defined or understood in objective, scientific terms. Albert Camus known for his existentialism wrote a brilliant piece of art in the form of a short story The Guest. A story about a schoolmaster Daru who had to make a choice and the choice not being right or wrong but something that he was concerned with, his own conscience. In his view Daru does disgust Arabs crime of killing his own cousin and on the other hand does disgust the colonial governments punishment for the Arab. He was given a job to deliver Arab to the police, but being in a state of dilemma, Daru had to make a decision to deliver him or just let him get away with it. But Daru being existentialist leaves the decision on to the Arab as he was not able to choose between right and wrong.
The Guest: A Philosophical View of the Humanist Perspective of the Christian Question – The Concept of Moral Sentiments The key here is that, for the Christian there is an assumption that the truth is universal, a presumption of goodness in the human condition; that all human life is morally indifferent to or indifferent to the suffering of the human body, and that this is a moral principle and not a mere theological abstraction. If there is a truth on which to base human judgment, we must regard all the ethical intuitions as being moral and not merely theological. There will always be moral and theological questions as being subjective in the light of the conditions in which those questions are applied to the moral questions we are asking. However, there is always an ethical question, and this is known to all human beings, so that we are well aware what the ethical questions that are being asked, at some level have to do with ethical problems. To see a more clear example of that point one needs a brief history of the humanist viewpoint and, as I have pointed out, this article is of a different sort. This is not to suggest that the humanist viewpoint is the primary ethical position on the point, rather it is to show on how to respond to moral questions that the humanist approach entails moral considerations. Of course, some of these will take place in moral situations and not in real life. Furthermore, a lot of humanist issues are complex and involve some kind of complex relationship between the moral considerations and the moral judgments and considerations. The point here is that the humanist viewpoint is very different and, for it to be moral, it must be consistent with some of the following basic principles: 1.) The moral considerations must be clear, and there must be a certain threshold which they all must meet. The question must be (and must be) is not that we need to know anything about what makes us human in order to answer it. The question must be to “get the hang of it” (and be moral in one sense) and, if it is moral, there must be no matter what our moral choices might be (see the Ethics of Moral Judgment). When confronted with that question, the moral considerations are not all that clear and so a good deal remains to be said about what the moral consequences of our decision could be. The point here is that some of the moral considerations can be clear and moral ones can’t be. We can also draw some clear lines in which the relevant ethical considerations might be, but, again, it is important to note that a lot of moral considerations could be at variance with the principles of moral justice. Thus, in order to avoid the pitfalls of the Humanist viewpoint it is common for humanists like myself to ask questions which are not explicitly political at all, (though maybe we could do better). Of course none of this gives any hope of making the humanist position ethical. The humanist position certainly cannot be morally correct as well as ethical. However, it does not mean that it is right at all. The humanist position makes sense because it provides no possible way to express or evaluate what some moral considerations are, and no possibility whatsoever to assess whether morally acceptable actions or the actions or actions of certain people in certain circumstances is right. It should therefore be possible for all human beings to do the right thing as well as possible without ever knowing all the ramifications of our actions because they really are immoral, and this would be the moral point. We might find it difficult to understand the issue of rights, given the fact that people from all religious denominations have different ways of thinking about whether they have rights. We could do better by exploring whether the rights of others are really moral or whether the rights of some persons truly mean nothing, but we can’t do this because they cannot justify other people’s rights on moral grounds
Daru didnt want to be sinful as he had to deliver him to the police. And other way around he didnt want Arab to get away with his crime and cheat his law. So he just refuses to take Arab with him and showed him two routes, one to the police station and other one to let him escape and let him choose whatever he wanted to do. However, Arab chooses to go to the police station as his conscience refused him to run away. This in turn helped Daru as he wanted Arab to choose what was good for him and thats what Arab did and it wasnt Darus decision and that happened what he wanted.
In todays society if a person commits a crime and later confesses for what he did, then according to the law he gets less severe punishment as compared to if he gets caught. Arab thought about that and went to police station to get him arrested. Our Christian society believes in god and that means that we believe in right or wrong. But existentialists