• Transcendentalism falls in amongst all of these ideas.
  • American Transcendentalism
  • Transcendentalism | Define Transcendentalism at …

The American counter-culture movement of the 1960’s is a prime example of revived transcendentalist ideas.

All of these pieces connect because they all show transcendentalism.

For the history of German transcendentalism see Ueberweg, Hist

In Thoreau’s excerpt of “Walden”, he tested the transcendentalist philosophy through experience.
Photo provided by Flickr
As an author writing during the heart of the American Renaissance and Transcendentalist Era, a time where people believed humans were at one with nature and God, Melville chose to break the mold.

Culture in Crisis: The Visionary Theories of Pitirim Sorokin

Infused in his work are the influences of transcendentalism and his life as a Unitarian pastor.
Photo provided by Flickr
The restriction of deontological duties to usings of anotherraises a sticky problem for those patient-centered deontologicaltheories that are based on the core right against using: how can theyaccount for the prima facie wrongs of killing, injuring, andso forth when done not to use others as means, but for some otherpurpose or for no purpose at all? The answer is that suchpatient-centered deontological constraints must be supplemented byconsequentialist-derived moral norms to give an adequate account ofmorality. Killing, injuring, and so forth will usually beunjustifiable on a consequentialist calculus, especially if everyone'sinterests are given equal regard. It is when killing and injuring areotherwise justifiable that the deontological constraint against usinghas its normative bite over and against what is already prohibited byconsequentialism. (This narrowness of patient-centered deontologymakes it counterintuitive to agent-centered deontologists, who regardprohibitions on killing of the innocent, etc., as paradigmaticallydeontological.)


Transcendentalism--Literary Criticism

It also supports the theory that God is all around us and inside of us and we should be self-reliant and strive for simplicity.
Photo provided by Flickr
Finally, deontological theories, unlike consequentialist ones, havethe potential for explaining why certain people have moral standing tocomplain about and hold to account those who breach moral duties. Forthe moral duties typically thought to be deontological incharacter—unlike, say, duties regarding theenvironment—are duties to particular people, not dutiesto bring about states of affairs that no particular person has anindividual right to have realized.

These two lines written by Ralph Waldo Emerson exemplify the whole movement of transcendentalist writers and what they believed in.
Photo provided by Flickr
Just as do agent-centered theories, so too do patient-centeredtheories (such as that forbidding the using of another) seek toexplain common intuitions about such classic hypothetical cases asTrolley and Transplant (or Fat Man) (Thomson 1985). In Trolley, arunaway trolley will kill five workers unless diverted to a sidingwhere it will kill one worker. Most people regard it as permissibleand perhaps mandatory to switch the trolley to the siding. Bycontrast, in Transplant, where a surgeon can kill one healthy patientand transplant his organs to five dying patients, thereby saving theirlives, the universal reaction is condemnation. (The same isby-and-large true in Fat Man, where the runaway trolley cannot beswitched off the main track but can be stopped before reaching thefive workers by pushing a fat man into its path, resulting in hisdeath.)

Morris (New York, 1892); Falckenberg, Hist

Such criticisms of the agent-centered view of deontology drive mostwho accept their force away from deontology entirely and to some formof consequentialism. Alternatively, some of such critics are driven topatient-centered deontology, which we discuss immediately below. Yetstill other of such critics attempt to articulate yet a fourth form ofagent-centered deontology. This might be called the “controltheory of agency.” On this view, our agency is invoked wheneverour choices could have made a difference. This cuts across theintention/foresight, act/omission, and doing/allowing distinctions,because in all cases we controlled what happened through ourchoices (Frey 1995). Yet as an account of deontology, this seemsworrisomely broad. It disallows consequentialist justificationswhenever: we foresee the death of an innocent; we omit to save, whereour saving would have made a difference and we knew it; where weremove a life-saving device, knowing the patient will die. Ifdeontological norms are so broad in content as to cover all theseforeseeings, omittings, and allowings, then good consequences (such asa net saving of innocent lives) are ineligible to justify them. Thismakes for a wildly counterintuitive deontology: surely I can, forexample, justify not throwing the rope to one (and thus omit to savehim) in order to save two others equally in need. This breadth ofobligation also makes for a conflict-ridden deontology: by refusing tocabin our categorical obligations by the distinctions of the Doctrineof Double Effect and the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing, situations ofconflict between our stringent obligations proliferate in atroublesome way (Anscombe 1962).

Free transcendentalism Essays and Papers - 123HelpMe

A second group of deontological moral theories can be classified, aspatient-centered, as distinguished from theagent-centered version of deontology just considered. Thesetheories are rights-based rather than duty-based; and some versionspurport to be quite agent-neutral in the reasons they give moralagents.