To understand truth we must be completely sure of it, this requires a rational method of inquiry based on doubt. Methodical doubt involved deliberately doubting everything possible in the least degree whatever remains will be known with absolute certainty. For empiricism we have the belief that all knowledge is of the senses. We are a tabula rasa, a blank slate, that all ideas start with sensation and reflection, we can only think about something after we have experienced them. Although both the empiricists and rationalist both came to the same problem how could we ever know anything outside of our own perceptions.
As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect. If Mackie’s argument is to succeed, it must prove that this supposed normative aspect has no existence within any act in itself, but has its origin in the agent of said act, and as such, all moral claims are false. Mackie’s exposition of moral relativism comes in the form of two main arguments, the first being his ‘argument from relativity’, the second, his ‘argument from queerness’. It is with the argument from relativity that I shall be here concerned. The argument from relativity is based around the purely ‘descriptive’ idea that it is an empirically observable fact that there seems to be
For example, if it is morally wrong to lie, then everyone should never lie. Even if the consequences of a lie are great, it must not be done. Kant’s theory is cold and unemotional. However, Kant viewed this as the best way to make ethical decisions. Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences.
I disagree with certain idea and issue Rene Descartes argues about in his passage. His beliefs of skepticism at points were valid at times but every human has a right to believe, do anything or create what they want to believe in their mind. To make it feel real is up to the person because we control our emotions which control our mind set to think if we are being trick to having ten fingers or to believe there is no god that created this world we call earth. The scope of knowledge in this reading "Meditations on first philosophy" by Rene Descartes is the truth of doubt. Doubt causes people to believe that you do not know something when you actually do.
The way to point out the difference between the two is through the conclusions. In a deductive argument the conclusion is already implied within the premises, and in an inductive argument the conclusion is not implied within the premises. Deductive arguments are judged on whether or not they are valid, meaning if the premises are considered true and the conclusion cannot be false, it is valid. If there is a possibility that the conclusion may be false but the premises still are true, then it is invalid. When a deductive argument is invalid, it is automatically considered unsound.
I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have. For example, a blind man cannot help another blind man to cross the road. It is very important to note here that before you help anyone, you must be capable of helping. In short, Peter Singer’s analysis that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” is uncompromisingly convincing and the pragmatic use of this conclusion would help have better human relations.
This is because in deduction, conclusions are made through reasoning information which is given and known to be true. The problem arises when the premises known to be true are in fact faulty. This leads to the misleading of conclusions and or the gaining of flawed knowledge, (Stewart 433). For example to reflect
Moore believes this is a legitimate argument based on his criteria for a proof. The first requirement is that the premises must be different from the conclusion. The second requirement is that the premises must be demonstrated. The third requirement is that the conclusion must follow the premises. Moore also notes that there may other requirements that he does not even know that could be needed to make a proof.
The following quote from Bertrand Russell demonstrates it: "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult one with which we shall deal. This may seem surprising: at first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is in agreement with the facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, what a fact is, and what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true." I agree with the quote cited above as truth for one is not necessary the same for another. However the term must be defined in order to proceed further.
These theories are motivated by diverse concerns and proposed accounts so different from each other that one wonder if they seek to explain the same phenomenon. Coherence theory The coherence theory of truth states that a statement is considered true if it is logically consistent with other beliefs. This is basically saying that a belief is false if it contradicts other beliefs that are held to be true. The coherence theories in general, states that truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other.