The claim that moral values cannot be derived from facts is grounded in the idea that facts are descriptive and informative whereas value propositions are prescriptive and imply that we ought to carry out certain action or act in a particular way. In essence, while facts give us information about the world itself, values tell us how we should act. It is accepted that facts are cognitive and are therefore know to be true or false. However, non-cognitivists support the idea that moral truths cannot be known due to the notion that any individual who is making moral judgements is not articulating their beliefs about the way the world is. Essentially, it is believed that there are no transcendent moral thoughts to be known or ascertained by individuals.
This is not true. One can be moral and not believe in God. One who is moral but does not believe in good might believe, for example, there is a creative principle at in the Universe. We, human, do not need to belong to any religion in order to have a since of moral right or wrong. Moral righteousness in natural is not centered on supernatural faith.
Sociology examines how our behavior individually and in groups is influenced by social processes and what that means. In fact once you start seeing things with a sociological perspective – things will never be the same. It’s knowing how and why we do what we do that engages us with the world around us and makes us more effective agents for social change. However, sociologist C. Wright Mills describes sociology as “the intersection of biography and history?” A lot of you may wonder what he mean: well from my studying and perspectives; The reason why he say sociology is the interception of biography and history is because, Biography: happens to individuals and History: happens to society. For example, every
A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al.,1990). Again in simple terms, a theory explains how nature works. Can be modified. In conclusion, scientific laws and theories officially do not have the same meaning. I can understand how people can confuse these two words for having the same
Gregory Powell ______________ ______________ ______________ Society is a process made up of interactions in terms of size and complexity of multiple levels. Sociology is the study of society. It is a social science, a term with which uses several micro level of agency and interaction to the macro level of systems and social structures. Argument The first thing to remember in writing sociological argument is to be as clear as possible in stating your thesis. In the study of sociology, there are three sociological assumptions: argument, evidence, unit of analysis.
141) 2) A. The essential element of causation is that A “produces” B or A “forces” B to occur. Empirically, we can never demonstrate A-B causality with certainty. The reason is that we do not “demonstrate” such causal linkages deductively. Unlike deductive conclusions, empirical conclusions are inferences— inductive conclusions.
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
In ‘If Free Will Doesn’t Exist, Neither Does Water’, Vargas asserts that most people nowadays connect science and free will and use it to prove that free will does not actually exist. I personally believe that these claims are too hasty as the issue requires substantive commitments about disputed philosophical ideas. Aside from that, he also mentions that science has a different way to explain the detail of history of the things that we know without abandoning anything else. In section 1, I will explain the connection between science and our actions. In section 2, I will discuss why if our actions are casually determined, then we don’t have free will.
In this model the harmonizers position is that religion and science go hand in hand and that they coexist with each other. Harmonizers aspire to prove that science can point to or even prove the claims of religion. My stance on religion versus science is more or less along the lines of the perspectivalist's position. There are many things in this world that science alone does not answer for me. But in that same regard, there are many things that religion just doesn't completely cover as well.
It is necessary and possible for science to deliberately exclude any * subjective/ emotional reactions * imaginative projections * valuations * expectations from our scientific dealings with reality if not avoided the resultant knowledge will be deceptive and untrustworthy what should be avoided is any form of * religious * social * political commitment of the knower attaining knowledge these are unjustified and untested prejudices which impair an impartial view of and grip on reality. these prevent objective reliable knowledge of reality. when done properly it yields knowledge of things in the world and also of the connections between these things as they really are: facts have to speak through direct perception for themselves in a neutral and unhindered way. *