“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification.
For Kant, if an action is performed, based on the end goal or result, or based on the outcome, it is not moral. Therefore the Hypothetical imperative was no use because these judgments were not dependent on morals and they were dependent on outcome. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, are moral commands that tell eveyone what to do and do not depend on an end goal or outcome. According to Kant, these categorical imperative apply to everyone, because they are based on an adjective a priori of reason which Kant calls the categorical imperative. Kant broke the categorical imperative down into three rules which he called Maixms.
Data are creatively manipulated and applied. Discussion and recommendations are presented clearly, logically, and succinctly with no or few grammatical or other errors. Discussion/analysis reflects strong understanding of principles presented in course readings/materials. Where relevant, discussion/analysis employs proper APA style. Length limitations and other form/format requirements (if any) are followed.
I definitely agree with some points made by both parties. However, I believe that writing is unique to the individual, and that techniques from both authors can be put into practice. As much as Zinsser is against Cluttering, Graff and Birkenstein are in favor of metacommentary. They define metacommentary as, “a way of commenting on your claims and telling others how-and how not-to think about them”(Graff and Birkenstein, 129). Graff and Birkenstein are saying that metacommentary is a way to explain your writing to keep the reader from getting lost, or interpreting something the way you did not intend it to be.
In William L. Rowe’s essay The Ontological Argument Rowe carefully details an argument that, upon first read, appears to convincingly prove that God does not exist. His argument has, however, been even more carefully torn apart and examined by some of the worlds greatest philosophers and is often criticized. In my essay I will prove that Rowe’s argument although seemingly perfect comes nowhere near disproving the existence of a God. Quote #1 “…Anselm insists that anyone who hears of God, thinks about God, or even denies the existence of God is, nevertheless, committed to the view that God exists in the understanding.” I will use this quote to support the idea of God. This quote does not prove his existence but it does prove that
Furthermore experience is one of, if not the, principle way of gaining knowledge and forming ideas. It helps people form concepts and especially form ideas that would not otherwise be formed. Rene Descartes argued that some ideas were innate and he attempted to prove this with a deductive argument in which if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Through this he convinced himself that God was real and seeing as only God could have implanted the idea of God into him that it must be innate. This is a counter to Locke’s argument but I feel it is a poor one as the premises are not certainly true they are based on falsehoods especially ones about God being the perfect being; that just depends what you believe.
in order to be valid it has to be deductive in order to be sound it has to be valid. premises must be true in our world with no changes for the argument. if the premises can be made true and the conclusion is true it's valid soundness is a further feature of validity. jackson reading- the mind is above the physical.it has to be experienced 1. Darwins dangerous idea was that he asked the question who created life, and his response was that no one did which in it's nature denies the supernatural explanation of the universe.
He argued that they lack the power to act so they are weak. According to Hamilton (1788), they possess “merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments” (p.256). Hamilton (1788) pointed out that the court may sometimes be biased but, “the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter” (p. 256). In respect to the interpretation of the law, Hamilton (1788) believed that the constitution is “a fundamental law…” (p.257) and, “if there be an irreconcilable variance between the two, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents” (p.257). He is indirectly saying; court’s rulings give back power to the people.
Philosophy In the short essay, “The Ethics of Belief,” by William K. Clifford, he gives guidelines for cases in which one should not believe what someone else tells them. Clifford believes that it is wrong to believe without sufficient evidence. Clifford infers that one believes what a person says based on how much people admire them. Clifford used the example of the prophet Mohammad, and the spiritual teacher, Buddha, to back up his argument. With the example of Gods prophet Mohammad, he believed that there is one God only.
Rationalism, in Western philosophy, the view that regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge. Holding that reality itself has an inherently logical structure, the rationalist asserts that a class of truths exists that the intellect can grasp directly. There are, according to the rationalists, certain rational principles—especially in logic and mathematics, and even in ethics and metaphysics—that are so fundamental that to deny them is to fall into contradiction. The rationalist’s confidence in reason and proof tends, therefore, to detract from his respect for other ways of knowing. Bertrand Russell, throughout the whole of his long adult life,