“Modest Proposal” verses “Lifeboat Ethics” First of all, making life decisions for others cannot manipulate the world to become equal. Society has moral obligations toward poverty. Usually the moral obligation to others starts with the intense poverty issue. By reading Jonathan Swift and Garrett Hardin’s articles, the solutions for poverty seem to be easier than ones’ expectation by slaughtering or leaving refugees behind the social norms. Nonetheless, both articles are idealistic.
It can be implied from this that Wolsey had the ability to obtain Henry’s annulment, but failed due to his lack of effort and his half-hearted approach. Furthermore, source 1 supports this view, first implying once again that Wolsey had good contacts and that he had the ability to influence them, “Stafileo has changed his opinion”. However, a lack of effort can still be seen here as he only instructed Stafileo of the facts. It is likely that source 2 is more reliable than source 1 as it was a letter written by the Duke of Suffolk who was not directly involved in the ‘Great Matter’. As the source is also from a letter, it is unlikely the Duke of Suffolk would not have feared angering Wolsey as otherwise the letter would have been private.
Shame Analysis Dan M. Kahan argues in his piece “Shame Is worth a Try’ that shame should be used because “it’s an effective, cheap, and humane alternative to imprisonment” (574). If you are the kind of person who searches for articles with just emotional appeals, than look no further this is the article for you. When it comes to logical and ethnical appeals, Kahan falls short on the totem pole. He fails to prove his points because his examples are misused. He does not acknowledge that shaming sentences could also have effect on the offender’s family.
The ad hominem attacks are not necessary to support his argument that dropping the bomb was the right decision because he refutes opponents’ arguments before resorting to ad hominem, so the ad hominem must have a different purpose altogether. Instead, the ad hominem adds to his argument about the necessity of experience. Fussell explicitly admits his use of ad hominem attacks, which are valid because they occur after the target’s argument had already been refuted and just help connect the disproven arguments to their owner’s lack of experience, which is further associated with an impractical, idealistic mindset. Fussell brings up the arguments of people who opposed dropping the atom bomb on Japan and then argues that their arguments are not valid because they do not have correct information or experience in war. John Kenneth Galbraith believed that the bomb should not have been dropped because he said that the war would end in only a few weeks (Fussell, 18).
In his essay, “Where I lived, and What I lived For”, Henry David Thoreau says, “Shams and delusions are esteemed for soundless truths, while reality is fabulous.” He talks about how much better life would be if people focused on reality rather than their dreams. In doing so, Thoreau appears to his audience using logic. He establishes himself as someone who has faced this type of situation before. People are caught up in ‘soundless truths’ which means that they are fooling themselves of the real truth. He says that people should not allow themselves to get their hopes up that something good is going to happen to them.
The fact that the new laws were passing allowing taxes to occur was frightening to Dickenson. He believes that they should do whatever it takes for America to pay the taxes. He thinks it is wrong that they are getting away with not paying. He believes sitting back and not doing anything is counter productive to the cause. Dickenson and Franklin are on opposite sides.
In this article the author sets out to prove that as human beings we have not made the necessary decisions in order to help those in need (Singer). Singer feels that giving to people in need is the only ethical thing to do regardless of the excuses we come up with to get out of doing so. The example he uses to plead his case is the famine in East Bengal. In his writings Singer states that there was no particular reason for choosing this plague other then the fact that it was currently happening and that due to its publicity this event can’t be over looked (Singer). To prove his point the author brings up the fact that government s such as the British and Australians put more effort into beautification than into the welfare of those suffering.
Judging a Book by its Cover “In Defense of Prejudice”, the author Jonathan Rauch, indicates that it is foolish to believe eradicating racism and other forms of prejudice is possible. The article describes the war on prejudice as the “most uncontroversial social movement in America”. Universities, work places, newsrooms and Capitol Hill have declared anti-discriminatory policies in an attempt to eradicate prejudices. The majority of society believes that the elimination of prejudices will make society fair and safer for the minorities. Jonathan Rauch declares himself as not racist in spite of the fact that he is a strong believer in not eradicating prejudices.
Conversely, Kennedy delivered his purpose more ethically than Romney. Kennedy’s purpose seemed similar to a declaration whereas Romney’s purpose seemed similar to a sermon. For example, Kennedy declares “[s]o it is apparently necessary for me to state again not what kind of church I believe in – for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in” (1). Kennedy is deliberately stating that his purpose is to create a better America and that his religious views will not influence his decisions as the president. Kennedy is being ethical by promoting a better society, whereas Romney is promoting his own religious perspective.
He says that “ The things and the men that are pleasing to the gods are pious, and the things and the men that are displeasing to the gods are impious.” Socrates approves of this definition because it is of a very generalization. But he also states that Euthyphro’s definition has flaws because the gods would disagree on what is considered pleasing. Socrates’ case is that the gods are very irrational when it comes to arguments and disagreements. Normal rational people would find answers and come to a settlement on the correct answer, but when it comes to the gods any slight disagreement causes them to become enemies and angry towards each other. Socrates goes on to