However, I do not find the argument to be that convincing. After reading this argument, I did not find it to have stimulated my mental capacities. However, based on what it has presented, the argument is valid and most of all makes sense because it originates from definitions that provide a solid base for the argument. The objections to this argument do raise several valid points to the concept of whether or not the “maximally great” being in question does have a universal position across all the worlds he may or may not exist in. What if there is no level of “maximal greatness” in one world?
It is impossible, though, that the series of causes should extend back to infinity because every cause is dependent on a prior cause and the ultimate cause is thus dependent on a previous cause. So if there is no first cause, there will be no intermediate causes and no final cause. But the absence of such causes clearly does not square with our observation, and so there must therefore be a first efficient cause, which everyone
Morals concern what is right and wrong. Right and wrong usually vary depending on what is normal in a specific culture or society. Many people would agree that what is “right” is moral, but it is James Rachels that explores what makes something right. Rachels argues that it is the cultural normality’s of a society itself, that makes an action morally right, while others would disagree and claim that there is a set of “universal moral codes” that people should live by. In different societies and cultures what is morally right and wrong can be determined only within the individual mind of a person.
This is probably why Christopher thinks the way he does because you can not really see god, and probably doesn’t see the logic in religion either. It’s ones faith that drives someone to believe in him, while Christopher would not be able to have faith and believe because there would be no solid evidence that God exists and he mostly only believes in what he sees, something that is concrete. To Christopher God might be just another fairytale. “People believe in God because the world is very complicated and they think it is very unlikely that anything as complicated as a flying squirrel or the human eye or a brain could happen by chance. But they should think logically and if they thought logically they would see that they can only ask this question because it had already happened and they exist.
Whitman wroted that the governments role was to be "... not of an officious intermeddler in the affairs of men, but of a prudent watchman who prevents outrage," that is strengthened by his underlying logic that "... although government can do little positive good to the people, it may do an immense deal of harm." (Whitman) Simply put, if the governemnt has less has to do with meddling in peoples affairs and rights then society will be better off. Also that the role of the government is to act as a protector of smaller groups and individuals from bigger groups so everyone will be happy. The basis of laissez-faire is that the bigger the government factor, being it’s rights and powers, the worse of the country is. William Graham Sumner was another supporter of the laissez-faire idea.
They felt passion. So, if that can happen with these three, who’s to say it would not happen later in the future? How is it known that there weren’t already other citizens (that just weren’t brought out as characters in the book) that also felt the way these three felt, or just felt different from how they were supposed to? You cannot say that. Nothing is ever perfect, especially not a full society.
The team found that these different approaches can create more issues within a team or group if you don’t understand that everyone has their own ‘right approach.’ To a rights and responsibilities lens approaching an issue head on and dealing with the conflict directly might not be fun, but it is necessary in order to move past the problem in the most efficient way possible. To another lens dealing with the problem might best be handled with a generic email. To a rights and responsibilities lens an email seems passive aggressive and inefficient as the individual that needs the message might not see it or know that it is directed at them. To another lens approaching the individual directly could be unneeded conflict. Understanding
Ethics Awareness Inventory which is where I did my assessment which supports my principles that human beings are entitled to basic rights; consequently, actions have to respect the rights of others. Someone who does not respect other people is not respected person. This person has to treat others the way he would like to be treated. As individuals we suppose to have the right to make our own decision, and if those decisions affect others in a harm way we already know there are consequences for those who attend to break the laws they could have everything in their own way regardless of whom pays the consequence. Those unethical behaviors we could not accept, because that will have affected in us all.
It seems like this is a common theme for the people in today’s society as well. Everyone is always trying to be something they’re not, and similarly to the characters in the story, they never end up well. It seems like this is a common theme for the people in today’s society as well. Everyone is always trying to be something they’re not, and similarly to the characters in the story, they never end up well. It seems like this is a common theme for the people in today’s society as well.
Authenticity “Authenticity” is a difficult concept to put into words in the music realm because it is not clearly defined. There are so many different ideas about authenticity that we are forced to wonder if it actually exists and if so what is it, exactly. There is a widely used quote that says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” This quote applies directly to how music is made and passed down over time. There is no musician that is completely authentic. “Authenticity” is simply an idea created by society that no musical artist has achieved, artist give their own take on what is happening around them and in the world in general.