The design argument was formulated by Paley. His watch analogy is an a posteriori argument which gives empirical evidence the structure is that it explains that the existence of God is the best explanation for the evidence available. His argument says that the world and everything in it are so intricate and complex that they must have been designed. He goes on the mention that if he found a watch lying on the ground he would take from it that there must have been a designer due to the organisation of parts put together for a purpose so even if we had no previous knowledge of watchers or makers we would look at all of the small pieces that make up a watch, arranged in a specific way meaning they fulfil the purpose of telling the time and all of those pieces could not have fallen together so therefore must have been designed. This is an analogy of things in the natural world for example, the human eye is made of small parts working together to create the purpose of sight, we infer this must be the result of design not chance.
The efficient cause is why it is here (so for a chair, someone must have made it.) The final cause is its reason for being, the purpose it has. Aristotle identified this as the “soul,” however Aristotle did not believe that the soul was separate from the body. Aristotle believed there was a “prime mover” something that causes the changes in the universe. It was the reason everything was here (the reason for being.)
Aquinas considered that by using our reason to reflect on our human nature we could discover our specific end purpose. Aquinas used the ideas of Aristotle and the Stoics as an underpinning for Natural Law saying- human beings have an essential rational nature given by God in order for us to live and flourish. Aristotle said even without knowledge of god, reason can discover the laws that lead to human flourishing. The Stoics said Natural Laws are universal and unchangeable and should be used to judge of particular societies. We use this is help us choose the right moral action is situations.
Appiah also asserts that both positivism and relativism cannot support the idea of cosmopolitanism because the definition of cosmopolitanism is that every humanity should belongs in to one community, in this community, people respect and communicate with each other in moral way. Everybody shares their thoughts and form a group. Although positivism dose respect each other, their ethics are only judge by right or wrong. As Appiah mentioned that “if relativism about ethics and morality were true, then, at the end of many discussions, we would each have to end up saying, from where I stand, I am right. From where you stand, you are right.”(26) But everyone has different feelings, different perspectives to view different things.
Believing everything that occurs is connected to everything else, it is all connected to the Logos. The Stoics believed that the actual course of our lives is directed by the Logos. Which they thought of as World Reason, Cosmic Mind, God, and Providences, or fate. 4. Identify and discuss possible problems with the Stoic notion of fate?
Design argument is also known as Teleological argument, meaning that everything in this world has a purpose to it. Furthermore, the word teleological comes from a Greek word telos which means ‘purpose’. The
Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in. These ideas seem to make sense because we as a culture understand that the judgments people make in a different culture will differ from ours whether we choose to support it or not. Our culture has different moral judgments as well and does not look at something like killing someone for stealing as morally right since our culture values human life above theft. Cultural relativism does not exist because some principles are universal and not relative only to culture. People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view.
Dissoi Logoi contains opposing arguments that can be argued either way. Its relevance to Rhetoric is that it allows us as readers to see that no argument can be made both bad and good, just and unjust, seemly and shameless. In our own minds we know right versus wrong, but not everyone has the same vision of what is right and what is wrong. What is wrong to one can be right to another and vice versa which appeals to the logos aspect of rhetoric. These notion of contradiction within this writing are rhetoric.
The stoics also said that we should try to fit into the overall plan of the universe by finding our place or duty among society. Aristotle considered that everybody, much like inanimate objects, has a specific purpose (or telos), for example the telos of a knife would be to cut something, more specifically food. He also said that a supreme good is achieved when it completes its purpose, using the knife example, when a knife successfully cuts thought he object it is cutting, it is said it will have achieved supreme good. The supreme good for humans, according to Aristotle is eudaimonia. This is translated as “happiness” however; it is more the idea of thriving and flourishing personally and within society.
Question A) Explain Aristotle’s theory of the Four Causes. (25) Four Causes refers to an influential principle in Aristotelian thought whereby causes of change or movement are categorized into four fundamental types of answer to the question "why?” Aristotle wrote "we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause." While there are cases where identifying a cause is difficult, or in which causes might merge, Aristotle was convinced that his four causes provided an analytical scheme of general applicability. Aristotle held that there were four kinds of causes: A change or movement's material cause is the aspect of the change or movement, which is determined by the material which the moving or changing things are made of. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.