The sense datum, aids in seeing these mental images in the mind. There are several arguments for representative realism which are as follows. A contrasting argument for representative realism is naive direct realism. An argument against direct realists is Premise 1: all perception is causally cognitively mediated Premise 2: if perception is mediated it cant be direct Premise 3: no perception can be direct Furthermore naive direct realists cannot explain non veridical perception. Illusions: If you were to show a person who didn’t know that a straight stick looks bent in water, they would think that they are looking at a bent stick.
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
To what extent do our senses give us knowledge of the world as it really is? - Word count : 1,284 By: Nicole Allen Senses give us our first view of the world, without senses we wouldn’t be, we wouldn’t know, we wouldn’t see. It’s very easy to trust our senses for they are the main way we get to understand our world but how reliable really are our senses? Are we all imagining the world as we want too? Have we been influenced by them to think and act differently?
Explain the criticisms of the Cosmological Argument. The Cosmological Argument has been criticised time and time again, but i am only going to go into two of the most well known criticisms. Hume criticised the link between cause and effect and says that just because we have an effect that doesn't mean we have to have a cause, an example of this is the universe it is an effect but it doesn't necessarily have to have a cause. Hume also said that our senses can be wrong, meaning the way that i may see something can be different to how someone else may see the same thing, and Hume said that when we see an effect it is instantly in our human nature to make an assumption about the cause. This shows that the argument is subjective and not solid
Skepticism makes a person questions ideas toward multiple things such as knowledge or opinions that are stated as if it is true like facts. Rene Descartes argument for skepticism is to not believe every doubt that you give yourself. In his words "withstand all doubt because the evidence of our senses sometimes misleads us, it does not provide a secure basis for knowledge. We cannot be certain that we are awake and not dreaming." His argument can be argued because people have senses that can guide them to doubt themselves by the way people talk to them or other people actions.
In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion. (Pereboom, 2009:324). Another argument against hard determinism would be if it were true we could not be accounted for when it comes to our actions, therefore we could do a morally wrong act and if it was determined then we would could not to blame, we did not have the free will to do that act it was determined to be done anyway. Also if we do a morally good act should we be praised for this? Hard determinists would say that it was not our free will that chose us to do this good act we were determined to do it anyway.
The traditional account of weakness of will is as follows: an agent is weak-willed on an occasion if and only if the agent does not do that which she believes is best. The agent thinks she knows what the best course of action to take is, and knowingly acts against it. However, Holton disagrees, he argues that weakness of the will involves revising one’s resolutions too easily. By this, Holton means it is possible to act against one’s better judgement (that is, being Akratic) but without being weak-willed. Holton, on the other hand, argues that the traditional akratic account is flawed.
There is definite value in her argument, but because she just scratches the surface of how emotions could be incorporated into the process of acquiring knowledge, there are a few areas of her theory that are problematic. For the sake of brevity, this paper will discuss what is, perhaps, the biggest flaw in the Jaggar reading—standpoint theories seem to be oblivious to differing experiences of particular individuals within groups and instead speaks of experiences of these groups as shared ones. Allison Jaggar asserts that theories that make the distinction between emotion and reason in association with acquiring knowledge are mistaken because they falsely assume that emotions are involuntary responses that can be separated from
Despite being a theory which seemingly encourages acceptance and moral rationality, subjectivism is deemed as flawed on two predominant levels. Firstly, it assumes an infallibility for the speaker that is not justified. And secondly, subjectivism seemingly renders moral disagreement and therefore advancement impossible. Whilst these two objections may seem solid on a logical level, they pose little threat to subjectivism as an undeniable fact of reality. The first argument, that subjectivism creates infallible moral agents, reads as follows.
Then every possible alternative is generated and with their impacts evaluated. Finally the optimal alternative would be chosen. This is the conventional process of decision-making suggested by classical theories. Simon, on the other hand, determined that this is not a realistic approach considering decision-making concepts, he argued that decision makes, who are human, is unable to be rational under environmental constraints and human incapacity. Also, these two factors can have impacts on the behaviour and rationality of the decision maker.