Appiah, in his Moral Disagreement essay, provides a valid answer to this question, “The point is not that we couldn’t argue our way to one position or the other on this question; it’s only to say that when we disagree, it won’t always be because one of us just doesn’t understand the value that’s at stake” (p. 666). Just because different cultures eat different things, even something you might call a pet, it means you shouldn't judge them for it. Another point that comes across in Gender, Class, and Terrorism is the understanding of religion. Kimmel states, “The journalist Nasra Hassan interviewed families of Middle Eastern suicide bombers (as well as some failed bombers themselves) and found that none of them had the standard motivations ascribed to people who commit suicide, such as depression” (p. 652). This is because these bombers weren’t depressed.
Religion and science contribute to the world in many different ways. In the essay “In the Forest of Gombe” by Jane Goodall, Goodall discusses her insights on these two disparate beliefs through her experiences. Religion and science are sought to be “mutually exclusive” (Goodall 148); however, Goodall believes, as a scientist, you must think logically and empirically and, as a religious believer, you have to think intuitively or spiritually. Despite their differences, they are simply ways in looking at the world through different windows. Many scientists believe that science and religion should not entwine.
I found Lane’s arguments to be tied closely to Kantism and Utilitarism. Lane’s Kantism way of reflects the Categorical Imperative (1st formulation). Lane contends that we are hypocritical in our way of thinking and acting. We eat animals that are of “lesser” intelligence, where animals of “higher” intelligence are overlooked. I found this way of thinking to be narrow minded and impractical.
The counter argument to this though, is that animals do not fall under his jurisdiction and so the brutality that is nature is out of his control. God can only then make humans all good; which is apparent to be untrue (war, rape, murder.) In effect, Gould has showed that there could very validly be no active god. Whichever way a person’s belief systems lean, this paper by Stephen Jay Gould is a very insightful read into one way of thinking. Whether that means it solely educates those who firmly believe in god that there are other views, or it converts a person to non religious views, it is a worthwhile read.
Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud both challenged Enlightenment assumptions about human behavior and the role of reason. The Enlightenment thought humans were superior to animals and should think reasonably. Darwin believed humans evolved over time into what the species is today. It was this concept of evolution that Darwin understood which Enlightenment did not have. Sigmund Freud's id, ego, and super ego theory brought about a new way of thought that challenged the Enlightenment.
What make this opinion credible is that people may disagree. 7. It makes the evidence persuasive by making the audience feel empathy for animals and they are smart, more like us than we imagined, by saying they have emotion. 8. I think very well because Rifkin uses scientific facts, which sound very accurate.
Ethical perspective is not always about making everyone happy, because it is virtually impossible to make everyone happy. Ethical perspective is more focused on making the best decision for the good of all individuals involved as well as setting the standard in future situations. These ethical lenses helped to influence my decisions based on the information that was provided. It allowed me to be fair and just towards all individuals concerned as well as guide provide me with the proper steps to
In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice. The next discussion involved civil disobedience and we found that we agreed that civil disobedience has been helpful historically to help change the laws and improve our society. However, the general consensus on civil disobedience was also that the acts of disobedience must be done in a peaceful manner for the acts to be effective. The final acts of crimes among professionals had another anonymous decision. Our team found that we did not agree with those professionals who chose to commit crimes.
The Judeo Christian position is that human nature is both good and bad because man is sinful yet created with the ability to choose good. One’s human nature deeply influences the methods in which they view themselves and others, as well as how that person lives. In both the discussion of the scientific method and the use of biblical interpretation there is no possible way to stop personal values from affecting one’s thinking. Human nature is susceptible to many flaws. Every person, scientist and lay person, Christian and non-Christian, is guilty of some form of bias.
The next argument that I am going to examine is what some people in the world think, but it is based around Cultural Relativists, who say that if morality was decided for by God then he could say one day to murder somebody and it would be fine. This would then agree with the statement above. An argument I’m going to examine is The Devine Command Theory. This argument goes against the statement as it says that you can only have morals if you believe in God because you get morals from revelations, scriptures or religious experience. This means that to have morals God has to exist.