As a further definition, Mackie posits that an objective moral value has the quality of ‘ought-to-be-pursued-ness’, it is something one should or ought do because it contains an inherently normative aspect. If Mackie’s argument is to succeed, it must prove that this supposed normative aspect has no existence within any act in itself, but has its origin in the agent of said act, and as such, all moral claims are false. Mackie’s exposition of moral relativism comes in the form of two main arguments, the first being his ‘argument from relativity’, the second, his ‘argument from queerness’. It is with the argument from relativity that I shall be here concerned. The argument from relativity is based around the purely ‘descriptive’ idea that it is an empirically observable fact that there seems to be
Any time an arguer intentionally leaves a premise or conclusion unstated, it is safe to assume that the omission was intended to conceal a weak or questionable step in the argument. Answer: false Reason: just sometime the missing statement is something so obvious and familiar that it would be tedious to state it explicitly. 4. When an argument is standardized, the conclusion is placed above the premises. Answer: false Reason: When an argument is standardized, the conclusion is placed under the premises.
Indirect Realism- There is objection to direct realism, by studies done on perception and psychological processes realists have distinguished between external objects as the causes and objects of perceiving and closed sensa which is the functions of our brain. The form of this view has been named representative realism. This view as well, has its own defecits, and has also been criticized by philosophers. This view has been modernized to introduce a more acceptable theory on perception. Representative Realism, “seeing a table.” The actions involved in seeing this object both through the brain processes is derived from the sensa and that we are directly aware of our senses, which form together what we know as the shape, size, color and other properties that we visualize.
It is commonly believed that human emotions, and gut-feelings/intuition, interfere with rational thinking, and so when making knowledge claims, these passions should be subdued. This idea, although it may sound difficult to achieve, is one which I believe should be implemented and is absolutely justified. In essence, logic and reasoning is much more effective in making/validating knowledge claims than emotion. Foremost, logical thinking is a “system” in the human mind, which, by definition, attempts to find the smartest and most reasonable solution to a problem. Emotions, on the other hand, are instinctive thoughts built into human nature, and rely solely on an individual’s gut-feeling or intuition.
), but still subscribes to the overall view that action is purposeful (even if the purpose is mistaken sometimes). Constructivism is a bit harder to define. Obviously if rationalism sees action as purposeful, then the most major difference is that in constructivism this is not necessarily the case. However, constructivism doesn't want to say that people just bump
Generally, the morally “right” action benefits the majority while affecting the fewest amount in a negative way. Modern ethics are essentially the best of both worlds, eliminating the realist issue with
Aristotle also suggests happiness conforms to goodness of virtue (Kucukuysal and Beyhan, 2011). To be happy and good, one must make the right choices. Virtue is taught and learned. The ability to define happiness and decide what is virtuous is an individual choice based upon life teachings and experience. In order to make someone else happy, you must be happy with yourself.
Since turbulent emotions can distort our ability to think clearly and behave intelligently, people might think that the best way is to with no emotions, in which to look at the world in a balanced and objective way. In ancient time, there was this belief, and such beliefs were held by a group of philosophers known as the Stoics. The stoics advocated a state of mind called apathy in which the mind could mirror reality in a calm and untroubled
As such it useless by itself because it reasoning only can make decisions based on what the mind considers as practical and sound, (Stewart 433). However if there is no past experiences to draw from, or present perceptions to take in, reasoning what is good or bad cannot be determined. It is the purpose of this essay to highlight the positive and negative aspects of using reasoning as a way of knowing. Reasoning is a good way to make a logical decision as it can be conclusive. Deductive reasoning can be a great example of this conclusiveness.
It does not mean that now we have to reject the idea of all inductive reasoning. Sometimes it seems to work and sometimes it does not. We just have to be able to distinguish the good from bad. At the contrast deductive reasoning allows us to deduce a conclusion