Argue that your chosen reply either does or doesn’t really succeed in defending Classical Utilitarianism. (This is the most important part of the essay, where you get to state and defend your own evaluation. You can argue that this reply to the objection does, or that it doesn’t succeed in defending the theory, it is up to you. Think about it for yourself, consult the “Help for Essay 1” below) 7. Say what can be concluded from what you have said (Be modest in your conclusion.
Having argued that there are universals, Russell attempts to justify the existence of ‘Properties’, a type of universal. Resemblance Nominalism rejects the existence of Properties on the grounds that there are no universals. But since it considers resemblances between Particulars to exist, it
Your thesis, i.e., argument, must have two sides. It must be debatable. If you can write down a thesis statement directly opposing your own, you will ensure that your own argument is debatable. Disprove the opposing argument. Understand the opposite viewpoint of your position and then counter it by providing contrasting evidence or by finding mistakes and inconsistencies in the logic of the opposing argument.
Additional requirement for admissibility of multiple hearsay A hearsay statement is not admissible to prove the fact that an earlier hearsay statement was made unless: either of the statements is admissible or all the parties to the proceedings agree; or the court is satisfied that the value of the evidence in question, taking into account how reliable the statements appear to be, is so high that the interests of justice require the later statement to be admissible for that purpose. ‘Hearsay statement’ means a statement, not made in oral evidence, that is relied on as evidence of a matter stated in it. Memory refreshing A witness giving oral evidence in court may use a document to refresh his or her memory, provided that the document was made (or verified) by him at an earlier time, and provided: he states that the document records his recollections of the matter at that earlier time and his recollection of the matter is likely to have been significantly better at the time the document was made, than at the time of his oral evidence. Running head: UNIT 5 ASSIGNMENT 10
“The maxim ‘an unjust law is not a law’, coined by St. Augustine and central to natural law thinking, has been criticized, inter alia, by H.L.A Hart and Hans Kelsen as ‘utterly implausible’ as it suggests that ‘what everyone takes to be laws (i.e. rules possessing validity by reference to the criteria of a positive system of law) are in fact not laws if they are unjust’. (George: 2008) George responds to this critique as follows: ‘It is certainly possible that an unjust law may at the same time be systematically valid and yet morally invalid; this is precisely the state of affairs that is being identified here. But, this fact alone – absent more specific information about the case at hand – does not necessarily militate either for or against one’s obligation to obey the law. On the one hand, one’s prima facie obligation to obey the law remains intact where its injustice is relatively minor and it would be unfair to others if one disregarded the law.
As the conclusion follows logically from the two premises and the second premise is essentially indisputable it is clear that the success of this argument depends on the validity of the first premise, it being a statement which is not self-evidently true. This premise uses as its basis Leibiniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason which states that there is an adequate explanation for everything and that this explanation exists in spite of whether or not we are able to come to know it. A famous version of the Argument from Contingency by Samuel Clarke constructs a sophisticated justification for the first premise based on Leibiniz’s principle. Clarke asserts that 1): since there is an adequate explanation for everything, there must be an adequate explanation for the existence of all contingent things as a whole, for the existence of the Universe. From this he asserts that 2): the explanation for the existence of the Universe cannot come from a contingent thing because contingent things are part of the Universe.
If the paperwork wasn’t properly filed in the first place. a. As with any legal contract, the enforceability of a prenup can come down to the proverbial “crossed t’s and dotted i’s.” b.Careless errors could render a prenup less than airtight. If the initial agreement was poorly drafted, it may also be invalid. 4.
Conditional statements can be either true or false. To show that a conditional statement is true, you must present an argument that the conclusion follows for all cases that fulfill the hypothesis. To show that a conditional statement is false, describe a single counterexample that shows the statement is not always true. Coastal Research Amphibious Buggy EXAMPLE 2 Writing a Counterexample Write a counterexample to show that the following conditional statement is false. If x 2 = 16, then x = 4.
Although often the two types of secret trusts are dealt with together this creates some difficulties because they are so different even to the extent that they break different convention rules. Lord Viscount Sumner said in Blackwell v Blackwell [1929] that once the trustee agrees to the testator's intentions "the proposed donee encourages him to bequeath the money in the faith that his intentions will be carried out." The two types of secret trusts share some rules such that the secret trustee must accept the trust. This acceptance can be express or implied; Wallgrave v Tebbs [1972]. The secret trustee must be under a legally binding obligation, a purely moral one is inadequate; McCormack v Grogan.
what we call sensible qualities. Berkeley’s response is that he cannot make sense of the notion of a material substance and this is largely due to the fact that the supposed material substance and the nature of our ideas occasion fundamentally different properties and thus it is unclear how a material substance can support our ideas. Consequently, this paper will attempt to substantiate such a notion and argue that belief in the existence of a material substance offers a better explanation of the phenomena of being conscious of an external world than Berkeley’s idealism. In his First Dialogue, Berkeley attempts to quench atheism and skepticism by aiming to retain a philosophy of common sense. In this attempt, he makes the claim that there is no such thing as what philosophers call material substance.