The VALID forms are: (AA) Affirming the Antecedent or Modus Ponens | If p, then q.p.q | (DC) Denying the Consequent or Modus Tollens | If p, then q.Not q.Not p. | And the INVALID forms (or pretenders) are: (AC) Affirming the Consequent (AC) | If p, then q.q.p. | (DA) Denying the Antecedent (DA) | If p, then q.Not p.Not q. | You will want to remember these rules for validity!!! You can perhaps see
Rationality, Sensibility and Ethics Immanuel Kant begins this excerpt from Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals with the claim that nothing can be qualified as good except a good will. He supports this claim by giving examples of things we consider good, such as talents of the mind and qualities of temperament, which are not in and of themselves good because someone of bad will can utilize these qualities for bad things. There are qualities and traits which can be esteemed for their ability to service and facilitate a good will, but this does not allow us to label them as good in themselves. Kant states that, “a good will is good not because of what it performs or effects…but simply by virtue of the volition” (P.1). The conscious decision is good in itself because the decision was not inclined by any desire but the duty to do what is intrinsically good.
The second of Hume’s points is that the causal principle is doubtful. His evidence for this is that we can conceive of things without a cause therefore things without a cause are possible this is also backed up by Mackie who says that the causal principle has no evidence and only exists in a methodological sense. However this argument also has severe faults that discredit it. If the arguments from causality are questionable then that means that the arguments from conceivability are questionable as well. This could also mean that a logically necessary truth could be conceived as false if you don’t completely understand it.
After addressing the death penalty from two different perspectives, should it be banded in the United States like other countries or is the death penalty something that society should come to terms with. I argued that while perspective one is strong in that it states those who commit murder need to die, but it fails to fully consider the innocent people that have already died because of law enforcement negligence, perspective two gave a better understanding of all the innocent people who were charged for committing a crime they did not commit. The judicial system needs to reevaluate their law from top to bottom. For America to have a system as harsh as the death penalty there should be no mistakes made in who is chosen to sit in the hot
According to Nagel, there is a paradox in moral responsibility caused by two concept: moral luck and the Control Principle. Moral luck designates blame on someone for actions outside of their control. The Control Principle, on the other hand, is the belief that blame should only be designated on someone for actions within their control. These two ideas are in direct contradiction of one another and it would be foolish to believe both. However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them.
Pohnpei are type of people who are afraid of death if they will hear a prisoner is going to be killed because he or she commits crime. They will surely change because they will be afraid of dying. This will make Pohnpei a very peaceful state. According to Roxanne Rodriquez, author of the book, A Legal Research Guide, stated that these convicted murderers deserve to die (42). The last reason Pohnpei must have death penalty is for the safety for the citizens.
1. Explain what is meant by the term absolutism and relativism Relativism is the denial of any absolute or objective values like truth, moral goodness, beauty, etc. And the affirmation of the individuals; community or culture as the source of values. Absolutism is the view that values of truth, beauty, and/or moral goodness are independent of human opinion and have a common or universal application. The absolutist's view is that some statements are "objectively true," that is, true independent of whether anybody recognizes their truth.
There cannot be a wrong unless there is something that is right to compare it to. In the Law of Human Nature, C.S Lewis sets forth the foundational ideas regarding right and wrong. The most basic yet most important concept is that without the knowledge of what is right; humans cannot make the claim that something is wrong. By pointing out that one’s idea is not correct one is inadvertently admitting that he believes in a standard of right and wrong. C.S Lewis points out that all humans have a tendency to quarrel.
I feel it adversely is shown and sought out to enhance the value of human life by demonstrating the old saying “an eye for an eye.” If government were to lower the penalty of murder it would portray that the victims’ loss of life was less significant than that of the murderer. Some opponents feel that a life sentence in prison is a far worse punishment than death. If this is true, then why do so many convicted prisoners put on death row try to appeal and get a lesser sentence? These prisoners who committed the same act outside prison walls are now facing death with no alternative, as their victim had, and aren’t ready to answer to the consequences. In the case of Stephanie Benton, I saw this with my own eyes.
I think that trying to rehabilitate a very violent person is a waste of money. I also believe in the three strikes policy. If all states were harsher on criminals of violent crimes and all states had the death penalty maybe that would make these criminals choose to stop doing such violent crimes. If we had the death penalty in place for only murders or criminals who commit repeated violent crimes this would decrease the overcrowding in prisons. Why should law abiding citizens pay to keep criminals in prisons for the rest of their