1. Say what you will be arguing for. (“In this essay, I will argue that the injustice objection to Classical Act Utilitarianism can OR cannot be successfully met by the long term consequences OR secondary principles OR “intuitions can’t be trusted” reply’) 2. Describe consequentialism. (Be very brief –one sentence) 3.
3. Probing reasons and evidence How do you know? Why do you think that is true? What would change your mind? 4.
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. Support your position with evidence. Remember that your evidence must
These laws regulate animal treatment. The article suggest that animal welfare laws should not be determined by animal rights. Animal rights is described as the way an animal should be treated but the Animal Welfare Laws are the way animals have to be treated. Shouldn't they be the same thing though? Where do you draw the line between what is right and what has to be followed by the law?
2. Why do people use syllogisms? Syllogisms are used to come to a conclusion based on other statements. When answers are not obvious people use syllogisms to come to a conclusion. 3.
Communiction 102 Response to Article The Revelation Risk Model Objective: 1 – Identify the theory that is being used (2 points). 2 – In one paragraph describe three key components of the theory (3 points). 3 – Identify the first two hypotheses or research questions (2 points). 4 – Identify the key variables they are testing in the hypotheses or research questions (2 points). 5 – Briefly summarize how each variable was operationalized (4 points).
We as human beings need laws in order to live in a society; it is what separates us from the animals. With out laws there would just be chaos and no order in the world and that could be the end of our species. Without laws people would never have justice and none of our civil liberties would be protected; we need these laws in order to still call ourselves human. 2. Differentiate between natural law and positive law that explains the vast differences and origins between the two.
People are a subset of the planet. Ethics and morality do cross over but I agree that they are not synonyms. Morality is certainly a part of ethics but not all ethics is a part of morality so the two are not always interchangeable or synonyms. Ethics is a guide to doing stuff as is morality a guide to doing stuff to live socially, but you can be doing something that is ethical for the given point of view while at the same time it is unethical and immoral from a social point of view. - Torturing a dog is unethical and wrong as there is no reason to inflict that pain on the animal but it’s not immoral as that is the wrong term to use because another human is not involved.
Bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. There are 3 common biases, biased search, belief perseverance, and illusory correlation.
[1] A number of arguments regarding one aspect of metaphor or another have been built on this assumption of the greater difficulty of paraphrasing metaphors. In this paper I survey the philosophical literature with an eye to revealing what specifically theorists have had in mind when they claim an asymmetry in difficulty of paraphrase between the metaphorical and the literal. I examine the evidence theorists have offered to support the claim that it is more difficult to paraphrase metaphors, and reveal some widespread weaknesses of this evidence. Bearing in mind the weaknesses I have uncovered, I offer evidence against the view that it is more difficult to paraphrase metaphors than it is to paraphrase literal sentences. Finally, I discuss what the demise of the difficulty assumption portends for the metaphor debate.