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.
Aquinas’ 3 ways make far too many leaps and assumptions. For Example, in the 2nd way – from Cause, the argument clearly states that everything has a cause, that cause must too have a cause, there cannot be an infinite number of causes therefore there must be an uncaused cause. The logic in this argument is sound however, when Aquinas makes the leap from there being an uncaused cause to that uncaused cause being God this is where I feel it falls. This leap is unjustified and therefore I don’t feel it is sufficient to be convincing as proof to the existence of God. Bertrand Russell would argue against the 2nd way with fallacy of composition.
In the course of arguing for this conclusion, Thrasymachus makes three central claims about justice. 1.Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger (338c) 2.Justice is obedience to laws (339b) 3.Justice is nothing but the advantage of another (343c). There is an obvious tension among these three claims. It is far from clear why somebody who follows legal regulations must always do what is in the interest of the (politically) stronger, or why these actions must serve the interests of others. Scholars have tried to resolve these tensions by emphasizing one of the three claims at the expense of the other two.
Second, because the statements were incongruous only one of the statements was true. The third premise, which sparked the debate, claims that if only one of the interpretive statements about the work is true, both of which are compatible with the work’s text, the true statement is the one that applies the meaning, or gist, intended by the work’s creator. This final premise was challenged by Jarrold Levinson, who argued for hypothetical intentionalism claiming that the author’s intention is not what determines the meaning of a work, but the author’s so-called hypothetical intentions. The call by Levinson to replace Iseminger’s
It is difficult to understand how someone could measure ethical conduct except through measurable results. If the outcome cannot be measured, then there is no way to be objectively confident that the underlying ethical construct even exists or is of any consequences to real people. What is the Ethics Awareness Inventory? The inventory begins with a quick introduction about the process, applicability, and purpose of the measure (Ethics Awareness Inventory, 2006). It is made clear that ethical decision making is comprised of three separate tasks: awareness, articulation, and application.
Also, restate the wording of the first reason so it doesn’t simply copy the reason as you stated it in the complete thesis. Example: “The first reason to avoid Kevin Smith’s movies is the low-brow humor.” • Support for Reason One: Textual support, quotations, examples, expert authorities, cases, statistics, comparisons to similar subjects, analogies (comparisons to somewhat related subjects). • Address objection, and refute. Arguments are always strengthened when the writer addresses opposing reasons to
“Sentience” is poorly defined and even more poorly understood. Some people make fine philosophical distinctions among sentience, consciousness, self-awareness, and cognition, whereas others are more careless in using these terms. Fortunately, we need not argue here over how to define these concepts. In whatever sense the pro-choicer means the word he chooses, it invariably has to do with some sort of mental activity. We can distinguish among three levels of “having” mental activity, and, for a dialectical defense of the pro-life position, the distinction among these three levels is more important than distinctions among different types of mental activity.
Traditional models of decision-making are built on logic and rationality. Although such models may be elegant in the logical structure of their processes, reality shows that decision-making rarely follows such a logical structure. Decision-making processes vary and are often confounded by various assumptions and biases held by the decision makers. Finding a more successful model of decision-making requires recognition of the assumptions and biases affecting decisions, along with recommendations to minimize their ill effects. Bias is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.
His skepticism exists because a priori “truths” exist don’t necessarily pertain to the real, material world. Knowledge gained by experience is also suspect for Hume. He believes that knowledge gained by experience is unfounded because inductive reasoning is based on the habit of constant conjunction, or the assumption that patterns from the past will repeat themselves in the future. He is skeptical about this because the argument for inductive reasoning is circular—you have to assume the conclusion (that inductive reasoning is a reliable method of acquiring knowledge) to reach the conclusion. In other words, it is necessary to use inductive reasoning to prove inductive reasoning.
Whittington (2000) sees strategy as being both Contestable, there is no one best way and depending on opinion strategy can be seen differently. If you are formulating strategy you must keep in mind the goals of all stakeholders or else you will meet with resistance. Strategy is also Imperfectable in that you never really know if the strategy adopted was the best strategy possible and that there is now way of knowing if things could have been done better or worse. Whittington (2000) approaches strategy from four generic points of view: The first approach is the classical approach. It is based on the methods of planning and in this approach strategy is seen as a rational process, with deliberate calculations and analysis and is used to maximise long term advantage.