Aquinas considered that by using our reason to reflect on our human nature we could discover our specific end purpose. Aquinas used the ideas of Aristotle and the Stoics as an underpinning for Natural Law saying- human beings have an essential rational nature given by God in order for us to live and flourish. Aristotle said even without knowledge of god, reason can discover the laws that lead to human flourishing. The Stoics said Natural Laws are universal and unchangeable and should be used to judge of particular societies. We use this is help us choose the right moral action is situations.
Thus, according to Weber History and Sociology are interdependent. Max Weber’s effort to understand the internal characteristics of social groups and his corresponding attempts to understand these groups as they understood themselves add nothing to sociology as an objective science because Weber reckoned that human actions are not dependent on the regularities that control the world of nature. Weber’s contend was that verstehen was the best way of understanding social phenomenon. This method tries to understand the meaning of human beings attribute to their experiences, actions and interactions (Weber 98). Thus, it is a rigorous and systematic form of inquiry that is essential in micro and macro sociological analysis.
Sociology is in one way or another related to science and common sense but it is also in many ways distinct from the two. Early sociologists like Comte Durkheim tried to link sociology with the natural sciences as they argued that human beings and social activity could be studied rationally and objectively producing anticipated results. However this is only true to a certain extent, because as we know people are not atoms or identical particles, their existence consists of feelings and attitudes and their social realm is shaped and created through meaning and interpretation. Sociology is not a science but it isscientific. The
Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphsyical This article by John Rawls discusses the theory of justice which was presented in his book, “A Theory of Justice.” Rawls espouses the concept that justice should be devoid of controversial philosophical and religious doctrines, and instead be understood as political, or actually practical in nature. He further discusses two fundamental principles which should guide this thought process, specifically, that each individual has equal access to basic rights or liberties, and that social and economic inequalities must be attached to offices and positions that provide the greatest benefits for those most disadvantaged. Rawls goes into great detail to explain that his theory of justice is designed, not to focus on the metaphysical or epistemological, but rather as a structure for informed and willing political agreement between citizens who are viewed equally as being free. He avoids the attendant issues that may be considered philosophical, moral or religious, by using the argument that there would be no way to resolve them politically. Rawls also speaks to the issues of social cooperation, which is governed by publically recognized rules that once again, focus on political practicability and the rational advantages that would extend from this cooperation.
Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in. These ideas seem to make sense because we as a culture understand that the judgments people make in a different culture will differ from ours whether we choose to support it or not. Our culture has different moral judgments as well and does not look at something like killing someone for stealing as morally right since our culture values human life above theft. Cultural relativism does not exist because some principles are universal and not relative only to culture. People also have the ability to think morally for themselves so morality is relative to someone’s point of view.
This is because they claim that there is no such thing as the truth and therefore all knowledge is uncertain. Sociologists of course stand up for sociology over common sense. Sociology is more important than common sense as it is evidence based and challenges common sense views of the world and enhances human life and freedom. Giddens claims that sociological knowledge often
Positivists believe that sociology is a science and look for cause and effect relationships. However, in contrast to positivists and structuralists, Interpretivists prefer qualitative data as they have a micro view of society and have a more in depth perception of society. They disagree with the idea that sociology is a science and they think that humans are not rocks or plants or any other natural phenomena and we have free will, choice, consciousness and opinions so we cannot be compared to rocks and plants etc and our behaviour cannot be explained in terms of cause and effect, just by the choices we make. So they feel that it isn’t appropriate for studying human beings. There are a wide range of quantitative sources for example questionnaires, structured interviews, experiments and official statistics.
It moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others. In this essay I will examine the Ethical Theory of Utility, its background and its influence upon society to determine if Utilitarianism can be expressed in the phrase “ The greatest good for the greatest number.” U·til·i·tar·i·an·ism 1 [Columbia Encyclopedia] Noun: • The doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. • The doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be... Background Jeremy Bentham was the father of Utilitarianism, he was of the left liberal view, influenced by the French revolution and by many enlightenment thinkers, especially empiricists such as John Locke and David Hume.
Historical trends in psychological enquiry, in addition to fundamental shifts in Psychology’s subject base has led to the use of the scientific method. Ultimately, the aim of the scientific method is to test hypothesis by falsifying them. It is impossible to prove a hypothesis correct but we are able to prove a hypothesis wrong. Karl Popper saw falsifiability as a black and white definition, that if a theory is falsifiable, it is scientific, and if not, then it is unscientific. Empirical data is information that is gained through a direct observation or an experiment rather than a reasoned argument or unfounded belief.
Kuhn states that a scientist’s switch between one paradigm to the next is similar to a “gestalt switch” where neural programming is required rather than argument and persuasion. Paul Feyerabend also outlined science as a discipline harmed by a dogmatic acceptance of dominant methodological frameworks. Feyerabend argued that Kuhn’s paradigm model had painted too simple of a picture of science and he therefore proposed the idea that there should be no specific method in which to ensure the objectivity of science. He believes both logical and illogical ideas may be allowed to progress in science and therefore science is better served when we accept “Epistemological anarchism” as opposed to Kuhn “law and order science.” For this essay I will compare and contrast Kuhn and Feyerabend’s models as they pertain to the rhetoric of science. Feyerebend gives rhetoric and argument a function in the sphere of science and nowhere is this made clearer than in Kuhn and Feyerabend’s respective disagreements on the issue of Incommensurability which is denoted as the difficulty to determine which theory is more accurate than the other.