The ad hominem attacks are not necessary to support his argument that dropping the bomb was the right decision because he refutes opponents’ arguments before resorting to ad hominem, so the ad hominem must have a different purpose altogether. Instead, the ad hominem adds to his argument about the necessity of experience. Fussell explicitly admits his use of ad hominem attacks, which are valid because they occur after the target’s argument had already been refuted and just help connect the disproven arguments to their owner’s lack of experience, which is further associated with an impractical, idealistic mindset. Fussell brings up the arguments of people who opposed dropping the atom bomb on Japan and then argues that their arguments are not valid because they do not have correct information or experience in war. John Kenneth Galbraith believed that the bomb should not have been dropped because he said that the war would end in only a few weeks (Fussell, 18).
“I shall make a proclamation, speaking as one who has no connection with this affair, nor with the murderer”(Sophocles 14). The perceived meaning of this is that to Oedipus, he has no relativity to the death of Laius or to his murderer, but the unperceived meaning is that Oedipus does have all the connection there is to have with both because he is the murderer of Laius. “Insult me, go on-but that, you will find, is what makes me great”(Sophocles 30). The intended meaning is that Oedipus doesn’t care if Tiresias insults him because he believe he has already saved Thebes and believes he will rid the city of Laius’ killer, but the unintended meaning is that the insults are actually the truth of Oedipus, that they are the answers which he is looking for which ultimately dooms Thebes because Oedipus doesn’t realize he is Laius’ murderer. “If it turns out that he tells the same story as you-then I, at least, will be cleared of responsibility”(Sophocles 58).
Now onto a new topic, the abundance of morals to find. That’s right I said find, while Huck goes on his adventure you can go on your own looking for the hidden meaning behind each corner. I’ll name a few to give you an example. Jump off the Bandwagon, be who you want to be, is what Huck teaches you right off the bat as he dodges ‘sivilization’ pushed onto him by a pair of well-meant but forceful old women. Next Pap Finn teaches the evils of alcohol, this drunkard of a father abuses Huck and is only interested in him when money’s involved, for buying more booze of course.
Jordan's film is ambiguous and contradictory in its attitude towards republican violence, but it is this very ambiguity which allows Jordan to reconcile the widely felt need for a heroic past with the longing for peace in the present. In Michael Collins there is a sense that violence has inescapably tragic consequences. Collins develops the tactics of guerrilla warfare and uses these tactics with great success, but then things escape from his control. He tries to call a halt to the violence, but is killed in the end by his own methods. However, if the overall narrative of Michael Collins suggests that violence has tragic consequences, the film does not repudiate republican violence.
In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, John Galt believes that selfishness is both moral and practical because having “concern with one's own interests” is concurrent with both the desire to live and the refusal to support “looters”. Galt believes that the survival of man is possible only by the use of the mind, this being demonstrated through his strict moral code. According to Galt, men must live by values and earn their living through production, rather than destruction and must never give or take the undeserved. Expectation for something in return for nothing is considered barbaric, leaving mutual trade as the only civilized method of human interaction. When selfishness is taken out of the equation and economic resources are seized from producers
This shows that the society discourages change, which also means no future growth. Unlike in present society where change and growth are considered natural and 'human', Brave New World gets rid of the chance to grow and change as well as the desire, which is an example of humanity being replaced with stability. The hypnopaedia method, which are “words without reason” (p. 28), also acts in dehumanizing societys' people. These words without reason are simply a method to instill the same thoughts throughout any numerous anount of people. Instead of having your own thoughts and own free will do what what you want, you're forced to believe what society wants to believe.
“Freewill is an illusion” Discuss By Chunky This essay will be arguing that the statement is undoubtedly accurate. All the hard determinism thinkers would agree that free will is an illusion and is not possible. Hard determinism thinkers believe that we as humans never act freely and cant be judged for our actions as God has planned what we will do as humans. Gottfried Liebniz was a hard determinism thinker and said no human has free will and God determines every action. So anything that is done is by Gods will as he wanted that to be done.
Utilitarianism Would you authorise someone to be tortured to save innocent lives? Deontologist would argue that you should never torture anyone because this is wrong in every situation. For deontologists the act is most important and not the consequences as the end never justifies the means. I agree with the telegocial approach which believes that whether the something is right or wrong depends on the consequences. I would agree that you can torture someone as the consequence is to save innocent lives which is good.
Kant's Categorical Imperative has no serious weakness. Discuss (10) I don't agree Kant's theory doesn't have a serious weakness, due to the issue of his theory to rely on duty instead of Bentham's utilitarian approach relying on the consequence or the outcome of a situation to judge whether or not it's right, and throughout this essay I will be proving why this deontological approach has its flaws. Immanuel Kant believed that moral rules such as don't lie take the form of the categorical imperative, for example if someone showed up at your door wielding a weapon, shouting about killing your friend, demanding to see him, obviously the moral thing to do in this situation is to lie. However Kant's categorical imperative denies him of doing such a thing because according to him, lying is wrong and in no circumstance should you do it, whether helping a friend or not. Categorical imperatives leave no room for ifs, they are absolutes, however morality is a concept that is relative to human beings, is it a concept of our mind?
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible To feeling as to sight? Or art thou but A dagger of the mind, a false creation, Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?’ | Macbeth has been convinced into the action not by his own reasoning, but by his personal insecurities, played upon by his wife, the witches, and his own ambition. By the time Macbeth’s mind conjures up a dagger for him, he can see the murder as a foregone conclusion, not a question for his consideration.