Plato used this analogy to help his less educated contemporaries at the time understand why the physical world of sense is nothing but an illusion and that the intelligible realm is where the truth can be found. In the analogy Plato presents human beings living in a cave, which represents humans inhabiting the sensible realm. In the cave, prisoners are chained up by their necks and legs and are therefore unable to turn around. Since they have been chained up this way for their entire lives they have no experience of life outside the cave. Behind the prisoners is a low wall, a walkway and a large fire that lights up the cave.
“Compare and Contrast intuitionism and Emotivism” Both Intuitionism and Emotivism are meta-ethical concepts to explain the terms “good” and “bad” without being caught in the naturalistic fallacy described by GE Moore. Moore’s theory states that good cannot be categorised in any physical manner as theories – but instead “good” can not be defined in terms of anything but itself, and following this through to a moral theory we can conclude “that neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality.” Intuitionism holds that there are objective moral truths, but rather than reasoning or deducing these truths, they are self evident to the “mature” mind. Moore contends that just as we know there is a world out there, we know objective moral truths – they are just common sense or intuition. These truths are universal and beyond human experience and reasoning, and from them we gain our sense of what is “good” and what is “bad”. Moore would say we can see these self evident truths when, in an argument, we are reduced to “it’s just wrong,” they require no further explanation, proof or justification.
For Kant, if an action is performed, based on the end goal or result, or based on the outcome, it is not moral. Therefore the Hypothetical imperative was no use because these judgments were not dependent on morals and they were dependent on outcome. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, are moral commands that tell eveyone what to do and do not depend on an end goal or outcome. According to Kant, these categorical imperative apply to everyone, because they are based on an adjective a priori of reason which Kant calls the categorical imperative. Kant broke the categorical imperative down into three rules which he called Maixms.
We must lie to be a moral person, sending our friend to their impending death. It accords with universalizable maxims to treat people as ends in themselves and exercise their will without concerning ourselves with the consequences of their actions. Perhaps we can find a better way to use the CI in order to obtain a moral answer that we accord with our intuition. Firstly we need to break down Kant’s CI to understand how he uses it to determine moral law. The CI has several formula - the first being The Formula Of Universal Law (FUL): “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Wood 2002, xviii).
However it is reachable by passing through different limitations His Both Plato and Descartes argue that humans are trapped by wrong assumptions and beliefs. In his essay Allegory of The Cave, Plato proves how people are fooled to believe in wrong ideas. He uses a cave to present the world of sight, in which people are prisoners since the day they were born. The people in the cave cannot see the light, neither each other’s, because their hands and neck are chained and they cannot move. These people only see what in front of them is.
Kant believed that the only way we gain knowledge of the world is through our senses, and that us humans will never experience the true reality of the world as we experience it through our own minds, of which different categories of thought have been built into, which led him to believe that all scientific knowledge discovered, is only facts about our own experiences and perceptions. However, as the categories within our brain are objective, we can be sure in our reasoning in deciding what is right and what is wrong. Kant’s understanding on the concept of goodwill and duty help form
However, in Fahrenheit 451, a utopian society seems to have been reached. Perfection seemed to exist in “laws, government, and social conditions.” Compared to our modern world, this future seemed to be happier and their lives less chaotic. Humans have never liked laws because they give off a sense of restriction as well as authority. In the future, laws don’t exist and anything seemed feasible and within one’s reach. There was only a simple law, and that was to not read books as well as think, making “the mind drink less and less.” This doesn’t seem much of a sacrifice because society was filled with far more excitement than literature could offer.
In the first chapter, he compares the idea of how truth exists in our world and how it exists in reality. Rorty explains how all languages are contingent. This is because only descriptions of the world can be true or false, and descriptions are made by humans who must make truth or falsity, as opposed to truth or falsity being determined by any innate property of the world being described. But in the real world the notion about the truth is that it is out there to be found. When we humans are reminded of this, they become skeptics in their conversation.
As mentioned by Tim LaHaye, “secular humanism is a dangerous worldview that exalts man’s knowledge rather than God’s wisdom” (1). On the other hand, Robert F. Morse described “the guiding principles of humanism are rooted in intellect, science, critical thinking and experience rather than belief in divine authority” (1). As a religious person myself when I read the article by Tim LaHaye, I felt secular humanism is bad indeed. We shouldn’t be detached from religion because before everything else, religion helped us understand good and bad paths of life. I would like to believe we are the followers of the God’s path.
A true analogy of how people sometimes attempt to justify their denial of God's existence or an excuse for why they neither believe nor disbelieve. But the truth of the matter is that, "We are in no position to draw up maps of God's psychology, and prescribe limits to His interests. 2. I am a man/woman of facts. I believe in science and matter not miracles and blind faith!