According to hard determinism we are not free in the sense required for moral responsibility, and therefore, what happens cannot be affected by choices that are free in the sense. But what happens may nevertheless be caused by the decisions we chose and the choices we make. A reaction to hard determinism is that if it were true, we would have no reason to attempt to accomplish anything, to try and improve our lives because our decisions and choices would make no difference. If everything we do is pre determined then why try hard to achieve anything, if you are meant to do a certain something, it will happen, it is already determined for you, so the hard determinist would say. In the hard determinist’s judgement, this feeling of freedom is an illusion.
I personally am in favor of the exclusionary rule and believe it should be enforced because it not right for defendant’s rights to be ignored and dismissed. Through out this paper
By using utilitarianism ethics it would seem the benefits of not airing the prank would be more beneficial. As this would be seen by the radio station as maintaining their professional integrity, it would avoid the possibility of impacting their relationships with multiple stakeholders negatively. From the positives and negatives discussed, it would seem under utilitarianism ethics the prank would not be ethical to broadcast. Kantian Ethics The decision to not air the prank would not be delayed under Kantian ethics. As the main issue at stake is the process of the matter; therefore the principle of duty must be followed.
Torts Outline Geistfeld—Spring 2005 1) Intentional Torts a) Battery: i) Elements (1) A acts, (2) Intending to cause (a) Harmful contact with P or (b) Contact with P that is offensive and (dignitary harm—not always recognized) (3) A’s act causes such contact. ii) Difference between battery and negligence—negligence is when the D has wrong the P by failing to take sufficient care to avoid harming her. iii) Intent: will have to rely on circumstantial evidence, since mental states are not observable. (1) First issue is motive, but it generally does not matter, since why you did it is not relevant. We’re thinking about rules that govern interactions—objective rather than subjective standard.
When a deductive argument is invalid, it is automatically considered unsound. Inductive arguments are judged on whether they are strong or weak. If the premises of an argument are considered to be true and the conclusion is not likely to be false, it is a strong argument. If there is a possibility that the conclusion may be false but the premises are still true, then the argument is weak. When an inductive argument is weak, it is automatically considered
He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
Plagiarism Katrina, I understand your argument about this being common sense but I still have to argue that this is an act of plagiarism. You may have not intended to plagiarize and this act is called unintentional plagiarism. I do not want you to worry because it is better if you know now and learn as you are not the only one who has come across this issue. Plagiarism exists in two forms: intentional and unintentional. Plagiarism is done intentionally when someone copies someone else’s exact words and uses it in their own work without any quotations or citations and claims it to be their original work.
They are concerned with how well you make your case. Whether they agree or disagree with your judgment is not essential to your mark. Disagreement does not lead to bad marks; bad essays do. If there are important arguments against your position, do not ignore them; deal with them honestly. Give those who disagree with you a fair go.
Dwyer uses this expression to show that he does not concur with the intentions of the law enforcers who claim that their actions are all for the people’s safety. He uses this expression as a light term that is not as offensive as other terms would have been, yet it achieves its purpose. Dwyer might have chosen this expression to show that he was angry with the current situation, but he did not want to be offensive by using other terms. Biased language is depicted by Dwyer’s use of the expression “illegal aliens”. Labelling a person as an illegal alien portrays that the individual, as opposed to his or her actions, is unlawful.
The argument against gun control has many facets that are either illogical or contain a plethora of logical fallacies. One of such fallacy is the use of the Second Amendment. It has been misconstrued over the years to change what its original meaning was. The text of the second amendment is as follows: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The various proponents of anti gun-control, gun enthusiast and NRA alike, tend to cite this amendment as a safety net to all of their arguments. But this, like in most cases, is not a flawless argument.