There are so many conflicting theories that it makes it almost impossible to choose what the moral thing to do would be. In his essay, Jamieson doesn’t say that he’ll solve the problems of moral theory but he’ll discuss them, the nature of moral theory and some questions of method. In the first part of his essay Jamieson talks about the nature of moral theories. There are two approaches to making a moral theory; Top-Down system (Dominant conception) or Bottom-up system (Anti-theorist). The dominant conception of moral theories suggests they are abstract structures that sort actions, agents and outcomes into categories.
In ‘If Free Will Doesn’t Exist, Neither Does Water’, Vargas asserts that most people nowadays connect science and free will and use it to prove that free will does not actually exist. I personally believe that these claims are too hasty as the issue requires substantive commitments about disputed philosophical ideas. Aside from that, he also mentions that science has a different way to explain the detail of history of the things that we know without abandoning anything else. In section 1, I will explain the connection between science and our actions. In section 2, I will discuss why if our actions are casually determined, then we don’t have free will.
Have you ever found yourself trying to rationalize the world around you? Trying to make sense of it all but the pieces don’t fit, the numbers don’t add up, and your longing for reason and understanding seem to unachievable because of the limitations of what we really do or can understand. What if those limitations could fade away, with just one pill? Your hunger for true knowledge would suddenly be attainable. Would you risk leaving the familiar, all that you know, and all that you have ever perceived and loved, to satisfy your need of truth?
These arguments seem to create a strong case with the ability to break many forms of the cosmological argument, however issues may be found with Hume’s idea of the possibility of infinite regress which is rejected by many philosophers within their cosmological arguments such as the Kalam arguments and those of Aristotle. It is debatable here as to whether Hume was successful in his critique of the Cosmological argument. However here it is important to note that Hume is not attempting to create an unjustified view of God. Hume isn’t trying to prove that there is no God, he is simply proving that by using the Cosmological argument we shouldn’t be led to the sudden belief in God as the argument provides us with no reason to believe in God. With this idea in mind it is clear that Hume was successful in his critique, due to the fact that his motivation was not to justify the idea that God didn’t exist so he is arguing from an objective view, adding weight to his argument.
The Spanish philosopher Miguel De Unamuno said “The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.” On this basis it could be said that the skepticism is the deepest of all the philosophical areas of study as no true conclusion can be drawn fully meaning it will be explored more with time. The first argument in support of skepticism is the brain in a vat scenario. This entails that I imagine myself now sitting at a laptop writing this essay as the truth, yet in fact my only existence is that I am a brain in a vat being probed with electrodes that are making my consciousness imagine the scenario I have described. This is known as the envatment problem and is often associated with solipsism which is the view that only oneself exists, which according to Audi [1]”serves as a limiting case to be avoided.” It is essentially a modern retelling of [2]Descartes’ ‘being possessed by a malignant demon’ concept as told in Meditations on first philosophy. The envatment problem is impossible to prove as nobody can know they are a brain in a vat similar to how when a person is
Schechtman goes on to say that even though Locke’s view is extremely hard to not to believe, it is not truthful. She then goes on to that even though Locke theory is not true it is also impossible to believe that one can have experiences that they cannot easily recall. Many other philosophers do not completely agree with Locke’s view and work to further elaborate on it. The new philosophers’ views change Locke’s original views on identity. This happens because new philosophers focus more on the concept of memories and not those of consciousness.
Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false. In this essay I will be discussing the multiple branches of cognitive theories and non cognitive theories in order to answer the Janus-like question whether or not moral statements truly hold objective meaning. Ethical naturalism is just one branch of a cognitive theory in which naturalists believe that ethical statements are the same as non-ethical ones, meaning they are all factual and can
One of the reasons is because they authors that write the papers are not interested in the subject that they are writing about. Another reason that Wikipedia should not be used for academic research papers is because many of the articles are one sided and biased so there is only one side to the article, this leads to miscommunicated information. The reason that information is so misjudged today is because there are many articles that are on sources such as Wikipedia. Knowing which sources are credible helps to understand the research that the people do. By looking through the periodicals and situations, they are able to understand the information that is being presented to the argument.
Skepticism makes a person questions ideas toward multiple things such as knowledge or opinions that are stated as if it is true like facts. Rene Descartes argument for skepticism is to not believe every doubt that you give yourself. In his words "withstand all doubt because the evidence of our senses sometimes misleads us, it does not provide a secure basis for knowledge. We cannot be certain that we are awake and not dreaming." His argument can be argued because people have senses that can guide them to doubt themselves by the way people talk to them or other people actions.
In the rant called “The Smart Gap,” Eric Maisel explains his personal opinion on brain power of individuals. Grit, however, isn’t something that he believes will help people find success. Although some may not agree with what was stated, Maisel brings up many persuaded key points to help get his point across. Throughout Eric Maisel’s rant, many key points are brought up. First, he explains that we will experience emotional pain when we recognize that the work we would love to do might just be unavailable enough to make us doubt that we can proceed.