If you were using the cognitive approach you would only get qualitative data which could be a problem as not everyone interprets the same answer in the same way. This would be more objective. This would also mean it is not valid as you are measuring why you think
Are they merely expressing opinions or stating matters of fact? Can we really tell right from wrong? Many people would answer this by stating that what is believed to be right or wrong is essential for any discussion about our behavior. If this is the case then we could never have a meaningful discussion about morality. Ethical statements are not just about observable facts, but are often statements about what we believe should happen and so are not very easy to establish as true or false, as they are expressions of points of view not shared be everyone.
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
The Self-Serving Bias One barrier to critical thinking is self-serving biases. I had this theory that if my actions do not need to be rationalized if the motives are good. The characteristics of others even post a threat. These situations can cause us to develop a self-serving attitude.
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.
Whilst there are clearly a variety of differences between the two theories of anomie and alienation it must also be noted that there are also some similarities to point out. Anomie can be defined simply as a state where norms or expectations on behaviours are confused, unclear or not present at all. Alienation however can be defined as a withdrawing or separation of a person of his affections from an object or position of former attachment. However, the above definitions clearly do not fully explain these two concepts. They are both very complex and in order to understand them fully as well as to be able to compare and contrast they need to be looked at in much greater detail.
Wording is very important and if someone were to want to word this in a way to make it accurate he or she would say, “Power may be evil because it can corrupt some people”. Step three in the process is “Examine your argument for validity errors”, this step would be to check the argument for validity errors and considering the reasoning that links conclusions to premises to determine whether your conclusion is legitimate or illegitimate, and if the argument fails on more than one point. Even after revising the statement, there still may be some questions in regards to the message before the message can be validated. Since there is no gage that determines what point, or how much power one must have in
There are quite a few weaknesses to Bentham’s theory as well as strengths. A main weakness of Bentham’s version is the fact that it can’t cope with emergency situations as you would not have time to measure out all the possibilities so you would have to act on instinct in case of emergencies. Another weakness is the fact that it is a self-defeating theory , morality is
It is commonly believed that human emotions, and gut-feelings/intuition, interfere with rational thinking, and so when making knowledge claims, these passions should be subdued. This idea, although it may sound difficult to achieve, is one which I believe should be implemented and is absolutely justified. In essence, logic and reasoning is much more effective in making/validating knowledge claims than emotion. Foremost, logical thinking is a “system” in the human mind, which, by definition, attempts to find the smartest and most reasonable solution to a problem. Emotions, on the other hand, are instinctive thoughts built into human nature, and rely solely on an individual’s gut-feeling or intuition.
), but still subscribes to the overall view that action is purposeful (even if the purpose is mistaken sometimes). Constructivism is a bit harder to define. Obviously if rationalism sees action as purposeful, then the most major difference is that in constructivism this is not necessarily the case. However, constructivism doesn't want to say that people just bump