Nanx Dakum PHIL 100 TA: Xuan Wang Proff: Dave McElhoes December 2, 2011 ‘A Defense against the Teleological Argument’ ‘Introduction’ In this paper I will argue that the Teleological argument is not a good argument for God’s existence. First I will explain the argument, and then I will object to specific premises of the argument. I will also point out the strengths of the argument and what a theist could say to counter my objections. I will explain objections such as the ‘Bad Engineer Objection’ to expose the weaknesses of the Teleological argument and prove that my thesis is indeed correct. To strengthen my credibility I will also use other objections by different philosophers.
The con is used as a counter argument. By first showing that there are possible weaknesses to your argument and then disproving the opposing idea. The pro follows to reinforce the argument. 3. Sometimes a writer can get off track.
That is, a false premise can possibly lead to a false result, and inconclusive premises will also yield an inconclusive conclusion. Both types of reasoning are routinely employed. One difference between them is that in deductive reasoning, the evidence provided must be a set about which everything is known before the conclusion can be drawn. Since it is difficult to know everything before drawing a conclusion, deductive reasoning has little use in the real world. This is where inductive reasoning steps in.
Is Mackie’s argument from relativity compelling? Mackie’s ‘Ethics: Inventing right and wrong’ critically assesses the idea that there are, or even can be, objective moral truths, and exposits Mackie’s ‘moral relativist’ stance. I intend also in this essay to criticise the idea of moral objectivity, and to deal with the objections that could be potentially raised to a relativist stance. The most obvious task, it would seem, to begin with when assessing the idea of moral objectivity, is to come to an understanding about what is literally meant by ‘an objective moral truth’. The word objective immediately brings to mind a state of actual existence, as opposed to simply ideal existence.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch. 2) Quite importantly, Aristotle’s distinguishes between things which are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things which are good as ends (for their own sake only), Aristotle seeks for one final and overriding end of human action, one final good – eudaimonia (or final happiness). Philosophers of the 20th century brought about a revival of virtue ethics as many were concerned with the act-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics is able to do something very different to other ethical theories – rather than focus on the act of a person, virtue ethics will focus on the person itself. The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
Any time an arguer intentionally leaves a premise or conclusion unstated, it is safe to assume that the omission was intended to conceal a weak or questionable step in the argument. Answer: false Reason: just sometime the missing statement is something so obvious and familiar that it would be tedious to state it explicitly. 4. When an argument is standardized, the conclusion is placed above the premises. Answer: false Reason: When an argument is standardized, the conclusion is placed under the premises.
How does the concept of “tradition” stand in Hermeneutics? Discuss in relation to the Gadamer-Habermas debate. This essay will aim to explore the contemporary views on the questions surrounding that of the definition and role of “tradition” and “language” in hermeneutics, discussed through the influential views of Heidegger on Gadamer’s philosophical thought, Gadamer’s theory on the speculative dimension of language, and the well-known debate between Habermas and Gadamer. The dispute largely concerns the judgment of tradition and the position language holds within it; comparing Gadamer’s arguably more conservative hermeneutical view to the ideological criticisms demonstrated by Habermas. Habermas critiques Gadamer’s thought by questioning the overall concept and the central role of tradition, arguing the possibilities of certain sub-conscious interests and specific authorial forces that distort tradition.
Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future To compare our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future, it first must be determined what ‘knowledge’ is. According to Plato knowledge is “a justified true belief”. So, knowledge must have a logical evidence and to be approved by society and facts. However, to define ‘knowledge’ is not as easy as it seems. The following quote from Bertrand Russell demonstrates it: "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult one with which we shall deal.
This is a forward thinking process. However, there is a negative aspect to virtue ethics as it has a grey area when using precedence within decision making. The lack of guidance carries a negative similarity between virtue ethics and deontological theory. Deontological theory is defined in contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the field of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we should do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) that — fundamentally, at least — guide and assess what kind of
Yet before analysing this, it is important to consider the main ideas behind Descartes’ meditations. The first of these see’s Descartes engage in a process of radical doubt, one which he believes will leave him with one certain truth, and thus a truth which can be used as a criterion to judge every other idea which he may obtain (Cottingham, 1992). The reason for this being the deceptive nature of the senses from which all his knowledge was obtained from. “All that up to the present time I