“…bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.” The distinction between bullshit and a lie is at times very clear, but it also can be hard to identify. Bullshit is not a lie, and a lie is not bullshit, even though both are considered to be deceitful and insincere. Harry Frankfurt wrote his essay entitled “On Bullshit”, and through reading and analyzing his writing, his position on which is problematic (lying or bullshitting) becomes clear. Near the end of his essay, Frankfurt states, “Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic are more extensive than his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic” (Frankfurt, On Bullshit, 99). Bullshit is a double-deceit towards a person, because you are hiding the fact that you do not know the information about a topic, and you are spouting out information which you are not 100% sure of, and claiming as if you know enough to hold a conversation.
Actions are then just if they sustain or are consonant with such harmony. Such a conception of individual justice is virtue ethical because it ties justice (acting justly) to an internal state of the person rather than to (adherence to) social norms or to good consequences; but Plato's view is also quite radical because it at least initially leaves it an open question whether the just individual refrains from such socially proscribed actions as lying, killing, and stealing. Plato eventually seeks to show that someone with a healthy, harmonious soul wouldn't lie, kill, or steal, but most commentators consider his argument to that effect to be highly deficient. Aristotle is generally regarded as a virtue ethicist par excellence, but his account of justice as a virtue is less purely virtue ethical than Plato's because it anchors individual justice in situational factors that are largely external to the just individual. Situations and communities are just, according to Aristotle, when individuals receive benefits according to their merits, or virtue: those most
He agrees with the audience, that negotiation is a much better path, however he explains that it does not work for this situation because the issues are being ignored. Therefore, direct action is needed. Another way King uses logos in his letter is
These activities, which harm no one but possibly himself, are considered both illegal and immoral to our society. However, Holden is a complex character, and as such, great acts of morally to us to reanalyze Holden’s character and the book as a whole. Holden’s moral ambiguity makes him highly relatable, and causes the reader to reflect on him, and the real definition of right and wrong. Holden’s unique morale also gives the reader a sense of what’s truly important in life, transcendence above legality to morality based on abstract reasoning. Holden’s most important aim in the novel was his desire to be the catcher in the rye.
! AP Lang Essay 2005: Q3 Lewis Thomas is an avid writer of The Medusa and The Sail, who claims that we should not coin the common phrase “trial and error,” but rather “trial and triumph.” This way of thinking is quite remarkable and out of the box. In agreement with Lewis, mistakes are the base of human nature. But this attribute should be praised and accepted rather than denied. However, people cannot learn what to do unless they know what not to do.
It is important to keep separate Dawkins’ two central beliefs: 1) that god does not exist and 2) that belief in god is a bad thing. For Dawkins, the two are linked as he believes passionately in the pursuit of truth (where truth is defined in terms of unequivocal empirical evidence) and, further, that it is irrational – ‘bad’ – to believe in something that is not true (‘true’ in the sense defined above). However, I believe that whilst god does not exist, the belief that he does can and does have positive effects on individuals and society. In the following paragraphs I will address these two of Dawkins’ central beliefs and argue that he is correct in holding the first, but incorrect in holding the second. To this extent, my answer to the question ‘Does Dawkins do religion justice?’ will be a predictably philosophical ‘yes and no’.
Because there are too many mixed feelings and perspectives regarding the issue. But I feel denotology would offer the best reasoning, explanation and/or problem solver. Not that everyone would agree, but this view point could begin a path to possibly finding a common ground on the moral issues that stems from suicide. Deontologists believe that no matter the reason, doing wrong to another person is wrong. Treat everyone as an equal and with pride.
David Tamrazi Professor Nichols English 104 23 April 2012 Arguments and Effectiveness The effectiveness of an essay is based on the reader’s willingness to believe it. Controversial essays, no matter how effective, fail to be effective when readers do not wish to believe it. The matter of effectiveness is based on opinion, and the standard idea of what should be an effective essay. Furthermore, the effectiveness of an essay is based on who writes the essay. Barack Obama can write an amateur essay, yet readers are more prone to believing it than if it were written by someone unknown.
Although it may seem as if this critique of Robert B. Stinnett’s Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor presents a less than stellar picture of the author in regards to his impartial tone of narration and faulty investigative tactics, I still found the book’s arguments generally compelling and at least worthy of serious examination. The same rule of thumb should apply to reading any documents in the world of conspiracy theory: disregard nothing and question everything. Right or wrong or unresolved, even the most convincing statements must never be taken at face value. Works Cited/Bibliography Eland, Ivan. “The Way Out of Iraq: Decentralizing the Iraqi Government.” Independent Institute Policy Reports (1996) : 36 pgs.
C- (2-3): These essays address the main ideas involved in the question/topic, but they do so inaccurately or without the support of APPROPRIATE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE. The discussion may be insufficiently developed or may concentrate on only one point or idea. Some may contain a significant misunderstanding of the question/topic or the literary work(s). The writing is sufficient to convey the writer’s ideas, but it suggests weak control over grammar, sentence structure, diction, or organization. These essays may have some serious errors of grammar and/or other mechanics