But, can 't they? Loury 's assessment is a faulty one. His well-intended ideas ultimately work against the very thing he is trying to eradicate. Loury 's thesis fails because it proposes that equality is not possible without making racial distinctions. Even though this approach might show some initial progress for minorities, it also leaves itself open to discriminate against the traditionally better off races.
In his opening affirmative, Warren begins with a terribly horrifying illustration. Though it is graphic and harsh, it is also effective in accomplishing its task of showing that pleasure is by no means a proper way to base an ethic system. In fact, Thomas would argue that this is about as evil as doctrine gets (Warren 9). This very thought will carry Warren through his first affirmative as he explains the fallacy of
Though hidden in the footnote, to avoid creating a tangent in the overall argument and worse falling to the counterargument that “it's just semantics,” Foster Wallace throws these pieces in as curveballs- evidence that a reader was unlikely to expect nor be prepared to process. While intentionally he intentionally trespasses’ the readers comfort zone of their own communication, he makes his article relate, if only through these footnotes, to the ways in which they’ve previously engaged with the matter. As Foster Wallace situates the reader in the moral conundrum, he draws from the them a greater awareness of self and skepticism of the multiple party’s motivations which contributes to the overall multidimensional analysis of the
He maintains a conscious naivety by using derisive underlying sarcasm masked by tactful verbal articulation in response to the authoritative and condescending tone of Herbert's letter, which allows for a persuasive and entertaining argument. Though Seaver uses humor to establish his purpose, he maintains the mutual respect between the two parties, despite him believing the conflict to be childlike and absurd. Since Herbert’s argument can be interpreted in multiple ways, Seaver attacks a fallacious interpretation of Herbert’s argument: the reason he is against the two companies using the same slogan is because consumers will be unable to tell the physical difference between a book and a beverage. Seaver says that “in order to avoid confusion between the respective products due to the slogan, each sales personnel is to make sure that what the customer wants is the book, rather than a Coke,” and adds that he fears “those who read (his) ad may well tend to go out and buy a Coke rather than (his) book.” Seaver also recognizes that Herbert cannot use the threat of the law and therefore ironically mentions his “strong sentiments concerning the First Amendment” and willingness to “defend to the death” Herbert’s right to use the slogan, even though his response was intended to regard his own rights. This ridicule
Finally, Trumbo belittles the reader by saying, “I know the truth and you don’t you fools. You fools you fools you fools...” (232). The repetition mixed in with the pronoun “you” ingrains the message that Trumbo is speaking to the reader and not in a positive way. No one wants to be called a fool, but people tend to believe things more easily if they are spoken directly to. In this case, both the second person and repetition cause the reader to feel at fault for their supposed stupidity and horrid actions.
She is primarily unsuccessful in raising counterpoints to her position and her logical appeal. As it stands, however, Harjo 's argument more forcefully establishes a sense of outrage and empathy more than a sense of measured logic. This piece could have been improved if she had more logical appeal. Imagine someone who 's not very emotional reading this that wouldn 't be persuaded that we should stop digging up the
Whether or not these fresh perspectives are right or wrong, I agree with Piper that “muddying the waters” will do more hurt than help, and that a clear, complete, and concise writing of this difficult-to-grasp shift in doctrine would be wildly beneficial. I don’t believe one must be a theologian to have an acute understanding of the nature of the gospel, and am overall disappointed with the inaccuracy of speech and unclear logic within the writings of both
The theory of Deontology has its flaws as well and this essay will present three criticisms of deontology namely that deontology relies on moral absolutes, allows acts that make the world a worse place, two permissible duties that are right can conflict with each other and will demonstrate these flaws with relevant case studies and dilemmas. To begin with, this theory relies on moral absolutes which can be defined as actions that are entirely right or entirely wrong. Deontologists cannot consider the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences of a particular action bring about more harm than the act itself. Deontology theory says that certain types of actions are either absolutely right or wrong, but provides no way in which to distinguish which action may be right or wrong and thus duties and principles can conflict (Preston, 2007). For instance,
It is extremely ironic that in his writings, Zhuangzi often employs language and logical argument to undermine the usefulness of language and logical argument. Setting aside the problem of this possible inconsistency, here I will explain Zhuangzi’s argument regarding truth and human capacity–or lack thereof–to understand it. Zhuangzi begins by describing a familiar situation: You and I have opposing views on a topic and argue to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Suppose one of us “wins” the debate–that is to say, one of us makes an argument to which the other can give no satisfactory response. Now, Zhuangzi poses the rhetorical question: Is the winner necessarily right and the loser necessarily wrong?
This is an extreme position through which one plays the role of the irreconcilable defender of freedom. Now, the easiest way of defying this position through the dichotomy of theory and practice is simply cheating. Arguing, “the unrestricted enjoyment of freedom of expression is not applicable to our realities” is equivalent to saying, “you are theoretically right, but our original practices do not present any luxury to enjoy freedom fully.” Henceforth, the ideal thesis of the freedom of expression remains untouched while its status of effectiveness is damaged as inapplicable to social reality. At this point, the theory is simultaneously made capable of responding