One of the objections which I consider to be of strength is one regarding the over flexibility of the sanction principle. The in-built nature of utilitarianism as a theory, fails to impose plausible corrective consequences to those actions which do not comply with the stipulated rules of the moral theory. Though the theory claims to not promote actions of self benefit, it fails to blatantly rebuke actions contravening general morality, by offering acceptance to such given that the justification provided corresponds with the guidelines of the theory. This objection is of collorally effect to a line of criticisms. Bernard Williams presents a reasonable flaw of the theory not being able to uphold justice and fairness.
Yet, the constructivist view of Kantian ethics may present a contradiction: if morality is entirely constructed by human rationality, then there should not be a universal principle which one would need “to receive” in order to regulate decisions. Thus, as Kant rejects authority and experience, through reason and textual analysis, drawing both from Kant’s writing and Augustine’s City of God, it is imperative to reconcile the conflict between the realist—that morality exists independent of rationality—and constructivist readings of Kant’s ethics. That “in practical common reason, when it cultivates itself, a dialectic inadvertently unfolds [...] and one is therefore [unable] to find rest anywhere but in a complete critique of our reason” lends credence a constructivist
Authors like Block argued that subjective experience could be distinct from cognitive functions (Churhland, 2005; O’Brien and Opie, 2001), supporting the distinction between the two types of consciousness. However, there are opposing views that support the idea that access consciousness is inclusive of its phenomenal state (Kouider, Dehaene, Jobert, & Le Bihan, 2007; Crick & Koch, 1997), supporting the idea that phenomenal and access consciousness are not
Frankl argued that one would not be willing to live or die for the sake of one’s defence mechanisms, but countless people have done so for the sake of meaning, thus meaning can’t simply be a defence mechanism. (Man’s search for meaning- Frankl). Another critic is that, whilst logotherapy can be effective in enhancing the well-being of individuals from different cultures, its underlying focus is on the meaning, purpose and psychological well-being of the individual. This is an individualistic outlook, with emphasis on the individual, as opposed to collectivistic cultures emphasis on community and the person’s role in it (Cherry, 2017). In my opinion, this can be addressed by adapting logotherapy for collectivistic cultures.
Based on Messick (1996), validity is defined as "an overall evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of interpretations and actions based on the test scores or other methods of measurement" (p. 221). Therefore, validity is the interpretations of test scores. In fact, validation is not directly related to test, however it's related to the inferences and interpretations regarding the test scores. It is said that washback is inextricably bound up with test scores' interpretations and inferences. According to Messick (1996) and Hamp-Lyons (1998) washback is considered as subcategory of construct or consequential validity.
Act Utilitarianism, being a hedonistic view, promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest good, however Rule Utilitarianism is based on rules of thumb, which may contradict themselves. For example, Rule Utilitarianism makes progress in the sense of being moral saints. This is based on how it takes “into account the effects of the rule or practice itself” (pg. 137). Those whose needs have been met who want to give a portion of their income to the less fortunate promote the greater good.
who concludes that ‘rational nature cannot be valuable in a Kantian world’. Actually, there are Kantians working on issues whether rationality could identify moral law. According to Hill, aside from Korsgarrd’s objection to realism, there are mainly two doubts whether Kant implies value realism. The first doubt arises from epistemological concerns. Kant states that it is possible for all of us to possess moral knowledge; given that we construct value it is clearly plausible that we can know what is valuable.
For non-formal notion of impartiality, humans may well hold to the supreme moral value which motivates us to regard others as ends in themselves not merely means. We do not steal the grain because such action would demean our humanity, we help others because never treat others merely means but ends, C2 is not merely a negative assertion, as the narrow formalists charge. The supreme value espoused in C2, is, then, not too formal to guide our action; it possesses concreteness or substantive matter that informs an impartial approach to
For example, as morality is a part of rationale, the good performance of morality can lead an individual towards a virtuous and good life. Thus, when human function is done well, it is in accordance with virtue and best human life is achieved. In addition, it can be inferred that since Aristotle’s definition of happiness is to be virtuous, performing rational activity well can lead to happiness. In addition, Aristotle states, “if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete” (1098a18). This means that eventually there will be one virtue that is inclusive of all virtue and that displays an end, and this virtue will be in line with the self-sufficient and inclusive concept of happiness as the chief good.
Absolute is the truth or maybe the ultimate truth of the object, but to know it, a mind plays a vital role. Phenomena are appearances. Where is the reality? In Hegel's view, probably unique in Western Philosophy, we can only know Reality when we have completely understood the appearances. The appearances (phenomena) partially hide and partially reveal Reality (Geist).
It does not follow our contemporary method, known as the Hypothetico-Deductive Method, which states that a new theory with unobservable entities can only be accepted if it has some confirmed novel predictions to support it. Ghostblasters simply tries to create a theory by claiming they are superior in the field of Geistology, without any confirmations, thus placing the theory in violation of the third law. Moreover, the second law deals with acceptance, stating that a theory can only be accepted if it is in accord with the method employed at the time. Since ectoplasm is an unobservable entity without any novel confirmed novel predictions, and the method used in attempt to accept this theory does not follow the afore mentioned Hypothetico-Deductive method, this theory cannot be accepted in accord with the second law. As we cannot accept Mr. Kneezer’s theory as scientific, it is consequently in violation of the first law of inertia, where an element of the mosaic remains in its state in the mosaic