if we see that justice only needs to be done as amartya sen says then the judiciary would have no function since if it tries to remove injustice and pass an order then it would be injustice to the other person, because both the parties are right in their own ways and both seek justice. Would it be right to say that truth should prevail or would it be right to say that injustice should be removed? If yes then how? And by
In response to my question, the best way to answer it was to make reference to the essay and what Hancock did to maintain an objective and logical tone. Ultimately, in order to maintain an objective tone, there should be no use of personal pronouns in the essay and there should be a presentation of data, facts, and even some specialized
You would not help me, and i will not have you help me.” This proves that antigone uses logical and emotional appeals to persuade ismene to not share blame with something she hasn 't done. Another example is how antigone tries to persuade ismene to not take the blame buy stating people will praise her and antigone will get honor also. “ISMENE. But can i do nothing?
However, I also believe Emerson leaves some room in his theory for unprotected speech. Regarding current unprotected speech, I believe his point of attaining the truth would mean he does not support defamation and fraudulent speech. Defamation and fraudulent speech would be the exact opposite of obtaining truth. His aim to ensure political participation would also not protect fighting words, imminent lawless behavior, or cases of obscenity, because they can carry the weight to obstruct people from partaking in not only political discussion and participation but also general
Justice is the resolution of a critical situation (Selzer), and is comprised of three crucial parts. One is that justice must be a rational thought, free of any influence from emotions (Selzer). This means, that in order for a just resolution to be found, it must be made only with concern for facts and information, and should not be concerned with the emotional repercussions of a resolution. In addition, justice, needs to be vindictive, and should be justified as such. Lastly, justice must be about restoring balance (Selzer), not about complete retaliation, as acts of retaliation result in a cycle that occurs for ad infinitum.
He remarked that courts should not accept non-pathological criminal incapacity as a defence as there is no difference between non-pathological criminal incapacity resulting from stress or provocation and the defence of sane automatism. If one chose to accept the defence, one must approach with extreme caution. Expert evidence is vital to the defence and the court must take into account what happened before and after the incident. Policy considerations should be referred to rather than legal principles.
In order for something to be logically valid, its negation must be contradictory. As a consequence, to doubt that one is doubting would be like to think that one is not thinking, and this would lead to a contradiction. Since the action of thinking requires a thinker, Descartes was able to deduce that he must exist. Therefore, this proves the validity of Descartes’ reasoning and makes us come to the part where Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I am” is brought into being.
This reflection helps in the understanding of why things happen the way they do or how it effects my thought process. It is about going beyond the general concept of things and into the root of the idea. The development of such concepts allows me to ask the
In order to perceive logic through the process of a rationalist it has to be fallacy proof and should be free from critical thinking. Biasness and emotions have no place in rationalism. People confuse free thinking and rationalism but the literal meaning does not connect them together. Free thinking is a non restrictive definition on the other hand rationalism is a restrictive
Go do the challenge, what can you lose if your idea is actually right? Any other test cannot be made objective, because the human being is not capable of being so. We are go-getting, we want to be successful. That is why we do not give up when our theory is proven false, we will handle the new situation, the new findings we have found, to change our ‘guess’ about the world. For every problem there is a solution and for every solution there is a new (unsolved) problem.
Young people in the 21st Century need to reevaluate their ethics; David McCullough is helping them understand that by explaining that they need to be honest with themselves and their reality. His scathing criticism of them and their culture, philosophies, and ideologies, is justified and insightful; teens in the United States allows special to become a meaningless term, prefers to win instead of achieving, and cares too much about superficial accomplishments instead of internal growth. McCullough makes a point throughout his speech to say that being special is not just given to you; teenagers are not special by default. In the speech, while he is explaining why young people should look forward to more than just being special or different, in
The Many Powers Of Rhetoric In this section of “The UNF Guide To Writing” different authors discuss the robust powers of rhetorical writing. Nathan Thornburgh discussed “overheated rhetoric” in his writing Violent Rhetoric and Arizona Politics (52). He discussed the shooting that took place in Arizona over a political issue of immigration in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was killed. Thornburgh said that the over-exaggeration n that was places on the “issues” that were going on in Arizona is the reason people got angry enough and why it drove Jared Loughner, the shooter, to act out in a violent way (53).
Rhetorical Analysis I alter use in the body paragraphs in order to show how Andy ( a lower class character) is an example of “heredity” since he takes over his late father’s position at the coal mine. In other words, the way I use quotes in my Rhetorical Analysis demonstrate that I have learned to take in consideration all parts of the quotes. Even though I have improved in considering all parts of the quote when using them as supporting evidence, I actually got to notice that I make arguments that are more than what I can possibly support with evidence from the text. This issue was pointed out to me in the comments left in turnitin.com by Dr. Danner. This problem in my writing was pointed out in my Rhetorical Analysis when I wrote, “under