In Response to McGrath’s Dilemma Against Moral Inferentialism An influential argument for moral skepticism is the moral regress argument (Sayre-McCord 1996). Moral inferentialists, who think we do have genuine moral knowledge, argue against the moral regress argument by rejecting the picture of justification one finds in the moral regress argument. Sarah McGrath (2004), in order to make room for her non-inferential moral perception account of moral knowledge, presents a dilemma against moral inferentialism, the thesis that all of our moral knowledge of particular cases is inferential. In particular, she challenges the most compelling version of moral inferentialism, which I call moral bridge inferentialism. In this paper, I argue that both horns of McGrath’s apparent dilemma turn out to lack argumentative weight against the moral bridge inferentialist.
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences. Smart also discusses how act-Utilitarianism is often associated with hedonism, and that
As stated in the textbook, Think Critical Thinking and Logical Skills For Everyday Life by Judith A Boss, there are two primary forms of moral theories. The first of these two theories are “those that claim that morality is relative” and the second is “those that claim that morality is universal” (Boss, 279). Moral relativists states that there is no universal law or view on what is considered to be morally right and what is morally wrong (Boss 279). In contrast, a universal morality states that there are specific moral values or views that all should follow (Boss, 279). Both of these views are filled with flaws.
Philosophers have long reflected on our ideas of perception and reality. Common sense beliefs about perception include that we directly perceive objects and that we perceive objects as they truly are. John Locke, an English philosopher of the 17th century, challenged both of these beliefs. In this paper, I will explain Locke’s reasoning against these beliefs by illustrating his arguments for the primary quality/secondary quality distinction, as well as the difference between primary and secondary qualities and between the quality and the idea of the quality. I will also raise an objection for one of these arguments, as presented in lecture.
Introduction In this paper I will be investigating Sartre’s (Cahoone, 2003) ideas on freedom and responsibility against the backdrop of his theory of existentialism. Firstly, I will explain what atheistic existentialism is. The three themes central to this theory are, anguish, despair, and abandonment, so I will also be discussing these concepts, and the roles they play in, and understanding existentialism, and later on, freedom. Secondly, I will explain how Sartre’s thoughts may be a response to Nietzsche’s ¨death of God ¨ declaration, since Sartre’s entire theory is based on the non-existence of God. I will discuss how through God’s non-existence, we as abandoned humans come to be self-determining beings.
According to the Nizkor Project a person can substitute a claim intended to create a sense of pity for evidence found in an argument (Nizkor). This fallacy is known as an Appeal to Pity. The arguer appeals to an audiences feelings in a sympathetic way. This appeal is also known as “argumentum ad misericordiam, the sob story, or the Galileo argument.” (Logically Fallacious) An Appeal to Pity attempts to sway someone using emotions versus using actual evidence. This argument is based on a mistaken belief; because when we are in our emotional state our responses to certain situations are not necessarily the best guide to the truth.
In Tony McAdam’s criticism of The Great Gatsby, Ethics in Gatsby, he points out the corruption of characters morals due to society’s influence and the impact that has on decision making. Society’s unhealthy division between class influences character’s decisions because society changes character’s morals. Tony McAdams argues that The Great Gatsby is an expression of America’s moral direction. He argues America chooses to be
He argues of a ‘reactionary narrative’ when it comes to social change, that is conservative in nature and opposes change. This can well be applied to changes proposed to organisations. There are three theses; the perversity thesis, which believes that any purposeful attempt to improve the organisation will only further worsen the condition sought to be changed; the futility thesis, that holds that any attempt at change is futile and will simply fail, and; the jeopardy thesis, that supposes that proposed changes jeopardises the “status-quo” and the benefits the existing system has. This chapter seeks to analyse two issues- one, whether the defence acquisition organisation in the army needs changes; two, does the army need an acquisition cadre or corps, specialist officers dedicated to acquisition appointments who would ultimately bring professionalism to acquisition.
In his article, Professor Sanford Levinson critically examines the Constitution and states that it is a flawed document that should be revised. In order to agree or disagree with his point of view, we should put ourselves in the place of those who are judged and criticized by the author. Therefore, reading this article, I tried to imagine what I would do if I were offered to endorse the Constitution. Would I have signed this document? Are the flaws that Professor Levinson talks about so serious that the articles of the Constitution should be revised?
Existentialism, broadly speaking, it is a philosophy that posits itself against metaphysics. It claims to shift the focus of philosophical enquiry from the abstract to the concrete – that is, from an unchanging essence to the concrete, contingent human arena. This has been seen as the red herring of existentialism – if it speaks against an essence or an unchanging principle and focuses on concrete particulars, how can it be consolidated into a branch of philosophy? Existence is that which is; and essence is what it is. Philosophy has hitherto been the mediating point to explain the what.
Moreover, Foss explains critics seek to elucidate what the symbol teach society. The role of theory is employed differently in rhetorical criticism than in the other methodologies. The general use of theory is to explain the questions of why, or why a particular event or phenomena occurs (Sutton & Staw, 1995). Theory in rhetorical criticism is the particular lens the critic uses to evaluate and craft an argument. This effects how a rhetorical critic uses evidence to support their argument.