Innate Morality

Unlike many of the other authors examined thus far, Gert is much subtler in his argumentative approach by utilizing carful phraseology and ambiguity rather than decisive declarations. In the introduction of his article, Gert acknowledges that he is not an expert in genetics, but simply a philosopher setting out to resolve the controversy surrounding alteration of the human genome. After thoroughly describing his definition of morality, Gert claims, “The moral force of the objection [towards] genetic engineering… is that we do not know that there are no risks. A proper humility, that is, recognition that human knowledge is limited and that all human beings are fallible, is required for reliable moral behavior” (Gert 47).

Keynes makes his argument clear by asserting the state must interfere in matters that are not easily achievable by an individual themselves but rather, in matters that do not exist if the state itself does not create. Keynes states “…The important thing for government is not to do things which individuals are doing already and to do them better or a little worse but to do things that are not done at all” (Keynes, 101). Keynes did not define a clear role for society because in Keynes view, individuals do not have inherit or natural freedoms as Locke describes in his works but, he believes that state involvement can protect society from economic damage and thereby helping them develop the state further in the

Not only this, lobbyists should go after the politicians, with ideas and

Thomas Paine opposes the ideology of government, stating that, “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil,” (Paine 3). Essentially, the purpose of government is to protect people from preforming vices, and defend their natural right to Locke’s ideology of life, liberty and property. Without government, coercion would occur, and destroy one’s ability to express their natural rights. For America, Paine believes that the establishment of a strong fundamental government could allow for the cohesion of citizens to form a society respected by other nations

Idealists see realism as a set of assumptions about how and why states behave like they do, rather than a theory of foreign relations. They strongly criticise the realist thesis that the struggle for power and security is natural. They reject such a fatalistic orientation claiming that power is not natural, and simply a temporary phase of human history. They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated.

Considering the context, style, and other components, the target audience could not be properly persuaded. Kobutsu Malone’s “Narcissism and Spiritual Materialism: The New Age Legacy” does a dissatisfactory job of persuading its audience, New Age participants, due to his hypocritical ethos, aggressive pathos, and misguided logos. Malone’s main argument, materialistic values are vividly apparent in the New Age, failed to convince readers his opinion should be taken seriously. After a deep consideration of the article and every argument is has to offer, there is still no real solution to the materialistic affliction our society collectively

The position of Peter Singer on the subject of our moral obligation to aid those in need appears to be unquestionable at first glance; however, with further examination, Singer utilises arguments which, in my opinion, are weak and fundamentally impractical. It should also be noted that Singer himself does not follow his own principles as discussed in “Famine, Affluence and Morality” and his New York Times article, “The Singer Solution to Global Poverty”, contributing to the argument that his principles are impractical. In order to be methodical and fair, I will structure this essay in the following manner: first explaining Singer’s principles, continuing on to explain the points which I find to be lacking in his argument and concluding with

As appose to Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was a forerunner of modern psychologists and behavioral scientists who believed that humans develop through experiences as well as genetics. Locke’s ideas are almost simplistic.

While Descartes is clearly considering even the most remote possibilities in his method of doubt, all he offers is the claim that such a being could exist. However, this is not seen as a solid basis upon which absolute doubt, required by Descartes, can be built. Ironically, his skepticism offers such that I am in a state of doubt, I will also have doubt about the possibility that there could even be a deceiving being. As such, my doubt about the possibility of such a being serves to undermine the greater doubt that is supposed to be generated by this being. In order for the evil demon to generate such a degree of doubt it must be possible for it to exist.

Philosophy does not have complete answers, which makes some folks frustrated (Russell, 14). Human beings want conclusions. If someone questions something and another person questions the same thing, but they both come up with a different solution to that same questions, they want to find out who is right. It is in human nature to want to know the truth. People almost always believe that the truth is the right answer.

After presenting his arguments and providing the three examples, Mauss attempts to show the relationship between the concept of gift economy and the modern day social democracy in his conclusion. He tries to connect his theory on gift exchanging to the contemporary situations of the states. However, he fails to do so. This is because Mauss completely ignores the characteristics of the modern states, especially the coercive power that they have. Unlike individuals, states have the power to make laws and to punish its citizens, which make the exchange non-obligatory.

He provides arguments and conclusions regarding utilitarianism that fails to respect the inherent dignity of the individuals. The framework of this point of view is strongly flawed because Sandel does not take into account that while it might seem contradicting to choose the vote

To add, he explains that enabling the minority freedom upon the constitution may overrule the majority and will undermine the power of the judiciary. I do not agree with Bork’s statement since it only concerns the power structure in the political sphere. The foundation of law should not be interpreted based on power but, solely on the Constitution and how it is translated through fair and fundamental values that should most importantly reflect an individual’s right and