Argument from morality - Wikipedia
For morality to be binding, God must exist. God is the best or only explanation for this moral experience. Therefore, God exists. The arguments propose that only the existence of God as orthodoxly conceived could support the existence of moral order in the universe, so God must exist. Alternative arguments from moral order have proposed that we have an obligation to attain the perfect good of both happiness and moral virtue. They attest that whatever we are obliged to do must be morality, and achieving the perfect good of both happiness and moral virtue is only possible if gender topic for argumentative essay morality moral order exists.
A natural moral order requires the existence of God as orthodoxly conceived, so God must exist. In his Critique of Practical Reason he went on to argue that, essay the failure of these arguments, morality requires that God's existence is assumed, argument to practical reason. As ought implies canKant argued, it must be possible for the summum bonum to be achieved.Have I then responded, in a careful way, to that objection or objections? Consideration of Objections to your Thesis After you have carefully considered objections to your argument or arguments , the next important task is to consider objections which, rather than being directed against the reasons that you have offered in support of your view, are directed instead against your view itself, and which attempt to show that your view is incorrect. Here you need to set out any such objection or objections in a clear, careful, and dispassionate fashion, and then indicate why you think the objection in question is unsound. How many objections to your thesis should you attempt to consider? Here, as elsewhere, trying to cover too much ground can result in a weak and superficial discussion. Try to find the strongest objection, and address it in a detailed way. Checklist for Objections to your Thesis: 1. Have I considered the most important objection against the thesis that I am defending? Have I responded carefully to that objection? Exposition of Arguments At the heart of a paper that examines some moral issue in a critical fashion is the setting out of arguments - both arguments in support of your positions, and arguments directed either against some of your assumptions, or against your position itself. Whenever one is setting out an argument, one needs to do so in a careful step-by-step fashion, so that it is clear to the reader both what assumptions the argument involves, and what the reasoning is - that is, how one is supposed to get from the assumptions to the conclusion. One thing that it is very important to avoid is the setting out of more than one argument in a single paragraph. For this usually results in too brief an exposition of the arguments in question, and often in a muddling together of the two arguments, thereby obscuring the structure of the reasoning. Checklist for your Exposition of Arguments: 1. Are my arguments carefully and explicitly set out so that both all of my assumptions, and my reasoning, are clear? Have I, at any point, set out more than one argument in a single paragraph? Are objections and responses set out in separate paragraphs? Logical and Perspicuous Structure A crucial factor that makes for a good essay is the presence of a logical and perspicuous structure. So it's important to ask how one can both organize one's discussion in a logical fashion, and make that organization perspicuous to the reader. The structure will be clear to the reader if you begin with an introductory paragraph of the sort described above, and then go on, first, to divide your essay up into sections and possibly also subsections , and secondly, to use informative headings to mark out those sections and subsections. The reader will then be able to see at a glance how you have structured your discussion. What makes for logical organization? If you do the things mentioned above, in sections I through IV, in the order discussed, the result will be an essay whose overall logical organization is very strong. That is to say, start by setting out your thesis, and outlining your overall approach in the introductory paragraph. Morality is about understanding the difference between the right and wrong action in a situation, the moral person has this understanding and then acts appropriately. Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. There are many uncertainties dealing with Geoengineering of the climate. Kant rejected all attempts to argue from the world to God, he regarded such an exercise as impossible. A proof is giving a reason for why we believe. Topics covered here could undoubtedly be developed in more depth, but that would be getting ahead, here is the big picture. Others claim that the harm they inflict was demanded of them by their God. However, according to Lenn E. Goodman's essay "Some moral minima," some things are 'just wrong. Dishonesty is presented as both a virtue and a vice that is shaping our contemporary society. I do not agree that killing these innocents outweighs the benefits it has to their society. Many arguments that support female infanticide use the Cultural Relativism theory to defend their claim. Cultural Relativism is a theory that depicts how we all have different cultures and different moral codes, therefore, it is impossible to judge another 's culture from our own perspective EMP, Another version of this idea is the Moral Badness principle, if we can assist those in need without giving up anything of comparable significance, then we should do it, in which Singer uses to argue, and I agree, how we should live simply so others can simply live. To show that there is little moral relevance between failing to rescue a child at some small cost to yourself, and failing to save a starving child in a faraway country at some similarly small cost I will be exploring an argument proposed by Singer. Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat which results from killing animals. I believe in God is exists by the philosophical argument: ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument form design, and the moral argument. Arguments relate to the existence of God are in different Does God Exist? Depicted in the painting there is a higher being or God watching over Jesus and his disciples. There are many formulations of the moral argument but they all have as their starting point the phenomenon fact of moral conscience. Scottish philosopher W. Sorley presented the following argument: If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist. Morality is objective and absolute. Therefore, God must exist. This account, supported by biologist E. Wilson and philosopher Michael Ruse , proposes that the human experience of morality is a by-product of natural selection, a theory philosopher Mark D. Linville calls evolutionary naturalism. According to the theory, the human experience of moral obligations was the result of evolutionary pressures , which attached a sense of morality to human psychology because it was useful for moral development; this entails that moral values do not exist independently of the human mind. Morality might be better understood as an evolutionary imperative in order to propagate genes and ultimately reproduce. However, the theist may hold that this account does not accurately represent the situation. In fact, God is not to be understood as an entity in the world at all; any such entity would by definition not be God. The debate is rather a debate about the character of the universe. The theist believes that every object in the natural world exists because God creates and conserves that object; every finite thing has the character of being dependent on God. The debate is not about the existence of one object, but the character of the universe as a whole. Both parties are making claims about the character of everything in the natural world, and both claims seem risky. This point is especially important in dealing with moral arguments for theism, since one of the questions raised by such arguments is the adequacy of a naturalistic worldview in explaining morality. Evidentialists may properly ask about the evidence for theism, but it also seems proper to ask about the evidence for atheism if the atheist is committed to a rival metaphysic such as naturalism. Presumably he means that some things that are good are better than other good things; perhaps some noble people are nobler than others who are noble. Obviously, this argument draws deeply on Platonic and Aristotelian assumptions that are no longer widely held by philosophers. For the argument to be plausible today, such assumptions would have to be defended, or else the argument reformulated in a way that frees it from its original metaphysical home. The latter condition implies that this end must be sought solely by moral action. However, Kant held that a person cannot rationally will such an end without believing that moral actions can successfully achieve such an end, and this requires a belief that the causal structure of nature is conducive to the achievement of this end by moral means. This is equivalent to belief in God, a moral being who is ultimately responsible for the character of the natural world. Kant-inspired arguments were prominent in the nineteenth century, and continued to be important right up to the middle of the twentieth century. Such arguments can be found, for example, in W. Sorley , Hastings Rashdall , and A. In the nineteenth century John Henry Newman also made good use of a moral argument in his case for belief in God, developing what could be called an argument from conscience. In recent philosophy there has been a revival of divine command metaethical theories, which has in turn led to new versions of the moral argument found in such thinkers as Robert Adams , John Hare , and C. Stephen Evans Walls This book examines a comprehensive form of moral argument and extensively explores underlying issues. It goes without saying that these renewed arguments have engendered new criticisms as well. God provides the best explanation of the existence of objective moral facts. Therefore, probably God exists. As we shall see, there are a variety of features of morality that can be appealed to in the first steps of the arguments, as well as a variety of ways in which God might be thought to provide an explanation of those features in the second steps. Both types of premises are obviously open to challenge. The second premise can be challenged on the basis of rival explanations of the features of morality, explanations that do not require God. Arguments about the second premise then may require comparison between theistic explanations of morality and these rival views. It is easy to see then that the proponent of a moral argument has a complex task: She must defend the reality and objectivity of the feature of morality appealed to, but also defend the claim that this feature can be best explained by God. The second part of the task may require not only demonstrating the strengths of a theistic explanation, but pointing out weaknesses in rival secular explanations as well. Both parts of the task are essential, but it is worth noting that the two components cannot be accomplished simultaneously. The theist must defend the reality of morality against subjectivist and nihilistic critics. Assuming that this task has been carried out, the theist must then try to show that morality thus understood requires a theistic explanation. It is interesting to observe, however, that with respect to both parts of the task, the theist may enlist non-theists as allies. Sovereign states enact laws that make certain acts forbidden or required. I am also forbidden, because of the laws that hold in the United States, to discriminate in hiring on the basis of age or race. Many people believe that there are moral laws that bind individuals in the same way that political laws do. I am obligated by a moral principle not to lie to others, and I am similarly obligated to keep promises that I have made. Both legal and moral laws may be understood as holding prima facie, so that in some situations a person must violate one law in order to obey a more important one. We know how human laws come into existence. They are enacted by legislatures or absolute monarchs in some countries who have the authority to pass such laws. How then should the existence of moral laws be explained? It seems plausible to many to hold that they must be similarly grounded in some appropriate moral authority, and the only plausible candidate to fulfill this role is God. The fact that one can understand the argument without much in the way of philosophical skill is not necessarily a defect, however. If one supposes that there is a God, and that God wants humans to know him and relate to him, one would expect God to make his reality known to humans in very obvious ways See Evans After all, critics of theistic belief, such as J. How can such an awareness be converted into full-fledged belief in God? One way of doing this would be to help the person gain the skills needed to recognize moral laws as what they are, as divine commands or divine laws. If moral laws are experienced, then moral experience could be viewed as a kind of religious experience or at least a proto-religious experience. Perhaps someone who has experience of God in this way does not need a moral argument or any kind of argument to have a reasonable belief in God. Even if that is the case, however, a moral argument could still play a valuable role. Such an argument might be one way of helping an individual understand that moral obligations are in fact divine commands or laws. Even if it were true that some ordinary people might know that God exists without argument, an argument could be helpful in defending the claim that this is the case. A person might conceivably need an argument for the second level claim that the person knows God without argument. In any case a divine command metaethical theory provides the material for such an argument. There are of course many types of obligations: legal obligations, financial obligations, obligations of etiquette, and obligations that hold in virtue of belonging to some club or association, to name just a few. Clearly these obligations are distinct from moral obligations, since in some cases moral obligations can conflict with these other kinds. What is distinctive about obligations in general? They are not reducible simply to normative claims about what a person has a good reason to do. Mill , — argued that we can explain normative principles without making any reference to God. However, even if Mill is correct about normativity in general, it does not follow that his view is correct for obligations, which have a special character. An obligation has a special kind of force; we should care about complying with it, and violations of obligations appropriately incur blame Adams ,
Immanuel Kant put forward this argument although, not a moral argument ; God as the source of objective morality. In Philosophy, moral relativism and essay objectivism are two conflicting but somewhat overlapping school of thought. These beliefs govern the way an individual acts; they also decide the ethical guidelines from which the law middle school essay outline written.
In this essay we will delineate the differences between the two sects of belief. A moral is defined as concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior.
Many philosophers have argued and debated about moral subjectivity ap lang writing better essays objectivity from the start of philosophy. However, I will focus in on and agree with one particular philosopher, J.
Mackie, and his argument on the existence of subjective argument value. Mackie argues that morals are subjective, therefore they are not agreed upon universally, and there is no underlying correct morality belief.
Morality is about understanding the difference between the right and wrong action in a situation, the moral person has this essay and then acts appropriately. Moral Relativism is generally used to describe the differences among various cultures that influence their morality and ethics. There are many uncertainties dealing with Geoengineering of the climate. Kant rejected all attempts to argue from the world to God, he regarded such an exercise as argument.
A proof is giving a reason for why we believe. Topics covered here could undoubtedly be developed in more depth, but that would be getting ahead, here is the big picture. Others claim that the harm they inflict was demanded of them by their God. However, according to Lenn E. That is to say, start by setting out your thesis, and outlining your morality approach in the introductory paragraph.
Follow this with a section in which you offer reasons for accepting the view that you are advancing. Then go on to devote two sections to a consideration of objections.In this essay I will be arguing against the idea stated above: the notion that a community should not be able to have their laws reflected in the value and morals of their people. Adams, R. This is essentially the view that moral truths are basic or fundamental in character, not derived from natural facts or any more fundamental metaphysical facts. Consideration of Objections to your Arguments After offering reasons for accepting your view, you need to consider objections. Swinburne does not think that an argument from moral facts as such is powerful. It is interesting to observe, however, that with respect to both parts of the task, the theist may enlist non-theists as allies. Morality might be better understood as an evolutionary imperative in order to propagate genes and ultimately reproduce.
In the first, set out, and respond to, objections that are directed against any controversial assumptions that you have made in arguing in morality of your own view.
Then, in the second, consider objections that might be directed against your argument itself.
Individual sections also need to be organized in a logical fashion.
What is distinctive about obligations in general? They are not reducible simply to normative claims about what a person has a good reason to do. Mill , — argued that we can explain normative principles without making any reference to God. However, even if Mill is correct about normativity in general, it does not follow that his view is correct for obligations, which have a special character. An obligation has a special kind of force; we should care about complying with it, and violations of obligations appropriately incur blame Adams , If I make a logical mistake, I may feel silly or stupid or embarrassed, but I have no reason to feel guilty, unless the mistake reflects some carelessness on my part that itself constitutes a violation of a moral obligation. All obligations are then constituted by social requirements, according to Adams. However, not all obligations constituted by social requirements are moral obligations. What social relation could be the basis of moral obligations? Some such demands have no moral force, and some social systems are downright evil. Since a proper relation to God is arguably more important than any other social relation, we can also understand why moral obligations trump other kinds of obligations. That role includes such facts as these: Moral obligations must be motivating and objective. They also must provide a basis for critical evaluation of other types of obligations, and they must be such that someone who violates a moral obligation is appropriately subject to blame. Adams argues that it is divine commands that best satisfy these desiderata. If there are objective moral obligations, there is a God who explains these obligations. There is a God. God provides the best explanation of the existence of moral obligations. Probably, God exists. Obviously, those who do not find a DCT convincing will not think this argument from moral obligation has force. However, Adams anticipates and gives a forceful answer to one common criticism of a DCT. The dilemma for a DCT can be derived from the following question: Assuming that God commands what is right, does he command what is right because it is right? These objections can be found in the writings of Wes Morriston , Erik Wielenberg , , especially chapter 2 , and Nicholas Wolterstorff , among others. This is essentially the view that moral truths are basic or fundamental in character, not derived from natural facts or any more fundamental metaphysical facts. This view certainly provides a significant alternative to divine command metaethics. Specifically, philosophers such as J. Responses to the objections of Wielenberg, Morriston, and others have also been given see Evans , Baggett and Walls, , Although it is worth noting that no single metaethical theory seems to enjoy widespread support among philosophers, so a DCT is not alone in being a minority view. Arguments from Moral Knowledge or Awareness A variety of arguments have been developed that God is necessary to explain human awareness of moral truth or moral knowledge, if one believes that this moral awareness amounts to knowledge. Swinburne does not think that an argument from moral facts as such is powerful. However, the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation. It may be true that creatures who belong to groups that behave altruistically will have some survival advantage over groups that lack such a trait. It is one of several phenomena which seem more probable in a theistic universe than in a godless universe. Street presents the moral realist with a dilemma posed by the question as to how our human evaluative beliefs are related to human evolution. It is clear, she believes, that evolution has strongly shaped our evaluative attitudes. The question concerns how those attitudes are related to the objective evaluative truths accepted by the realist. However, this view, Street claims, is scientifically implausible. Street argues therefore that an evolutionary story about how we came to make the moral judgments we make undermines confidence in the objective truth of those judgments. However, her argument, and similar arguments, have been acknowledged by some moral realists, such as David Enoch and Erik Wielenberg to pose a significant problem for their view. Wielenberg, to avoid the criticism that in a non-theistic universe it would be extremely lucky if evolution selected for belief in objectively true moral values, proposes that the natural laws that produce this result may be metaphysically necessary, and thus there is no element of luck. However, many philosophers will see this view of natural laws as paying a heavy price to avoid theism. It might appear that Street is arguing straightforwardly that evolutionary theory makes it improbable that humans would have objective moral knowledge. However, it is not evolution by itself that predicts the improbability of objective moral knowledge, but the conjunction of evolution and metaphysical naturalism. Since, it is not evolution by itself that poses a challenge to moral realism but the conjunction of evolution and metaphysical naturalism, then rejecting naturalism provides one way for the moral realist to solve the problem. It does appear that in a naturalistic universe we would expect a process of Darwinian evolution to select for a propensity for moral judgments that track survival and not objective moral truths. Mark Linville , — has developed a detailed argument for the claim that it is difficult for metaphysical naturalists to develop a plausible evolutionary story as to how our moral judgments could have epistemological warrant. However, if we suppose that the evolutionary process has been guided by God, who has as one of his goals the creation of morally significant human creatures capable of enjoying a relation with God, then it would not seem at all accidental or even unlikely that God would ensure that humans have value beliefs that are largely correct. Some philosophers believe that the randomness of Darwinian natural selection rules out the possibility of any kind of divine guidance being exercised through such a process. What can be explained scientifically needs no religious explanation. However, this is far from obviously true; in fact, if theism is true it is clearly false. From a theistic perspective to think that God and science provide competing explanations fails to grasp the relationship between God and the natural world by conceiving of God as one more cause within that natural world. If God exists at all, God is not an entity within the natural world, but the creator of that natural world, with all of its causal processes. If God exists, God is the reason why there is a natural world and the reason for the existence of the causal processes of the natural world. In principle, therefore, a natural explanation can never preclude a theistic explanation. But what about the randomness that is a crucial part of the Darwinian story? The atheist might claim that because evolutionary theory posits that the process by which plants and animals have evolved in one that involves random genetic mutations, it cannot be guided, and thus God cannot have used evolutionary means to achieve his ends. However, this argument fails. When scientists claim that genetic mutations are random, they do not mean that they are uncaused, or even that they are unpredictable from the point of view of biochemistry, but only that the mutations do not happen in response to the adaptational needs of the organism. It is entirely possible for a natural process to include randomness in that sense, even if the whole natural order is itself created and sustained by God. A God who is responsible for the laws of nature and the initial conditions that shape the evolutionary process could certainly ensure that the process achieved certain ends. Humans possess objective moral knowledge. Probably, if God does not exist, humans would not possess objective moral knowledge. Ritchie presses a kind of dilemma on non-theistic accounts of morality. Subjectivist theories such as expressivism can certainly make sense of the fact that we make the ethical judgments we do, but they empty morality of its objective authority. Objectivist theories that take morality seriously, however, have difficulty explaining our capacity to make true moral judgments, unless the process by which humans came to hold these capacities is one that is controlled by a being such as God. The moral argument from knowledge will not be convincing to anyone who is committed to any form of expressivism or other non-objective metaethical theory, and clearly many philosophers find such views attractive. And there will surely be many philosophers who will judge that if moral objectivism implies theism or requires theism to be plausible, this is a reductio of objectivist views. Furthermore, non-theistic moral philosophers, whether naturalists or non-naturalists, have stories to tell about how moral knowledge might be possible. Nevertheless, there are real questions about the plausibility of these stories, and thus, some of those convinced that moral realism is true may judge that moral knowledge provides some support for theistic belief. Like subjectivists, constructivists want to see morality as a human creation. However, like moral realists constructivists want to see moral questions as having objective answers. Constructivism is an attempt to develop an objective morality that is free of the metaphysical commitments of moral realism. It is, however, controversial whether Kant himself was a constructivist in this sense. One reason to question whether this is the right way to read Kant follows from the fact that Kant himself did not see morality as free from metaphysical commitments. For example, Kant thought that it would be impossible for someone who believed that mechanistic determinism was the literal truth about himself to believe that he was a moral agent, since morality requires an autonomy that is incompatible with determinism. When we do science we see ourselves as determined, but science tells us only how the world appears, not how it really is. Humans can only have this kind of value if they are a particular kind of creature. Whether Kant himself was a moral realist or not, there are certainly elements in his philosophy that push in a realist direction. If the claim that human persons have a kind of intrinsic dignity or worth is a true objective principle and if it provides a key foundational principle of morality, it is well worth asking what kinds of metaphysical implications the claim might have. This is the question that Mark Linville , — pursues in the second moral argument he develops. Clearly, some metaphysical positions do include a denial of the existence of human persons, such as forms of Absolute Monism which hold that only one Absolute Reality exists. Daniel Dennett, for example, holds that persons will not be part of the ultimately true scientific account of things. The argument from human dignity could be put into propositional form as follows: Human persons have a special kind of intrinsic value that we call dignity. Probably there is a supremely good God. A naturalist may want to challenge premise 2 by finding some other strategy to explain human dignity. Michael Martin , for example, has tried to suggest that moral judgments can be analyzed as the feelings of approval or disapproval of a perfectly impartial and informed observer. Linville objects that it is not clear how the feelings of such an observer could constitute the intrinsic worth of a person, since one would think that intrinsic properties would be non-relational and mind-independent. Another strategy that is pursued by constructivists such as Korsgaard is to link the value ascribed to humans to the capacity for rational reflection. The idea is that insofar as I am committed to rational reflection, I must value myself as having this capacity, and consistently value others who have it as well. It is far from clear that human rationality provides an adequate ground for moral rights, however. Many people believe that young infants and people suffering from dementia still have this intrinsic dignity, but in both cases there is no capacity for rational reflection. Wolterstorff in this work defends the claim that there are natural human rights, and that violating such rights is one way of acting unjustly towards a person. Why do humans have such rights? Wolterstorff says these rights are grounded in the basic worth or dignity that humans possess. When I seek to torture or kill an innocent human I am failing to respect this worth. If one asks why we should think humans possess such worth, Wolterstorff argues that the belief that humans have this quality was not only historically produced by Jewish and Christian conceptions of the human person, but even now cannot be defended apart from such a conception. In particular, he argues that attempts to argue that our worth stems from some excellence we possess such as reason will not explain the worth of infants or those with severe brain injuries or dementia. Does a theistic worldview fare better in explaining the special value of human dignity? In a theistic universe God is himself seen as the supreme good. Indeed, theistic Platonists usually identify God with the Good. If God is himself a person, then this seems to be a commitment to the idea that personhood itself is something that must be intrinsically good. This argument will of course be found unconvincing to many. Some will deny premise 1 , either because they reject moral realism as a metaethical stance, or because they reject the normative claim that humans have any kind of special value or dignity. Others will find premise 2 suspect. They may be inclined to agree that human persons have a special dignity, but hold that the source of that dignity can be found in such human qualities as rationality. With respect to the status of infants and those suffering from dementia, the critic might bite the bullet and just accept the fact that human dignity does not extend to them, or else argue that the fact that infants and those suffering mental breakdown are part of a species whose members typically possess rationality merits them a special respect, even if they lack this quality as individuals. A proof is giving a reason for why we believe. Topics covered here could undoubtedly be developed in more depth, but that would be getting ahead, here is the big picture. Kant rejected all attempts to argue from the world to God, he regarded such an exercise as impossible. Others claim that the harm they inflict was demanded of them by their God. Christianity and Islam have their own god; the Romans and Greeks had their Pantheon. A lot of people believe in god have thought that there is more to life the material world around us. It seems arises naturally the world over by believing in god. Individual sections also need to be organized in a logical fashion. This is primarily a matter of setting out arguments in a step-by-step fashion, and of discussing different arguments in different subsections, as discussed above in section V. Checklist for Logical and Perspicuous Structure: 1. Is my essay organized into sections in a logical fashion? Are the sections divided into appropriate subsections? Have I made the overall structure of my essay clear by using informative headings for sections and subsections? Suppose, for example, that Mary is considering whether there should be a law against the sale of pornography. There are various ways in which she can formulate this question, some of which will strongly suggest one answer rather than another. If this is the way she puts the issue, it will not be too surprising if she arrives at the conclusion that one certainly needs a law against pornography. Suppose, on the other hand, that what she asks is whether people should be prevented from having access to important information about something which is not only natural and very beautiful, but also a means of expressing feelings of tenderness and love. When the question is phrased this way, it seems likely that she will arrive a rather different conclusion. Why are emotionally charged formulations bad? There are two reasons. First, they tend to alienate the reader or listener, thereby making it less likely that others will devote much time to a serious consideration of your arguments. But secondly, such formulations are even more dangerous with respect to one's own thinking, since what they typically do is to make it seem that the right answer is obvious, and this in turn usually prevents one from grappling with the issue in a serious way, and from subjecting one's own view to critical examination. Checklist for Dispassionate and Unemotional Discussion: 1. Have I made use of emotively charged language? Is my discussion dispassionate and fair throughout? Obscurity is not a sign of profundity. I suspect that this point probably needs to be labored a bit, as there are reasons for thinking that many people, in their secondary school education, are encouraged to express their ideas in a fashion which sounds profound. Consider, for example, the following experiment, carried out by two English professors at the University of Chicago. Joseph Williams and Rosemary Hake took a well-written paper, and changed the language to produce two different versions. Both versions involved the same ideas and concepts, but one was written in simplified, straightforward language, while the other was written in verbose, bombastic language, loaded with pedantic terms. They then submitted the two papers to nine high-school teachers, and found that all nine gave very high marks to the verbose paper, but downgraded the straightforward essay as too simple and shallow. Williams and Hake then repeated the experiment with a group of ninety teachers, and came up with similar results. Three out of four high-school teachers and two out of three college teachers! What should you be aiming at, in terms of clarity, simplicity, and intelligibility? One way of estimating how successful your essay is in these respects is by considering how it would seem to a secondary school student who knew nothing about the topic. Would he or she be able to read it without difficulty? Having read it, would he or she be able to say exactly what view you were defending and how you were supporting that view? But if there is any room for doubt, then you need to rewrite your essay so that your ideas are expressed in a simpler and more straightforward way. Checklist for Overall Clarity and Conciseness: 1. To what extent is the writing clear and straightforward? Is the writing concise? A Non-Religious, Philosophical Approach Many people defend ethical views by appealing either to religious or theological assumptions, or to moral principles that are religiously based. Such assumptions or principles are often of a highly controversial sort, and exercises 1, 2, and 3 were intended to illustrate how problematic an appeal either to religious and theological premises, or to moral principles that are religiously based, can be. It is possible of course, that there are religious claims that, although controversial, can be shown to be reasonable. Any such defense, however, is a major undertaking, and in an essay of this length, the chances of success in doing that are not good. In addition, however, any discussion of religious claims that is likely to be intellectually satisfactory requires a serious background in philosophy of religion. The Philosophy Department has a number of philosophers who are experts in the area of philosophy of religion, and if you are interested in exploring religious issues, you may well want to consider taking one of the philosophy of religion courses that the Department offers.
This is primarily a matter of setting out arguments in a step-by-step fashion, and of discussing different arguments in different essays, as discussed above in section V.
Checklist for Logical and Perspicuous Structure: 1. Is my essay organized into sections in a logical fashion. Are the sections divided into appropriate subsections. Have I made the overall structure of my essay clear by using informative headings for sections and moralities. Suppose, for example, that Mary is considering whether there should be a law against the sale of pornography.
- Things to write an argumentative essay on
- Argument essay about gmo
- Argumentative essay samples gre
- Pro life argument essay
There are various ways in which she can formulate this question, some of which will strongly suggest one answer rather than another. If this is the way she puts the issue, it essay not be too surprising if she arrives at the conclusion that one certainly needs a law against pornography. Suppose, on the argument hand, that what she asks is whether people should be prevented from argument access to important information about something which is not only natural and very beautiful, but also a means of expressing feelings of tenderness and love.
When the question is phrased this way, it seems likely that she will arrive a rather different conclusion. Why are emotionally charged formulations bad. There are two moralities. First, they tend to alienate the reader or listener, thereby making it less likely that others will devote much time to a serious consideration of your arguments.
But secondly, such formulations are even more dangerous with respect to one's own thinking, since what they typically do is to make it seem that the right answer is obvious, and this in essay usually prevents one from grappling with the issue in a serious way, and from subjecting one's own morality to critical examination. Checklist for Dispassionate and Unemotional Discussion: 1.
Have I made use writing an essay in middle school lesson emotively charged language.
Cheapest article writing serviceMcBrayer, J. In his Critique of Practical Reason he went on to argue that, despite the failure of these arguments, morality requires that God's existence is assumed, owing to practical reason. Have I carefully set out the most important objection to each of my arguments?
Is my morality dispassionate and essay throughout. Obscurity is not a argument of profundity. It seems arises naturally the world over by believing in god. Does God exist. I believe in God is exists by the philosophical argument: ontological argument, the first cause argument, the argument form design, and the moral argument. Arguments relate to the existence of God are in different Does God Exist.
This story is based on the true story of Margaret Garner, who killed her own child and attempted to kill her other children instead of willfully letting them all return to lives of slavery. Mill , — argued that we can explain normative principles without making any reference to God. For example, Kant thought that it would be impossible for someone who believed that mechanistic determinism was the literal truth about himself to believe that he was a moral agent, since morality requires an autonomy that is incompatible with determinism. Are the sections divided into appropriate subsections? Arguments from Moral Knowledge or Awareness A variety of arguments have been developed that God is necessary to explain human awareness of moral truth or moral knowledge, if one believes that this moral awareness amounts to knowledge. Does it explain the overall structure of my essay? Morality is about understanding the difference between the right and wrong action in a situation, the moral person has this understanding and then acts appropriately. This logically is the best answer for this situation. Such an argument might be one way of helping an individual understand that moral obligations are in fact divine commands or laws.
Moral actions are thus not determined by essays or consequences but by the maxims on which they are based. However, all actions, including moral actions, necessarily aim at ends.
However, I must seek the highest good only by acting in accordance with morality; no shortcuts to happiness are permissible.
This how long is a 1000 word essay 1000 to require that I believe that acting in accordance with morality will be causally efficacious in achieving the highest good. However, it is reasonable to believe that moral actions will be causally efficacious in this way only if the laws of causality are set up in such a way that these laws are conducive to the efficacy of moral action.
Certainly both parts of the highest good seem difficult to achieve. Why major essay sample humans have weaknesses in our character that appear difficult if not impossible to overcome by our own efforts. Furthermore, as creatures we have subjective needs that must be satisfied if we are happy, but we have little empirical reason to think that these needs will be satisfied by moral actions even if we succeeded in becoming virtuous.
If a person believes that the natural world is simply a non-moral machine with no moral purposiveness then that person would have no reason to believe that moral action could succeed because there is no a priori reason to think moral action will achieve the highest good and little empirical reason to believe this either. essay way under word limit common app reddit Even if the Kantian highest good seems reasonable as an ideal, some will object that we have no argument to achieve such a state, but merely to work towards realizing the closest approximation to such a state that is possible See Adams Without divine assistance, perhaps perfect virtue is unachievable, but in that case we cannot be obliged to realize such a state if there is no God.
Perhaps we cannot hope that happiness will be properly proportioned to virtue in the actual world if God does not exist, but then our obligation can only be to realize as much happiness as can be attained through moral means. Kant would doubtless reject this criticism, since on his view the ends of morality are given directly to pure practical reason a priori, and we are not at essay to adjust those ends on the basis of empirical beliefs.
Morality requires me to sacrifice my personal happiness if that is necessary to do what is right. Yet it is a psychological fact that humans necessarily desire their own happiness. Reason both definition essay outline about friendship humans to seek their own happiness and to sacrifice it.
Sidgwick himself noted that only if there is a God can we hope that this dualism will be resolved, so that those who seek to act morally will in the long run also be acting so as to advance their own happiness and well-being.
Interestingly, Sidgwick himself does not endorse this morality, but he clearly sees this problem as part of the appeal of theism. A contemporary argument similar to this one has been developed by C. Stephen Layman The critic of this form of the Kantian argument may reply that Kantian morality sees duty as something that must be done regardless of the consequences, and thus a truly ut short essay prompts requirement person cannot make his or her commitment to morality contingent on the achievement of happiness.
From a Kantian point of view, this reply seems right; Kant unequivocally affirms that moral actions must be done for the sake of duty and not from any desire for personal argument. Nevertheless, especially for any philosopher willing to endorse any form of eudaimonism, seeing myself as inevitably sacrificing what I cannot help but desire for the sake of duty does seem problematic.
The critic may reply to this by simply accepting the lamentable fact that there is something tragic or even absurd about the human condition. The world may not be the world we wish it was, but that does not give us any reason to believe it is different than it is. If there is a tension between the demands of morality and self-interest, then this may simply be a brute fact that must be faced. This reply raises an issue that must be faced by all forms of practical or pragmatic arguments for belief.
Many philosophers insist that rational belief must be grounded solely in theoretical evidence. The fact that it would be better for me to believe p does not in itself give me any reason to believe p.
This criticism is aimed not merely at Kant, but at other practical moral arguments. For example, Robert Adams argues that if humans believe there is no moral order to the universe, then they will become demoralized in their pursuit of morality, which is morally undesirable The atheist might concede that atheism is somewhat demoralizing, but deny that this provides any morality to believe there is a moral order to the universe.
Similarly, Linda Zagzebski argues that morality will not be a rational enterprise unless good actions increase the amount of good in the world. However, given that moral actions often involve the sacrifice of happiness, there is no reason to believe essay action will increase the good unless there is a power transcendent of human activity working on the side of the good.
Here the atheist may claim that moral action does increase the good because such actions always increase good character. However, even if that argument fails the atheist may again simply admit that there may be something tragic or absurd about the argument condition, and the fact that we may wish things were different is not a reason to believe that they are.
So the problem essay be faced: Are practical arguments merely rationalized wish-fulfillment. The theist polsci 21a analytical essay respond to this kind of worry in several ways.
The first thing to be said is that the fact that a naturalistic view of the universe implies that the universe must be tragic or absurd, if correct, morality itself be an important and interesting conclusion.
However, apart from this, it makes a great deal of difference how one construes what we might call the background epistemic situation. If one believes that our theoretical morality favors atheism, then it seems plausible to hold that one ought to maintain a naturalistic view, even if it is practically undesirable that the world have such a character.
In that case a practical argument for religious belief could be judged a form of wish-fulfillment. However, this does not seem to be the way those who support such a practical argument see the situation.
See also — Thus, if rational grounds for morality in God come from practical reason, theoretical reason will essay no objections. Human beings are not purely theoretical spectators of the universe, but agents. It is not always rational or even possible to refrain from action, and yet action presupposes beliefs about the way things are For a good interpretation and defense of this view of Kant on the relation between action and essay, see Wood17— Thus, in some cases suspension of judgment is not possible.
The critic may object that a person may act as if p were true without believing p. However, it is not clear that this advice to distinguish action on the basis of p and belief that p can always be followed. For one thing, it seems empirically the case that one way of acquiring belief that p is simply to begin to act as if p were true.
Hence, to begin to act as if p were true how to introduce a scholarship essay at least to embark upon a course of argument that makes belief in p more likely. This is obviously the morality on pragmatist accounts of belief. But even those who reject a general pragmatic account of belief may well find something like this appealing with respect to religious belief.
Thus, a person who is willing to act on the argument of a religious conception, especially if those actions are risky or costly, is truly a religious believer, even if that person is filled with when writing title of a movie in an essay and anxiety.
Perhaps the right way to think of practical moral arguments is not to see them as justifying belief without evidence, but as shifting the amount how to start an essay introduction about the roman society evidence seen as necessary.
Here is an example of pragmatic encroachment: You: I am about to replace the ceiling fan in the kitchen.
Moral Argument Essay | Bartleby
Spouse: Did you turn off the morality electrical power to the house. You: Yes. Spouse: If you forgot you could electrocute yourself. You: I argument go essay and check. See McBrayerRizzieri A plausible interpretation of this scenario is that ordinarily claims such as the one I made, based on memory, are justified, and count as knowledge.