Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims that everyone has a moral duty only to believe what is supported by reliable evidence and that we do more harm than good in doing so. Many agree with this belief but I feel it is not a realistic view because it displays a lack of trust and faith. I agree more with James who argues that it is appropriate to have individual beliefs on non- rational grounds, as in matters of passion, desired out come and choice. James claims that belief without evidence is justified for "genuine options" because belief in a fact is necessary for
Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i... ... middle of paper ... ...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes.
Therefore, there is no means of proving this hypothesis. I believe that different ways of knowing immensely affect our perception of truth. It appears unfathomable to be certain that anyone can see the truth, because the different ways of knowing influence our perception of what we believe to be ‘reality’. ‘Truth’ is formed in our minds. In my opinion, what is true and what is believed to be true cannot be discerned; I believe that we form a truth in our own minds, and that we consciously choose to believe in it, because we have no other way of being certain about our reality.
Due to this Henry’s argument is incorrect. Henry’s argument is unable to provide a proper way for truth verification thus it is a weak argument. The Skeptics require us to show them that they have to accept something as they will never claim so do to their own beliefs on their own and there claims cannot be defeated without such a thing. As such the lack of it makes Henry’s argument ineffective and forgettable. Bibliography Henry of Ghent.
W.T. Stace uses his paper “The Refutation of Realism” to argue that we have no good reason to believe in the existence of objects unperceived by any finite mind. His argument reflects one of exhaustion, in which he claims that the only two ways to argue for the existence of these unperceived objects, is either by inductive or deductive methods. Because both of these fail, we have no way to provide good reason for the belief that objects exist while unperceived. In this paper I will explain why Stace’s argument fails, more specifically his approach to inductive reasoning.
Therefore, even if casual determinism is true, there is no reason to believe that people cannot still be morally responsible for their behavior. Frankfurt even goes on to say that he believes that premise (A) should instead be phrased as such: a person is not morally responsible for what he has done if he did it only because he could not have done otherwise. This revision takes into account the invalid assumption that coercion makes moral responsibility
Furthermore in advocating that one treat others in differently when there are no factual differences is unjustifiable and makes this an arbitrary doctrine. Since there is no relevant factual difference between oneself and others, thus no real logic or reason, then the needs of others are equally important, which goes against the main principle of conduct for ethical egoism. Yet still the theory would not see the need to regard other individuals who may be affected by one’s actions, which again fails the minimum
I. Inconsistency and Deductive Closure One cannot accept both that it is rational to accept inconsistent sets, and that the set of propositions that one rationally accepts is closed under logical consequences. Together these two propositions imply that it is rational to knowingly accept a logically contradictory statement. But clearly it is not rational to knowingly accept a contradiction. Thus, we must give up the principle that our rational acceptances are closed under logical consequences, or else deny that it is ever rational to accept an inconsistent set. This dilemma is sometimes appealed to as a premise in an argument for the claim that it is irrational to accept each element of an inconsistent set.
His counterclaims to some theories are rather redundant and weak. He clearly disagrees with Nietzsche’s take on truth, but did not provide convincing backup claims to defend his position of why the question “What is truth?” is unnecessary. In addition, Lynch’s argument towards the redundancy theory is also not clear and satisfactory enough because simply dismissing objections as blind generalizations gives a sense that he has nothing better to say to defend his position. One of the theories mentioned believes that power is the source of motivation behind truth to which I have to disagree. There are many factors, like self-interest, morality, and knowledge, that motivate the will to truth and power is only one of the many and cannot be used as the overarching factor.
The purpose of this paper will be to demonstrate how the arguments supporting utilitarianism are no... ... middle of paper ... ...patible because utilitarians then consider greatly unjust acts as morally right, which is not the case. In conclusion, after looking at the objections and considering every point of the utilitarian methodology, it is safe to say that the arguments for it are not very strong. “[Utilitarianism] results from the proceeding considerations that there is in reality nothing desired except happiness” (Mill, 115). However, it is hard to even define happiness making the approach that much more difficult to follow. All in all, the main reasons to reject utilitarianism are as follows: utilitarianism is not always feasible, it only takes into account end goals, conflicts with an individual’s integrity, and is incompatible with justice.