Skeptics believe that is impossible to verify truth, thus we can have no knowledge since do not have truth(Henry 2002,101-102). They do believe that we can have beliefs, as seen by the fact that they believe we cannot have ... ... middle of paper ... ...e was an agreement. But if it was only a second than it cannot be considered knowledge as knowledge is always a true and can be maintained as such. Therefore the agreement is not knowledge as it is not able to remain true, even if such an agreement had been made. Due to this Henry’s argument is incorrect.
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. I share a common ground with Lynch in disagreeing with Rorty’s approach that there is no such thing as truth therefore we should stop worrying about it entirely. This deflationist approach comes off as rather nonchalant to me because it encourages people to not care or take interest in something that they believe to not exist. I also agree with Lynch’s argument pertaining to particularism. Normative judgments are not independent entities that can be used solely for the purpose of determining what is good or bad.
Critics of this sort of action agree that these offensive messages do exist, but legal action is not the way to deal with them. They believe that no individual acts the way the messages portray just because the messages exist. Another belief is that legal actions will intimidate creative people because it mak... ... middle of paper ... ...ce Clay, considered offensive by some, shouldn't be censored from those who find him humorous Freedom of speech is an important part of any democratic country. While some people may find Rush Limbaugh's portrayal of President Clinton offensive, his show should not be censored. This is the price that we pay to live freely in a democratic society.
Discussion of culture is commended, but no culture is better than another. Cultures in America have suffered hate by others but this is simply vain ignorance. The world should see that argument and culture do not mix at all. In fact, argument and culture are to separate things that should never meet. As Rodrigues said, “Expect marriage” (491), cultures have appreciated each other and there is hope for the end of culture argument.
For most, therefore, the reality of free will remains uncertain. Even the Bible is open to interpretation and may be cited as convincingly in support of determinism as in opposition to the theory. The dangers of incorrectly assuming lack of free will and subsequently abandoning punishment of criminal activity is obvious; people would behave as they wished, often failing to consider the effect of their actions on others, whilst claiming no responsibility for the consequences. In light of this, punishment of society's criminals is necessary, if only as a precautionary measure.
In this passage from Hegel he is saying that freedom is terribly misunderstood in it's formal subjective sense, and has been far removed from its essential purpose and goals. People think they should be able to do whatever they want and that is what freedom is, and that anything limiting there desires, impulses , and passions is a limit of there freedom. Hegel is saying this is not true, but these limitations are simply the condition from which they must free themselves from, and that society and the government are where freedom is actualized. What I believe he means by this is that without limits we would not know what freedom is. If you could always do what you've always wanted the thought of not being able to do something would be so foreign to you that you would not understand what it was to not have freedom, for that matter you would not understand what having freedom was either.
There is that “unfortunate and unwarranted implication” (Artz) that emotion has no place in reasoning and most of us have been taught that good decisions are the product of dispassionate and objective thought. Emotions can be considered impediments to rational deliberation, as they can be powerful experiences that usually do not last long and sometimes make us do things we later regret. Today, we are angry with a coworker and want to yell at them. Tomorrow, we reflect and wish we had acted more rationally, regardless of how compelling our argument seemed to be. When you lose your temper in the middle of an argument and start to fling ad homonym remarks at your opponent, it might just cause most rational people to not consider you as having advanced your position at all.
In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and happy, they overlook the outcome of creating such an environment.
There is no doubt that the act is reprehensible and the teenagers are liable for property damage and intimidating a family, but the charge brought upon them focused on their motivation rather than their criminal acts. The optimal way to deal with hate speech is not to limit or prohibit it any manner, as that will only further enrage people as they feel they are being stripped of their constitutional rights, which they indeed are. Control over hate speech is not going to be a successful deterrent, but imposing stricter laws and regulations will. They discourage volatile acts without punishing an individual for their beliefs, even if they are contrary to the majority’s. To argue against the limitation of hate speech is not automatically equivalent to being racist or not caring about the well-being of others, specifically minority targets, but understanding the manner in which our Constitution operates.
These people are then introduced to major offenders, who have not been rehabilitated and become worse than their "mentors." For these people, even if they feel that their criminal existence is indeed a moral wrong, prison does nothing to make them repent or change their way of life. A poorly planned criminal justice program can incapacitate the goals of reintegration of ex-criminal into society. With the way things are in prison prisoners are c... ... middle of paper ... ...way to isolate such individuals from the latter and help them instead of turning them into hardened criminals. Prison life and the exclusive association with other criminals is a training school for a life of crime for the majority of petty criminals.