...Letter to a Philosopher Elbert Avery PHI/105 Nov, 06, 2013 Letter to a Philosopher I am writing this letter to John Dewey regarding his theory of pragmatism. I am choosing this theory because it interests me in the scientific aspect of your thinking. I know that you chose to challenge logicians to answer the question of truth. This is a hard thing to sort out and make real and true. Going up against some of the times most logical thinkers and challenging them to come up with true answers was one of your strong points. I know that you were not totally opposed to modern logic as you have stated “logic based upon the idea that qualitative objects are existential in the fullest sense. To retain logical principles based on this conception along with the acceptance of theories of existence and knowledge based on an opposite conception is not, to say the least, conductive to clearness – a consideration that has a good deal to do with existing dualism between traditional and the newer relational logics.”(Qualitative Thought 1930) This statement to me means that you had maybe exhausted the traditional way of thinking that you had imagined. I believe that you had to reach for more answers and different ways to get those answers. Truth is a hard thing to come by and it is not easily obtained. I know that you were a philosopher of science and that you used this to try and understand the world. From you research you did not stretch the truth but rather examined all of the parts that...
Words: 732 - Pages: 3
...deceived by false statements. Kant believes that it is our duty to tell the truth no matter the circumstances. He believes that by lying, regardless of any harm done to either person involved, there was harm done to humanity in general, inasmuch as it vitiates the very source of right (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 64-65). I unequivocally disagree with Kant’s view on lying. The premise behind Kant’s theory is morally correct, but there are various circumstances where lying is necessary for the betterment of mankind. Kant is also not consistent with his categorical imperatives with regard to intentional deception as opposed to lying. There is a major discrepancy regarding deception and lying with his moral viewpoint. Where is the line drawn in regard to deception versus lying? Certain situations including the case of the “would be murderer” are examples where disagreement becomes evident and Kant’s absolute moral rule on lying is exploited. The first argument against Kant’s view on lying deals with his belief that all lies harm someone or humanity, either directly or indirectly, and everyone has “a right to the truth” (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 64). I disagree with this because in many circumstances small lies are necessary. For example, parents lie to their children about Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny, and many other things. Now this may seem a bit absurd of an argument but Kant would argue that if asked by your child about these three...
Words: 1457 - Pages: 6
...Immanuel Kant Presentation Deontology – Deon-duty, logos -science Because we so regularly take it for granted that moral values are closely related with the goal of human well-being or happiness Kant's claim that these two ideas are absolutely separate makes it difficult to grasp his point of view and easy to misunderstand it. "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will." What does Kant mean by a "good will"? A "good will" means to act out of a purpose of moral obligation or "duty". In other words, the moral person does a certain action not because of its consequences, but because she comprehends by reasoning that it is morally the right thing to do and so believes herself as having a moral duty or obligation to do that action. One may of course as an added fact get some enjoyment or other reward from doing the right thing, but to act morally, one does not do it for the sake of its desirable results, but because one recognizes that it is morally the right thing to do. When does one act from a motive of doing one's duty? Kant replies that we do our moral duty when our purpose is controlled by a belief recognized by reason rather than the want for any expected result or emotional reasons for our actions. Kant believes that there are only 2 types of motivations 1. Ones that are clear recognition of one’s duties. 2. Selfish one This includes those people that are...
Words: 1421 - Pages: 6
...realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” This quote says that we do not necessarily know what morality is and what actions are moral or not; however, over time humans are coming closer to figure out what morality is. As of now, we cannot be sure what actions are truly moral or not. Furthermore, we can infer that some things, such as not killing, are considered virtuous and morally correct because many societies/generations have regarded that...
Words: 839 - Pages: 4
...talk to some of the other guests, I walked away a few feet and stood to myself. I was close enough to hear their conversation and the very polite and nice man was talking and a news story of a man who was convicted of murder, he was saying how he would have done the same thing in reference to the murderer. Once he said that everyone that he was talking with made an excuse to...
Words: 1351 - Pages: 6
...on America's "Death Row." Their time grows shorter as federal and state courts increasingly ratify death penalty laws, allowing executions to proceed at an accelerated rate. It's unlikely that any of these executions will make the front page, having become more and more a matter of routine in the last decade. Indeed, recent public opinion polls show a wide margin of support for the death penalty. But human rights advocates continue to decry the immorality of state-sanctioned killing in the U.S., the only western industrialized country that continues to use the death penalty. Is capital punishment moral? Capital punishment is often defended on the grounds by the government, that society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and the welfare of its citizens. Murderers threaten this safety and welfare. Only by putting murderers to death can society ensure that convicted killers do not kill again. Second, those favoring capital punishment contend that society should support those practices that will bring about the greatest balance of good over evil, and capital punishment is one such practice. Capital punishment benefits society because it may deter violent crime. While it is difficult to produce direct evidence to support this claim since, by definition, those who are deterred by the death penalty do not commit murders, common sense tells us that they will...
Words: 1050 - Pages: 5
...Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. If we desire X we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives...
Words: 1540 - Pages: 7
...still today people argue that, the death penalty is cruel, unusual punishment and should be illegal. Yet many people argue that it is in fact justifiable and it is not cruel and unusual. Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual; the death penalty is fair and there is evidence that the death penalty deters crime. A big part of abolitionist’s argument is that the death penalty is not humane. They pull in Amendment 8, “…nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” What the victim went though was indeed “cruel and unusual punishments’.” The murderers’ death is not cruel. The people will demand justice for what he or she has done (Bidinotto 19). Hanging and the electric chair are topics more reasonable to argue, but now because of lethal injection capital punishment has become more humane. The death penalty is not barbaric, the pain and agony that the victim went through is barbaric. Abolitionists were very upset in 1996 when rapist and murderer John Albert Taylor was executed by firing squad; they said his death was barbaric (Feder 32). Charla King, the poor 11-year-old girl he raped and strangled with a telephone cord, her death was barbaric! It makes no sense to think that John Taylor’s’ death was barbaric or inhumane. He would not even hear the bullets shoot out; his victim went through more pain than what any court system could have inflicted on him (Feder 32). In the past people have challenged the death penalty, it has always been denied, lethal injection is fair enough (Johnson...
Words: 989 - Pages: 4
...rate of murders reduces with more convictions of murders with the death penalty. This means that some heinous criminals will never walk on the streets, and that makes the society a somewhat safer place. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and we have a criminal class that is cycled through our prison system and back into society. This being the case, why should we have murderers repeatedly be put back out on the street to kill again, several times, before they would be permanently locked away? Murderers and violent criminals will always exist in our society and the death penalty will lower the number of criminals (The Death Penalty Prevents Future Murders). Every violent criminal less that exists in a society will mean a safer society. A prison term on the other hand would always be a pressing dark cloud of worries over society. In prisons the interns and personnel would feel safer with the death penalty because it is not unusual that there are conflicts, violence and murder in prison. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, possible murderers will think twice before killing, for fear of loosing their own life (The Death Penalty Prevents Future...
Words: 1000 - Pages: 4
... and ambiguity, obscurity of meaning, often portray undertones that are necessary for the reader's interpretation. The novels Chronicles of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Perfume: Story of a Murderer by Patrick Suskind include many references to both symbolism and ambiguity to guide what messages and morals are portrayed. These authors also include vivid imagery, descriptive language, to specify details that are essential for eliciting emotional response from the reader. Symbolism plays a substantial role in portraying the culture and time period of Chronicles of a Death Foretold. Opportunities for the reader to delve into the cultural context of 1950`s Columbia are made apparent within the first sentence of the novel. Magical realism, realistic fiction with mythical elements, brands South American literature immersing the reader in a new world regardless of their location and upbringing. The novel introduces the “protagonist” by...
Words: 671 - Pages: 3
...dry” which Deontology is based on. Deontology, or duty-based ethics, doesn't deal well with the cases where duties are in conflict. Someone who follows Deontology should do the right thing, even if that produces more harm (or less good) than doing the wrong thing. In fact, Kant himself thought that it would be wrong to tell a lie in order to save a friend from a murderer. http://askaphilosopher.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/utilitarianism-versus-deontology/ Key strength: For Kant, the only thing good in and of itself is a good will. This means that if your intentions are good (you are following the moral law), then you and your actions are good. This is a strength of Kant's position because whether or not you are a good person depends only on what you intend to do, not on what actually comes to be. Under this view, you cannot be blamed for things that you had no intention of doing. Key weakness: Kant's view doesn't allow the consequences of an action to have moral significance. Imagine a situation where a murderer comes to your door and asks if your sister is home. According to Kant, you cannot lie to the murderer and tell him that she is not home. It doesn't matter if bad consequences will happens if you tell the truth. Since you are morally obligated not to lie, you must never lie, no matter the circumstances. There are more, but these are the most commonly cited......
Words: 295 - Pages: 2
...After reading Kant’s paper, “Kant and The Categorical Imperative.” I had to read it a couple times to fully understand the point Kant was trying to make, but overall I enjoyed his paper and thought he made some interesting points about moral rules and moral obligations. However, regarding the “Case of the Inquiring Murderer,” I believe a utilitarian would lie to the murderer to protect the victim. I think a utilitarian would lie because the utilitarian focuses on the consequences or the goals of our actions and wants to promote the greater good, so that everyone can achieve maximum happiness. If he told the truth, the consequence of his action is that he just allowed an innocent man to die. Therefore, he is not promoting the greater good, and...
Words: 328 - Pages: 2
...KANT EXERCISE 1. Does the fallibility of the system—the fact that “minority reports” suggest that some few of those treated as murderers had a “possible alternative future” in which they would not actually have committed the crime— make that system morally unjustifiable according to Act Utilitarianism? According to Act Utilitarianism, the act that makes the greatest happiness to the group will be morally permissible. In fact, a person who is criminal will be judged by his ability to hurt other or committing a crime. The consequence of arresting the potential murderer will help to maximize victim and their family’s utility. Otherwise, if we choosing to refraining from arresting, murderer will be happy; and the victims will experience pain. In fact, one murderer can bring pain to many other victims; therefore, even if the system may be fallible Act utilitarianism says that it is morally justified to detain the potential murderers. How does this fallibility affect the appropriate description of the “maxim” describing the use of precrime for testing by Kant’s Categorical Imperative Procedure? I.e., should the maxim to be tested include acknowledgment of the system’s fallibility? State the appropriate maxim. The maxim of the use of precrime has stated that every potential murder should be put into jail to prevent possible crime. However, this maxim will be wrong if there is no crime that occurs. The fallibility failed the maxim because it stated that there...
Words: 1159 - Pages: 5
...something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but the question lies in the methods and action in which it should be dealt with. In several parts of the world, the death penalty has been apportioned to those who have committed a variety of offenses from the time of ancient Babylon to present-day America. The Roman Empire made use of the death penalty liberally, as did the Church of the Middle Ages. As history tells us, capital punishment, whose definition is "the use of death as a legally sanctioned punishment," is an acceptable and efficient means of deterring crime. Today, the death penalty remains an effective method of punishment for murder and other heinous crimes. There is debate over the morals and effectiveness of such a harsh sentence. Most commonly, the death penalty is challenged as a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which says that the U.S. cannot use "cruel and unusual" punishment. Due to the fact that "punishment" is a legal infliction of suffering, it must be somewhat "cruel.” As for being unusual, it is anything but, due to the long history of its usage. People will plunder, take advantage of others, and commit crimes as long as it is in their best interest to do so. The purpose of our entire criminal justice system is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property for all its citizens. To do this,...
Words: 1630 - Pages: 7
...Oedipus the King Although the social standards of fifth century B.C. Greece allowed humans free will, Oedipus, in Oedipus the King written by Sophocles, was not allowed to demonstrate this. Oedipus was a leader of his time became a horrific tragedy because of this. Oedipus’s fate forced him to unconsciously go against the laws and moral precepts, ultimately leading to incest, murder, and his own self-destruction. Oedipus the King is a story told by Sophocles that shows major tragedy. Oedipus was born as the son of Laius, the once King of Thebes and his wife Jocasta. The Oracle tells Laius that his son will be his own demise and he listens to them. Jocasta gives the baby to a messenger so it will be taken away and killed. The messenger pins Oedipus ankles so he will always be marked, and the messenger hands him to a shepherd. The shepherd takes him and instead of killing him he lets him live and raises him as the prince of Corinth. Oedipus was told by the Oracle that he will eventually have sex with his mother and kill his father. Oracles speak to a purpose and are inspired by the gods who control the destiny of men. Oedipus growing up with his non-blood parents didn’t believe the Oracle because nothing that they said happened. Oedipus later on in his life became the King of Thebes, and the city was struck by a plague and needed a savor. The city was looking up to Oedipus as he looked for help, so he sent his brother-in-law Creon to go speak with the Delphi Oracle on this...
Words: 2811 - Pages: 12