All moral arguments on the existence of God are based on the principle that we all share a common morality. Because there is a magical argument for the existence of God, in spite of people, broadly speaking, cultural differences around the world, because there is something wrong there, what is right there, It will say that such understanding is to prove the existence of God. Kant raises this argument (argument which is not moral), as a source of god objective morality. First, he talked about absolute commands. Our own sense of responsibility, morality is an example of this principle, to obey, for example, to repay your debt. It is useful for objective evidence of God's understanding to exist, explaining before the existence of God and trying to evaluate moral arguments. Of course, this view is varied, but the most contemporary advocate in this view has a theistic argument, so "proof I do not think that it is an attempt to try to provide reasonable arguments and assumptions that a reasonable person can not deny. Standards such as achievement of success obviously set very high standards, supporters of theistic argument is a logical philosophical argument in fields other than logical formal argument, an interesting conclusion that almost can not fulfill that standard Did. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection? The moral argument for the existence of God constitutes a specific function from diverse family arguments, moral or ethical living to the existence of God, which is usually understood as a creator of good moral universe doing. Moral argument is important and interesting. They evaluate the robustness that they need to pay attention to almost all important philosophical issues that should deal with meta ethics, so they are interesting. They are important because they occupy an important position for public defense of religious beliefs in the demo. This evidence can be found in the amazing popular C · S · Lewis of "Pure Christianity" (1952), which almost certainly began a moral debate for the existence of God in the 20th century It is a proof of a bestselling book. Many ordinary people believe that religion provides the foundation and foundation of morality to some extent.

Objective morality is morality that does not match the preference of commonly accepted human. If a person agrees with these two assumptions, they will reach the given conclusion. But for those who are not theologians, they can maintain their distrust by not agreeing with one or both of Lewis triangulation theory. In other words, in a nutshell, Lewis believes that moral law exists and that God is the founder of the law. It also means that people who do not believe in God do not have moral value, as CS Lewis's first argument that God must exist to have moral value. The moral argument for the existence of God constitutes a multidimensional series of arguments, from the particular characteristics of moral or moral life to the existence of God, often understood as a morally good creator of the universe . Moral argument is important and interesting. They are interesting because evaluating their robustness requires attention to almost all important philosophical issues dealt with in meta ethics. They are important because they occupy an important position in people's defense theory for religious beliefs. Evidence for this is C. It can be found in an amazing epidemic of Lewis 'pure Christianity' (1952). Many ordinary people believe that religion provides some foundation or foundation of morality. In his book "Big Divorce" published in 1945, CS Lewis announced this statement and I was thinking and thinking about moral argument and Euthyphro's dilemma on the desk. Lewis found a good truth here, but it is not a fact, because God does not say this, God says things are good, because they are good. Instead, God wants what he wants and he is being told that he is good. Indeed, when we possess him and he is our treasure, I repeat that he is good. Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in areas other than formal logic such criteria Correctly point out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection?

The moral argument about Kant 's existence did not suggest moral argument. Kant rejected any attempt to argue God from the world, and he thought such exercise was impossible. But he believes that God is a hypothesis of practical reasons. If you share Kant's assumption, it is necessary to assume that God exists. Kant's reasoning ... ----------------------------------------- --- ------ ------------------- Everyone is eager and seeking happiness --------------- --------- --------------------- Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in areas other than formal logic such criteria Correctly point out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection? The moral argument for the existence of God constitutes a multidimensional series of arguments, from the particular characteristics of moral or moral life to the existence of God, often understood as a morally good creator of the universe . Moral argument is important and interesting. They are interesting because evaluating their robustness requires attention to almost all important philosophical issues dealt with in meta ethics. They are important because they occupy an important position in people's defense theory for religious beliefs. Evidence for this is C. It can be found in an amazing epidemic of Lewis 'pure Christianity' (1952). Many ordinary people believe that religion provides some foundation or foundation of morality.

Sufficiency of moral argument explaining the existence of God is as many different forms as the moral argument of many arguments about the existence of God. All these are to prove the existence of God from evidence of world morality. Moral is to understand the difference between correct action and misbehavioral behavior in the situation, moral people have this understanding and then act appropriately. The first problem or deficiency in moral argument is that it assumes and follows the principle that most people have some moral experience. Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success, and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet such standards in philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in fields other than formal logic It correctly points out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection? The moral argument for the existence of God constitutes a multidimensional series of arguments, from specific features of moral or moral life, to the existence of God, often understood as a morally good creator of the universe . Moral argument is important and interesting. They are interesting because evaluating their robustness requires attention to almost all important philosophical issues dealt with in meta ethics. They are important because they occupy an important position in people's defense theory for religious beliefs. Evidence for this is C. It can be found in an amazing epidemic of Lewis 'pure Christianity' (1952). Many ordinary people believe that religion provides some foundation or foundation of morality.

Analysis of Justice and Unfair War: Moral Demonstration of Historical Illustration Michael Walzer first wrote "The War of Justice and Injustice: Moral Discourse of Historical Illustration", but unfortunately it was in war . Moral premises are always the same as present, and conflicts between countries always exist. Michael Walzer is one of the most famous social critics in North America and this book explores the two main concepts, war justice and war justice and provides a number of historical references to support his argument I'm using. "The moral argument of historical illustration" is a book published by Michael Walzer in 1977 and published by Basic Books. The second edition was published in 1992, the third edition in 2000, the fourth edition in 2006, and the fifth edition in 2015. This book is born from Walzer's reflection on the Vietnam War. "Justice and Unfair War" and "Justice Field" (1983) and "Interpretation and Social Criticism" (1987) were recognized by philosopher Will Kemlika as one of the most important works of Walzer It was. . This work is considered a standard of philosophical literature on war ethics, Stanford University Philosophy Encyclopedia stated that "justice and unfair war" is a "modern main statement of war theory of justice" It is. Walzer has asked basic questions about what it means to be an intellectual in books such as war, justice, community, and "justice and unfair war: historical arguments" (Basic Books, 1977). More than 150,000 copies. In other occasional columns and books like "New York Times" and "Acquisition", he raises questions about our real politics in America, Vietnam, Israel, Iraq and other parts of the world . Out: Historical perspective to withdraw from Iraq (Pennsylvania University Press, 2009), he edited with Nicolaus Mills and edited

Christian's defense method is verbal defense of the Bible worldview. Proof is the reason we believe the cause. This article solves the philosophical problem of the existence of God from moral debate. Reenergist thinkers Cornelius Van Til and John Frame's anticipated defense method will be the framework. There is no doubt that you can develop the topics covered here more deeply, but this will be the leading role. This is the whole picture. Leading guidance comes from the Greek word "apology" which means verbal defense. The moral argument for the existence of God constitutes a multidimensional series of arguments, from the particular characteristics of moral or moral life to the existence of God, often understood as a morally good creator of the universe . Moral argument is important and interesting. They are interesting because evaluating their robustness requires attention to almost all important philosophical issues dealt with in meta ethics. They are important because they occupy an important position in people's defense theory for religious beliefs. Evidence for this is C. It can be found in an amazing epidemic of Lewis 'pure Christianity' (1952). Many ordinary people believe that religion provides some foundation or foundation of morality. Conservatives have once confirmed the actual existence of God, but there are various and rational arguments. Even so, three of the earliest and most commonly used arguments in apology are Biblical revelation, philosophical debate, and prophetic scriptures. If you use a combination of these three philosophies to know where people should see and simply understand the truth about God and the origin of the true universe, It is easy to explain. Over the centuries there were many different clauses of the Bible that provide fully justified arguments about Christian apology. There are three main arguments to prove the existence of God. They are cosmology, object theory and moral assertion. Each argument starts with some premise and makes people understand that infinite gods that are outside the universe must exist. My favorite is objective argument. Because it proves that God must exist based on knowledge of the intellectual design of the universe. The logical triangulation theory is as follows. "There is a designer in every design, there is a design in the universe, so there must be a designer in the universe" (Henson, Introduction to Christian Theology 20). When using logical and argument rules in Stand Your Ground, this is an absolute trigonometry that the conclusion of the argument is true and effective (Hardy 57-60)

One suggested by David Enok is an argument of moral realism, there are many, but he presents a unique interpretation of which existence of normative truth. He demonstrates moral realism, with essential arguments explaining the need to consider the facts. Enoch's claim is effective because it can oppose opposition parties, but weak points are indicated by not solving moral subjectivity. First, David Enok uses essential arguments to protect moral realism. There are various philosophical arguments in moral relativism. Among them are grounds for accepting moral realism, I believe there is objective moral truth. Other arguments to relativism point out some of the problems that it brings and a flaw in debate that supports relativism. Let's first consider a powerful argument to support moral realism, including pointing out some objective moral truth. For example, "is wrong due to my own interests and cruelty" "It is wrong (such as rape, genocide and racial discrimination) for the enjoyment of people of torture," "Caring is virtue There is a little idea here and you can create a list. "" There is a need for parents to worry about children. " If you are truly a moral relativist, you need to refuse all the above claims. This is a position that is not popular both philosophically and personally. The supernatural argument of Blackburn is the second argument against realism. Blackburn is advancing the following discussion on moral attributes. If there are moral attributes, they will oversee non-moral attributes as a matter of necessity of concept. That is, in every conceptually possible world, if two things share all non - moral attributes, they share all moral attributes. However, if there is a moral attribute, the super useful mode itself is conceptually unnecessary. For this reason, there are virtually all P's, Ms have P but the world of some possible concepts has not been M.Blackburn's question: why they can not have moral attributes If you were able to separate from non moral nature around the world Are you away from them from all over the world? In other words, what explains the forbidden mixed world? Similar questions can be used as a feature of the moral proposition to express the truth Nietzsche's central argument is an example for the value of anti-entrust theory. Therefore, "the best explanation" is not a moral fact but an experience, not a real component of the objective world. In short, moral value can be "interpreted". This conclusion comes from the naturalism of Nietzsche (for the latter, see the competition account of Janaway 2007 and Leiter 2013). As Nietzsche's criticism of our moral has seen, Nietzsche believed that the actual type of person that moral belief can be explained by natural conditions. Therefore, in order to explain the moral judgment of people, people do not have to rely on the existence of objective, moral facts. About human psychology - physical facts are sufficient. Therefore, due to non-evaluative facts is the main type of explanation fact, it is a sign of objective facts from explanatory power, so do not have the facts of any value

There may also be a danger of technological dependence on Earth Engineering. We can rely on this sort of geo - engineering technology and we may never repeal it as we need to master these techniques at all times. When we lose money, climate change may be faster and worse than what we allowed it to advance. (Hale, 2012, page 124) Geoengineering deals with logos only, not at the center of the problem. "You solve this problem so that you can continue to damage the climate system without giving up fossil fuels" (Hale, 2012, p. 125). Heart disease In order to provide the most specific analysis, Hale's moral hazard is summarized in Table 2. Hale concluded that in all cases, additional discussion on Earth Engineering is necessary for the "moral" judgment implied by the danger (Hale, 2012). There is no need to reach the level of ethical requirements and the moral framework itself. In all possible moral hazard cases, we can prove that there are still some reasons for geoengineering where there is not enough flaws, desperate arguments, or geoengineering impossible for their geo-engineering. Due to these external influences, if their damage is greater than the effects of mitigation and global engineering climate change, global engineering will be unpopular Discussion is divided into four parts. First, I introduced moral hazard of Earth engineering and explained that its popularity is caused by the reasons for earth engineering - mainly domestic and international mitigation system failure. Secondly, it summarizes existing opinion polls on moral hazards. Part 3 presents five reasons for inappropriate and justified discussion, which is merely an extension of the existing justification for CO2 reduction. In Part 4, in order to show that an ineffective CO2 reduction system makes the moral hazard argument an inappropriate disagreement to the global earth motion movement, much of the comprehensive handling of Hale's moral hazard argument Deformation is used. Finally, some of the literature insights on governance were emphasized, as recommendations for advancing debate adopted a random, ambiguous and secondary appeal against "moral hazard". The "moral" element of the moral hazard argument is being exploited. In most iterations of the previous section, the argument that Earth engineering compares and mitigates is a resultant. In addition, there was a more moral moral sin because hopeless discussions deeply disturb environmental activists and policy makers. For some people, Earth engineering can destroy the natural purity of romance from a perceptual point of view. These and other emotional themes in weather discourse may play a role in the widespread and widespread use of the moral hazard argument. In order to avoid "fundamental danger" of obvious problems, it is necessary to adopt a prudent attitude that geopolitics to ease negotiations will be impossible due to strong resistance to geo-engineering.

Controversy on moral relativism In this article we discuss the pros and cons of moral relativism and moralism. I oppose moral relativism by proveing ​​that morality better explains moral morality than moral relativity. Do you use the movie 'Folk Song of Narayam' and the example of James Rieshuzu? The challenge of cultural relativism? Please explain why moral relativism is refused and morality should be accepted. Moral relativism moral relativism believes that moral and / or moral propositions do not reflect universal moral standards. There are various philosophical arguments in moral relativism. Among them are grounds for accepting moral realism, I believe there is objective moral truth. Other arguments to relativism point out some of the problems that it brings and a flaw in debate that supports relativism. Let's first consider a powerful argument to support moral realism, including pointing out some objective moral truth. For example, "is wrong due to my own interests and cruelty" "It is wrong (such as rape, genocide and racial discrimination) for the enjoyment of people of torture," "Caring is virtue There is a little idea here and you can create a list. "" There is a need for parents to worry about children. " If you are truly a moral relativist, you need to refuse all the above claims. This is a position that is not popular both philosophically and personally. Part 2 focuses on Masanus Baum's explanation and Part 3 focuses on global feminist ethics and ability methods. Criticism, learn from Alison Jaggar. Moral relativism thinks that morals are related to culture (cultural relativism) or individuals (moral relativism), and can not always provide moral truth to anyone in a different culture. There are no universal error criteria in a particular place or time. This means that actions can be correct at once at the same time somewhere and morally wrong in different places and times. Therefore, morality is related to human cultural norms and morals of action need to use cultural norms and standards (Kleist, 2010). Moral absoluteism is convinced that there are absolute standards to judge moral problems - whether specific behavior is right or wrong. It is contrary to moral relativism, that is, there is no universal moral principle and it is culturally defined. There is the word "like Romans in Rome". Religion is a perfect example of dogmaticism tension. Religion is the dignity of life and fulfilling our purpose as a human being. Focus on commonality. What is the purpose behind your religious beliefs? Even if others have different creeds, you can share the same goal

My purpose of this article is to explain and discuss the importance of the discussion of "moral twins". This theory focuses on the discussion Hal originally proposed. We point out that a common understanding of the discussed concepts is necessary to create true ethical differences. It publicly denies moral terms so that such "right" can be part of an attribute "right" choice that is synonymous with any non-ethical term, and thus to Cornell's realism Since this argument is objection, this theory is important, and if the attribute associated with a moral term, it is "correct", it is responsible for its use. After several general comments on the short history of theoretical arguments and moral assertions, this article discusses several different forms of moral argument. One of the main differences is that moral argument is inherently theoretical and practical or practical discussion. The former is best considered to be based on so-called moral facts, and claims that God needs to interpret these facts, or at least God provides a better explanation than they provide I will. The latter is usually the moral requirement at the end of the first profit or proposition, and that it can not be achieved without the existence of God or other goals. Whether this distinction is difficult and fast is one of the issues to discuss. Some people believe that the actual discussion itself is not a basis for reasonable beliefs. In order to solve these problems, theoretical dimensions must also be included in the actual discussion. The moral argument for the existence of God constitutes a specific function from diverse family arguments, moral or ethical living to the existence of God, which is usually understood as a creator of good moral universe doing. Moral argument is important and interesting. They evaluate the robustness that they need to pay attention to almost all important philosophical issues that should deal with meta ethics, so they are interesting. They are important because they occupy an important position for public defense of religious beliefs in the demo. This evidence can be found in the amazing popular C · S · Lewis of "Pure Christianity" (1952), which almost certainly began a moral debate for the existence of God in the 20th century It is a proof of a bestselling book. Many ordinary people believe that religion provides the foundation and foundation of morality to some extent.

"...... This is not what people are aware of, it is not what he knows.That is what I first know, the fruit of the tree is forbidden." She compares Charlie's pursuit of more wisdom with Adam and Eve of Eden. Adam and Eve were forbidden by God to eat good and evil trees, but after giving in to the temptation of Satan, I did this anyway and then persuaded Adam to join her sin . Fanny said, "It was evil when Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of knowledge, it was evil when they knew that they understood naked desire and shame, they were expelled from heaven, the doors Closed "May 20) Funny believes that falsifying nature does not bring any benefit. She did not participate in the campaign to make her understand employment, but she felt uncomfortable with the change she saw and said "This is not right." She told Charlie that what happened after surgery is "there are some strange things." I do not know what she did for her, but I think it is unnatural and wrong. Charlie found a woman funny who refused to sign a petition. Fanny explained that even though Charlie did not think he should leave, Charlie thought it was very strange. She pointed out that Charlie was "a kind and reliable person", quoted the Bible, stated that Adam and Eve acquired knowledge as a crime, and hoped that Charlie would be a kind and simple person I announced. Charlie insists he never looks back: shortly, from millions of people to wonderful people millions of people will follow his example Algeron's Flower Algae non flower is a middle-aged man with mental retardation. This man is Charlie Gordon. The explanation of this novel is very complicated. Algernon 's flowers were held in the 1950' s. Charlie was chosen to participate in the experiment to improve IQ. But it was temporary that they changed him to a genius. In the process, he fell in love with his teacher, Miskinian. - Algeron's flower is a diary of a mentally retarded boy named Charlie Gordon. He agreed to participate in the experiment as the ideal of the search was to read and write in the same way as any other person he knew. Charlie must make creative tests to decide if he is smart or really slow. Charlie did not succeed in the test so he was chosen as the first human subject of their experiment. Doctors tested using a mouse named Algernon. There are many similarities between Daniel Keys 'flower and Algeriann' s awakening, short story 'flower for flowers' and movie 'awakening'. Daniel case "Flower for Algernon" is a man named Charlie whose IQ is very low. Charlie took actions that made him smarter. This is a story about what happened in the meantime. - In feature film "Flowers for Algernon", the main character Charlie Gordon is a 37 year old man with mental disability, IQ is 68 years old. He may not be smart, but I think Charlie is the definition of happiness. He had a motivation to work and learn as a chef as a chef, and had a wonderful time with his so-called friends. After Charlie experienced an experiment tripleing IQ, his life worsened. I will not be satisfied with wisdom.

"...... This is not what people are aware of, it is not what he knows.That is what I first know, the fruit of the tree is forbidden." She compares Charlie's pursuit of more wisdom with Adam and Eve of Eden. Adam and Eve were forbidden by God to eat good and evil trees, but after giving in to the temptation of Satan, I did this anyway and then persuaded Adam to join her sin . Fanny said, "It was evil when Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of knowledge, it was evil when they knew that they understood naked desire and shame, they were expelled from heaven, the doors Closed "May 20) Funny believes that falsifying nature does not bring any benefit. She did not participate in the campaign to make her understand employment, but she felt uncomfortable with the change she saw and said "This is not right." She told Charlie that what happened after surgery is "there are some strange things." I do not know what she did for her, but I think it is unnatural and wrong. Charlie found a woman funny who refused to sign a petition. Fanny explained that even though Charlie did not think he should leave, Charlie thought it was very strange. She pointed out that Charlie was "a kind and reliable person", quoted the Bible, stated that Adam and Eve acquired knowledge as a crime, and hoped that Charlie would be a kind and simple person I announced. Charlie insists he never looks back: shortly, from millions of people to wonderful people millions of people will follow his example Algeron's Flower Algae non flower is a middle-aged man with mental retardation. This man is Charlie Gordon. The explanation of this novel is very complicated. Algernon 's flowers were held in the 1950' s. Charlie was chosen to participate in the experiment to improve IQ. But it was temporary that they changed him to a genius. In the process, he fell in love with his teacher, Miskinian. - Algeron's flower is a diary of a mentally retarded boy named Charlie Gordon. He agreed to participate in the experiment as the ideal of the search was to read and write in the same way as any other person he knew. Charlie must make creative tests to decide if he is smart or really slow. Charlie did not succeed in the test so he was chosen as the first human subject of their experiment. Doctors tested using a mouse named Algernon. There are many similarities between Daniel Keys 'flower and Algeriann' s awakening, short story 'flower for flowers' and movie 'awakening'. Daniel case "Flower for Algernon" is a man named Charlie whose IQ is very low. Charlie took actions that made him smarter. This is a story about what happened in the meantime. - In feature film "Flowers for Algernon", the main character Charlie Gordon is a 37 year old man with mental disability, IQ is 68 years old. He may not be smart, but I think Charlie is the definition of happiness. He had a motivation to work and learn as a chef as a chef, and had a wonderful time with his so-called friends. After Charlie experienced an experiment tripleing IQ, his life worsened. I will not be satisfied with wisdom.

Synthetic paper I clearly remember the raging Saturday raging craziness, I am just 19 years old and celebrating with my friends. On my way home, I decided to take action when I was arrested for drunk driving, reckless driving, escape from the police, alcoholic drinking by minors at the episode of "COPS" . When I first heard it in the courtroom, I faced a sentence of at least a year imprisonment, a $ 5,000 fine, and a two year suspension of a driver's license. At that time, I knew I had to find my own lawyer, and I would not be satisfied with an undisclosed public defender. After a general comment on the theological history and the brief history of moral debate, this article will discuss several different forms of moral argument. One major difference is that moral argument is inherently theoretical and practical or practical discussion. The former is best considered to be based on so-called moral facts, insisting that God needs to interpret these facts, or at least provide better explanation than God offers There. The latter is usually primarily concerned with the end of a profit or moral requirement above all and believes that this goal is impossible unless God exists. As some people believe that the actual discussion itself can not be the basis of a reasonable belief, it is one of the issues to discuss whether this distinction is difficult or too early. In order to solve these problems, the actual discussion may need to include a theoretical dimension. The moral argument for the existence of God constitutes a multidimensional series of arguments, from specific features of moral or moral life, to the existence of God, often understood as a morally good creator of the universe . Moral argument is important and interesting. They are interesting because evaluating their robustness requires attention to almost all important philosophical issues dealt with in meta ethics. They are important because they occupy an important position in people's defense theory for religious beliefs. Evidence for this is C. It can be found in an amazing epidemic of Lewis 'pure Christianity' (1952). Many ordinary people believe that religion provides some foundation or foundation of morality.

I am sorry for incestuous incestuousness with humans, not dogs. Whatever a person kills a deer, whatever it is, if he kills another person, that is wrong. Why are these lines being drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has answers to these questions. Many philosophers like St. Augustine believe that humans are morally different from animals because they can infer that Hume believes that it is passion and emotion that determines morality I will. In his book "Theory of Human Nature" he says that sin and virtue is not the fact we observed, but from the happiness and pain that felt in response to behavior (Hume, 218) . According to David Hume, the wisest of these philosophers, Reason is only a slave of passion and "Hume Creatures" has a completely unconscious moral sense of thinking. After moral judgment, rationality continues, it is too late to be too late. Hume claims that we derive moral sentiments from "direct emotions and better internal consciousness" rather than "assertive and inductive linkage". However, although moral philosophers are not happy, they climb to Emmanuel Kant, who brings the torch to Plato by trying to derive the objective basis of morality. Kant argues that moral requirements are based on objective criteria of reason. He took even important names and called the moral foundation "absolute order". Unethical behavior is irrational as it violates sacred CI. Kant believes that ethical behavior means starting with responsibility When comparing David Hume and Emanuel Kant, David Hume and Emanuel Kant can make a big progress with each other theorists, suggest morals that do not need higher existence and God, and can recognize him. Moral responsibility Hume and Kant share some basic principles, but they have different views on morality. By comparing different opinions of human will to determine moral value and the maxims established by David Hume and Immanuel Kant, I discovered that there are several moral theories. Kant believes that moral argument is effective, but the last few centuries of philosophy saw a powerful question about the existence of God which is the theory of Immanuel Kant, David Hume and Anthonyfulle. The house made. As Alvin Plantinga states, the answer by this writer is whether faith is "the right foundation" or the evidence-based position is taken like Richard Swinburne. Some experts believe that only some discussion about the existence of God is persuasive, but believe that faith requires risk rather than product of reason. They say that there is no danger if the argument about the existence of God is as strong as the law of logic, they say that Pascal 's position is "reason why in mind".

This article intends to oppose Moor's moral intuition. Although I may have a moral instinct, I prove that it is not a set of standards that can be directly applied to everyone. I will show the scenarios and circumstances of the differences that must be considered before using ethical intuition and discussion. The first argument I would like to claim is cultural relativism. It is widely thought that ways of observing living are different if the culture is different regardless of region or the world. Moore's discussion is a typical example of "Moore's facts". In other words, if you can intuitively understand rather than oppose the premise of this intuitive philosophical debate, it is true that you know intuitively. Probably the correct explanation is Occam's razor's epistemological case which is the simplest, in the case of whether we can know something and whether the world exists, I think that the bet on this argument is too high maybe. We can not rely on general principles. Nonetheless, the Moorite 's argument against skepticism is a completely logically legitimate argument after transferring the burden of proof to skeptics, but there seems to be some problems still. This is explored with Pryor's work. "What's wrong with Moore's claim?" Discussion of Moore 's public argument can be seen as a form of giving this intuition. For example, if you can define excellent moral attributes from the perspective of perfect psychology, biology, or sociology, moral truths become psychological, biological, or sociological truths, empirical You can discover through research. Proper Science However, Moore believes that all of these definitions must fail, because something with relevant empirical attributes is always an unresolved issue. Moore's assertion can be grasped as follows. His argument against intuitionistic moral philosophy is divided into two parts. The first part points out that intuitionists can not incorporate our intuitive moral judgment into the system. There is no complete list of intuitive ethics nor the basic ethical principles for finding such a list (CW 10, 206). The second part of Millian's claim is interpretation of this result. Some people say that moral intuition is actually the result of our education and the current social discourse. Society permeates our moral opinion to us and we begin to believe their undoubted truth. However, Victorian morals do not have institutions or basic principles. In "an obedient woman", Muller criticized the moral intuition of the same generation of female characters strictly. He discovered that they are incompatible with the basic principles of the modern world like equality and freedom.

As a theologian and philosopher, St. Anselm strives to prove the existence of God in reality. Most of his argument is in Chapter 2 of Proslogium. Anselm first defined God as "a greater existence than any other possible existence"; he continued to say "even a fool"; the ability to understand the definition of this god, what an understanding exists in understanding There also exists. Anselm now makes his first intermediate reasoning based on these early premises; God must exist in understanding and hence is a possible existence. Antism 's ontological argument is intended to be the first evidence of God' s existence. Start with the assumption that Anselm does not depend on experience, then draw conclusions of the existence of God through purely logical means. His purpose was to counter the fool who said that there was no God in his heart (Psalm 14: 1). This fool has two important features. The following is an attempt to clarify the discussion presented in Chapter 2 of Proslogium. The discussion in chapter 3 is quite different, and in some ways it is more interesting. After completing this page, you may try to produce similar gloss with the second parameter. This is not easy. This argument is very complicated. But you may think that this is a useful exercise In Anselm 's ontological argument, he is trying to prove the existence of God, but his argument is purely based on discussion of thought and does not require moral subjects to confront the truth of sense. Ontologies are related or related to something. Anselm 's ontological debate is also considered existence, whether it is possession of God, and is omnipotent, omniscient and kind. This argument is a transcendental argument. It does not rely on relying on experimental knowledge to prove the existence of God, but still shows that God must exist logically or that the absence of God is illogical. Ontological arguments are transcendental arguments. These arguments try to prove the existence of God from the meaning of the word God. Anselm of Canterbury introduced an ontological argument to his work 'Proslogion'. The classic argument of Anselm is based on two principles, the most important of which are St. Anselm and Rene de Carte of the above Canterbury. If he does not exist you can still think of a larger being (as you said that there is no God other than this existence). Presence must be one of the attributes of God. Because by removing it it is still possible for you to understand the bigger god (the god that exists). The most common problem with this discussion is that it only seems to enumerate the existence of God's attributes and does not seem to indicate it. This argument seems to indicate that any fact you can imagine should be true.

Introduction Hiring an employee at a company or using wasta to do an important business is an ancient act that has existed for many years. Here, individuals often operate with a trusted network of people who love their Ista (or other trusted but a member of a powerful society) to gain work and business opportunities (Hansen, 1996). Since it becomes clear here and that reason can not withstand the moral theory ideally applied to all commercial transactions in the organization, using wasta builds a trust network for business organization While you can argue that you can help. The subject of this article is not - at least not a direct moral theory, but rather it is the definition of morality. Moral theory is big and complicated, but the definition is not so. The problem of moral definition is the question of determining the theoretical goal of morality. By identifying this goal, we can see different moral theories trying to capture the same thing. Thus, the difference between moral definition and moral theory is similar to the difference between John Rawls (1971: 9) in the general concept of justice and various detailed concepts. However, Rawls' words mean psychological distinction, and many people have a concept of justice. But the definition / theoretic difference is not psychological, only moral theorists usually have a moral theory. Introduction Moral theory helps doctors prove and reflect on the moral decisions they have made. Moral theory is different from other theories. They help to prove that we make moral decisions, but they are often unpredictable. There are several reasons to be cautious about moral theory, but they also have great potential to enrich critical reflections on our decisions. Utilitarianism, Cantism, Virtue theory, four principles, and sophistication: Many moral philosophies include studies of comprehensive moral theories such as Aristotle (theory of virtue), cant (doctrine of morality), and the moral theory formed by the mill (utilitarianism). Philosophers have justified reasons to develop these complex systems. The theory provides a systematic approach to interpret, explain and certify ethical behavior. They may ask that they should reply to their argument and accept (if the proof is not fake). They can try to conclude that all non-believers are irrational dogmasters. To make matters worse, this course allows you to touch only one moral theory without knowing other options. Theoretical contact is far from expanding the moral perspectives of the students, but not narrowing the moral outlook of the students.

Directions: "Use FACTS to discuss them - do research and MLA format articles, quote works that support your position A) Textbooks, take side aspects: moral issues // S. Satris, ed. , McGraw Hill, 9th Edition. , 2003 // ISBN 0072845112, at least two quotes support your idea (you can use other sources - if you think it is more appropriate - and, 4) Let's start with the summary: list the topics in the text box in front of the text, then two main support for topic thinking. Later, enrich the paper in the form of a typical paper. Do you need a professional writer to process this paper and give you the original thesis? Click here to read this article Discussions, including normative theorem proving, ie moral or ethical claims, provide unique aspects for philosophical analysis and pose their own problems. In general, the difference between logical argument and moral argument is that certain premises and conclusions in moral argument (except definition and fact) represent normative claims. The definition is used to determine the usage of a term or phrase and the factual premise represents a descriptive empirical claim describing some actual situations, but the normative argument represents a normative moral judgment , That is, such assertions are considered to apply in some cases. It's not. Normative claims include "spousal abuse is immorality", "should be trusted", "do not tell a lie". Normative ethical subjectivity is a moral stance trying to identify whether actions are morally right or wrong by trying to prove the four different claims of this claim. Normative ethical subjectiveism claims that behavior is morally correct only if a person who judges the action is approved. From this ethical perspective, a normative ethical theory was formed. Moral theory is the theory of right and wrong. This position on morality is contrary to another moral position of antirealism called aesthetics. Ethical anti-realityism is focused on this point of view. Because there is no correct action or wrong action, only personal preferences are not moral. It also pointed out that morality is only personal preference. Normative moral subjectivity insists on its argument with four different arguments, democracy, tolerance, disagreement and atheism. Molyneux distinguishes "value theory" related to morality and aesthetics from "real theoretical proof" related to reality. As has been widely reviewed, as has been said that his past "Universal Priorities" (2007) still shows his own view on the correct moral and aesthetic reasoning methods, and now I am now I will talk about truth debate. Discussions will occur whenever you try to convince others about your whereabouts or preferences without using threats or power. Discussions exist in the language in each negotiation. Whenever we accept reasonable opposition without relying on direct or indirect punishment, the discussion will revive.

The cosmological argument about the existence of God is based on the principle of causality. This basically means that the universe is the influence of career, this is God. One of the oldest and most famous supporters of the cosmological controversy outlines his argument for the existence of God in an article titled "Five Ways". The first way he insisted was to deal with that movement. Aquinas said that in order for something to move, it must be moved. It will not move without external force. Discussion that is most widely accepted and criticized about the existence of God. My purpose in this article is to explain why cosmological arguments are proof of the existence of God, to understand that it is the importance of posteriori posteriori discussion, and to my common argument It is to observe the position of. First of all, as a living person on earth, we can safely conclude that the majority of things that exist today have their cause. I confirmed that there is a reason. Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in areas other than formal logic such criteria Correctly point out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection? Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). - All moral arguments about the existence of God are based on the principle that all of us share common sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, in a broad sense, people all over the world have ambiguous thoughts about right and wrong; a moral argument to the existence of God is that this mutual understanding is evidence of the existence of God I will say that. Immanuel Kant advocated this argument (not a moral argument); a god as a source of objective morality

Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). As a rationalist philosopher, Descartes truncates human knowledge as a product of our sensory data (our senses), but an epistemological sense that our knowledge can be obtained through a process of deducing our own idea I support the position. RenéDescartes, often called the father of modern philosophy, has developed Anselm's assertion when trying to prove the existence of God in the meaning of the word "God". Ontological arguments are a priori arguments. The basis of these arguments depends on the understanding of the essence of the human god. The definition of Anselm's god is "an extremely perfect existence", which is the basis of his argument. God must be something that can not be considered absent: if you imagine a triangle, one of its main features is that it has three sides and three corners. These are triangle predicates. Descartes has expanded his point of view. This time I mentioned the attribute of God. If you imagine something perfect, it must be more perfect if it exists. Also, the most perfect ones have all attributes including existence. Therefore, Descartes believes that a very perfect existence has all the predicates. Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). - All moral arguments about the existence of God are based on the principle that all of us share common sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, in a broad sense, people all over the world have ambiguous thoughts about right and wrong; a moral argument to the existence of God is that this mutual understanding is evidence of the existence of God I will say that. Immanuel Kant advocated this argument (not a moral argument); a god as a source of objective morality

William Paley's "Discussion from the design" questions about the clock and questions about why the watch is there and how the watch is made there. He said that there must be a creator to visit. There are creators in those with designs, and creators have never seen a work. A place to wake up, a place that does not work at all. William Paley (William Paley, 1743-1805), one of the philosophical arguments about the existence of God, known as argument of design argument theory, is the most widely discussed matter of discussion. Pale, evidence advocates believe that there are signs of obvious design in natural order. It seems that things not only exist but are designed for some purpose (McGrath 2011, p. 183). But British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) strictly compromised the reliability of the Paley method (McGrath 2011, P73) and provided another explanation for this surface design in nature, In the 1800s, British philosophy and moral philosopher William Perry wrote a paper entitled 'Discussion from Design'. In the "design controversy" Perry tried to prove the existence of hegemony by developing special arguments called theoretical arguments. The theoretical argument is a discussion of analogy based on the similarity between two different themes. In this article, intentionally trying to break Paley's argument, as follows: First, introduce the basic purpose theory argument pearly, secondly, arguments were analyzed with Paley derivation. Third, contact with Paley's argument Discussion about the existence of God of William Perry and David Hume is called theoretical argumentation or design theory. Discussion from design is an argument about the existence of God and the existence of certain creator based on the idea of ​​order and purpose in the universe. Hume adopted a method against design argument, Paley defended it. Both Hume and Paley are making very strong claims, but we will reach the conclusion to distinguish which philosopher is taking a stronger position.

Relatively young philosophy and fast movement of movement is environmentalism. It comes from moral philosophy. It has moral responsibility to fulfill its duty to the planet. However, that method is wrong. It is obviously useful to research and master the Earth where we live but it is a mistake to propose moral obligations to protect it. Many people are beginning to accept this type of lie. This is guided by malicious logic and emotional concepts without moral concern. We have no moral obligation to the earth. Behavioral advocates - usually supporting military intervention - believe that it is the moral duty of the United States to help people harmed by unjust or cruel behavior somewhere on the planet It is. But what determines the order of feeding for this moral obligation? First of all, is it responsible for correcting the crimes of others, or will they be responsible for rectifying the crimes committed by Americans? Who issued a greater demand for US aid, and the Syrians suffered today with Bashar al-Assad or Iraqi aid, and their country was hit by US invasion in 2003 Falcon? Where are the Vietnamese people? How did the Filipino deny independence at the end of the 19th century and forced to integrate into the American Empire? Over the years, I have been interested in moral obligations that we may have to complete strangers. The problem of moral obligation of people we know well is not a problem for me. There seems to be clear moral obligations to those with whom I have relationships, rooted in the moral contract I voluntarily establish with those who understand more or less mutual expectations. Relationship The voluntary nature of these relationships seems to involve moral obligations Some authors claim that the argument of moral rights and moral obligations is an unprecedented endless story. There is no "moral right" or "moral obligation", at least there are moral rights and moral obligations in addition to legal rights and legal obligations. Higher moral authority can not enforce certain ethical requirements. Rights and duties vary by law. According to ethics, it is best to say "moral consensus" (eg Gauthier). Advocate insists that ethical consensus has the same status as legal rights and legal obligations, but emphasizes that no one has an obligation to make his moral rights better than others There. Applicability is an important aspect of metaphysics of rights and obligations. It is only formal constraints that can establish rights and obligations in a particular society (eg Hobbes); informal constraints in a particular society - although it may be stronger - not -

In order to make effective discussions, authors have to analyze many aspects. For example, who are the audience, what their views are, and how to convince this claim. Regarding the topic of abortion, most writers can incorporate moral, logical, and emotional appeals to explain the problem. However, Lisa Brock, the author of the article "Life Challenge", has attracted the reader's emotions, so she did not virtually present her argument. Biblical discussion on moral code abortion for abortion on February 2, 2013 In this article I will discuss discussion on abortion. The first argument I discuss is the Bible argument. Nonetheless, I must first admit that the Bible does not mention the content of abortion first. As abortion is not considered for Israeli women, there is not even need to mention abortion in the Penal Code. Abortion is an imaginary act. First of all, given the recent facility disasters in Fukushima, children are ... ... world energy demands. Compared to traditional energy production methods, nuclear power offers many advantages, but its drawbacks are also very obvious and serious. This argument is the reason why the industry is not thriving in the US in the past 30 years. There are three arguments for abortion. The first opinion is that a perfect human life begins at the time the egg is fertilized by sperm; therefore abortion is a violation of human rights. In Christian tradition this argument is usually expressed through religious beliefs that have built deep personal relationships with God and God has foreseen all aspects of our private life. In this concept, women threatened by pregnancy have different levels of regulation. One of the main focus is whether the fetus is a person or not. In this article, by analyzing and discussing two philosophers with two different arguments, we only support and oppose abortion, not pay attention to whether the fetus is a person or not. - Mrs. Smith is facing a decision on whether to abort. She already has two children and is working hard to earn a living. Mrs. Smith did not know why she was pregnant again why she was pregnant again. Finally, she made conscious abortion decisions. Whether her abortion is morally reasonable or not. The viewpoint of abortion depends only on the view of people's life.

Relativism comes from the word "relative". In other words, measurement, judgment, intelligence, meaning and evaluation are only recognized, it may change depending on environment and background. Compared to other things, it can also be used to show that there are various types of relativism in the Cambridge Advanced Dictionary to some extent. Mention it a little. We oppose moral relativism as the right way to judge human morals. Although there are some problems in moral relativism, we will focus on the reason why the argument of moral relativism is incorrect and consider accepting the meaning of relativism. I will make a moral judgment on right and wrong and propose another framework for considering the opposite opposition. Because philosophers often use moral relativism differently, we consider moral relativism for the purpose of this article. For moral relativism. Moral relativism is often used to explain the cultural differences that affect their morality and morality. According to James Reichers, it is not usually correct or wrong because of moral relativism, and in brief, "different cultures have different ethics" (Lechers, 18) a correct view and a wrong Viewpoint. It is thought that it is correct in one society and wrong in another society, but all cultures have several families. The contemporary family we are seeing today is like this. "Sonny's Blues" is mainly brother, he just wants to see the best for his lowest brother, Sonny. What happened to Sony from the middle class family was not what happened to fraternity. This family's biggest brother has strong value, but I can not understand how his brother can enter so many problems in this way. He explained in his story that he and his family are working hard.

It is a theater based on Salem witch hunting of the 17th century to discuss how fear impairs the moral integrity of many personality related to "crucibles". This is also a fable of America's McCarthy era, and it was a hot topic when writing this book. The play is for those who were erroneously accused of helping the devil. "The Crucible" was written by Arthur Miller and was first played in New York in 1953. It is built in the Puritan society where people believe in diligence and luxury. The article "Ethical Conscience and Crisis of Trust in the 21st Century" was written to understand the crisis of modern moral philosophy and the integrity of today's social moral conscience. The first argument is about how philosophy loses its purpose consciousness and ignores the goodness that men and women can understand, which is needed based on a stable moral life. Ignoring the meaning of philosophy, you can not gain a true understanding of the value of achieving human goals. In the Ethics Introductory Course you may be enrolled in a university or university philosophy course, the themes of ethical values ​​are often integrated into ethical theory discussions. This association limits the range of moral values ​​to be discussed, but that is still a very important association. By contrast, when moral centers are talking about moral values, they do not attempt to map certain moral values ​​to specific moral theories. To understand the role of moral values ​​in interpreting differences in moral behavior and to explain why particular moral values ​​play a more important role in specific moral psychology, I am more interested in descriptive projects that categorize the distinctions between values. . People are better than others Most arguments about moral relativism begin with DMR and are rooted in it. This is not enough to establish MMR, but the most common reason for MMR is destroyed if the DMR (or a descriptive discussion of significant moral differences or diversity) is incorrect. Furthermore, if DMR is generally rejected, MMR may have few supporters. Therefore, it is important to consider whether the DMR is correct. Defenders of DMR generally believe that it was established by cultural anthropology and other experience-based fields, and many say that everyone with a basic understanding of the world history and culture is obvious I believe. At a broader level, Wong (1984) argues that the world finds at least two different ethical approaches, a rights-centered ethics that emphasizes moral-centered ethics and values ​​that emphasize the interests of the community . Individual freedom

Welcome to America, this is free, prosperous, magnificent land. Beauty beauty, one of the only citizens in the world, regardless of race, career, social class, is one of the places to guarantee the pursuit of the constitution's life, freedom and happiness. In modern America, we are still faced with an outdated death ritual, which interferes directly with the law of the land. The same form of punishment used in the Middle Ages is still effective today, and the US should abolish the same idea. Despite the ban on the killing of the Bible, the moral argument against the death penalty has not yet come into effect in the United States. Religious supporters of the death penalty often quote the presumed distinction of "killing" and "killing" and believe that God will ban the latter than the former. Self-defense and legitimate war are considered morally reasonable killings. If a case of reasonable killing in self-defense or war is changed to include delay, disarmament and planned content, they will also be murder. The death penalty is obviously delayed, disarmament, and includes planned factors, so the death penalty is a murder of the Bible and should be abolished in a society feared by God. (Five) The strongest argument against the use of the death penalty is that the death penalty is a cruel and rare punishment. The eighth amendment of the US Constitution condemns cruel and unusual punishment against protesting the death penalty. When the Constitution was drafted, the death penalty was widely held in this country, but it was wrong, cruel and abnormal. Many authors of the Constitution support the death penalty as the philosophers underlying the Constitution are. John Locke said even that homicide is not inherently wrong. Currently, the role of criminal law by prove to everyone that the greatest concern for homicide is to prevent murder. Because the death penalty is humanitarian and inhuman, it is morally wrong. The way to enforce the death penalty may involve physical torture. Even if you punish a criminal, this is definitely a cruel and inhuman act.

In this article we will discuss why Utilitarians oppose Peter Singer's argument in "famine, prosperity, and morality". After reading such an interesting paper, I can not agree with the viewpoint of the singer, but I felt it hard to use assistance to oppose them. From the utilitarian point of view, we want to maximize happiness by reducing pain. How can I make someone unhappy? But, as I was thinking about the proverb, "step back two steps." The center of famine, wealth, morality is an article of the same name in 1972 of Peter Singer, which is a standard in the field of applied ethics. This is one of the rare works of philosophers who offer a lot of complexity and can tackle with the majority of the general public. Please read this article again and reconfirm my interest in applied ethics. Then you may ignite or reignition you. The first article was a response to a very special situation, but as I mentioned elsewhere in this book the epidemic of extreme poverty today is equally important. If we do not do our utmost to alleviate hunger, poverty and disease in many situations, especially where there are solutions, in order to simplify (perhaps excessively) it would be better to live a sufficient moral life Can you do it? If we are not at home, should we do it for the rest of the world? In his article "Famine, Prosperity, and Moral", Peter Singer made seemingly devastating criticism of our general thinking about famine relief, charity, and morality. There are few people accepting or acting in any way, but his conclusion still exists. Based on these facts, as Hume said, singer 's argument can be said to be Berkeley' s argument about non - materialism, "they admit that there is no faith without answers "Singer's consideration It shows that people should do more than most people do and they do not determine his conclusion with full power or universality. Hence, his argument acknowledges a few answers, and once qualified, there may be some belief. In "famine, prosperity, and morality", Peter Singer emphasizes the corrective meaning that it can accept utilitarianism as a guide to action. Millions of people earn less than $ 1 a day

More than 100,000 women each year have children with disabilities in some way all over the world. In 1986, a family health care company called ABS Homecare was founded by a young entrepreneur who understands the huge demand of family health care workers. ABS home care is paid $ 50 per hour by patient or carer insurance company but home care care is a very useful business as nurses are only $ 15 per hour to take care of patients is there. The institution provides nursing care for nurses and takes care of patients with illness who are considered to be often housed in long term illness or institution. First let me say that morals are practical. Moral philosophy will be the philosophy of this practice. What I want to say is that the importance of moral philosophy is not the reason for taking action before acting but to understand the moral reflection after action. This is bold paper. If that is correct, it will add a special shadow to the current practice in Western academic philosophy. It turns out that itself is the cart problem, the "correct manufacturing function", or the correct way to kill a car. In other words, we are completely addicted to positive morality and tend to decide what is right in a series of environments. I would like to say that the correct role of moral philosophy is so to speak. Its purpose is not to help moral reviews, but to reflect morality. Moral philosophy tends to focus on areas with disagreement. In the applied ethics course, I will explore controversial issues such as abortion and euthanasia rather than discussing the many problems that we all agree. In addition, moral philosophy explores the reasons of our morality. But even if we do not agree with the basic principle, we often agree with the right thing. We are increasingly pursuing bread crumbs to philosophical rabbit warfare and it is more likely that it will become a more specialized field. When we shift from basic moral argument to high theory, philosophy becomes difficult - for those who have mental intelligence and the extensive knowledge needed to master it, this is an elite field . Moral reasoning, also called moral development, is a psychological study overlapping with moral philosophy. Children can correctly make false moral decisions from an early age; this makes morals fundamental to human condition. But moral reasoning is part of the morality that occurs between individuals and individuals. Excellent contributors to this theory are Lawrence Kohlberg and Elliot Turiel. This term may be used in different ways. It is reasoning under uncertainty, such as reasoning normally obtained in court. It is this feeling to create the phrase "moral certainty"; however, this idea is now rarely used by juries other than fees.

Abortion seems to be another term that was thrown. The term abortion, regardless of whether it is illegal or legal, has become very common all over the world. To be pro-life means that you are opposed to abortion, and you will end a medical or surgical operation during pregnancy. Pro - choice is the opposite. Everyone has the right to state their own opinion as to whether abortion is correct or wrong. But killing pregnant babies is as bad as murder, so abortion should cease; this is murder. Pro Life makes your heart beat faster. Biblical discussion on moral code abortion for abortion on February 2, 2013 In this article I will discuss discussion on abortion. The first argument I discuss is the Bible argument. Nonetheless, I must first admit that the Bible does not mention the content of abortion first. As abortion is not considered for Israeli women, there is not even need to mention abortion in the Penal Code. Abortion is an imaginary act. First of all, given the recent facility disasters in Fukushima, children are ... ... world energy demands. Compared to traditional energy production methods, nuclear power offers many advantages, but its drawbacks are also very obvious and serious. This argument is the reason why the industry is not thriving in the US in the past 30 years. There are three arguments for abortion. The first opinion is that a perfect human life begins at the time the egg is fertilized by sperm; therefore abortion is a violation of human rights. In Christian tradition this argument is usually expressed through religious beliefs that have built deep personal relationships with God and God has foreseen all aspects of our private life. In this concept, women threatened by pregnancy have different levels of regulation. The main argument against abortion is that it is basically a murder, a first amendment and a violation of our law. As the sperm fertilizes the ovum, pro-life supporters consider the fetus to be pregnant. This personality theory will make a woman who has endured pregnancy to kill the fetus. "First of all, they can be used to claim that the fetus is a self-interesting creature from the beginning, especially including the interest of surviving (Dworkin, 2011 np)

If the debate about the death penalty is entrusted to myself, all the murderers in the country will stay in the row of condemned prisoners and be taken away from them, just as they take away the lives of others. The guidelines for "eyes and eyes and eyes" can be traced back thousands of years. Many countries still comply with these guidelines. The United States does not follow the same approach as these countries, but I think that should be done with respect to murder. Killing people for killing makes you think twice before killing other potential murderers. The strongest argument against the use of the death penalty is that the death penalty is a cruel and rare punishment. The eighth amendment of the US Constitution condemns cruel and unusual punishment against protesting the death penalty. When the Constitution was drafted, the death penalty was widely held in this country, but it was wrong, cruel and abnormal. Many authors of the Constitution support the death penalty as the philosophers underlying the Constitution are. John Locke said even that homicide is not inherently wrong. Currently, the role of criminal law by prove to everyone that the greatest concern for homicide is to prevent murder. Because the death penalty is humanitarian and inhuman, it is morally wrong. The way to enforce the death penalty may involve physical torture. Even if you punish a criminal, this is definitely a cruel and inhuman act. Ultimately, the most important argument against the death penalty is that it is immoral. No matter what you think, the death penalty is killed and the murder is always wrong! Murder is considered morally absolute, but this is not necessarily so it is necessary to further study the morality of the death penalty. According to the moral form you believe, murder can sometimes be considered moral. In the ethics class, I studied five major ethical theories. Utilitarianism, Kantoism (moral theory), egoism, relativism, and fifthly, the four theories of virtue ethics are defective. Let's see how to view each theory against the death penalty. The case of Professor Saad included examples of introduction of sin and punishment, thereafter there are six arguments against the death penalty, there is a counterargument to each. Let's think about sample crime first. Brutal repression against all Connecticut's family is terrible. Choosing it can stimulate emotions and promote the development of rational thinking. Instinct says: "Kill off the criminal, take it slowly." It is also the oldest trick of the death penalty. If we do not support executions in this situation, we must seek the end of society. Professor Saad also pulled out a "majority vote" card in his rhetoric. He wrote, "Most people (including myself) have no doubt that these inhumane beasts are likely to be executed for their crime." For example, I have no problem. Professor Saad continued to challenge the claim that the "majority" civilization "the country abolished capital punishment".

I think the morality of America is declining. America has always been considered a moral country, but now American society is undergoing a turbulent change. After seeing public opinion survey, William Bennett said. The greater value is seen from the perspective of self-expression, individualism, self-realization, and personal choice. In the past, it is thought that what was thought to be unacceptable in society will be accepted. The problem of relativism is that it does not seem to be compatible with the concept of moral progress. A moral decline in this respect, or. In order to understand moral progress or moral collapse, there must be an ethical standard beyond age. However, culture is rooted in history, so cultural relativism seems not to be a welcome place of standards beyond the times. Most American citizens believe that slavery is morally justified and that slavery is morally justified. For example, most people prefer Batter Pecan. Do you like their conical mint chocolate chips? Political significance Some believe that the US is experiencing moral collapse among all the sources of information used in this criticism. In addition, this decline is related to the reduction of traditional nuclear families. Of course, this simple generalization can be criticized based solely on erroneous social statistics and erroneous reasoning. But a more interesting question is why such discussion is raised. Why do I need to demonize my parents? Why are single parent families, mixed homes and families with two working parents chosen? In fact, why do we need to use this particular argument to justify moral education? Let's criticize the number of people! Curriculum Model as a Clear Moral Education in Public Schools I know that you are very angry about the decline of America. To be honest, the United States is down the slope. Our moral is falling and we are in the midst of a decline of culture. We are not as strong as before. We do not take care of the veterinarian. Medical expenses are uncontrollable. Wages are decreasing. You are angry, perhaps a little scared what is going on in our country. You may be willing to work hard, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to succeed. This is not your fault. I also know that you are angry about our political class. This is the class that Mr. Obama's medical reform forced to break our class in the party vote. This is a class that refuses to take action against immigrants. This class rescued a huge bank and failed to hire your business. Because this class has not taken any action to restore our manufacturing base and reform of trade policy, our most vulnerable workers can find jobs. Since we voted for the same bozos every year, the United States failed.

Passion as a standard moral of moral judgment is research on human behavior, in other words, research on moral behavior. Everyone uses ethics for their daily actions and decisions, but not many people have the opportunity to explore the core of ethics. When Socrates said in 399 BC "Life of unknown cause is not worth living", he encouraged people to study his lifestyle and ethical decision-making. Ethics is not just about finding rules that affect ethical life, but also about the goal of ending life. We made moral decisions. We made moral and moral decisions. It is a tough decision. At some point today, these decisions are performed autonomously in this situation, but in fact they are manufactured everyday. In many of our words, we are turning to Mark Zuckerberg. If you see what happens in both cases. One is a trolley problem with death, and the other is the same value of currency loss, you go to the UK or another strange country. Westerners are educated, industrialized, wealthy, and democratic. Save 5 and kill 1. In theory, this Confucianism says "Let fate go with the flow". (Please see the cultural differences of Natalie Gold's response to real life and supposed car problems) According to sentimentalism, moral judgment is expression of emotion, not expression of cognitive state like belief. Emotionalism explains the passion of moral responses and interprets moral differences as differences in attitudes rather than differences in beliefs. Can moral judgment be interpreted as giving behavioral characteristics to sentences? It is wrong to play Sally as playing Sally will cause pain. Is this a form? X has a characteristic C, so X is wrong. The emotional argument that X is wrong is always an open question. A descriptive phrase? Does X have function C? Lack of emotional power This statement seems to deny the existence of universal value. Herman thinks emotionalism is not a sufficient theory. It describes the passion and strength of moral judgment, but treats morality as a subjective group of attitudes, feelings, reactions, and emotions. Herman 's theory does not seem to fully explain our morals as truth. It does not seem to provide the underlying universal truth we seek. Moral judgment not only constitutes a subjective emotional response, but also each group must choose which group to join and which habits to accept. Social custom theory does not provide a single true morality. Morality is related to the framework. The universal truth that we imagine is not related to the framework. Therefore, we seem to have to conclude that the theory of social custom is flawed.

The criminal justice system is consistent with the death sentence judgment, there are not many problems that led to robust discussion and debate. Both sides of the discussion include many religious arguments, due to the necessity of justice and sanctity of human life. In recent years, the discussion on executions has become a complex problem focusing on the equality of the criminal justice system, the position of the doctor who supports the execution, and the possibility of reform, improvement, rehabilitation of people currently dying. OK. The strongest argument against the use of the death penalty is that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual sentence. Article 8 amendment of the US Constitution condemns cruel and unusual punishment in protest against the death penalty. When the Constitution was drafted, the death penalty was widely practiced in this country, but it was not wrong or cruel and unusual. Like philosophers who are the basis of the Constitution, many of the authors of the Constitution support the death penalty. John Rock does not say that murder is essentially wrong. At the moment it is the role of criminal law to prove to everyone that preventing the killing is the greatest concern. The death penalty is morally wrong. Because it accepts human life cruelly and inhumanly. The way to enforce the death penalty may include physical torture. Even if you punish a criminal, this is definitely a cruel and inhuman act. After all, the most important argument against the death penalty is that it is immoral. Regardless of what you think, the death penalty is killing and homicide is always wrong! Although murder is considered morally absolute, but not necessarily so, it is necessary to further study the morality of the death penalty. According to the moral form you believe, murder is sometimes considered moral. In ethics classes, I studied five major ethical theories. Four of the theories are flawed: Utilitarianism, Kantoism (moral theory), egoism, relativism, and fifth virtue ethics. Let's see the viewpoint of the death penalty of each theory.

Bank's moral hazard Moral hazard is a matter of asymmetric information that occurs after trading. Essentially, lenders are at risk of borrowers taking unpopular activities from the lenders' point of view, thereby reducing the likelihood of loan repayment. In the article by Gary H. Stern "Management of Ethical Risks with Market Signals: How Regulatory Authorities Change in the Banking Industry", we discuss moral hazards inherent in the protection of depositors' financial financial nets by the government . In this article I will explain the definition of moral hazard and examples of insurance, banking transactions and management. The intersection of these examples includes the parties involved in moral hazards, the risk behavior they can not manage, and the social costs of the problem. In order to reduce the problem of moral hazard, it is necessary to establish a risk measurement and management system. It is recommended to adopt risk sharing insurance, serious bad debt penalty, and long-term performance evaluation solution. One problem is that the central bank has directly supported moral hazards in financial markets over the past eight years. Although many traders and investors can maintain profits, we believe that bear market is impossible as the central bank will redistribute the loss there. As a result, most market participants are not ready for the next big market system change and may face catastrophic losses. There are excellent resources on ML, AI, online transactions. The best way to learn is trying to solve some practical problems. But I guess it is impossible for most traders to move. A 95% trader draws a line on the chart, observes the moving average, is used to understand and apply the skill set necessary for the AI ​​rule. The second, deeper reason why financial globalization is progressing is political. The theory "too big to fail" creates a moral hazard problem. Banks will benefit from successful investment, but incentives for both consciousness and evolution will be a heavy burden because they will not be bothered by failed investment. Risk Politicians face the problem of time despite their argument of developing market discipline. They want banks to stay healthy, but they lack the political will to make people feel pain and distress distrustful banks and their creditors. Deposit insurance will reduce this balance by introducing moral hazard in the banking system. "Moral hazard" means that if risk is guaranteed, people will bear more risk. In the case of deposit insurance, depositors are encouraged to patronize banks offering the highest interest rates, no matter how much risk they take. Economist Richard Salzman says that: "Deposit insurance was created to avoid the execution of banks in the future, rather than escape from the bank by bad, flee to the bad credit bank." In the event that the situation got worse, the depositor helped At least the upper limit set by FDIC will be over $ 2,500 in time, over 1 US dollar in 2008) has increased to $ 250,000.

Discussion on abortion is a serious topic that people have long debated. In any case, you will have a topic of abortion in television, newspapers, books and magazines. It is causing controversy over the coming years and will continue to cause it in the future. As long as the abortion is still legal, supporters advocating life will continue to protest against what they think are these terrible murders. Dating dates back to the 1800s and abortion is taking place all over the world. Biblical discussion on moral code abortion for abortion on February 2, 2013 In this article I will discuss discussion on abortion. The first argument I discuss is the Bible argument. Nonetheless, I must first admit that the Bible does not mention the content of abortion first. As abortion is not considered for Israeli women, there is not even need to mention abortion in the Penal Code. Abortion is an imaginary act. First of all, given the recent facility disasters in Fukushima, children are ... ... world energy demands. Compared to traditional energy production methods, nuclear power offers many advantages, but its drawbacks are also very obvious and serious. This argument is the reason why the industry is not thriving in the US in the past 30 years. There are three arguments for abortion. The first opinion is that a perfect human life begins at the time the egg is fertilized by sperm; therefore abortion is a violation of human rights. In Christian tradition this argument is usually expressed through religious beliefs that have built deep personal relationships with God and God has foreseen all aspects of our private life. In this concept, women threatened by pregnancy have different levels of regulation. One of the main focus is whether the fetus is a person or not. In this article, by analyzing and discussing two philosophers with two different arguments, we only support and oppose abortion, not pay attention to whether the fetus is a person or not. - Mrs. Smith is facing a decision on whether to abort. She already has two children and is working hard to earn a living. Mrs. Smith did not know why she was pregnant again why she was pregnant again. Finally, she made conscious abortion decisions. Whether her abortion is morally reasonable or not. The viewpoint of abortion depends only on the view of people's life.

During the Peloponnese War 's reading at Thucydides, people were surprised by the two major political and educational ideals explained in the book: Wang Lacedaemonian Archidamus and praised by Bury, the ruler of Athens. The ideal of Athens is supported by Kiria. Socrates discussed the two systems of the Republic of Plato and tried to explain what really is effective education. After careful analysis, Socrates clearly does not support any kind of educational ideals. The central ethical argument involves moral realism. "Murder is wrong." Most people seem to like genuine remarks, why does it become a reality? A moral realist believes that if that statement is true, it is also true of some moral property or facts that are independent of the attitude of the people. Moral anti-realityists deny this claim Moral realism is a combination of the following three ideas. 1) moral judgment to express beliefs, 2) these beliefs are true or false, and 3) objective moral values. It is in contrast to the expressionist or uncognitive theory of moral judgment, the wrong theory of moral judgment, the fictional theory of moral judgment, the theory of constitutionalism or relativism of relativity. Reconstructionism is the philosophy that society should be continually reformed to build a better government and social network. Roughly speaking, the nature of complex things can be reduced to (more simple and more basic). This is purpose, phenomenon, interpretation, theory and meaning. In short, philosophical materialism is considered to be the logical result. When searching the foundation of true morality, John Stuart Mill details in detail what many people think that it is the most persuasive and intuitive moral theory that exists. Its extensive popularity and acceptance are mainly due to its strong foundation, it is self-evident, self-evident internal principle of the first principle. This statement is the basis of Mueller's further philosophical thinking and has a major impact on his overall morality.

Abstract of taxonomy of moral realism: controversy of moral realism has broad meaning to moral ontology, epistemology and semantics. The general view is that this discussion involves the core of the phenomenology of moral values ​​and influences the way to understand moral values, moral differences and the nature of moral reflex. However, the content of moral realism theory is not clearly shown. We distinguished three different versions of the theory and provided a framework showing the interrelationship between them. (1) Morality has some authority over us. (2) (Naturalists) Moral realism eliminates such authority or moral realism can not fully explain this authority. Therefore, (naturalistic) moral realism must be fake. There are two obvious strategies to answer this argument. First of all, in every moral system I have encountered so far, I always say that the author has done it with ordinary reasoning and established about the existence or personality of God. I was surprised to find that it was not a mating of ordinary propositions, but I did not encounter a proposition that should not be related. This change is difficult to detect, but the final result is Realism - The essential argument of realism is skeptic about whether moral concepts such as justice can be applied to international problems. Realityist supporters believe that the concept of morality should never be prescribed and should not restrict the behavior of the state. Instead, the country should emphasize national security and its own interests. The form of realism - descriptive realism - suggests that the state can not act based on morality, but another form - normative realism - considers the incentive of the country to be self-interest. The war just contrary to the principle of war, in reality constitutes a division of realism.

In this article, I am very blessed with God ... But I can not confront Christians who press their morals against others. The situation They wrote that Christians have no right to this position because of their lack of respect for their culture, their hypocrisy, lack of credibility, and blatant rejection of new social post modern views. It is. Bickel and Jantz first discussed the social perception of Christians, but none of them was positive. Editorials are used only to prove that the position is correct. As mentioned above, the statement contains evidence supporting the position and its position. The evidence used in this paper is usually carefully planned to ensure reliability. Using this evidence, the authors rely on deductive or inductive reasoning, the emotional ventilation of the audience, and the authors' assumed moral justice (ie the ability to take a morally equitable position). Discussion can use factual, ubiquitous or authoritative views, logical evidence, or assertions of deductive reasoning. Ultimately, when deciding what to include, please express faithfully the contents of reliable sources. And then, as Aristotle explained in rhetoric, think of following a three-dimensional debate: spirit, sorrow, and the logo Causative thesis uses reasoning, problems, resources, and inductive thinking to draw conclusions about the discussion. It should begin with the author's argument and a description of the theory. Causal controversial papers should not be based solely on authors' views, but must include research and materials to support the author's position. There are six parts in the random argument article. These parts are introduction, how to solve past problems, the social and political influence of the problem, what happens when the problem is not solved, the facts that support your discussion, and the summary that is the conclusion of this paper. Rewrite key points and paper statements again Controversial papers focus on proof of views: Discussion or position paper attempts to draw conclusions and attempts to convince which side of the question is correct. The focus of this paper is whether the author wants to prove it is best or correct. Therefore, although this paper may talk about other things, most articles are used to prove points. Exploratory articles see several perspectives in a neutral way. Rather than trying to solve the problem, this kind of article attempts to understand the various aspects of the problem and understand the cultural and social context of the problem. This is the kind of paper you have to write before you write the paper. Exploratory papers are common in business where companies are trying to find solutions to problems and need to get all the ideas and information they can think about.

The assertion of existence is the truth, the reason is the truth. In philosophical discussion, any description is less important or controversial. But this is the position I proposed in this article. A reasonable and true equation is the core of the discussion I am studying here, which is an ontological argument against the existence of God. There are several versions of ontological arguments about the existence of God. That is, there are several versions. Discussion that is most widely accepted and criticized about the existence of God. My purpose in this article is to explain why cosmological arguments are proof of the existence of God, to understand that it is the importance of posteriori posteriori discussion, and to my common argument It is to observe the position of. First of all, as a living person on earth, we can safely conclude that the majority of things that exist today have their cause. I confirmed that there is a reason. Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in areas other than formal logic such criteria Correctly point out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection? Philosophers, atheists, and agnostics raised arguments against the existence of God. Some of these arguments argue that the existence of God is not consistent with the observed facts, others argue that God does not exist because God's concept is incoherent or chaotic. Others criticize the evidence provided for the existence of God. Another argument states that the existence of the omniscient God is incompatible with the facts of free will - human beings have certainly made a choice. If God is omniscuous then he must know in advance what people will do in certain circumstances. In this case, a person can not substitute for God to actually know what he or she does, free will is an illusion. Furthermore, if a person chooses to commit a crime, can the person freely crime the crime?

Whether our society is in a state of moral collapse. In order to answer this question, we must first define the word "moral". In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term morality is defined as "focusing on or paying attention to the correctness and error of human behavior." According to this definition, moral decline is a decrease in the difference between knowing the right thing and knowing the bad thing. In other words, our morals are like guides to every choice we make in our lives. Therefore, moral reasoning that may affect us will affect our lives. The problem of relativism is that it does not seem to be compatible with the concept of moral progress. A moral decline in this respect, or. In order to understand moral progress or moral collapse, there must be an ethical standard beyond age. However, culture is rooted in history, so cultural relativism seems not to be a welcome place of standards beyond the times. Most American citizens believe that slavery is morally justified and that slavery is morally justified. For example, most people prefer Batter Pecan. Do you like their conical mint chocolate chips? Political significance Some believe that the US is experiencing moral collapse among all the sources of information used in this criticism. In addition, this decline is related to the reduction of traditional nuclear families. Of course, this simple generalization can be criticized based solely on erroneous social statistics and erroneous reasoning. But a more interesting question is why such discussion is raised. Why do I need to demonize my parents? Why are single parent families, mixed homes and families with two working parents chosen? In fact, why do we need to use this particular argument to justify moral education? Let's criticize the number of people! Curriculum Model as a Clear Moral Education in Public Schools Should technological progress be consistent with moral decline? Can you do this discussion from the text? Is Lamech morally bader than Cain? why? Is "moral collapse / corruption" a reasonable term, or is it simply covering the real problem in the minds of all people? If everyone can do evil thoughts and actions and everyone can succumb to destructive / negative feelings, what will "corruption"? (Tangent line in accordance with Q13): It is a good thing to apply ethical standards to people and to implement them with legal and social pressure and structure (why? Ability (why? How) Through house control (why? How), or what else?

Moral Theory A. Morality comes from God. Therefore, ethical behavior is an act that is consistent with the will of God. Immoral behavior is contrary to the will of God. The church properly explained the will of God. Evaluation: I feel this until the last sentence. They do not agree with each other, so there are so many sects. Many religions differ in interpretation of the will of God, not to mention mistakes. I think that most of morality comes from God. The subject of this article is not - at least not a direct moral theory, but rather it is the definition of morality. Moral theory is big and complicated, but the definition is not so. The problem of moral definition is the question of determining the theoretical goal of morality. By identifying this goal, we can see different moral theories trying to capture the same thing. Thus, the difference between moral definition and moral theory is similar to the difference between John Rawls (1971: 9) in the general concept of justice and various detailed concepts. However, Rawls' words mean psychological distinction, and many people have a concept of justice. But the difference between definition and theory is not psychological, only moral theorists usually have a moral theory. Introduction Moral theory helps doctors prove and reflect on the moral decisions they have made. Moral theory is different from other theories. They help to prove that we make moral decisions, but they are often unpredictable. There are several reasons to be cautious about moral theory, but they also have great potential to enrich critical reflections on our decisions. Utilitarianism, Cantism, Virtue theory, four principles, and sophistication: Many moral philosophies include studies of comprehensive moral theories such as Aristotle (theory of virtue), cant (doctrine of morality), and the moral theory formed by the mill (utilitarianism). Philosophers have justified reasons to develop these complex systems. The theory provides a systematic approach to interpret, explain and certify ethical behavior. They may ask that they should reply to their argument and accept (if the proof is not fake). They can try to conclude that all non-believers are irrational dogmasters. To make matters worse, this course allows you to touch only one moral theory without knowing other options. Theoretical contact is far from enlarging the moral perspectives of the students, but narrowing the moral outlook of the students.

Moral theology is a field of theology, a matter of God and alienation. It is also thought to be a research on "the beginning and the end of a moral life of a person", and basically it is an analysis of how a person should behave. The lifetime of the Roman Catholic Church shows the inner devotion to God and obeys the Ten Commandments. Supernatural theology, divine science, and theology understood as alienated are based on supernatural revelation. Focusing on the subject includes not only the essence of God in him but also his actions and his work of redemption and guidance. And it is guided by God which is our supernatural ending. However, since moral theology is not necessarily part of theology, the use of the Bible in moral theology requires more. Even though it may have existed so far, the ethics is formally nothing to do with theology, and the linguistic approach to moral theology seems to be more integrated with the law than the doctrine. Independence Your own. Furthermore, the fact that the Catholic Church emphasizes the role of natural law is because excessive use of the Bible in moral argument seems to be inappropriate or unfair because the universal truth seems to be based only on certain revelations Is not excluded from the view that. The introduction of William E. May into moral theology is a faithful, clear, complex and thorough treatment of the Roman Catholic moral theological subject. As this article shows, May can summarize a series of topics and issues into this book and discuss each one in detail. This work evolved into the latest second edition of 2003 from 1991 to 1994. And with the attempt to maintain the original structure while adding some new chapters and chapters the text became complicated. This may be due to the moral theology and authoritative clarity of John Paul II mentioned in the Veritatis Splendor. The Veritatis Splendor was published in 1994 and received countless reactions and reactions from revisionists and their opponents. Introduction of moral theology was originally written by William E. May in December 1990. Established in 1991 by Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. It was published just before the publication of John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor published in 1994. His revision is then published in May 1994 and is most likely to incorporate and respond to the explanations provided by the Veritatis Splendor. In the second edition published in 2003, he further expanded his work and made a very clear and thorough analysis of Christian moral theology.

In his essay "Evil and Almighty", McGee has built a view on the possibility of the existence of God with the characteristics of Lord religion, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism. These features include that God is omnipotent, that you can stop evil with omnipotent tenderness, want to destroy evil, or be completely kind. Mackie systematically completed his logical response to the logical thinking process and to all possible types of criticism and alternative solutions. Summary: As you all know, J. L. Mackie is famous for having no objective value. I would like to investigate Mackie's explanation of what objective value really is, then consider his argument against those subjects and try to understand one of them. Specifically, I would like to see if his argument applies to Kant's objective value. Therefore, this conversation is both Kant's explanation and McKee's explanation (at least when I understood them). McKee believes that objective value (if any) has a strange causal relationship. Specifically, these entities have the ability to make them conscious of their motivation (whatever their meaning, they follow their recommendations). Does Kant believe that objectively valuable entities have such power? Is this power strange in metaphysics? J. L. Mackie defends moral skepticism in three specific arguments. His initial argument came from cultural relativism. McGee saw the problem that what we call objective moral belief seems not to form our culture. Rather, our culture seems to form our specific moral beliefs like monogamous. Therefore, moral subjectivity is the most rational explanation of moral beliefs to imitate our culture. His second argument against moral realism is that there is something strange or counterintuitive in the description of objective moral fields someone might give. There are three differences in this discussion. First, there are metaphysical questions, or questions based on odd states claimed by realists. For McGee, the wonder of this field is arguments against it. Secondly, there is a relationship problem as it is not clear how this field relates to natural objects and human behavior.

Ethical dilemmas are always present in our daily lives, and we are people who make the right decision. Through various experiments, we can solve the above problem; Unfortunately, most of them can not be easily solved. What we can do is to find out which methods and guides are appropriate for this situation. There are no rules suitable for all situations. Therefore, the situation is very complex, so moral confrontation needs to be judged on a case by case basis. In addition, the ethical dilemma may not have a perfect solution, but it can still be solved; the way to solve ethical contradictions is to minimize losses and pursue the right value It is to analyze various solutions. Moral development plays an important role in our social interaction. Understanding how an individual makes its decisions and why in an ethical dilemma can be very useful in many situations. The theory of moral development of Kohlberg provides a framework for investigating and understanding how moral reasoning develops within an individual. A good moral dilemma can be expressed as a story facing an ethical dilemma that the hero makes the right decision. A moral dilemma usually provides two or three choices, but each seems attractive. If this is a special story, your audience remembers it and will be more involved. There are many studies that show that using stories and questions is a very effective educational tool. A simple story can be exciting and fun. However, raising an ethical dilemma may cause an interactive response. This is a story that challenges the audience to think their way of thinking. Your student is not just a passive learner, but now it becomes an active learner and the course lasts long Exploring ethical dilemmas is the basis of important training to make life decisions. Many of the major decisions in our lives are ethical dilemmas - these questions are challenging how we make decisions, and each side has a convincing argument It is. Who is married - What quality is most important for your spouse? What jobs do you undertake - more importantly are happiness or more money? Which city should live - a bigger house, longer commute? Budget - How much is the most important expenses? How to do charity - Which reason is more important? Understanding ethical dilemmas helps foster those who think about ethical priorities. When two important values ​​conflict, which is more important

The case of moral luck was introduced by Williams Bernard and Thomas Nagel announced them in their article. Both of them doubt whether luck affects moral decisions. In this article we discuss the moral luck of Williams and Nagel and the definition of four moral lucks in several cases and then speak and dispute Judith Andre, Donna Dickinson, and David Enok. Some of the discussion of this concept by Andre Mamore. Moral luck. To understand the concept of moral luck easily, let's look at a simple example from Nagel's paper. There are generally three ways to respond to ethical luck. (I) denying moral luck, (ii) rejecting or limiting the principle of control, (iii) accepting or denying the existence of a certain kind of moral luck. Since it is completely incoherent, at least the moral luck problem will not arise with regard to the type of moral concern. Some people who respond to moral luck take a method to solve various luck problems. But many people take a complex approach, that is to get another kind of luck in one way, another way to get another kind of luck, or simply silence another kind of luck While using it. Is it legal to adopt a hybrid approach? After all, if the principle of control is true, then there is no moral luck then, if it is false, then it seems that there can be any kind of moral luck. The problem of moral luck is very troubling. Of course, there are various reactions. On the one hand, those denying moral luck, on the other hand those who accept various moral lucks. Most writers who answer this question are somewhere in between; they explicitly adopt a hybrid approach, or a subset of moral good fortune of the type well described, which is not recognized by others We restrict their argument to. The extreme position is easily affected by they leave some consideration and other completely obscure dissent opinions. However, those who occupy the middle position also face difficult challenges. As we have seen, one of the obvious natural lines of painting is between luck and all other kinds. For those who want to draw a line on luck, these are problems.

In the second chapter of Anselm 's Proslogian, Anselm later offered something described as his ontological argument. This believes that he is very powerful Psalm 14: 1 "Fool" He his heart, "No God". Anselm's assertions are as follows: God is "unimaginable" If someone understands something, this means that in someone's understanding, "bigger ones can not be imagined" If someone understands, "Someone can imagine without big things" exists in someone's understanding. In Anselm 's ontological argument, he is trying to prove the existence of God, but his argument is purely based on a discussion of thought and does not require a moral entity to challenge the truth of emotion. Ontology is related to existence or something. Anselm 's ontological debate is considered to be omnipotent and kind, regarded as existence and whether it is God's wealth, and omnipotent. This argument is a transcendental argument. Instead of relying on experimental knowledge to prove the existence of God it means that God must exist logically or that the absence of God is illogical. Ontology argument is a transcendental argument. These arguments are trying to prove the existence of God from the meaning of the word God. Anselm of Canterbury introduced an ontological argument to his work "Proslogion". The classic argument of Anselm is based on two principles, the most important of which are the aforementioned St. Ansell and René Descartes of Cantabelli. If he does not exist, you can still think of a big existence (it is like saying that God does not exist except this existence). The presence must still be one of the attributes of God, as it can still understand the larger God (God that exists) by removing it. The most common problem of this discussion is that it only enumerates its existence in God's attributes, not it. This argument seems to indicate that the facts that can be imagined should be true. Antism 's ontological argument is intended to be the first testimony of the existence of God. Anselm starts with the premise that it does not rely on experience and draws the conclusion of the existence of God in a purely logical way. His purpose was to refute the fool who said in God that there is no God (Psalm 14: 1). This fool has two important features. The following is an attempt to clarify the discussion presented in Chapter 2 of Proslogium. The discussion in Chapter 3 is quite different and is more interesting in some ways. After completing this page, you may try to give a similar gloss with the second parameter. This is not easy. This argument is very complicated. But you may do this in a useful campaign

Socrates was executed for "not worshiping the nation's gods" and "corroding young people". Plato believes that good / moral starts with a strong government, and gradually spreads to ordinary people. Women's rights and citizenship rights are more powerful people's support products in these businesses. Every new Supreme Court reflects the values ​​of most of its members. Moral subjectivity is a form of moral anti-realism. It believes that moral assertions are true or false by people's attitudes and practices, regardless of attitudes and practices of each society, attitudes and practices of each individual, attitudes and practices of specific individuals, or both . Or the convention. Most forms of ethical subjectivity are relativistic, but there are some remarkable forms of universalism. I think that the ideal observer theory depends on the virtual ideal observer's attitude that the right thing is right. Ideal observers are often described as completely reasonable, imaginative and knowledgeable people. While subjectiveism theory refers to a specific (hypothetical) subject, it is argued that the ideal observer theory still provides a universal answer to moral issues. Answer 1: According to Phil Papers' survey, moral anti-realism is realistic and not very sure. 57% of doctors and teachers specializing in meta ethics are moral realists. Any request for objectivity requires your own argument. Moreover, as a moral intuitionist, I believe that moral realism also has simple evidence before some losers. Answer 2: This religion is parasitic about Christianity and it seems to be tailored to make the new scientific model the same as the existing scientific model, except that the unobservable entities are different. If there is no reason to accept this model in the science field due to insufficient judgment of the current model, why do it ethically?

Introduction Doing business in an appropriate ethical way is one of the factors contributing to the success of companies, whether local companies or multinational corporations, particularly in the era of globalization. However, this is inconsistent with one of the very popular economists. He is Milton Friedman. One of his arguments is that the company has a clear ethical policy entitled "Corporate Social Responsibility to Increase Profits." These discussions were published in the New York Times magazine on September 13, 1970. Moral argument is an argument about the conclusion of moral judgment. Moral argument is the most typical argument, trying to prove that certain policies and actions are moral or immoral. "You want to claim that the death penalty is unjust (or simply) punishment for violent crimes." Here, although there is a moral judgment, you can use more detailed judgment as a discussion of the position paper on the death penalty discussion. Moral judgment is beyond a pure point of view and when supporting it in moral reasoning it is the conclusion of moral argument. You must explain why you think that the death penalty is morally right, legitimate, or unfair. For example, you might think that it is unfair for one or more of the following reasons: Advocates of political ethics initially replied that the principle argument that supports and opposes specific policies can not be ignored. If we develop a healthy policy on positive behavior, it is important to treat the theme of justice as an individual or group. However, the second political ethics is not just focusing on specific policies in fact. In fact, its use of general principles naturally leads to judgment beyond the evaluation of a specific policy. If we call the principles of justice to assess the policy of positive actions, we will soon see ourselves focusing on the impact of the principle on health policy and then in a professional society You will find to consider the structure. Even if that judgment is specific to a particular thing, political ethics has an impulse to the public.

Communism and morality are two theories which are often discussed about morality. The correct decision that the resultant relies on will bring the greatest benefit. However, moral followers will choose the right thing based on the decision, regardless of the expected outcome. For example, consequences as a form of Utilitarianism may result in the loss of people to save a group, but morality does not allow such behavior as individual rights are ignored. These theories are always tested with moral carts and pedestrian bridges. (1) Morality has some authority over us. (2) (Naturalists) Moral realism eliminates such authority or moral realism can not fully explain this authority. Therefore, (naturalistic) moral realism must be fake. There are two obvious strategies to answer this argument. First of all, in every moral system I have encountered so far, I always say that the author has done it with ordinary reasoning and established about the existence or personality of God. I was surprised to find that it was not a mating of ordinary propositions, but I did not encounter a proposition that should not be related. This change is difficult to detect, but the final result is Moral subjectivity is opposed to moral reality, moral proposition refers to objective facts, I believe it is irrelevant to human opinion. Moral sentences fully express the proposition. The most common form of moral subjectivity is also the form of moral relativism, which is related to all cultures, societies (cultural relativism) and even all. The latter opinion proposed by Protagoras considers the world to have many different dimensions of good and evil. Moral subjectivity is a kind of moral relativism, making moral values ​​equal to individual objects. In the theory of moral realism and moral relativism of Piaget, moral relativism focuses on intention, but moral realism focuses on facts. According to Piaget's theory, students of V. Female English courses should use moral relativism (or moral cooperation). Many students are expressing their views that the rules are mutual agreements and not the laws given to them by the authorities. However, some students are still categorized to show moral realism (or constrained morality). Class 1 students can not understand why they are reprimanded in class (lectures focus on after school programs). Other students are not reprimanded (conversation is about homework).

According to the definition of the Merriam - Webster dictionary, "According to the definition of Merriam - Webster dictionary," The pregnancy accompanying with or accompanying the end of pregnancy, or the immediate pregnancy or fetal death, I will consider his ethical position. The 14 th revision also decided that women are privacy protected and can accept pregnancy at the beginning of pregnancy (Waughn 119) The main argument concerning abortion is that the human controversy and the fact that it is the pregnancy moment Whether or not is a value. In this argument, I assert that abortion is usually admitted morally. My argument of abortion is not dependent on assertions on the metaphysical or moral status of the fetus. For discussion, I acknowledge that the fetus has the same life right as you. However denying this statement's acceptance means that abortion is not permitted. Let's begin by saying that. Most of the debate over abortion focuses on the female fetal life right. Abortion opponents argue that the fetus is a worthy person with the right of life and abortion unjustly kills them. Therefore, the core discussion on abortion can be expressed as follows. The core philosophical question of the debate over abortion is related to the moral status of embryos and fetuses. If the fetus is a person and has the same life right as the born one, only a few abortions are due to moral killing of the child because the child is unnecessary or illegal It seems reasonable. Ineffective But morality of abortion does not necessarily resolve this directly. Even if someone acknowledges that the fetus is a human assertion, we do not automatically assume that the fetus has the right to use the pregnant woman's body. Therefore, the morality of abortion depends not only on the moral status of the fetus, but also on whether there is an obligation to hold the pregnant woman's birth.

Moral Realism In this article we will examine the relationship between factual judgment and moral judgment, trying to identify whether moral judgment is only part of factual judgment. I will mainly study the discussion raised by many moral realists, that moral facts are "supernatural facts, unrelated to their theories" 1. Pain but I also look at the gap between facts and determine the impact of the association between moral judgment and de facto judgment trying to narrow the gap. (1) Morality has some authority over us. (2) (Naturalists) Moral realism eliminates such authority or moral realism can not fully explain this authority. Therefore, (naturalistic) moral realism must be fake. There are two obvious strategies to answer this argument. First of all, in every moral system I have encountered so far, I always say that the author has done it with ordinary reasoning and established about the existence or personality of God. I was surprised to find that it was not a mating of ordinary propositions, but I did not encounter a proposition that should not be related. This change is difficult to detect, but the final result is Moral realism is a combination of the following three ideas. 1) moral judgment to express beliefs, 2) these beliefs are true or false, and 3) objective moral values. It is in contrast to the expressionist or uncognitive theory of moral judgment, the wrong theory of moral judgment, the fictional theory of moral judgment, the theory of constitutionalism or relativism of relativity. Reconstructionism is the philosophy that society should be continually reformed to build a better government and social network. Roughly speaking, the nature of complex things can be reduced to (more simple and more basic). This is purpose, phenomenon, interpretation, theory and meaning. In short, philosophical materialism is considered to be the logical result. Moral realism is a kind of theory that believes there is a true moral assertion reporting objective moral facts. For example, they may acknowledge that the power of social integration may have a significant impact on individual 'moral' decisions, but they believe that these cultural norms and practices are moral I definitely deny defining the right behavior. This may be a philosophical point of view advocated by ethical naturalists, but not all moralisticists accept this position (such as moral nonnaturalists). On the other hand, moral anti - realism thinks that moral assertion fails or does not even report objective moral facts. Instead, they said that moral wording is a categorical negative claim of objective moral facts (false theory); subjective attitudes (moral subjectivityism) rather than objective facts; or to try to express the world Do not place orders (non-cognitive)

Opposition to human cloning: moral and moral factors Most people are doing odd expression and answering when asked randomly 20 years ago that science can reproduce animals. "Joking, right?" However, once a crazy idea has become a reality. And after discussion about this reality and cloning ethics and morality, there is no argument. However, technology does not just stop cloning animals, but many scientists are now trying to find and find a successful way to clone human subjects. Cloning ethics is a big field. The right to reproduce people is quite controversial. Can we clone humans, or do we really want to clone humans for this? The morality and morality of this problem is infinite. There is little support for human cloning, but it has many advantages. The opponents of some clones believe that these people are badly wrong. Many of these mistakes involve denying Joel Feinberg's "right to open the future". For example, since children are compared with adults because they are cloned, repressive expectations are received. To make matters worse, parents may actually limit opportunities for growth and growth. For example, children cloned from basketball players may be deprived of educational opportunities that do not match their basketball career. Opposition to human cloning: moral and moral factors Most people are doing odd expression and answering when asked randomly 20 years ago that science can reproduce animals. "Joking, right?" However, once a crazy idea has become a reality. And after discussion about this reality and cloning ethics and morality, there is no argument. - In the summer of 1996, biotechnology experts achieved their goals through countless experiments and plans, and at last the Dolly was revived. Who is Dolly. Dolly is a female sheep and is the first mammal to replicate from adult somatic cells by nuclear transfer. Therefore, Dolly obviously lacks "one soul" that one person and one person can not fill.

Developmental psychologist Lawrence Coleburg has identified six stages of human moral reasoning. The first phase he admits is punishment - obediently oriented, and this person is careful to avoid punishment by serving. The second stage is tool relative oriented oriented, people are concerned about working for their own interests and improving their status. The third stage of moral development is good children - a good girl orientation, the focus of this person is in their reputation. Kohlberg's ethical development stage is based on the assumption that humans have intrinsic communication skills, are reasonable, and have the desire to understand others and their surrounding world. At this model stage, do not convert directly to praise or condemnation of personal behavior and personality, as it contains qualitative moral reasoning that individuals are using. Kohlberg considers his theory to measure moral reasoning rather than specific moral conclusions, argues that the form and structure of moral argument is independent of the content of these arguments. After presenting various moral dilemmas to people, Kohlberg remembered people's reactions and put them in various stages of moral reasoning. According to Mr. Kohlberg, one grows from traditional moral ability (before 9 years old) to traditional moral ability (before puberty) and develops in a traditional moral way (formally Piaget formal Realization of operational sinking). Concept), only some of which are fully realized. Each ethical level consists of two phases that provide a basis for ethical development in different contexts. The stage of moral reasoning based on Coleburg's justice is similar to the stage of intellectual development of Piaget. Coleburg defines moral reasoning as a process similar to the intellectual development stage. He thinks people have undergone various stages. They start low at the beginning of the process, then slowly move on to the next stage as they mature. However, the views for the various phases of Kohlberg do not always match the results of a series of moral dilemmas he designed. Some people change at the reasoning stage. They skip the stage or return to a lower stage after reaching a higher stage. Also note that there is a big gap between the level of moral reasoning for a 10 year old child and the level of moral reasoning for a 16 year old child. Coleburg believes that this sudden increase in moral reasoning is caused by the cognitive growth that occurred during that year (Kalat, 2002). Barger, Robert N. (2000)

(Ethics) Essential meaning to distinguish between right and wrong as morally appropriate guidance action (compass etc.). For all climates and ages, for the wise ones, the great Creator gave a moral compass that allows him to avoid mistakes and follow the right things. He operated under the guidance of his own unique moral compass, whether it leads to his raging waters or not. November 20, 1994, Vincent · Canby, "Art: Sam Shepard's Campaign and Victory", New York Times (Search on August 21, 2011): They planned in a hurry without a moral compass and tried to survive by providing the best transient accommodation. I think he did absolutely right thing because it is a sin to hinder the marriage of others according to his own personal moral compass. Their catastrophe arises from ignoring the doctrine of Christianity: the cardinal malorum est cupiditas (greed is the source of all evil). Without a moral compass, the role of Stone can not even plead for ignorance. Jun. 18, 1975, J. F. Terhorst, "Philip Hart - Independent Leader of the Supreme Court", St. Petersburg Independent (USA), p. 18 A (Search on 21 August 2011): Heart is one of rare people. . . Their frankness and conscience make others think that he is the Senate's moral compass Various virtues, customs, or behaviors that may influence others, as an option for a person, group, or general (such as a compass instruction) (old and moral) [W] Blowing out the opposite argument from every aspect of the moral compass, the adventurous baron quietly watches himself leaving his own way to drive his own ship through his own storm Here, Mr. Chevrolet Slyme, his great ability seems to be one, quietly tapping his friend on his elbow, whispering in his ears, a moral compass' s despicable quarter It points That idea is our rudder. When the soul slides along the warm and spreading sensation of the sea, it can only be directed to their new point of moral compass. Morality is to know right and wrong, morality is in our moral compass. Our ethical compass evolves with age and gains new knowledge and experience to shape what we believe is right or wrong. Family, friends, religion, society, teachers and mass media all affect the development of our moral compass. The difficulty in enacting the Penal Code on ethical standards is that it can not always be used to judge whether society is always right or wrong, regardless of good or evil standards. This leads to moral relativism. In other words, our correct and wrong view changes with respect to time, place, and our personal value system. As our society becomes more modern, the statement issued by religious groups is that it gives morality to society and creates a clear category of right and wrong. Some people think that there is no moral compass if there is no religion, and individuals will treat each other with rude attitude. It is not worth discussing about using religion to avoid dangerous behavior and sanctions against others. If comparing the number of religiously inspired good deeds with the evil deeds of religion, it may classify religion as reasons beyond massacre, war, slavery and human rights. As your moral compass moves toward the true north, you will know that you are on the right path to ethical decision-making. By putting ethics in front of the compass, we create a clear spiritual process viewpoint that points out our moral direction. Using ethical compass metaphors to express our inner justification and false sense provides a framework that guides our actions. But how do you move from "A" point to "B" point? First of all, please put your heart in the right place. We often consider ourselves before thinking about the needs of others. With extreme emotions, selfish people act selfishly, not selfless. Acting for purely self-interest can only keep us parallel to its original position. We avoid going in that direction through a sincere life

The controversy about God's existence can be defined as a complete, omnipotent, omniscient founder and the universe ruler. Many people do not believe any religion. For those who do not believe in religion, there is no reason to believe in God. People who do not believe in God and oppose the existence of God are proving totally wrong. God exists for various reasons. Discussion that is most widely accepted and criticized about the existence of God. My purpose in this article is to explain why cosmological arguments are proof of the existence of God, to understand that it is the importance of posteriori posteriori discussion, and to my common argument It is to observe the position of. First of all, as a living person on earth, we can safely conclude that the majority of things that exist today have their cause. I confirmed that there is a reason. Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in areas other than formal logic such criteria Correctly point out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection? Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). As a rationalist philosopher, Descartes truncates human knowledge as a product of our sensory data (our senses), but an epistemological sense that our knowledge can be obtained through a process of deducing our own idea I support the position.

Extensive and deep moral differences continue to resist reasonable solutions and enable ongoing discussion on the validity of moral judgments. In this article, we will explain whether moral judgment is correct or incorrect in an absolute or relative sense based on the diversity of moral judgment and the disagreement of strong opinion. This article will defend the pluralism that if there is no specific universal value, there is at least one person's minimum value. Moral pluralism is also known as "value" or "moral" pluralism. It is related to the concept of moral relativism (there are many moral theories, there are no objective criteria to judge them) but they are not identical. background) Value pluralism believes that there is a possibility that two or more moral values ​​are equal (true), but there is a contradiction. Furthermore, in many cases, we assume that this incompatible value may be reasonably unboundable. Therefore, value pluralism is a theory in meta ethics, not an ethical theory or a series of values ​​itself. Oxford historian Isaiah Berlin recognized the first substantial research on value pluralism and gathered attention in general academic circles. Verification is a cognitive truth theory based on the idea that ideas will participate in specific activities. Verificationism's own argument, by definition, is that the result of such verification is reliability. In other words, facts can be simplified to this verification process. What is important is the theory that "the power of living" is active in living beings, so life can not be described solely by mechanisms. Moral pluralism (also called value pluralism) is a theory about the value of human pursuit or the essence of matter, whose pursuit constitutes the essence of their moral life. The simplest moral pluralism believes that the values ​​or products pursued legally by a human being are pluralistic, incompatible and irresponsible. In other words, there are lots of real human values ​​that can not be attributed to a single rewrite of value or value system. This is because certain human values ​​are inherently contrary to other equally valid human values. For example, individual freedom may be inconsistent with equality, public order or technical efficiency, justice and compassion and gentleness, scientific truthfulness of public utility, and public interest.

The moral deterioration of Macbeth started at the beginning of the drama, and Macbeth seems to be influenced by the witch. In the first line of the play, he remembered the witch's words: "foul and fair". There seems to be no difference between him and the witch, good and evil. When the witch first told him that he was Cawdor's Thane and told him that he would "become the future king", Macbeth first said "to become a king is not just a faith prospect - it's just a cow doror" I argued against the idea. When he said "not at the forefront of faith", it means that it will not happen in the real world, but probably he had dreamed it before. Looking at the moments before and after the murder, the moral deterioration of Macbeth in the whole drama is very obvious. In the first sedation, Macbeth made a lot of moral opposition with long accumulation. After the murder, Macbeth was also very resentful of what he did right now. Then, before the second killing, Macbeth was not established, and there was no moral objection. After Banquo was killed, Macbeth still felt a little guilty, and it appeared in the illusion of ghosts. Finally, before the third murder, there was no moral dilemma about murdering McDough's house. After the murder, he regretted a bit except for his comments on MacDuff. Macbeth was a good man at the beginning of the game, but his morality worsened further each time he was killed. essay.com/Macbeth; The Shakespeare article examines his monologue, dialogue, and actions and shows how Macbeth is steadily losing morality after each murder. Macbeth; The Shakespeare article examines his monologue, dialogue, and actions and shows how Macbeth shows losing morality every time he is killed. Macbeth is quite controversial in many ways. Many people think that he is an evil person from the beginning. Some people think that he got worse during the game. Macbeth 's morality gradually deteriorated throughout the game. Macbeth 's monologue, dialogue and his actions show that he gradually lost morality after each murder. In the first act, Macbeth faced the idea of ​​killing King Duncan and stealing the throne. His monologue (I.7.1-28) is his reaction to the actions that may be taken. He basically said he felt he was very bad as he should protect him rather than kill him as his relatives and his master. In fact, he is an excellent king so he is hesitant when he wants to kill him. In his argument with Mrs. Macbeth after the monologue, Macbeth said: "We will not carry out this business. essay.com/Macbeth; The Shakespeare article examines his monologue, dialogue, and actions and shows how Macbeth is steadily losing morality after each murder. Macbeth; The Shakespeare article examines his monologue, dialogue, and actions and shows how Macbeth shows losing morality every time he is killed. Please investigate the spiritual worsening of Macbeth 's entire play. Did the role of Macbeth go through a spiritual path in the play? Macbeth? He was originally emotionally stable and focused on his king; then he became an uncertain and purely faith-based conscious about his intention; when this belief got progressively less, he I felt it again I understood. Did he finish his life with the noble death caused by his return? At the beginning of his stability and dedication, Macbeth liked King Duncan, but when he was seduced by three witches, he began to turn his worsening spiritual path into evil It was. Initially, the battle captain said to Duncan Macbeth that he fought for his king, that is why he could be called "Brave Macbeth". ... Read more

Isabella measures the moral dilemma of "enemies of jealousy to catch saints, your saint's bait". "Discussing gender, morals, laws and revealing the abusive authority of Vienna's boiling underground world, this article explores the moral dilemma of Isabella, during which Claudio makes his fiancee pregnant He was sentenced to death (his crime is not to make her pregnant, but to have sex with her). Isabella's character was the focus of an important reading on the measure of interest in sex, morality, and sexuality. She is deemed to have a problem, but in early reading she thought that she was strict and rigorous, and eventually we followed the social norms of this period. Such critics like the way Marcia River ("More powerful member tool", "Measurement of women's measuring power", 1984), the way society of the time patriarchated women, especially society How the Duke's control erodes Isabella's self-perception Why Isabella can not convince Angelo to allow Claudio's life? Isabella 's article "Measuring Measurements" by Bernice Kliman said it was because it did not use the rhetoric of the formula established by Herrennium which is one of Shakespeare' s measurement methods. But is the description of Isabella by Kleemann true or is it colored by a literary comparison she chose? Kleemann analyzed Isabella trying to convince Angelo to rescue their comparisons with brothers 'lives (2.2 and 2.4), other scenes in Isabella' s play, and Epiti and Advertisement Herennium with Cassandra. Kleeman used the advertisement Herenium (and Minimal Aristotle) ​​to outline how persuasion should be most effective in rhetoric. Epitia and Cassandra firstly call for mercy, then reveal "innocent circumstances", and ultimately cause judges' sympathy and constitute an argument. Just mentioning the name of Isabella seems to make me angry about the literary critic's mind. Her personality divides them into battle interpretations, as her moral dilemma splits the audience. In Quiller-Couch's words, the critic told "I oppose her and two women accusing or accusing her accordingly." Along with the aging of "measurement measurement", the new dimension of moral anger and blind exemption increases this complexity, essentially confusing Isabella's decision by writers and audiences who faced Angelo's "Sadism" Invite.

Then Lycan takes Henrietta as an example. Henrietta was born in the same way as us, but she gradually exchanged her parts with synthetic parts. This process continues until Henrietta basically becomes an artifact. Her body is no longer a human being, but she still holds "intelligence, personality, sensory activity, etc." (Cause 360) If such a successful operation is possible, we still think that Henrietta is a conscious being, or because of her new anatomy, she is no longer considered this way not. The majority of the above problems were attributed to the fact that people had assigned spirit and moral conditions to robots and programs. Royyakkers et al. It shows how it affects the social and emotional development of children as they are increasingly exposed to this type of technology (2016). Children's social disqualification is a potential problem for emotional robots such as NAO ("ASK NAO Autistic Children's Solutions", 2017) and Pepper ("Who is Pepper?", 2017). Both have different sensors and configurable programs to respond to emotions and recognize them. Even though one of the aims of these tools is to help children's emotional development, they must carefully consider their psychological impact before implementing solutions at school. As stated in the article, can Mark Cocberg's "moral expression: emotions, robots and human morals" build a "moral robot"? Because the robot lacks emotion, mental state, emotion, it does not meet the standard requirement. Furthermore, it is not clear how to judge whether the robot meets these conditions. Transformation "Robots can be dangerous because they lack complete moral ability (Coeckelbergh, 235)." A) You do not fully understand the moral hazards caused by institutionalized slavery. If the robot is not a complete moral objective, it seems that robotic slavery is morally tender and even beneficial. I assert that this assumption is wrong. In fact, institutionalized robotic slavery is more morally dangerous than robotic protection of rights. B) The imbalance of danger is very important. I asked you to think about what you might be mistaken before. To do him justice, I think we are wrong. If the robot does not deserve the right, the worst thing is that I wasted my time to protect the right to disqualify. If the argument of my (and David and others) is persuasive, in the worst case, we expose the moral dangers we describe like legal procedures like unnecessary bureaucratic procedures. The idea is ambiguous, perhaps deceiving your moral status. These machines

A recent debate about active euthanasia, "killing" the terminal patient in the Netherlands raises the question whether euthanasia is immoral or simple human rights. The doctor seems to have no doubt. They vowed. The definition of euthanasia depends on whether it is active or passive. Active euthanasia is only allowed in the Netherlands. Passive euthanasia simply stops taking oral contraceptives or stops treatment. Rachel is interested in the AMA theory of euthanasia - passive euthanasia is morally acceptable, active euthanasia is not morally acceptable, the so-called traditional euthanasia (CDE) is wrong. It is worth noting that Rachel did not take a stand on moral tolerance or disapproval of active or passive euthanasia when CDE was shown to be fake. On the contrary, his conclusion may be best expressed as a condition: if the person is a Utilitarian, the first two arguments of Rachel are reasonable. But even if a person is not a Utilitarian, Rachel's third argument seems inevitable. Therefore, in fact, the policy of AMA on euthanasia is very wrong This is just a good word, but that is clearly wrong. Behind all of these is the assumption of safety that ethics should promote policies. In this article I will explain the moral tolerance and acceptability of passive euthanasia, especially with active euthanasia. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that passive euthanasia is morally acceptable under certain conditions. In particular, by defining terms of active and passive, spontaneous and involuntary euthanasia, we distinguish between various forms of euthanasia. Take a concrete example and consider various factors (such as patient's pain and suffering) that may affect euthanasia decision. Given Kant's and Aristotle's views, these arguments will be evaluated from the viewpoint of utilitarianism. After briefly introducing the concept of euthanasia, this article outlines the basic ethical principles and then explains the four questions to deal with the main ethical dilemma arising from the euthanasia of newborns. Next, I will introduce official positions of American Medical Association (AMA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Finally, it discusses the legal background and current legal status of neonatal euthanasia in the United States, and finally encourages society to clarify the legal status of neonatal euthanasia.

We believe that the answer to the question that an immoral breach of law is morally reasonable is largely dependent on our understanding and opinion of our legal status. In this issue, everyone can be categorized into two large categories. I fall within the first category of these categories, regardless of whether the law requires or not, comply with the law through social contracts, regardless of the obligation of our moral obligation to the moral status of the law People believe they have obligation. . Dr. Martin Luther King writes the difference between the moral law and the immorality law in a letter to Birmingham Prison. His argument is that moral people have moral responsibility to destroy these laws by disobedience of citizens if the law is immoral. Ignoring immoral and unethical behavior, the country is morally destroyed and leads to complete moral death. In the event that the rule of law collapses, our people not only take responsibility for moral responsibility not to obey what is left behind by the law, but also actively contribute aid and consolation to immoral tyrant attacking the United States There are times when you are punished. We are morally obliged to obey even unfair laws. This ethical problem solves what we usually call civil disobedience. In order to discuss the disobedience of citizens properly and to discuss whether it is moral to violate the law, we must first explain the characteristics of citizens' disobedience. Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics" began expressing disobedience of citizens as "disagreement of moral opinion" and "even if the law protects and sanctions our completely wrong thing" By establishing an ethical responsibility that violates an unfair law, money makes it impossible to deny that civil disobedience is an important freedom. If freedom to pursue morality and pursuit of morality mean that the citizens do not comply, it is necessary to recognize that disobedience of citizens is necessary freedom. Of course, things are not that simple. Although the king's letter provides a viable reason for accepting civil disobedience, it is assumed that violations of unjust laws are moral. However, many writers and thinkers oppose this argument and their arguments must be solved if King's argument is accepted. Civil disobedience is a deliberate violation of law to promote ethical principles and change government policy. It may be limited to violation of certain laws deemed to be unfair, such as the civil rights movement of the United States in the 1960s. Alternatively, civil disobedience may include other law violations to raise fraud concerns, such as property damage, penalty or tax payment default, construction work and interference with illegal invasions. People who practice all kinds of civil disobedience are willing to accept the results of their actions as a means to promote their behavior. Henry David Thoreau first described the principle of civil disobedience in the article "On Responsibility for Civil Disobedience" in 1849. He believes that when conscience and law contradict, individuals have an obligation to promote justice by breaking the law.

Articles published in "Today's Psychology" argue that there are two main reasons for morality to have traces of evolutionary history. How did standard ethical behavior evolve? For these two reasons, the analysis of this article begins. The first argument of "psychology of today" is that animals "do not explicitly state the right and wrong" but "show certain aspects of human morality" (Stuart Williams). Many creationists have blurred the boundaries between their truths about basic facts and the theory of evolutionary interpretation, and their so-called philosophical and moral consequences. This type of discussion is called a result allegation and is a logical mistake. Examples of these discussions include prominent creationists such as Ken Ham and Henry M. Morris. Many creationists identify in a variety of ways, including opposition to specific applications of scientific processes, preconceptions within the scientific community, and discussions within the scientific community revealing or suggesting crises I strongly oppose the scientific theory of. In response to the perceived crisis in modern science creationists claim to have alternatives, often on beliefs, to create scientific or intelligent designs. The scientific community has often been misrepresented by pointing out their conversation (for example, Defenders of moral realism made two responses. One way is to deny that the moral response of evolution may be very different from moral truth. For example, David Copp believes that evolution will help to promote moral response to social peace, harmony, and cooperation. But these qualities are indeed the core of a rational theory of objective moral truth. Therefore, the so-called "dilemma" street - accepting evolution or moral doubt - is a mistaken choice. The second response to the street is to deny that morality is "saturated" as much as the evolutionary influence of the passage's claim. For example, William Fitzpatrick, if there is a significant evolutionary influence on the content of many of our moral beliefs, many of our moral beliefs are still partially (or in some cases) autonomous moral I believe it can be through reflections. Under Full). And like our mathematics, science and philosophy, reasoning

There is no universal moral standard for moral relativists - it can be applied to anyone's criteria at any time. Cultural and personal ethics make certain moral decisions. Personally, my belief is consistent with moral relativism. Because I do not believe that all morality follows the fear of universal law and spiritual divinity. We feel how we treat each other as human beings, the courses taught by my culture, and the correct emotions and mistaken emotions in my mind. * Compare and contrast the application of two ethical theories in the ethical dilemma. Discuss why one of these theories is more effective than others. (50 points) There are various moral standings in philosophy. Many of them can affect the recognition of someone's ethical issues. The moral problem is euthanasia, which is called a moral problem because it focuses on what we have to do, ie the correct concept and the mistaken concept that form the basis of morality. Euthanasia is also a matter of life and death, so it is a controversial issue. Because death is one of the major concerns of most individuals and cultures, what causes death will be controversial. The first question that arises is a good moral choice? If you have various opinions, how do you judge the profit? If the nature and intention of action is considered good, is that action good? ... Read more http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/religious-studies-and-filosophy/compare-and-contrast-the-application-of-two-ethical-theories-to-a-moral- Progress and dilemma discuss the most reasons for discussion - one - this - this theory - yes - it is more effective than the most other. html Compare and contrast the application of two ethical theories in the ethical dilemma. Discuss the argument that one of these theories is more effective than the other Comparing "Utilitarianism" and "Kant's moral theory", explain the advantages and disadvantages of each ethical theory. Explain which theory is better suited for your moral reasoning. Please read Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 before completing this task. Use reasonable arguments and evidence from reading and research to support your position Question: Compare contrast between "Utilitarianism" and "Kant's moral theory" and explain its strengths and weaknesses In the Ethics Introductory Course you may be enrolled in a university or university philosophy course, the themes of ethical values ​​are often integrated into ethical theory discussions. This association limits the range of moral values ​​to be discussed, but that is still a very important association. By contrast, when moral centers are talking about moral values, they do not attempt to map certain moral values ​​to specific moral theories. To understand the role of moral values ​​in interpreting differences in moral behavior and to explain why particular moral values ​​play a more important role in specific moral psychology, I am more interested in descriptive projects that categorize the distinctions between values. . People are better than others

Moral blindness is where you do not face mistakes. Most of you are just cheating on yourself - others consider you a despicable villain, it does not matter whether they express your opinion or not. At the same time, you did not do anything to do the right thing - regardless of whether you are jealous or yourself Moral blindness is important to convey whether you are committing sin, lying or really sorry. It is also an important part of the pattern of racial discrimination and other abuse. It is normal for people who recognize that their self image is very brittle and they are bad people and are threatening their existence. They are about intention. This transfers attention to something in their minds from the harm done in their actions. This is good for them, because you can not know what they really are thinking - 9 out of 10, that is not hard to guess They are about plaintiffs. Please be aware that this is different from being angry with plaintiffs. Everyone who is sued will do the same. However, the moral blind approach is to distract attention from wrong actions. They said that everyone was doing this. They seem to be eight years old, which seems to be correct. Some people think that this is a cheap excuse, but unfortunately some people truly believe They point out that other people did the same thing or did worse things. Arab merchant's argument or what does Genghis do? They pointed out how the victim benefited. Black Americans prefer Western colonial rule in Africa and slavery in the West ("Back to Africa!") They want to change something. Meaning that they do not understand (or do not care) that they are wrong Morally blind people have somewhat in common with accused acts like debate about facts. I did not mention them. The beauty of this list is to abandon this person's sin because the accused has no reason to use one of them. Field trip: I am talking about slavery with white Americans. You would think that they only condemn it by not having an uncertain clause, but many people do not. Instead, they did a lot of the above. Although white people do not live to participate in American slavery, most people benefit in some way. This puts them in the position of the daughter of the mafia boss. Deeply, they know this, otherwise they do not need to be morally blind Moral blindness is an unconscious or insensitive state to ethical problems related to themselves and relationships with others. George Eliot said, "We are born of moral stupidity and we treat the world as breast to feed our best self." The development of health brought about the early egoism, which brought a higher level of consciousness, which led Abraham Maslow to call it "smaller blindness". Melanie Klein saw early development as he thought that the child was born slowly from a self-loving state, not a moral purpose, but a tool or a tool for children, she saw it as a depression I called. D.W. Winnicott also saw the baby go from Ruth to Ruth - From inappropriate use of mother to attention to usage Visual and blind images also contribute to the development of Gloucester's identity Gloucester was a weak and moral blind character in the early stages of play. He is rude when he boasts about his illegal child Edmond's "good movements" and "believes" when he is being operated by the same son. Through his painful blind in Cornwall and Reagan, Gloustar gained a moral outlook, and now he can clearly see his past failures. Images of Goneril and Regan were presented and they gave comments on Lear after they acknowledged the love for him. "This is a weakness of his age, but he is only familiar with himself." Leah and Gloucester have forgotten to face their fraud more painfully. Through the appearance and reality of Shakespeare, the reader can better understand these realistic personality.

Although his two arguments are generally related to morality, Williams' argument focuses on the case of internal defense based on internal ethical assessment. He insists that the belief of the agent that he is reasonable may largely depend on luck. However, this reason is not related to external agents, as external agents are not obliged to listen for personal reasons. Williams did not object to a specific philosophy, but it is worth noting that ethics opposed the common sense view that liberty from luck and heaven was opposed. Whatever this is, what is involved with morality? Williams hopes to cause fatal harm to ethics by establishing a clash between rational and moral defense. Williams suggested that rational reasons are at least partially a matter of luck. As we pointed out, moral defense should not be a matter of luck. This obviously leaves room for contradiction between the two reasons that the action is morally unreasonable but reasonably reasonable (and vice versa). Indeed, the example of Gauguin would provide us with such a case. It is morally unreasonable to assume Gauguin's decision to leave his family. Because luck has nothing to do with the moral value of this decision, Gauguin's decision is not a moral decision in making decisions, it can be said that it remains in this state regardless of the outcome of the project. We have to wait for how the project will result Williams began to move towards this dilemma, focusing on reasonable defense rather than moral defense. The point of his argument is that to some extent reasonable excuses are the idea of ​​luck. He uses thought experiments to explain this. Williams showed us the story based on the life of the painter Paul Gauguin. Williams' Gauguin felt a little responsibility for his family and lived quite a happy life with them, but they gave up and got in trouble. He did this and became a great painter. I believe that he lives in the South Island and lives in a more primitive environment, so that he can develop a gift as a painter more fully. How is Gauguin to judge whether this is reasonable? First of all, you should ask what Williams' 'rational defense' means.

This kind of argument is practical to predict the pattern of repeatedly occurring events, but they are never valid. Please think of sunrise. It lasts thousands of days every day. So it will rise tomorrow. This possibility is very high, but it is not 100% likely. Also think about the existence of the universe itself. The probability of life arising from the fusion of random forces is very low, but the correct combination of life exists only once. In the 1800s, British philosophy and moral philosopher William Paley wrote a paper entitled "Theory from Design." In the "design theory", Perry tried to prove the existence of superiority by developing a special theory called the teleological theory. The theoretical argument is an analogical argument based on the similarity between two different themes. In this article, we are intentionally defeating Perry's claim and trying to adopt the next method. Contact Us Discussion about the existence of God of William Perry and David Hume is called a theoretical argument or design theory. Discussion from design is an argument about the existence of God or some sort of creator based on thought of order or purpose in the universe. Hume took the way to oppose design arguments, and Paley defended it. Both Hume and Perry discuss very strongly, but in the end it will conclude to distinguish which philosopher has a stronger position. In Paley 's debate about the existence of God, "design argument", Paley tried to use his argument to prove that God is the sole designer and creator of the universe. He compares the universe with the watch and compares God with a clockmaker. In this discussion, Paley argues that the universe is quite complex and orderly so that only wise wisdom can design and create it. Paley believes that everything that shows design can be inferred that it is actually an intelligent design product. For example, if you look at your watch, you can confirm that it is designed in one of two ways. If a person checking the clock has experience using the watch earlier, it can be said that it is actually designed. If smart design marks are displayed on the watch, such as smooth surfaces and unique complex parts, you can guess the smart watch. essay.com/Paley vs. Hume This is an inductive argument about the origin and nature of God, religion, the universe. Paley vs. Hume This is an inductive argument about the origin and nature of God, religion, the universe.

The argument of euthanasia is defined as "an act or practice of severely killing people suffering from intractable diseases". Euthanasia can be traced back to the civilization of ancient Greece and Rome. These civilizations sometimes allow others to die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia is causing many controversies. Groups that support life and groups that have the right to participate are discussing different aspects. The most popular argument is its euthanasia to relieve pain, relieving the freedom of people who choose low quality of life and death ("causes of euthanasia"). Some of the more popular arguments for euthanasia include a variety of religious beliefs Doctors should not participate in the cause of death faith disregard the concept of human life, fear of euthanasia, medical expenses There is a possibility that it may become a means to control the legal idea, and its legal idea may be changed and managed Euthanasia may become involuntary ("causes of euthanasia"). Belgian age limit, recently changed after legal adults, for children because euthanasia is not a legitimate (Rodriguez) cure in the past 12 years, nowadays. Belgian Catholic Church requires that the legislation be rejected, thinking that the decline in age restrictions is "too late" (Rodriguez). However, most Belgian people support the bill (Rodriguez) The argument of euthanasia is defined as "an act or practice of severely killing people suffering from intractable diseases". Euthanasia can be traced back to the civilization of ancient Greece and Rome. These civilizations sometimes allow others to die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia is causing many controversies. Groups that support life and groups that have the right to participate are discussing different aspects. Discussion on euthanasia in the UK One of the biggest controversies in the UK today is euthanasia. Discussions on euthanasia often rely on "right to live" and "right to capital punishment" if legalized. Originally, the term "euthanasia" means "calm and simple death", but now "inducing death behavior". Why euthanasia is actually killing, and why does everyone change a new perspective? Many people are dissenting about this issue. Humanitarians pursue moral principles, promote happiness and satisfaction in their lives, assert protection measures to prevent and prevent voluntary euthanasia as being morally correct

David Gauthier's answer to moral abstraction: In this article I will consider David Gauthier's answer to moral reasons. The problem failed. In my opinion Gauthier's possibility to maximize constraints in every way is not a better claim, it does not rely on pretending to be constrained maximization. On the contrary, if a restrictive maximizer with a nephew of "economic people" turns the emotional commitment for "moral" to the maximization of the constraint with "free individual" as the scorpion, rational defense of pure morality It becomes necessary, it disappears. It is the latter. A brief summary of the most complete and influential contemporary contract theory theory David Gauthier is in order. The Gauthier project in the "moral agreement" is to use a contractual approach to make reasonable moral reasons to defeat moral skeptics. (However, Anita Superson (2009) tried to answer only skeptics who asked "Why should I be moral?" Anita Superson (2009), but I do not need motivation and morality because I think it is ethical Motivated.The non-moral people, they deny that there is something like morality, that is, there is a true moral statement.People usually think that human beings are in perfect natural harmony We believe that we do not have the benefit of a lot, which will lead to suboptimal outcomes of society and individuals, and may wish for each to be deceived by others David Gotzel of the "Ethics Agreement" announced in 1986 returned to Hobbes' moral and political philosophy, but unlike Hobbes claiming a purely selfish motive of signing a contract I agree to cooperate and cooperate at the time (ibid). Alfie Kohn, a psychologist who is the author of "the bright side of humanity" believes that humans are more affectionate than understanding of the human nature of Hobbes and Rousseau. He believes that generous humanity is not only an enlightened self-interest but also empathy and altruism are part of human nature (Kohn 1990). In the "Ethics Agreement" announced in 1986, David Gotzel began updating Hobbes' moral and political philosophy. In that book, he strongly insists that Hobbes is right: We can understand that politics and morality are based on agreements between perfectly selfish and reasonable people. But he improved Hobbes 'argument by showing that we can establish ethics without a monarch' s external enforcement mechanism. Hobbes believes that cooperation between them is always in danger of collapse, as the passion of men is so strong that the monarch must obey it. However, Gautier thinks that not only can people agree to cooperate by rationality alone, but also assert their consent.

Abortion in the United States is a controversial issue, both sides positively and legitimately debate. There are many arguments to support the choice to support the belief of preserving abortion legitimately. Many of them are wrong and have no connection with the discussion I'm trying to explain, so we eliminate the main supportive discussion argument. There are several different ideas to support life. The most popular of these is that from the moment of conception, the fetus is totally human. Abortion causes intentional death of non-born entities. Biblical discussion on moral code abortion for abortion on February 2, 2013 In this article I will discuss discussion on abortion. The first argument I discuss is the Bible argument. Nonetheless, I must first admit that the Bible does not mention the content of abortion first. As abortion is not considered for Israeli women, there is not even need to mention abortion in the Penal Code. Abortion is an imaginary act. First of all, given the recent facility disasters in Fukushima, children are ... ... world energy demands. Compared to traditional energy production methods, nuclear power offers many advantages, but its drawbacks are also very obvious and serious. This argument is the reason why the industry is not thriving in the US in the past 30 years. There are three arguments for abortion. The first opinion is that a perfect human life begins at the time the egg is fertilized by sperm; therefore abortion is a violation of human rights. In Christian tradition this argument is usually expressed through religious beliefs that have built deep personal relationships with God and God has foreseen all aspects of our private life. In this concept, women threatened by pregnancy have different levels of regulation. One of the main focus is whether the fetus is a person or not. In this article, by analyzing and discussing two philosophers with two different arguments, we only support and oppose abortion, not pay attention to whether the fetus is a person or not. - Mrs. Smith is facing a decision on whether to abort. She already has two children and is working hard to earn a living. Mrs. Smith did not know why she was pregnant again why she was pregnant again. Finally, she made conscious abortion decisions. Whether her abortion is morally reasonable or not. The viewpoint of abortion depends only on the view of people's life.

Extensive and deep moral differences continue to resist reasonable solutions and enable ongoing discussion on the validity of moral judgments. In this article, we will explain whether moral judgment is correct or incorrect in an absolute or relative sense based on diversification of moral judgment and disagreement of strong opinion. This article will defend the pluralism that if there is no specific universal value, there is at least one person's minimum value. Moral pluralism is also known as "value" or "moral" pluralism. It is related to the concept of moral relativism (there are many moral theories, there are no objective criteria to judge them) but they are not identical. background) Value pluralism believes that there is a possibility that two or more moral values ​​are equal (true), but there is contradiction. Furthermore, in many cases, we assume that this incompatible value may be reasonably unboundable. Therefore, value pluralism is a theory in meta ethics, not an ethical theory or a series of values ​​itself. Oxford historian Isaiah Berlin recognized the first substantial research on value pluralism and gathered attention in general academic circles. Verification is a cognitive truth theory based on the idea that ideas will participate in specific activities. Verificationism's own argument, by definition, is that the result of such verification is reliability. In other words, facts can be simplified to this verification process. What is important is the theory that "the power of living" is active in living beings, so life can not be described solely by mechanisms. Moral pluralism (also called value pluralism) is a theory about the value of human pursuit or the essence of matter, whose pursuit constitutes the essence of their moral life. The simplest moral pluralism believes that the values ​​or products pursued legally by a human being are pluralistic, incompatible and irresponsible. In other words, there are lots of real human values ​​that can not be attributed to a single rewrite of value or value system. This is because certain human values ​​are inherently contrary to other equally valid human values. For example, individual freedom may be inconsistent with equality, public order or technical efficiency, justice and compassion and gentleness, scientific truthfulness of public utility, and public interest.

Abortion is a moral choice. Mary Goldan 's article "Ethical Choices" discusses many questions about abortion, and the author clearly tends to favor selection. Discussion about when the fetus is alive (437) is an argument about when abortion is accepted. And abortion ethics was judged in media, religion, society and self. Women aborting have been criticized for colds and skills (441). These ordinary everyday women made this moral decision for centuries. A moral decision is a decision made in some way such that behavior or omission is consistent with human morality. In many cases, the choices made in ethical decision-making are not effective choices for any reason, such as comfort improvement, economic rewards, cost reductions, or problems. Race mixing was immoral in the southern part of the United States in the middle of the 20th century. At the same time, the visiting White Northern may think that it is unethical to use the only white fountain or bathroom. recognition We recognize moral relativism in our lives. By the age of 30, I gradually understood that my friends are not all moral. Many people have a choice of life that I think is immoral, or at least immoral, I will continue. As an adult who takes care of a child, I have to think about how you teach morality. What? Keep your nose clean now, and it has always been a feature of survival. Knowing when you are trying to make an ethical choice is the first step in the process. We always face moral choices. But the problem that many of us have experienced is that we may not recognize moral choices until the past is sufficient. I can look back and analyze it and regret it. This is a survival skill to survive in order to abandon an ethical choice - otherwise it is too easy to find myself in a bad place. I did not confront discussions on impossibility, and the final interpretation of normative elasticity proved to be reasonable. We will compare our values ​​and make choices about political and ethical issues. 8 We believe that these choices are justified and we believe that acting against them is morally right when they are reasonable. At the same time, the choice of moral value may be considered to bring about moral costs. In other words, even if it is not an analytical fact, moral surplus may exist in psychology. If so, the existing decision

Rosian Pluralism argues that we have several basic internal moral reasons. He calls it a preliminary obligation. These responsibilities are not real and are obligations not obliged to obey in any circumstances, but "conditional responsibility" (Ross 754), people should decide whether to obey or refuse when reflecting their situation is. This moral theory is facing criticism, and the strongest is in the form of a tradeoff. However, the trade - off problem proves to be a negligible problem as it applies to other theories. It can be ignored as it applies to other theories. Moral pluralism is also known as "value" or "moral" pluralism. It is related to the concept of moral relativism (there are many moral theories, there are no objective criteria to judge them) but they are not identical. background) Moral pluralism (also called value pluralism) is a theory about the value of human pursuit or the essence of matter, whose pursuit constitutes the essence of their moral life. The simplest moral pluralism thinks that the value or product pursued legally by a human being is pluralistic, incompatible, and unable to catch up. In other words, there are lots of real human values ​​that can not be attributed to a single rewrite of value or value system. This is because certain human values ​​are inherently contrary to other equally valid human values. For example, individual freedom may be inconsistent with equality, public order or technical efficiency, justice and compassion and gentleness, scientific truthfulness of public utility, and public interest. Value pluralism believes that there is a possibility that two or more moral values ​​are equal (true), but there is contradiction. Furthermore, in many cases, we assume that this incompatible value may be reasonably unboundable. Therefore, value pluralism is a theory in meta ethics, not an ethical theory or a series of values ​​itself. Oxford historian Isaiah Berlin recognized the first substantial research on value pluralism and gathered attention in general academic circles. Verification is a cognitive truth theory based on the idea that ideas will participate in specific activities. Verificationism's own argument, by definition, is that the result of such verification is reliability. In other words, facts can be simplified to this verification process. What is important is the theory that "the power of living" is active in living beings, so life can not be described solely by mechanisms.

Finally moral leadership. This rate, not moral. Or "Favorite things" "What I feel like" Two parts: € â € œ euâ € refers to â € œwellâ €, â € œ daimonâ € â € œdivinityâ € or â € œspirit.â € eudaimon A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A1.http: //plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-®. Ethics /  De fact invented "moralis" to translate Greek - meaning "associated with role" Another way to guide a special kind of life - (p. 38). As mentioned earlier, moral plural In reality, in particular the relative value of basic human beings (p. 184). But no faith If there is a universal and absolute moral rule, there is still "a basic problem still exists." (1960: 3 - 28) believe that the former rational level, moral, will begin before former criticism, autonomy Therefore, a moral moral lesson is simply negative, antisocial morals are still at the edge "Non-event." Thus, the relative morality of destruction, that is, "whether you like it or not, we are all Rather than "theid" "super self". Drawn as moral leader, the author talked to his people where reported A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 2 Pius XI (1985). To rebuild the social order. D. M. Byers (editor), in market justice: Collection from 1981 to 1984, the Vatican and the American Catholic bishop on economic policy. Washington, C. Catholic Conference in the USA, 1985 We decided to diversify as a way to the moral significance of liberty and life of all efforts, "Do you mean?" Emotional maturity (p. 424). All definitions of leadership, true leaders and We observed that morality is not an ordinary collective enterprise but an isolated company. I have it. Morality is the fact that there is a difference in all the first leadership and driving power. Secondly, A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 3 Ahttp: //www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/what- œ â,¬â "â,¬â" â "" leadership Attack of relativity, a simple solid belief that "everyone loves the truth", the truth, His moral virtue as "confirmation" ("state", "condition", "discard") - Aristotle points out, and is also a character defect state hexahedron (multiple hexagons), but they are Argument found throughout Plato's initial dialogue, this virtue is simply rejected with a gesture of goodwill A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A __ A: A: A / A: A / Ethics /  Singer, M. S. (1999). Others will focus on the role of young people and the moral strength of ethics Professionalism in the United States has created a new political class. All spectrum experts, lack of political class is not ethical leadership. But moral leadership is our company's grace. Ideologies and plans must be formed between the leaders' contrast, create the best society for citizens of all stakeholders and enable democratic animation. So that our modern political discoloration externals motive with money. Candidates are torn apart of competition dependencies between the public and US funders. Civic United v. At the Federal Election Committee, the Supreme Court pointed out that people have a final influence on the elected officials. If there is no passion, this sentence will not always be true This article describes the definition of ethical leadership and its function. Moral or ethical leadership is a leadership style that requires guidance, demonstration, and accountability to other members to be leaders. Moral leadership has very different types from any other leadership style. The goal is not to obey them, but to serve their leaders. Moral leaders tend to increase their workers' abilities rather than boasting their skills. As moral leaders are not classes, they are about everything with individuals seeking a moral deep

Many people and organizations use writing methods and visual methods to make readers understand their opinions. In these works, readers use various methods and attractions to understand their own ideas. , Logical, Emotional, Moral - According to Andrea Landsford (Andrea Landsford) educational book "Daily writer" (daily writer), these calls can be divided into three main types. Logical discussion says that it is often called a logo, using facts, statistics, questionnaires. Ignoring their ethical doctrine, teaching people how to think critically, focusing on superficial emotional appeal, charm taught arguments, easy to understand logic I will. Ignoring the arguments of ethics education, the argument explains the point of view, this is not a concern as to whether it is the right view or not much about education focusing much of the support for personal reasons It will be many. Secondly, this water, the author, the analysis of this speech would like an important philosopher like Wallace, but also as such an action, as Wallace's argument that he failed to explore properly It will not only be expanded in the direction Remember: The first draft of this draft should contain articles that can be developed through rational arguments. The argument usually fascinates, but the emotional or moral of the reader, the academic discussion needs to support well, it is reasonable making, so persuasive, logical, reasonable, to the reader. The first and last paragraphs that make up the mirror not only waste space, but also waste unnecessary opportunities. Introduction and conclusion are not the only paragraphs at the beginning and end of the paper. They included a discussion and formed a strengthened dynamic partnership. By moving between them and changing each one to a different one, you can clarify your perspective and integrate your discussion

The obvious fact about the existence of God is that some people claim to have experienced God. It is these religious experiences being used by philosophers to discuss the existence of God. The main way to express discussion from P1 religious experience is as follows. Discussion that is most widely accepted and criticized about the existence of God. My purpose in this article is to explain why cosmological arguments are proof of the existence of God, to understand that it is the importance of posteriori posteriori discussion, and to my common argument It is to observe the position of. First of all, as a living person on earth, we can safely conclude that the majority of things that exist today have their cause. I confirmed that there is a reason. Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in areas other than formal logic such criteria Correctly point out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection? Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). As a rationalist philosopher, Descartes truncates human knowledge as a product of our sensory data (our senses), but an epistemological sense that our knowledge can be obtained through a process of deducing our own idea I support the position. Second argument about the existence of God. Because Descartes believes the existence is perfect, it can become a predicate to God. First, I will explain what the ontological argument of the existence of God is. Next, I will explain why Descartes decided to incorporate God into his philosophical approach. As a predicate of God existence reveals some truth about God. Ontology seeks to prove the existence of God from a transcendental point of view

Emmanuel Kant's Moral Metaphysical Foundation In his publication 'Foundations of Moral Metaphysics', Immanuel Kant provided the reader with a thesis claiming that morality can be derived from the principle of absolute order did. The most powerful argument to support his argument is the difference between daily work and daily work. To build his thesis, Kant first distinguished experience from 'a priori' concept. The concept of experience is the idea that we get from the experience of the world. Kant, Emmanuel. Foundation of moral metaphysics Cross Lewis Whitebeck, Indianapolis, Bobs - Merrill, 1969. The page number referring to this work is the limit number of Beck referring to the page number of the standard version Königlich-PreußischeAkademiederWissenschaften (Berlin, 1902-38). In Germany, he began an important modern Kant interpreter, and the German idealist movement he began was Dieter Henrich, who has several British works. P. F. Strawson's The Bounds of Sense (1966) played an important role in determining Kant's contemporary acceptance in Britain and the United States. Recent English-speaking interpreters include Luis Whitebek, Jonathan Bennett, Henry Allison, Paul Guya, Kristin Cols Guard, Steven Palmquist, Robert B Pipin, Rogers Crouton, Rudolph McClell and Beatrice Long Enes Immanuel Kant is a German philosopher of the 18th century and is widely known for his accomplishments and works such as "critique of pure reason" and "basic moral metaphysics". Kant developed a moral theory that depends on reason rather than emotion, called moral law. Kant is not anti-religious, but he wants a moral system not covered by religious, emotional or personal interpretation. - Saint Augustine and Aquinas believe that this town is also a moral town. This city will help the physical and mental ransom of mankind. Their mind about fair cities necessarily requires moral law. When it is broken, the law demands punishment. Their thoughts on the justice system can easily lead to religious tyranny. Kant's ethics is based on Emmanuel Kant, "Foundations of The Moral Metaphysics" (1785). He discusses moral decisions based on free will. When acting. His view is regarded as dualism, as it tries to fill the gap between existentialism and contractors. (Stanwick & Stanwick, 2009). One advantage of this framework, regardless of the outcome, is that judgment is at the beginning of the decision-making process. But if you think that action is good at the beginning and the end, the result will have a negative effect, and it may be viewed as a disadvantage as the result is not taken into account.

Although Kant's moral theory is based on Tim's argument, unless it is said that Kant's contribution is the main philosophical field is incomplete (205). He added that this was influenced by his originality, a subtle way and the difficulty of work. Timmons believes that the moral requirement is a rational requirement, which is the ideology of Kant's moral theory, therefore unethical behavior is infringement of rational behavior. Therefore, in Kant's term, moral requirements can be derived from the highest moral principles as they are regarded as rational classification commands (CI). Kant's moral theory develops mainly on the idea that ethical behavior and behavior according to reason are one thing. Because it is a reasonable agent (ie due to rationality of practice, interest and goal-oriented rationality), people are obliged to obey the prescribed moral rules for practical reasons. Otherwise it is unreasonable behavior. Kant focused on the responsibility of being a reasonable actor who knows a moral law, so Kant's theory was considered morality (from Greek's "duty" or "duty") Kant's moral theory is the core concept of autonomy. Most readers believe that Kant believes autonomy is a reasonable intention or property of an agent. In Kant's view, understanding the concept of autonomy is the key to understanding and prove that moral requirements are important to our authority. Just as Rousseau's view influences Kant, freedom is not limited by any law and is limited by some law. Therefore, the concept of freedom as autonomy exceeds the sense that it is simply "negative", that is, the sense that it is released from actions outside of you. It initially contains the concept of law developed and enacted by itself, and along with it the law with its own decisive authority This section explained Kant's view (5c) that the structure and content of Kant's moral theory (5a-b), and the beliefs of freedom, immortality of God and the soul are an inevitable "hypothesis" of practical reasons It is aimed to do. (Please refer to 7c below for the relationship between Kant's moral theory and its aesthetic theory.) Kant said, "Foundations of moral metaphysics" (1785) and "Critique of practical reasons" (" Critique "). The discussion he got from the basic work is his most famous and influential, so the following focuses on them. Kant advocated his moral theory with three major works published in the last 20 years of his life: the foundation of moral metaphysics (1785), the critique of practical reasons (1788), and Moral metaphysics (1797). First, the foundation is most influential, and our discussion on Kant 's absolute order will come mainly to the Lord. It will help to understand his influence, to understand why Kant designed the absolute command he did. In many cases, the main influence of key philosophers requires a detective. The scholar can find out where the great philosopher is educated and what kind of sentences are used in the school. They may organize the personal letter of the philosopher to arrange the book he read. They may also discover the contents of the philosopher's private library by examining his real estate sales records after his death. In the case of Kant, it is easy to find out his influence.

Because life begins with a concept, abortion is inherently immoral. As such, abortion is murder and violates the right of pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Abortion also has a physical and mental harm to the fetus and mother, so we must observe the dignity of life. Supporters advocating life believe that ethical aspects of abortion - the killing of innocents is immoral, but legal position - believe that illegalization of abortion is violation of privacy and is illegal. There is a close relationship with the recognition of the legality of abortion and the moral view of abortion. The vast majority (80%) of people who oppose legal abortion believe abortion is morally wrong. On the other hand, most legitimate abortion advocates say abortion is morally acceptable (18%), or it is not an ethical problem (42%). But more than a quarter of people think that abortion should be legitimately morally wrong (28%). Consistent with this, the most viable group often says that abortion is morally wrong. Three quarters of conservative Republicans stated that mild or liberal Republicans (51%) and conservative or moderate Democrats (55%) are minor. Nearly one-third (31%) of the LDP believes that abortion is morally wrong, and 40% think abortion is not a moral issue Should abortion be legal or should I be banned? The answer depends, at least in part, on the moral value of the fetus. Next Article - Arc of Discussion of Moral and Legal Issues Related to Abortion Part 6 - I believe that maintaining the legality of abortion is fair than abortion. This is because the moral value of the fetus is lower than 1. In the latest article by Berny Belvedere (4th), he accused me of not participating fully in the philosophical basis of abortion = homicide argument. He also argued that in the case of abortion = homicide, the problem of physical autonomy was essentially secondary, avoiding any argument about the moral value of physical autonomy. In Part 5, Ryan Huber admits that abortion may not be immoral as much as murder, but argues that the moral value of the fetus is still higher than the moral value of maternity autonomy.

Death sentence debate Since the 1970s almost all of the death sentences in the US have been murdered. About the constitutionality of the death penalty there was intense debate among Americans. Critics condemned the execution as being in violation of the eighth amendment "cruel and abnormal punishment", supporters of the death penalty argued that the clause had no intention of prohibiting legal execution. Furman vs. the case in 1972 The strongest argument against the use of the death penalty is that the death penalty is a cruel and rare punishment. The eighth amendment of the US Constitution condemns cruel and unusual punishment against protesting the death penalty. When the Constitution was drafted, the death penalty was widely held in this country, but it was wrong, cruel and abnormal. Many authors of the Constitution support the death penalty as the philosophers underlying the Constitution are. John Locke said even that homicide is not inherently wrong. Currently, the role of criminal law by prove to everyone that the greatest concern for homicide is to prevent murder. Because the death penalty is humanitarian and inhuman, it is morally wrong. The way to enforce the death penalty may involve physical torture. Even if you punish a criminal, this is definitely a cruel and inhuman act. Ultimately, the most important argument against the death penalty is that it is immoral. No matter what you think, the death penalty is killed and the murder is always wrong! Murder is considered morally absolute, but this is not necessarily so it is necessary to further study the morality of the death penalty. According to the moral form you believe, murder can sometimes be considered moral. In the ethics class, I studied five major ethical theories. Utilitarianism, Kantoism (moral theory), egoism, relativism, and fifthly, the four theories of virtue ethics are defective. Let's see how to view each theory against the death penalty.

Abstract of moral education at university: World philosophical conference, Paideia: philosophy education The headline of humans reflects arrogance, irony or practical optimism. How does the philosophy of the 21st century teach human society? More specifically, in the sense that philosophy is rarely educated by humans when there are few readers of philosophy in addition to academic philosophers. In this article, I studied a possible way that the philosophy proposed by Derek Bock, former president of Harvard University, can educate humanity. The dictionary definition of education is "to provide intellectual, moral and social guidance ((someone, especially to children), usually at school or university." The educated dictionary is defined as "educated". Education is not always accepted just because someone is receiving education. Because that person's education level should be judged based on how to use it. Just because someone received education, that person is truly educated is that it is what students do for their education and they are judging whether they are truly educated or not is. Education is one of the most important things in society. To be able to graduate from college means getting better chances, especially if you graduate from a university with a high academic background. Universities are considered to be areas of improvement that can improve the skills needed in the future to undertake the career path they desire. Many people are considering education and considering reviewing the future, so students will consider choosing where to continue education and knowing to provide more universities. Beyond the argument that higher education institutions provide moral education by default, many universities believe that there is an obligation to actively prepare ethical individuals who will contribute to the communities they participate in It is. Great expectation: The American University Advancement Report (AAC & U) announced in 2002, as a new vision for going on to university, influences the educated "responsible" learner on the university campus: Well then: What's wrong with the United States? Moral universality makes people civilized, but there is no moral universality. Public goods generally allow education, information, training, and connection to school people, and to live a long and peaceful life. But Americans - today's militants or yesterday's slave auction organizers or owners - I believe that moral universality is merely "expenses", "taxation" and so on. I have never seen them - they have not seen it yet - the civilization process on which democracy depends

The main moral conflict of Sophocles in Antigone is the most fundamental conflict of values. This theater causes a moral conflict as to whether God's law or city law is stronger. This seems to be the most prominent theme. The conflict occurred mainly between tragic hero Antigon and King Tribes' uncle Crion. The city of Tevez experienced war, and Antigone and her sister Ismail lost brothers, Eotocles and Polynex. Eteocles was buried as a hero of the Tevez fight and was respected. In Sophocles' 'Anti Ghon', the concept of individuals and the authority of society are the main concerns. In Antigone, readers are challenged by various conflicting ethics. The plight of Antigone is related to moral principles. She must decide whether she must act according to what she believes is right and whether to obey her king's authority. Through the script, Sophocles raised the question of doubt, the value of personal beliefs that transcended the social law. He raised the character of Antigone for us. And he must discover the meaning of true honor by choosing sacred law and her city law. The main moral conflict of Sophocles in Antigone is the most fundamental conflict of values. This theater causes a moral conflict as to whether God's law or city law is stronger. This seems to be the most prominent theme. The conflict occurred mainly between tragic hero Antigon and King Tribes' uncle Crion. Thevee experienced a war where Antigone and her sister Islam main lost the character of his brother, Ete Ocrace and Polyneike ...... Antigone and Ismene two sisters, Steel that was tempered with Antigone and cotton ball Issue is different from each other because it comes from. One is hard, resistant, and the other is flexible, absorbent and soft. Antigone was always a successful woman in the 1990s, but the liberation and strong attitude of her femininity, and Islam main seems to depend more on women in the 1950s style Sophocles is playing Antigone. Antigone is a competition between Antigone (representing family value) and Creon (representing national values). Sophocles explores the impact of responsibility based on the depth of passionate and intimate thinking of Cleon and the moral and practical results of the whole drama Antigone. The moral decision of Antigone seems to be more logical and profitable than Kryon, but the personal argument is that both roles ... stands in the people's shadow. In many cultures, the role of women is visible and inaudible. One of the first "I heard" women is that I believed in Sophocles' antigone. Antigone is descendants of Oedipus. When her brother Ete Ocrace and Polynei Case kill each other of Thebes, the king, Kreon prohibited the funeral of the rebel faction Poly Nay Case. But Antigone did a funeral without following him and was sentenced to death by what she did.

To answer questions raised by the title, two aspects must be taken into account. First, we have to decide whether Dr. Faust is a moral game; I will try to classify the script by discussing the format, content and theme of the script. I also provide another argument that the drama is actually a tragedy. Secondly, we have to decide whether it is moral; to do this, I am tone of some part of the drama, especially the choir and other character's speech I think. In Dr. Faustas and Dr. Faustas of Christianity, the hero sold his soul to the devil, then died and sent to hell. One of the questions that comes to mind when reading this book is "Does Dr. Faust have Christian morals?" Among the dialogues in the play there are some giving a signal to tell the reader if Faustas has Christian morality. Since we are talking about someone's beliefs and ethics, the literature search method is shown in this article. The anonymous work called Everyman and the play of Christopher Marlowe entitled "Dr. Faustus" is the simplest "moral drama". Everyone is the most ethical "moral game" and Dr. Forster is not. Other similarities and differences between the two works are as follows. Both works concentrate on a central role, and their lives and faults are examples that are not alive. Of course, at the end of Everyman, the title character became the most positive character in adjectives, and Faustus is still the role model of our game we want to reject. Dr. Faust of Dr. Christopher Marlow may actually be classified as a type of tragedy. Faust is a tragic hero and such a tragic hero can not become a moral game hero. It has a very obvious relationship with the medieval moral drama, but it can not become a moral game. Dr. Faustas was one of the most ambiguous plays in front of Shakespeare, one of Shakespeare's greatest heroic tragedy. Marlow strongly emphasizes the depictions of the characters and inner conflicts, coupled with a deep understanding of the complexity of Faust and the great emotional attachment of Faust when he was truly cursed into hell. Tragedy version. But I believe that the type of Dr. Faustas belongs to the performance of the drama is very subjective, and I believe how to play the scenes of seven sins

Discussion of euthanasia encountered a tragic traffic accident on your way to work. You have been in a coma for years. Your family is not only badly damaged by your nation but it is also hard to pay all your expenses. You are not insurance, your family must keep paying bills that make you "lively". Your family is completely bankrupt and you have not shown any signs of improvement yet. Your family wants to unplug, but because it is illegal in the US, doctors are not allowed it. The most popular argument is its euthanasia to relieve pain, relieving the freedom of people who choose low quality of life and death ("causes of euthanasia"). Some of the more popular arguments for euthanasia include a variety of religious beliefs Doctors should not participate in the cause of death faith disregard the concept of human life, fear of euthanasia, medical expenses There is a possibility that it may become a means to control the legal idea, and its legal idea may be changed and managed Euthanasia may become involuntary ("causes of euthanasia"). Belgian age limit, recently changed after legal adults, for children because euthanasia is not a legitimate (Rodriguez) cure in the past 12 years, nowadays. Belgian Catholic Church requires that the legislation be rejected, thinking that the decline in age restrictions is "too late" (Rodriguez). However, most Belgian people support the bill (Rodriguez) The argument of euthanasia is defined as "an act or practice of severely killing people suffering from intractable diseases". Euthanasia can be traced back to the civilization of ancient Greece and Rome. These civilizations sometimes allow others to die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia is causing many controversies. Groups that support life and groups that have the right to participate are discussing different aspects. Discussion on euthanasia in the UK One of the biggest controversies in the UK today is euthanasia. Discussions on euthanasia often rely on "right to live" and "right to capital punishment" if legalized. Originally, the term "euthanasia" means "calm and simple death", but now "inducing death behavior". Why euthanasia is actually killing, and why does everyone change a new perspective? Many people are dissenting about this issue. Humanitarians pursue moral principles, promote happiness and satisfaction in their lives, assert protection measures to prevent and prevent voluntary euthanasia as being morally correct

Organizations are indispensable to the formulation of theory, and hunting has become a subject of debate over the past 100 years due to the development of organizations with animal rights. Modernization has made primitive forms of hunting and collection a human being in an outdated form. Under these circumstances, people think that hunting loses its popularity, but this sentence must not be far from the truth. It has evolved into sports and participation continues throughout the United States. Arguments can be defined as claims or statements. The purpose of the discussion is to convince the audience. We must make reasonable arguments so that the audience can participate and be consistent with the viewpoint of the author. Therefore, one of the key elements can be identified as a viewer's perception. Another important factor is proof. To convince the audience, that assertion should be summarized by evidence and authority. - Thomas Nagel has made a statement about the absence of humans in "Brain splitting and consciousness matching". In the case of Nagel's claim, the ego is the physiological basis of psychology that constitutes the subject of experience. Self may be regarded as a basic person, or "individual identity". Parameters that meet these two requirements are called sounds. In other words, rational discussion is a valid argument with reality premise. Rational discussion is the only argument to prove that conclusion. Any argument whose inference is invalid, or at least with erroneous assumptions, is called incomplete. Irrational arguments can not prove their conclusion. Logic focuses on the validity of the reasoning, not the credibility of the facility. Determining whether the premise is correct is the responsibility of other knowledge fields (law, common sense, science, ethics, etc.). The effective meaning of the discussion is that when the current proposal is true the conclusion can not be true. We sometimes explain this according to "possible situation": there is no possible situation, the premise is true, but the conclusion is not Soundness - to judge the quality of discussion. If it has a real premise and a true conclusion and it is valid, that is reasonable. Moral arguments are rarely logically effective and therefore rarely justified in a strict logical sense. But our goal is to avoid false reasoning and to create as strong and persuasive discussion as possible. Subjects of moral value - non-moral community deserves ethical considerations (eg, human corpse, human fetus, specific animals, environment, art and culture are subjects of moral value). Unless there is a good reason, they should not hurt, but they are not the same as moral values.

Abortion I objected to abortion for several reasons. I think that it is a better decision to adopt rather than pause. Abortion is murder. Condoms are available and cheap. There are other forms of birth control pills. Some people say this is their choice so I think people should choose wisely, please do not kill the baby. In the United States there are many programs that can help those who claim to be economically unsuitable for child rearing. I think adoption is a better choice than homicide. Biblical discussion on moral code abortion for abortion on February 2, 2013 In this article I will discuss discussion on abortion. The first argument I discuss is the Bible argument. Nonetheless, I must first admit that the Bible does not mention the content of abortion first. As abortion is not considered for Israeli women, there is not even need to mention abortion in the Penal Code. Abortion is an imaginary act. First of all, given the recent facility disasters in Fukushima, children are ... ... world energy demands. Compared to traditional energy production methods, nuclear power offers many advantages, but its drawbacks are also very obvious and serious. This argument is the reason why the industry is not thriving in the US in the past 30 years. There are three arguments for abortion. The first opinion is that a perfect human life begins at the time the egg is fertilized by sperm; therefore abortion is a violation of human rights. In Christian tradition this argument is usually expressed through religious beliefs that have built deep personal relationships with God and God has foreseen all aspects of our private life. In this concept, women threatened by pregnancy have different levels of regulation.

A premature baby without a lifetime abortion soul 16 year old is walking along the unknown alley of the mainland, one of the other 1 million, with a child of 4 months old. She tried to hide it, but the signs eventually indicated that "Who is the father" is the complaint and appeal of the person she loves. A year ago, she was raped by a former boyfriend and now they carry children they do not want. Whether she should be forced to carry unprotected children and take care. Biblical discussion on moral code abortion for abortion on February 2, 2013 In this article I will discuss discussion on abortion. The first argument I discuss is the Bible argument. Nonetheless, I must first admit that the Bible does not mention the content of abortion first. As abortion is not considered for Israeli women, there is not even need to mention abortion in the Penal Code. Abortion is an imaginary act. First of all, given the recent facility disasters in Fukushima, children are ... ... world energy demands. Compared to traditional energy production methods, nuclear power offers many advantages, but its drawbacks are also very obvious and serious. This argument is the reason why the industry is not thriving in the US in the past 30 years. Philosophy 101 12/8/2011 Abortion error controversy. The purpose of this article is to suggest that abortion is a wrong argument. Some insist that abortion will only be accepted within "rare" situations like rape or within several days of contraception. I agree that in some cases abortion is "more acceptable" than at other times. An example of abortion becoming "better" is rape if an abortion is found Utilitarian debate about abortion may be an adverse effect of a woman continuing to become pregnant, losing a job, taking care of a child in certain circumstances. Discussion on abortion may be that knowing that pregnancy leads to childbirth and that happiness from someone depends on your care and parenting. Thomasson uses the metaphor of the violinist and believes that the woman's life to save the fetus is generous, but there is no obligation to do so. Tomasson's view is that no one has the right to use a woman's body to save her life unless the woman gives it to that person. A woman is a human and has the right to complete physical integrity just like any other person.

Since 1972, more than 40 million babies have been legally aborted. In 1972, Roe and Wade's lawsuit was submitted to the Supreme Court, one of the most controversial issues concerning women's civil rights. The lawsuit included the right to choose abortion to stop pregnancy. Most feminist groups support this case as women think that this is their own body and want to have children. It is not a choice to be a child, it is wrong and cruel. Biblical discussion on moral code abortion for abortion on February 2, 2013 In this article I will discuss discussion on abortion. The first argument I discuss is the Bible argument. Nonetheless, I must first admit that the Bible does not mention the content of abortion first. As abortion is not considered for Israeli women, there is not even need to mention abortion in the Penal Code. Abortion is an imaginary act. First of all, given the recent facility disasters in Fukushima, children are ... ... world energy demands. Compared to traditional energy production methods, nuclear power offers many advantages, but its drawbacks are also very obvious and serious. This argument is the reason why the industry is not thriving in the US in the past 30 years. There are three arguments for abortion. The first opinion is that a perfect human life begins at the time the egg is fertilized by sperm; therefore abortion is a violation of human rights. In Christian tradition this argument is usually expressed through religious beliefs that have built deep personal relationships with God and God has foreseen all aspects of our private life. In this concept, women threatened by pregnancy have different levels of regulation.

Kant's moral principles are based on moral metaphysics and the author Immanuel Kant will form the foundation by rejecting all ethical theories related to the result and then focusing on our moral motives and actions will do. Kant wants to get a good role from the accidental correct behavior. He thinks that everything is coincidental (depending on how it is used, everything may have good or bad values). So he tried to find the highest subject of morality in all his reasoning. In his article, Tannert strives to provide us with reasonable arguments that human reproductive cloning "violates our basic moral principles". He proposed his argument to the central moral principle of respecting all mankind of Immanuel Conde. It is said by a great philosopher: Nevertheless, it is not always meaningful to never end at the same time to other people "(Kant, 1785). Essentially, Kant's principles prohibit the use of reasonable creatures - humans - a tool to achieve their own selfish goals. Tannert claims that human reproductive cloning through somatic cell nuclear transfer or embryogenesis is immoral because it violates this principle with human cloning for selfish purposes. But, as I have proved, this assertion has problems. In addition, although Kant's respect for humanity is of great practical value, it does not provide sufficient guidance on cloning. In Kant's view, the fundamental goal of moral philosophy and basic work is to "find" the fundamental principle of "moral metaphysics" that Kant interprets as a system of transcendental moral principles. CI for human beings of all ages and cultures. Kant completed the project through the first two chapters of the basic work. He analyzes and clarifies the concept of common sense about morality, including the idea of ​​"goodwill" and "responsibility". The purpose of the first project is to present an accurate description of the principles underlying all of our general moral decisions. The judgment of the problem should be ordinary reasonable and adults will accept reasonable reflection judgment judgment. But today, many people think that Kant is too optimistic about the depth and degree of ethical consensus.

As Harman stated, moral relativism stated that "There are universal fundamental moral requirements, social customs, customs, customs, and the principles they accept, various people have various basic moral requirements It will be subject to ". .85)). Many people believe that moral recognition arises from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman believes that morality is consistency among people with different powers and resources to provide a more rational explanation I believe it will come from. We oppose moral relativism as the right way to judge human morals. Although there are some problems in moral relativism, we will focus on the reason why the argument of moral relativism is incorrect and consider accepting the meaning of relativism. I will make a moral judgment on right and wrong and propose another framework for considering the opposite opposition. Because philosophers often use moral relativism differently, we consider moral relativism for the purpose of this article. For moral relativism. Moral relativism is often used to explain the cultural differences that affect their morality and morality. According to James Reichers, because of moral relativism it is not usually right or wrong, and simply speaking, "different cultures have different ethics" (Lechers, 18). A correct view and a wrong viewpoint. It is thought that it is correct in one society and wrong in another society, but all cultures have several families. The contemporary family we are seeing today is like this. "Sonny's Blues" is mainly brother, he just wants to see the best for his lowest brother, Sonny. What happened to Sony from the middle class family was not what happened to fraternity. This family's biggest brother has strong value, but I can not understand how his brother can enter so many problems in this way. He explained in his story that he and his family are working hard. The definition of moral relativism is that truth or false moral judgment is based on relatives of many factors and that the universal moral judgment is not absolutely right or wrong It is that. In this article, I would like to discuss moral relativism. In my opinion there is no objective morality, all morals consist of people's opinions, which are influenced by different cultures, time and individual factors. As for multiculturalism, ethics is different if society is different Moral relativism does not believe that moral facts are independent of personal or cultural beliefs or desires. Depending on the version of relativism, the given moral description is correct only when it considers (for moral subjectivity) or culture (for cultural relativism) as one. . In the belief of epistemology, belief that belief as knowledge's position should be judged reliably. For example, scientific experiments are considered more reliable than intuition and speculation. Representationism shows that humans do not directly recognize the outside world (and can not directly recognize them), but instead they only know their own ideas and interpretations of the world's objects It is a philosophical concept. Therefore, a barrier or perceived veil may interfere with direct knowledge about others. There is a "veil" between the soul and this world.

Assisting Suicide Now, the concept of assisting suicide accompanied by terminal disease is controversial. Many people think suicide is a moral mistake. Therefore, in response to the Seattle Times article on euthanasia, I believe that Pastor Susan J. Oshia is a murder and should not be euthanized. Pastor O'Shea's debate starts with her personal reasons why she does not support euthanasia. Then she focused on the idea that many of the reasons people want to help with suicide are completely culture rather than medical. Pros and cons for euthanasia and suicide assistance are supported and opposed to euthanasia and suicide assistance. Some of the main arguments are outlined below. You should be aware that these discussions do not necessarily represent the choice of the NHS and the opinions and policies of the Ministry of Health. There are mainly two types of discussion for assisting suicide to support euthanasia and suicide. My argument is against the use of euthanasia. Euthanasia I think that it is not appropriate to practice in any form. I am against spontaneous euthanasia. But before discussing my argument, let's look at the definition, type, and history of euthanasia. Then let's explain the argument against and against euthanasia. Then, when defending my argument, we will meet some of the organizations against euthanasia and their arguments. For some philosophers, euthanasia is defined in a narrow sense and it is not acceptable as it is wrong that deliberately killing it is equivalent to killing euthanasia. However, it is morally right to make some people die for end-of-year diseases that are likely to die and are very painful. People commonly oppose voluntary euthanasia is common. One argument against spontaneous euthanasia is that "elderly people, disabled people, intractable patients will feel that they should choose voluntary euthanasia so as not to bear the burden of others ..." (Anonymous common 1) However, there is no real evidence that this problem will occur if spontaneous euthanasia is legalized. Another argument is that "there is always a possibility of finding a cure that will allow erroneous diagnosis or survival or recovery" (Anonymous Objection 1). This always exists and we will not be able to eliminate it altogether. This should not be considered a problem as long as he himself explains spontaneous euthanasia in detail. By lawfulization of voluntary euthanasia it is said to "destroy the incentives of individuals and companies for creative care" (Anonymous Why 2). Those who oppose voluntary euthanasia will ask w!

Every day in our world, health professionals make thousands of babies miscarriage out of the womb of their mother and do procedures called abortion. The law protects and agrees that mothers and health professionals do these procedures. However, the baby does not seem to have the right to defend himself or herself, when the fetus is a human life and it is necessary to decide what it claims. To support medical students, in the professional life of Sara TEER 祚 (Sarah TERZO) witnessed his first abortion, LifeSiteNews.com article to convey the following evidence, "Mother refused and made a medical killer Waste, society, these babies can silently die This is a matter of writing my ethical argument. I was asked to pick the topic to write and I chose to write a moral argument about abortion. At first, it is a wide range of topics covering science, religion and human rights, the main reason is that I have many choices, but I know something about this. Since this is a wide range of topics, it is difficult to choose which part of the abortion argument, and I can write without injecting some personal opinion or opinion of abortion Ethics February 2, this article describes 2013 reasonable argument against Abortion Bible argument against abortion, I describe the argument against abortion. The first set of discussions I discuss is Biblical discussion. Nonetheless, I must first admit that the Bible does not directly address the content of abortion. Abortion is unthinkable for Israeli women, even so it is not necessary to mention abortion in the Penal Code. Why is abortion an unimaginable act? First of all, given the global energy demand, especially recent Fukushima facility disasters, children ... compared to traditional energy production methods, nuclear power generation has many advantages, but its drawbacks are also very serious It is obvious and serious. This argument is one of the reasons why the industry has not fully prosperous in the past 30 years. There are three arguments against abortion. The first opinion is that complete human life begins with the point where eggs are fertilized by sperm and therefore abortion violates human rights. In the Christian tradition, this argument is usually expressed by religious beliefs that established a deep personal relationship with God, God foresees all aspects of our personal life. In this concept, there are various levels of regulation for women threatened with pregnancy.

It is not murder; it is one tenth of the most famous ethical norm in Western culture, and it may be the main driving force behind advocates supporting life. Discussions that support their beliefs usually start with the premise that the fetus is a person, and destroying or killing people is immoral. Therefore, abortion is human's planned destruction, murder, and therefore immorality. I deny the fact that the fetus I call 22 weeks old embryo has the right to survive. The following is an example of anti dumping against general support selection arguments. The expression here is expressed in a casual conversation style reflecting natural conversation method in a face to face conversation with friends, relatives, classmates, colleagues. If you are talking to someone in writing, you may have to change wording, grammar and / or tone. # 1 We support women's rights. As long as you do not kill you, we can choose anyone. But your argument will cast doubts - will abortion kill innocent people? Otherwise, there is no moral or moral problem. However, if abortion represents the killing of an innocent human family, it is immoral, immoral and can not be justified. I have no right to kill innocent people Professional choice or professional life. This is a question everyone is discussing about abortion. When they are just eggs, it really "kills" the baby. In this discussion, the choice to support is the answer. "In every region of the world where abortion is illegal and unsafe, faithful people risk taking safe abortion, treating women secretly with complications, helping women find safe health care providers "(" Abortion "). - The argument between supporting choices and supporting life has been going on for a long time and will continue to do so. Support women's abortion rights and the party's choice to fight for the fetal life Throughout history, each discussion has two main aspects: the liberal and conservatives, the Democrats and Republicans, the support of gun rights, and the support of guns. The same can be said about pregnancy abortion. It is life support and choice of choice. But the difference lies in the diversity of taboo and opinion of the situation. Some people think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, but some believe abortion should be illegal unless rape or incest, others are illegal in addition to protecting maternal living Some people think it should. These exceptions are the reason why this topic is very relevant to liberal, especially whether the lifetime of the fetus is taken into account. The foundation of liberalism is the protection of people's rights, including the pursuit of life, freedom, and happiness. Usually, the assertion of life is that the fetus is life, so it should be protected

He is trying to prove the existence of God Anselm argument argument argument argument is that his argument is purely based on the mind demo and that actor challenges the real moral sense It does not need it. Ontologies are related or related to something. Anselm 's ontological debate is also considered existence, whether it is possession of God, and is omnipotent, omniscient and kind. This argument is a transcendental argument. An argument about the existence argument argument argument of God is an a priori argument. These arguments try to prove the existence of God from the meaning of the word God. Anselm of Canterbury introduced an ontological argument to his work 'Proslogion'. The classic argument of Anselm is based on two principles, the most important of which are St. Anselm and Rene de Carte of the above Canterbury. If you understand the meaning of talking about God, you must confirm his existence and argument argument must be true. Criticism of the ontological argument began with Gauniro at the same time as St. Anselm. Perhaps the most famous criticism of ontological debate is due to Emmanuel Kant in his criticism of pure reason. Most notably, Kant argues that ontological arguments are at risk by implicit assumptions that "existence" is a predicate. But as Bertrand Russell said, it is easy to be confident that ontological arguments are less accurate than what they are doing. This will help explain why ontological discussions have captivated philosophers for nearly 1000 years. The opposite of argument argument takes many forms. It is intended to apply to all argument arguments and other objections; some contrary intent applies to particular forms of arguments or argument arguments for a particular ontology. For arguments of ontology against the existence of successful generals, this is a matter of controversy. Argument arguments for general criticism are what is being displayed so far: they are not convincing that they are not yet offering a person who does not accept the conclusion of God's existence - And who is rational, reflection, ample information etc. - Whether to consider all the reasons for accepting this conclusion for or against or not. To clarify, the evaluation has made invalid results, etc., or has previously made it clear that there is no reasonable set, reflex, informed of the premise, sufficient existence of all existing occurrences Accepts interpretation of either argument argument

In this article you have a country called X country where women are considered inferior. As a result, women have no right and freedom to enjoy by male counterparts. For example, they can not manage the social, political or economic departments of their lives, and the education they receive is very limited. A female resident in country X noticed that he had a fetus from a healthy woman he was about to pause. Abortion is morally wrong. Most Americans reject the absoluteist position that the end of pregnancy is always wrong and believe that abortion can be a morally right choice. If you believe that abortion is morally wrong, you have an obligation to treat abortion as illegal and unusable. Many people who oppose abortion for religious or moral reasons also think that imposing their values ​​on all people through civil law is wrong. The fetus is not a "part of the mother" in the real sense, it is an independent and unique person. The fetus is completely dependent on the body of the woman to maintain life and is connected to the fetus through the placenta and umbilical cord. Fetal health is directly related to the health of pregnant women. It is separated only at birth. "The fetus has the right to deny any women's right to control their body" Essay.com/ This is an article on abortion. It respects women's choice. But first, please review her choice. This is an article on abortion. It respects women's choice. But first, please review her choice. The core philosophical question of the debate over abortion is related to the moral status of embryos and fetuses. If the fetus is a person and has the same life right as the born one, only a few abortions are due to moral killing of the child because the child is unnecessary or illegal It seems reasonable. Ineffective But morality of abortion does not necessarily resolve this directly. Even if someone acknowledges that the fetus is a human assertion, we do not automatically assume that the fetus has the right to use the pregnant woman's body. Therefore, the morality of abortion depends not only on the moral status of the fetus, but also on whether there is an obligation to hold the pregnant woman's birth. In this argument, I assert that abortion is usually admitted morally. My argument of abortion is not dependent on assertions on the metaphysical or moral status of the fetus. For discussion, I acknowledge that the fetus has the same life right as you. However denying this statement's acceptance means that abortion is not permitted. Let's begin by saying that. Most of the debate over abortion focuses on the female fetal life right. Abortion opponents argue that the fetus is a worthy person with the right of life and abortion unjustly kills them. Therefore, the core discussion on abortion can be expressed as follows.

Passion as a standard moral of moral judgment is research on human behavior, in other words, research on moral behavior. Everyone uses ethics for their daily actions and decisions, but not many people have the opportunity to explore the core of ethics. When Socrates said in 399 BC "Life of unknown cause is not worth living", he encouraged people to study his lifestyle and ethical decision-making. Ethics is not just about finding rules that affect ethical life, but also about the goal of ending life. We made moral decisions. We made moral and moral decisions. It is a tough decision. At some point today, these decisions are performed autonomously in this situation, but in fact they are manufactured everyday. In many of our words, we are turning to Mark Zuckerberg. If you see what happens in both cases. One is a trolley problem with death, and the other is the same value of currency loss, you go to the UK or another strange country. Westerners are educated, industrialized, wealthy, and democratic. Save 5 and kill 1. In theory, this Confucianism says "Let fate go with the flow". (Please see the cultural differences of Natalie Gold's response to real life and supposed car problems) According to sentimentalism, moral judgment is expression of emotion, not expression of cognitive state like belief. Emotionalism explains the passion of moral responses and interprets moral differences as differences in attitudes rather than differences in beliefs. Can moral judgment be interpreted as giving behavioral characteristics to sentences? It is wrong to play Sally as playing Sally will cause pain. Is this a form? X has a characteristic C, so X is wrong. The emotional argument that X is wrong is always an open question. A descriptive phrase? Does X have function C? Lack of emotional power This statement seems to deny the existence of universal value. Herman thinks emotionalism is not a sufficient theory. It describes the passion and strength of moral judgment, but treats morality as a subjective group of attitudes, feelings, reactions, and emotions. Herman 's theory does not seem to fully explain our morals as truth. It does not seem to provide the underlying universal truth we seek. Moral judgment not only constitutes a subjective emotional response, but also each group must choose which group to join and which habits to accept. Social custom theory does not provide a single true morality. Morality is related to the framework. The universal truth that we imagine is not related to the framework. Therefore, we seem to have to conclude that the theory of social custom is flawed.

Hume's argument to distinguish between kindness and self-love lies in the investigation of his moral principle, and Hume accuses skeptical philosophers who deny the existence of moral differences. I doubt that he or she is so indifferent that he or she can not distinguish between good and evil. Hume believes that the differences between males arise from nature, customs and education. Hume believes that it can not claim that there is absolutely no moral difference, no matter how skeptical or skeptical. In his study of the principle of self-love, Hume did not reject all aspects of egoist of justice and lack of kindness in human motives. He acknowledges many motives in human nature and explains the mixing of elements in our nature with the metaphor of pigeons, wolves and snakes. In principle, he regards mankind in the field of moral behavior as a mixture of kindness and self-love. Egoist believes that human beings are limited to the pursuit of survival, fear, ambition, and happiness, but Hume believes that motives of people are all kinds of generosity and generous passion. He insists that these factors vary from person to person. Because there is no unique information about that person, there is no way to know whether that person usually dominates and controls self-love or vice versa. Hume's moral psychology and ethics make sympathetic motives important in moral life. He believes that the natural kindness mostly explains his so-called moral origin. The main theme is defending his mercy as a principle of humanity, as opposed to the theory of psychological self-interest. In Hume's moral theory, many people are directed to the theory of Mandeville (probably Hobbes) that human motive behaviors are private interests and humans are neither good nor kind to communication. Hume believes that self-interest is based on wrong moral psychology, and we consider that kindness is a "primitive" feature of human nature. Kindness is the most important principle of Hum's human morality, but he also uses the word "compassion" to identify virtue rooted in good will, generosity and love for others. Hume found kindness in many performances such as friendship, charity, compassion.

In the 1800s, British philosophy and moral philosopher William Perry wrote a paper entitled 'Discussion from Design'. In the "design controversy" Perry tried to prove the existence of hegemony by developing special arguments called theoretical arguments. The theoretical argument is a discussion of analogy based on the similarity between two different themes. In this article, intentionally trying to break Paley's argument, as follows: First, introduce the basic purpose theory argument pearly, secondly, arguments were analyzed with Paley derivation. Third, contact with Paley's argument William Paley (William Paley, 1743-1805), one of the philosophical arguments about the existence of God, known as argument of design argument theory, is the most widely discussed matter of discussion. Pale, evidence advocates believe that there are signs of obvious design in natural order. It seems that things not only exist but are designed for some purpose (McGrath 2011, p. 183). But British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) strictly compromised the reliability of the Paley method (McGrath 2011, P73) and provided another explanation for this surface design in nature, In the 1800s, British philosophy and moral philosopher William Perry wrote a paper entitled 'Discussion from Design'. In the "design controversy" Perry tried to prove the existence of hegemony by developing special arguments called theoretical arguments. The theoretical argument is a discussion of analogy based on the similarity between two different themes. In this article, intentionally trying to break Paley's argument, as follows: First, introduce the basic purpose theory argument pearly, secondly, arguments were analyzed with Paley derivation. Third, contact with Paley's argument Discussion about the existence of God of William Perry and David Hume is called theoretical argumentation or design theory. Discussion from design is an argument about the existence of God and the existence of certain creator based on the idea of ​​order and purpose in the universe. Hume adopted a method against design argument, Paley defended it. Both Hume and Paley are making very strong claims, but we will reach the conclusion to distinguish which philosopher is taking a stronger position. Yet, in many cases, it is confused with the discussion of simple analogy, William S. Paley from the clockmaker's argument to avoid Hume against the analogy of the world and artifacts, a more complicated design It is an argument of. I need to check the clock and I find that I found a clock on the ground Paley's argument is that the similarities and part of the deliverables to the physical world, as a reliable indicator of intelligent design What is happening in that place, I hardly thought ... About what I know, the watch may have always been there.

Trademark argument against the existence of Descartes' God (also known as causal assertion) seeks to prove the existence of God through our understanding of God. This argument depends on the definition of the cause and outcome of Descartes and he regards it as a priori. The idea that God is an infinite existence, his reason is essentially staying in our brain, as his seal and trademark is like a potter left in his flowerpot. "God put this idea into my mind in my creation, which may give the impression that workers are impressed with his work." This infinite idea is limited to human beings You must be born for the nature. Things can not appear, what is the idea? Descartes' first argument about the existence of God is called a trademark allegation. This argument points out that we all have our own ideas in our minds ("... there is a truthful and positive thought about God or my idea ... "). As the designer left a mark, God must plant this idea in our hearts. "When I think more about this, my initial thought should not be surprised if my intelligence can not figure out why God is behaving like him, because I know that It is because I do not know what the reason is and how God produces them. Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). - All moral arguments about the existence of God are based on the principle that all of us share common sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, in a broad sense, people all over the world have ambiguous thoughts about right and wrong; a moral argument to the existence of God is that this mutual understanding is evidence of the existence of God I will say that. Immanuel Kant advocated this argument (not a moral argument); a god as a source of objective morality

Why are reasonable people educated believing in the parties to the discussion when most of the evidence points to other evidence? Discussions between science and religion announced the origin of the species that began at Charles Darwin, everyone has problems, since then the conflict continues: come from people. Where does the earth come from? space. Everything: Following the evolutionary model as Charles Darwin, Charles Darwin and many scientists, and not only answers, but also discovered evidence that evolution is a more rational theory to the next problem. Rachels pointed out that the argument between science and religion is itself a major setback in theology. Traditional religion absorbs most of its power by interpreting the universe. Darwin advocated the theory of competition, and other answers, especially on the relationship between humans and other animals. "Before Darwin, the understanding of inhumanity is controlled by the world's picture.This picture shows that the gap between human nature and the animal's nature is the same as God in all the build- For his men, he gave his soul, free will, reason and moral judgment as well as other small animals as his biological creation.The background of this picture To make this attribution possible, in order to make the moral quality of any animal belong to the impossible seems impossible, what is needed is to replace different images. Ian Barber describes four interactions of religion and science in the "religion of the scientific era". These types constitute an increasingly favorable interaction between religion and science. My experience is the interaction of science and religion, but it does not always conform to the neat category, but I found a convenient starting point for them. The competition model assumes that religion and science are one of them, incompatible, as being a legitimate source of knowledge. I am laughing religious feelings for fundamental atheists like Richard Dawkins. For them, religion is an illusion, the only true knowledge is scientific knowledge, which needs to be tested and analyzed objectively. However, Dawkins and others have not admitted having a way of religious belief.

In "Some moral minimal", Goodman says, "If there is no rule indicating that the principle is a principle unless you create a norm unless others are harmed - concrete Deman, 2010, p.87) In every society there are unique customs and traits that make them different.Culture and society have different ethical standards. Lenn E. Goodman points out that our society is a human being and we may be wrong, unfair, malicious, tragic, or self deceptive ( Goodman, 2010, p. Morality is minimal: Goodman's argument for relativism Given the progress of globalization of modern society and the impact of postmodernism, the philosophy of moral relativism has become increasingly common and has been accepted in academia . However, according to the article by "Lenn E. Goodman" a certain moral extremism ", something is" wrong ". Goodman wrote as follows: "All living things require life" (Goodman 2010: 88). In other words, sometimes it is necessary to keep the dignity of human life. In "Some moral minimal", Goodman says, "There is no specification and there is no compromise if there is no rule that the principle is principle as long as it does not make a norm unless others are harmed" Said. Goodman, 2010, p. 87) In any society there are customs and features that make these customs and features, and each custom belongs to a person. Culture and society have different ethical standards. - Modern piracy affects almost everywhere in the world and increases with globalization. The tentacles of the pirates are now extending from South America to the South China Sea. The most common case of pirates occurred on a commercial trade route on the sea. As China dominates the global container transport industry, the South China Sea is a hot spot of piracy (Kraska 2011) This term is used to describe the code of acceptable behavior in a given environment or society. On the other hand, morality is closely related to mortality. This basically sets standards and principles that social members should follow, so they can be considered to be active within the scope of correct ethical behavior. The emergence of civilization offers space for various forms, and can conclude that morality is minimal. Therefore, ethics is a problem that can be interpreted differently depending on whether it is being observed or being evaluated. (Goodman, 2010, page 87) Text Analysis: An example of this is a short anecdote or story that explains a particular moral perspective. This literary form was developed in the late Middle Ages and is often used for evangelism and other educational literature. A famous example is Joe's "story of forgiveness" focusing on the subject of greed. When reading the selection pay attention to the behavior of the character and the explanation of the narrator about his practice. Reading hint: When you anticipate, predict that you will guess what will happen next in the story based on text clues and your own previous knowledge. The forecast helps you participate in the story and you can urge you to read. To predict "The Pardoner's Tale", do the following. From the story of pardon from the poetry of Canterbury Tales Geoffrey Chaucer translator Nevill Coghill

This is why the moral argument of the existence of God is such a justifiable reason. Moral consciousness leads to God just as a consciousness to drop an apple brings gravity. Our moral instinct recognizes this effect, but what is good reason? If God does not exist, moral terms are actually disorganized and our moral instincts are nonsense. Christians do not have to worry about Plato's score. When Euthyphro's dilemma applies to Christianity, it misrepresents the Bible's recognition of the Bible. Good is not higher than God, it is not his will. Instead, morality is based on his sacred character. Moral values ​​are not optional, but optional. They are absolutely fixed based on the immutable nature of God The moral argument for God's existence constitutes a diverse set of arguments, from certain features of moral or moral life to the existence of God, often understood as a morally superior creator of the universe. Moral argument is important and interesting. They are interesting because evaluating their robustness requires attention to almost all important philosophical issues dealt with meta ethics. They are important as they take an important position in people's defense theory about religious beliefs. Evidence for this is C. It can be found in the amazing epidemic of Lewis 'pure Christianity' (1952). Many ordinary people believe that religion provides some foundation or foundation of morality. The only religious reaction to this is that "religion does not produce morality, but God creates, if God creates animals and human beings, they are also morals." Opinion, we agree that ethics are essential, not based on religion, not even human beings. In this case, clearly I can become a moral atheist. Indeed, if you are telling the truth, why do we need faith? You have effectively proved that your religion is unnecessary for moral equations.

Summary of non-peaceful assertion to the death penalty: In this article, I propose a moral argument against the death penalty. It is an immoral assertion that it does not rely on all killings. This argument is mainly directed to non-philosophers in the Jewish - Christian tradition. Strangely, despite the prohibition of the killing Bible, the moral argument against the death penalty has no effect in the United States. Religious supporters of the death penalty often quote the presumed distinction of "killing" and "killing", and God claims to ban the latter than the former. Capital punishment "Maintain social security and provide something suitable for murderer - Death Penalty" In this article I think that we can think of two aspects of pros and cons for the death penalty. Advantages and disadvantages are considered together with Christian doctrines and beliefs. Christian doctrine, Old Testament, New Testament also compare human reactions to this subject. From my research and analysis ... the unconstitutional death to the death penalty is one of the top controversial topics in the country today. More than 13,000 people have been executed legally since the colonial era. Most of these executions occurred in the early 20th century. In the 1930s, 150 people were executed lawfully every year. However, as the anger of the world appeared, the number of executions began to decline. In 1996, 37 states including New Jersey In today's society, the death penalty has become a big controversy because no one thinks that the death penalty is morally or politically correct. Since many people oppose the death penalty, many good reasons for using the death penalty have been raised and we must consider it. One of the main arguments against the use of the death penalty is that it is a lawfully murdered, unethical act in society (Karson 58). It is wrong for governments and societies to commit the same crime as the perpetrators by executing prisoners if these people are correct and the death penalty is just legalized murder (Duffy 141). If we can consider the murder of the death penalty, all the criminals we do will be victims of society, and each victim will fall by sacrificing the criminal. Many people believe that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. The strongest argument against the use of the death penalty is that the death penalty is a cruel and rare punishment. The eighth amendment of the US Constitution condemns cruel and unusual punishment against protesting the death penalty. When the Constitution was drafted, the death penalty was widely held in this country, but it was wrong, cruel and abnormal. Many authors of the Constitution support the death penalty as the philosophers underlying the Constitution are. John Locke said even that homicide is not inherently wrong. Currently, the role of criminal law by prove to everyone that the greatest concern for homicide is to prevent murder. Because the death penalty is humanitarian and inhuman, it is morally wrong. The way to enforce the death penalty may involve physical torture. Even if you punish a criminal, this is definitely a cruel and inhuman act.

In the country of moral judgment on 11th September, the country was in danger: the crisis of national security crisis and moral judgment. What is the right approach? People do not agree. Then there was a big mistake: When the difference was observed, people have reached the conclusion that there is no way to judge that there is no correct answer. To make matters worse, they concluded that the judgment was arrogant and dangerous, so the only thing that seems to be morally irresponsible in strange twist is to make a morally responsible judgment It is to try. Revolutionary terrorism is not terrorism. Moral equality from the second year of revolution to September 2001 is nonsense of history and philosophy. . . Violence on 11th September 2001 was neither for equality nor for freedom. The US President has not announced Preventive War. Experts say, "The definition of terrorism is wrong, or is actually wrong, we are opposed that terrorism should be defined according to its purpose, method, or both, or both. Whether there are disagreements over which terrorism can be implemented, they do not agree with the importance of terrorism's definition of terrorism or even other aspects. On September 11, 2001, thousands of spouses, children, brothers and sisters, and friends lost their beloved. September 11th is the day of death, anger and memorial; this is a good day to change America. Some say that changes in national security and the global presence of the United States are positive. The airport has become more secure than ever, and with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, the argument that the United States is safer than the past few years became effective. However, the 9/11 terrorist attacks are changing beyond the government's national security policy and international relations policy.

Mackie's Discussion on Objective Values ​​J. L. Mackie uses his brief statement to open his article "subjectivity of value" as "no objective value" and clarifies its position. McGee recently believes that it is necessary for him to strictly define the boundary of his position and concern as the dialogue in moral philosophy has been found to be full of misunderstanding and confusion of various moral positions I will. Hence, his article has two main parts: First, Mackie defines the nature of his moral skepticism and, secondly, he is a part of the moral realism through a series of arguments We will keep his position by showing low reliability. Summary: As we all know, J. L. McKee is famous for having no objective values. I will investigate the explanation of what the objective value of Mackie actually is and then try to examine and understand his argument against these entities. Specifically, I would like to see if his argument applies to Kant's objective values. Therefore, this conversation is also Kant's explanation and Mackie's explanation (at least when I understand them). Mackie believes objective values ​​(if any) have strange causal relationships. Specifically, these entities have the ability to make objects recognize their motives (whatever it means, comply with their recommendations). Is this power strange in metaphysics? "With objective values, they are very strange entities or relationships that are quite different from the rest of the universe" (38). What is strange about them? Maggie said that Plato's form (in this case, the unnatural features of Moore) will give us a "dramatic picture" that shows what objective value is. It is such a form of good, that knowledge is offered. Intellectuals have both direction and overwhelming motivation; some good things will pursue it and tell people who know this to make him pursue it. Everyone who is familiar with it is not due to the accidental fact that this person or everyone constitutes the result he wishes, but it is not objective just because the result has to be established in some way I will ask you. enter J. L. Mackie keeps moral skepticism with three specific arguments. His first argument came from cultural relativism. Maggie saw the problem that what we call objective moral belief does not seem to shape our culture. Instead, our culture seems to form our particular moral beliefs like monogamy. Therefore, moral subjectivity is the most rational explanation for our moral beliefs to imitate our culture. His second argument for moral realism is that there is something strange or counterintuitive in the description of the objective moral field that someone may give. There are three differences in this discussion. First of all, there are metaphysical questions, or questions based on the strange state of mind advocated by realists. For McGee, the weirdness of this field is a debate over it. Second, since it is not clear how this field relates to natural objects and human behavior, there is a relationship problem.

As a moral philosophy of applied science, Rousse and Wilson cite "moral philosophy as applied science" as an example of brothers and sisters' incest avoidance. People who avoid sex have an adaptive advantage. Their brothers and sisters. Recently E. O. Wilson and scientific philosopher Michael Ruse (1940-) proposed a new moral theory. They refuse the theory that nature claims to prove value as a change of evolution. Because of lack of biological basis, they rejected Julian Huxley's theory. On the contrary, Wilson and Ruth established a relationship between morality and evolution without admitting the error of naturalism. (The idea or value you can get from.) They start with two scientific premises: 1) Social behavior of animals is controlled by genes; 2) Humans are animals. Since these two premises are true, we have chosen the unique biological human morality based on the choice of relatives. Rousseau and Wilson cited an example of brothers and sisters' incest avoidance in "moral philosophy as applied science" which is a moral code guided by epigenetic rules to avoid sexual intercourse with brothers and sisters. Benefits In this discussion, Rousseau and Wilson believe that ban on incest is a redundant relic of human evolutionary history, but they do not contribute to humanity but rather explain the characteristics of hardwired evolution To do. I refuse this argument. Rousseau and Wilson are definitely right, they believe that human moral reasoning ability is the result of pressure of natural selection, and most ancient moral law has evolutionary grounds. Provide content on current moral beliefs In their article, Wilson and Ruse argue that evolutionary biology provides a solution to the Is-Ought problem. Contrary to the assertion that moral truth is independent of human nature and human nature, they claim to have "internal moral premise" to rely on "a unique program that started in the brain during evolution" To do. These internal concepts and plans create "strong enough to function as the basis of ethics principle" "right and wrong feelings". By understanding the brains deeply, in the end it will be possible to build a "permanent code" that we can not explain now.

Morality is an article related to James Rechels and "not morally it is not relative" is incorrect. The discussion he offers can not be logically applied or irrelevant to the argument. His view seems biased towards some of the ideas advocated in cultural relativism, but he has problems with other parts of cultural relativism. The first mistake is an example of another moral code after his comparison. In the summary and explanation of cultural differences, he cited an example - he began to write articles about the difference between the Holy Land Kai Lily and the Greeks, and their funeral customs. What specific ethics are relative? Usually, morals are considered in relation to groups and individuals. Therefore, we distinguish between two kinds of moral relativism, such as beliefs, emotions, opinions, desires, desires, interests, preferences, emotions and so forth. Cultural moral relativism and personal moral relativism. It is moral relativism to believe that the moral truth is related to a particular individual or a particular individual. People who speak moral truth are related to what we call personal relativism and those who speak moral truth are related to a specific group that can be called cultural relativism As long as it is "culture"). . But this is a mistake. Imagine that all countries in the world are making different answers to "1 + 1 = ____". In this case, the fact that the answer to math questions is different does not mean that there is no correct answer. Likewise, simply having cultural differences does not mean treating morality as a subjective argument. Moral relativism, also called "cultural relativism", indicates that morality is related to each culture. When behavior violates ethical principles, people can not judge correctly the members of other cultures in addition to their own cultural standards. Moral principles may be different from their own moral principles. Shweder, Mahapatra and Miller (1987) argue that different cultures define moral boundaries differently. This term is also different from moral subjectivity. Moral subjectivity is the idea that moral truth is related to individuals. Moral relativism can be thought of as a form of moral skepticism and is often mistaken for moral pluralism. It opposes the moral superiority and ethnic-centered attitude in moral absoluteism and moral universalism. Rather than the variability of personal ethics (fairness, justice, rights) Society around the world is different from what I think is wrong. Moral relativism is the concept that moral principles are independent of culture and society from other cultures and societies, and according to this custom there is no universal moral standard. This moral belief has been widely rejected and is considered inappropriate in today's world society. One way that moral relativism is useful in today's society is to compare our society with yesterday's society.

Euthanasia is a Greek word meaning calm and easy death. But that is another way. This is not a light or easy death. Because there is no one in the world that can be called gentle death. According to Ian Dowbiggin of ancient Greece, people were euthanized without patient permission. This means that in ancient Greece I did not care about volunteers. Also, according to Hippocrates oath, only a few doctors can adjust themselves. (250 pages) After the emergence of Christianity, the church learned evil suicide and told people to kill other people and themselves as barbarous acts. The majority of assertions on euthanasia are not based on exercises themselves, they are based on the behavior of people using euthanasia. Therefore, there is no really effective debate on euthanasia, only against society's evil. No matter how strict the law is, evil of society exists and survives. Giving the victim choices and refusing most of the time. Dax Coart baked 68% of his body, blinded him, transformed it and made him helpless. He received a very painful treatment on acute burn injured in two hospitals for over a year. His psychiatrist announced repetitive mental abilities, but Dax's request for euthanasia was refused. He refused to take further corrective surgery in his "useless, ugly stump" and the daily painful bathroom in Hubbard's tank. Although he wants to go home to die away from the hospital, he is not. Dax received a legal degree in 1986 and claimed he was very open when he became a patient lawyer. Euthanasia is now a moral matter of intense debate, there are some arguments that support and oppose that practice. Arguments for euthanasia are usually religious and this argument is based on the sanctity of life, which is generally compatible, but the argument of euthanasia prevents many sufferings, including individual freedom , No desire absolutely necessary. In this article, I will explain why this is a moral problem, if I try to deal with the arguments opposite and for euthanasia, in some cases I conclude that euthanasia should be allowed It was. Euthanasia is defined as a mental dilemma surrounding the topic of whether painful end of someone's life, but in the plant state whether people euthanasia or not, suicide can no longer be considered for themselves, Whether moral and support is acceptable or not The most popular argument is its euthanasia to relieve pain, relieving the freedom of people who choose low quality of life and death ("causes of euthanasia"). Some of the more popular arguments for euthanasia include a variety of religious beliefs Doctors should not participate in the cause of death faith disregard the concept of human life, fear of euthanasia, medical expenses There is a possibility that it may become a means to control the legal idea, and its legal idea may be changed and managed Euthanasia may become involuntary ("causes of euthanasia"). Belgian age limit, recently changed after legal adults, for children because euthanasia is not a legitimate (Rodriguez) cure in the past 12 years, nowadays. Belgian Catholic Church requires that the legislation be rejected, thinking that the decline in age restrictions is "too late" (Rodriguez). However, most Belgian people support the bill (Rodriguez)

Psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists all have their own position in analyzing criminals. Every member of these research disciplines can have an interesting time to analyze Eric Rudolph. Eric Rudolph has been in charge of a massive explosion at a miscarriage clinic and an explosion at the Atlanta Summer Olympics in 1992. More than 100 people were injured for the dead due to these explosions. From a psychological point of view, Mr. Rudolph has some very serious problems. He was convicted for mental instability. Biblical discussion on moral code abortion for abortion on February 2, 2013 In this article I will discuss discussion on abortion. The first argument I discuss is the Bible argument. Nonetheless, I must first admit that the Bible does not mention the content of abortion first. As abortion is not considered for Israeli women, there is not even need to mention abortion in the Penal Code. Abortion is an imaginary act. First of all, given the recent facility disasters in Fukushima, children are ... ... world energy demands. Compared to traditional energy production methods, nuclear power offers many advantages, but its drawbacks are also very obvious and serious. This argument is the reason why the industry is not thriving in the US in the past 30 years. There are three arguments for abortion. The first opinion is that a perfect human life begins at the time the egg is fertilized by sperm; therefore abortion is a violation of human rights. In Christian tradition this argument is usually expressed through religious beliefs that have built deep personal relationships with God and God has foreseen all aspects of our private life. In this concept, women threatened by pregnancy have different levels of regulation. One of the main focus is whether the fetus is a person or not. In this article I will support and oppose abortion by analyzing and discussing two philosophers with two different arguments. We will not pay attention to whether the fetus is a person or not. - Mrs. Smith is facing a decision on whether to abort. She already has two children and is working hard to earn a living. Mrs. Smith did not know why she was pregnant again why she was pregnant again. Finally, she made conscious abortion decisions. Whether her abortion is morally reasonable or not. The viewpoint of abortion depends only on the view of people's life.

In order to understand ethics, serious, prudent and systematic efforts are necessary. Unfortunately, despite these things, there is no guarantee that he or she will acquire the nature of amorphous morality. Understanding of morality varies from person to person. Some people think that it is instinct. Instinctive behavior is an act of not understanding the subject, and this understanding occurs after action. Instinct has an a priori element that makes Plato remind me that instinct is what an individual learns, but they have never done anything I have learned before. In this article, I will explain how to judge the right thing with moral instinct. As in so-called moral intuition, the method of relying on intuition to understand morality is inherently controversial, but using intuition to infer morality is an effective way, in this article It is not limited. This article is based on intuitionism. I only want to find common pitfalls that use our moral instincts and ways to overcome them. The moral instinct appeal applies not only to housewives in damp markets but also to philosophical arguments. The opposition to the moral framework is often simplified as a foolish argument. In short, refuting a proposition by showing approval of such a proposition (whatever it means) can lead to absurdity. O.M. This is not the power of anyone in the moral composition of men. Let's call it an instinct - a blind, unreasonable instinct that can not distinguish between good morality and bad morality and can not be distinguished. Make sure this. O.M. It does not necessarily ask for money, does not always seek power, is not an office, and has no other important advantages. In all cases, it seeks spiritual satisfaction and enables MEANS. That desire depends on the person's temperament - and that is the Lord. In fact, temperament, conscience, susceptibility, and appetite are all the same. Have you heard of people who do not care about money? We like to regard morality as the basis of intentional society. Of course, there are physical and psychological instincts that hurt our morals, but our ethical principles create a law that hinders and corrects this instinct, allowing people to coexist and prosper I will. Morality is where you begin after you reach Epiphany Your presence is part of something bigger. "Why" test is a wonderful test of intelligence: it is not only to reassure you, you do not know anything, which is a test that God can not pass. This is an unacceptable tablet, but as artificial intelligence continues to develop, artificial intelligence will soon raise this question - and our attempt to answer ethical requirements is our useless mistake It just exposes us. Stain Anesthesia People have talked about programming ethics to machines for decades, but my opinion is absurd.

It is important to explain why the topic you are discussing is important, especially if there are other topics that you can research instead of the topics you are discussing. In this case, his ontological debate with St. Anselm is being discussed. There were other arguments about the existence of God before St. Anselm, and the first paragraph will explain why it is important to study this particular argument. Then the argument itself is given and discussed. As with most arguments in the philosophical field, ontological debates also contest. But I found that the ontological argument of St. Anselm is the most compelling one of all these discussions I know well. After reading and understanding this discussion, it is like returning to where I started - ignorance. I have the same dissent as other philosophers who believe that this argument is in the circle. According to St. Anthony's view, perfection means that other bigger beings can not be imagined. Perfection means presence. Without perfect attributes, certain things will not be perfect. Ontological arguments are transcendental arguments. These arguments try to prove the existence of God from the meaning of the word God. Anselm of Canterbury introduced an ontological argument to his work 'Proslogion'. The classic argument of Anselm is based on two principles, the most important of which are St. Anselm and Rene de Carte of the above Canterbury. If he does not exist, you can still think of a bigger existence (it is like you said that God does not exist besides this existence). Presence must be one of the attributes of God. Because by removing it it is still possible for you to understand the bigger god (the god that exists). The most common problem with this discussion is that it only seems to enumerate the existence of God's attributes and does not seem to indicate it. This argument seems to indicate that any fact you can imagine should be true. St. Anselm proposed the first ontological argument and relied on God as the definition of the greatest complete existence. If this concept exists in the mind, God also exists in reality. Kant criticized the ontological argument and pointed out that the definition of any concept depends on a series of attributes or predicates, and that there is no such predicate. In his "critique of practical reason" he stated that "building a belief in God (and the immortality of the soul) as a rational, reasonable and practical rational hypothesis, that is what he calls I invested the majority. Moral assertion "

In the article "Some Moral Minima", Lenn Goodman thinks it is right when he says something is wrong. Goodman said that everyone lives in freedom and has the right to treat them as a considerate person. The main point of Goodman is not to judge problems we can not understand, but to judge what is morally right. Goodman was correct on his question because there was never a time suitable for immorality. I think that all law-abiding citizens have the right to live without worry. In "Some moral minimal", Goodman says, "There is no specification and there is no compromise if there is no rule that the principle is principle as long as it does not make a norm unless others are harmed" Said. Goodman, 2010, p. 87) In any society there are customs and features that make these customs and features, and each custom belongs to a person. Culture and society have different ethical standards. Lenn E. Goodman points out that our society is a human being and we may be wrong, unfair, malicious, tragic, or self deceptive ( Goodman, 2010, p. Morality is minimal: Goodman's argument for relativism Given the progress of globalization of modern society and the impact of postmodernism, the philosophy of moral relativism has become increasingly common and has been accepted in academia . However, according to the article by "Lenn E. Goodman" a certain moral extremism ", something is" wrong ". Goodman wrote as follows: "All living things require life" (Goodman 2010: 88). In other words, sometimes it is necessary to keep the dignity of human life. This term is used to describe the code of acceptable behavior in a given environment or society. On the other hand, morality is closely related to mortality. This basically sets standards and principles that social members should follow, so they can be considered to be active within the scope of correct ethical behavior. The emergence of civilization offers space for various forms, and can conclude that morality is minimal. Therefore, ethics is a problem that can be interpreted differently depending on whether it is being observed or being evaluated. (Goodman, 2010, page 87) Some medieval philosophers acknowledge the existence of a very small natural world where the boundaries of this form are not preserved beyond that. The minimum doctrine aims to solve the problem of Aristotle in "Generation and Corruption" (327a 30-328b 24). That is, the philosophical defense of the combination must be discovered. During the Renaissance, writers such as Agostino Nifo (circa 1469 - 1539) and Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484-1558) further detailed the theory of minimum nature. Scaliger gives minimal consistency and makes them more than just restrictions but can not divide any further. In addition, he rejects traditional Atomism. Because it does not achieve the continuity of the organization that makes up the group. They opposed ecstasy, but the pedigree of Van Helmont and Daniel Sennert (1572-1637) was rooted in this tradition.

Don Marquis proposed non - religious arguments against anti - religious abortion, based on his morally similar killing of adults and similarity of fetal killings. He insists that killing adults is wrong because it takes away their valuable future from them. He pointed out that the fetus' future will include all of the future of adults, as the fetus naturally grows up to adults. Therefore, according to the Marquis, killing the fetus deprives the same valuable future as an adult is killed and deprived, which is terribly wrong in abortion. The commentator made several objections to Marquez's claim, he answered satisfactorily. In this article, it was pointed out the difficulty of Marquez 's discussion which was not taken into consideration by previous commentators. The main argument of this paper is that Marquez did not properly defend his argument against some important objections posed by himself. These new considerations support the Marquis argument that the argument failed Summary and criticism of Don Marquis - abortion opposition An important element of Don Marquis's theory is to distinguish between abortion and contraception in addition to extreme plus to provide a clear discussion for abortion. It is also a moral mistake to force a contraceptive contradiction without colliding with public interests. When he wrote his claim he first offered a discussion for the 'support of choice' approach. Biblical discussion on abortion on abortion on February 2, 2013 In this article we discuss arguments against abortion. The first set of discussions I discuss is a Bible argument. That said, I must admit that the Bible does not mention the content of abortion first. Abortion is impossible for Israeli women, even abortion is not necessary in the Penal Code. Abortion is an imaginative act. First, considering recent disasters in Fukushima in particular, children are ... ... world energy demands. Compared to traditional energy production methods, nuclear power offers many advantages, but its drawbacks are also very obvious and serious. This argument is the reason why the industry is not thriving in the US in the past 30 years. In the early articles of this magazine, I criticized Marquis Tang's famous argument against abortion. I distinguished the two versions of the Marquis argument called "required arguments" and "fully conditional arguments". Citing two counter-examples, the essential argument shows that it is wrong Marques did not fully answer the important opposition to it, so I think the complete conditional argument should be dismissed I will. In response to my criticism, Marquez published a revised version of his argument in this magazine. In his revised way, he no longer claims an essential assertion, he provides a new version of the complete conditional debate. In this article I discussed how Marquez 's revised discussion deals with my first objection, and I think his new complete conditional discussion has failed.

Richard Swinburn's theoretical argument has been detailed in many scenes and by many different authors, but the theoretical argument about the existence of God has the best starting point for beginning the belief of modern belief provide. In his early revision of "the god of existence," Richard Swinburn established a physical overview that reveals the exact structure of Scopos' assertions. He proposed two types of objective arguments, but they were skeptical, then provided insight and defense and allowed a cautious philosophical review. These three books by Richard Swinburn constitute a strong debate and defense against the existence of God. Among the cosmological coherence, Swinburn answers a common argument discussing the opposition to the possibility of the existence of God, or the existence of God. In "the existence of God" Swinburn presented his "cumulative incident" inductive theory about the existence of God. With Providence and evil question, the purpose of Swinburn is to explain the evil that exists in the existence of righteousness. Richard Swinburn was one of the most important religious philosophers of the time and advocated a debate which can be called a hypothesis in his "Being of Being" (2004). His monotheistic existence should be treated first. Just like a "hypothesis", then he tests or verifies by observing the world he believes created. According to Swinburne, using the scientific and empirical data validation process for the world will make it more than to make assumptions about the existence of God impossible. He is a supporter of Skopostheorie, but using his hypothetical method makes it easier for people, including atheists, to accept. You have Alvin Plantanga, William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburn, who have a Christian philosophy and teaching torch. Richard Swinburne is probably the least known, but is most popular. The moral argument he proposed adopts a classical path and I prefer to use it from time to time, but he has many accidents on this point. Swinburne is immature to a certain extent, he should be familiar to everyone. Although this man is not well known to amateurs, it is very smart, but other Christian philosophers and his opponents are absolutely familiar. Swinburne cites defenders with many other books, and now I can see the reason. One of the commentators mentioned that Swinburnes's argument has been disputed, but this may be a bit misleading. I have never seen an argument from the other side, and even I have not even hurt the discussion of Swinburnes.

"Life is valuable to humanity like a quiet creature.If you want people to be happy and to fear the pain, just like people want to live, not to die, to other creatures The same thing can be said. "Ramallah respects animals. Animal experiments are also called animal experiments and refer to the use of nonhuman animals in scientific experiments. Vertebrates, including mice, birds, fish, rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs and cats, are used worldwide for analysis annually. Animal rights are a very subtle problem, there are good reasons for opposing parties to support or oppose animal experiments. The theory of rights in (1) regards moral rights as a fundamental moral component of morality. Other arguments derive rights from more fundamental non-rights moral principles. In this part of the course, we are particularly interested in basic moral rights and their role in discourse of public policy. Where did the spiritual right come from? In most theories, they are axiomatic - they are given not from others; they are the deepest and strongest moral instincts we mean for man concrete and moral behavior I will make it. They are often called "natural rights" and are the rights we have as the essence of mankind (that is, all moral actors have them). Without these we can not act as a moral actor and we can not plan and practice our lives. Some authors claim that the argument of moral rights and moral obligations is an unprecedented endless story. There is no "moral right" or "moral obligation", at least there are moral rights and moral obligations in addition to legal rights and legal obligations. Higher moral authority can not enforce certain ethical requirements. Rights and duties vary by law. According to ethics, it is best to say "moral consensus" (eg Gauthier). Defenders claim that ethical consensus has the same status as legal rights and legal obligations, but emphasizes that no one has an obligation to make their moral rights better than others . Applicability is an important aspect of metaphysics of rights and obligations. It is only formal restrictions that can establish rights and obligations in a particular society (eg Hobbes) and informal constraints in a particular society - although it may be stronger - not - The relationship between moral obligations and moral rights is complex. People have the moral right to say that there is a moral right to get it. Every moral right means a corresponding obligation. "Society is obliged to do something morally, saying that morality should be done morally, otherwise society will be strictly morally criticized (836) ". Obligation, this has nothing to do with the corresponding health care rights. As an example of this, even if a person in need is not able to seek assistance from those who deserve them, that person may bear moral obligations to help those in need. The Committee decided to focus on more important questions: "What is the nature of social obligation, whether people can claim rights to receive medical care, and how to fulfill this social obligation Do you?

Morality of Abortion In Roman times, the abortion and the destruction of unwelcome children were allowed, but as the civilization aged, this behavior seemed to be no longer accepted by rational people. The UN Declaration promises that everyone has the right to live. The World Medical Association also said at the Geneva Conference that the greatest respect for human life is from the moment of concept. The purpose of this paper is to believe that abortion is always morally acceptable or not morally acceptable and can not be done at the same time. Two main arguments about abortion ethics include moral conditions including fetus - whatever it is, others include the rights of women who choose to happen in her body. The moral condition of the fetus seems to determine whether it has the right to live. On the other hand, the choice of women causes concern about whether abortion is reasonable. Some of the arguments surrounding the debate over pregnancy abortion were focused on tolerance or disapproval of abortion, depending on how the fetus was thought - primarily rape. Pregnancy due to rape seems to be mainly related to women who do not want to become pregnant because they want abortion. Should abortion be legal or should I be banned? The answer depends, at least in part, on the moral value of the fetus. Next Article - Arc of Discussion of Moral and Legal Issues Related to Abortion Part 6 - I believe it is fair to maintain abortion legality than to abort abortion. In the latest article by Berny Belvedere (4th), he accused me of not participating fully in the philosophical basis of abortion = homicide argument. He also argued that in the case of abortion = homicide, the problem of physical autonomy was essentially secondary, avoiding any argument about the moral value of physical autonomy. In Part 5, Ryan Huber admits that abortion may not be immoral as much as murder, but argues that the moral value of the fetus is still higher than the moral value of maternity autonomy. Many discussions of abortion arguments argue that abortion morality depends on the moral status of the fetus. I think that the moral status of the fetus is important, but the moral justification of abortion is not a central issue determining its central problem. Although the fetus is given some moral status, this condition is not a prescription for moral judgment. - True name Today, abortion is a political issue in the United States, not a woman 's intimate choice. The struggle of women's rights against the uterus is becoming hopeless. Both sides of this problem are working hard to constantly motivate and react to people. Nonetheless, abortion is not a new problem because of Roe v. Wade in 1973.

God's wrath reveals that Paul started his argument against the Romans by proving that the Gentiles are sinners before God. God revealed him the truth to them, but they suppressed it. As a result, God gave them the desires of their heart (1: 24, 26): idolatry (1:25) and homosexuality (1: 26-27). Seeing that they do not want to protect God in their knowledge, God gives them a depressed heart to make all kinds of evil (1: 28 - 31). Barbara Underwood Bible 425 November 5, 2012 Paul's argument against the Romans and Christian's view of the world is the foundation of the Bible / Christian worldview. Paul brought what God revealed to the world of Christians. Most Christians do not understand moral laws and the consequences of not following their values. Christians are influenced by other religions because of lack of understanding of expectation and facts accountable to them ... America is a country of Christians. But after reading the church books, I think that our country is clearly not built on Christianity. Even in many religious right groups, we insist that our law should carry out the teachings of Protestant Christianity. There is another statement in the document written by our founder. The US Constitution does not refer to Christianity or Jesus Christ, and we prove that our country is not a Christian country. Those men In chapters 1 to 3 of the Romans, the apostle Paul presented an amazing argument that explained the necessity for all people to redress Jesus Christ. After respecting Roman saints (see Romans 1: 1-15), Paul tells the Romans about his letter. See Rome 1: 16-17. Paul discussed the influence of living in a corrupted world and explained the dilemma of sin faced by all human beings. All responsible people will sin, and they will be condemned in front of God without making amends (see Romans 1: 18-3: 20). Gentiles are responsible for their crime as they reject evidence of the Creator's appearance through their creation (see Romans 1: 18-32). The Jews were condemned because they did not fully comply with the law of Moses (see Romans 2: 1-3: 20). After explaining the true state of the people's soul, Paul introduced the solution God offered. That is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Romans 2: 6-7 shall be seen in the general debate of Romans 1 - 3 and in the context of the surrounding scriptures. It is part of the section not addressing the subject of salvation (Romans 2: 5-12), but includes the "judgment of righteousness of God" (Romans 2: 5 ). As God is judged fairly, he "sends it to everyone according to his behavior" (Romans 2: 6, Revelation 20: 12-13). Those who obey will receive glory, glory, and peace, but disobediented will be angry (see Romans 2: 7-10). "Those who commit crimes without the law must die with the law, because those who sinned in the law should be judged by the law" (Rome) Book 2:12). Paul proves that all Jews and Gentiles have sinned. Strictly speaking, there is no one in the "Compliance" category.

Descartes believes that the existence of God is clear and obvious. God's thought exists to arise from his inner "perfectly clear and unique" concept (he acknowledges this as the existence of thought). Therefore, from various ideas, the concept of God is never regarded as false. From this very unique concept of God, there are things people clearly and clearly know. "Because existence can not be separated from God from the fact that God does not seem to exist, it actually exists." Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). - All moral arguments about the existence of God are based on the principle that all of us share common sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, in a broad sense, people all over the world have ambiguous thoughts about right and wrong; a moral argument to the existence of God is that this mutual understanding is evidence of the existence of God I will say that. Immanuel Kant advocated this argument (not a moral argument); a god as a source of objective morality Second argument about the existence of God. Because Descartes believes the existence is perfect, it can become a predicate to God. First, I will explain what the ontological argument of the existence of God is. Next, I will explain why Descartes decided to incorporate God into his philosophical approach. As a predicate of God existence reveals some truth about God. Ontology seeks to prove the existence of God from a transcendental point of view RenéDescartes, often called the father of modern philosophy, has developed Anselm's assertion when trying to prove the existence of God in the meaning of the word "God". Ontological arguments are a priori arguments. The basis of these arguments depends on the understanding of the essence of the human god. The definition of Anselm's god is "an extremely perfect existence", which is the basis of his argument. God must be something that can not be considered absent: if you imagine a triangle, one of its main features is that it has three sides and three corners. These are triangle predicates. Descartes has expanded his point of view. This time I mentioned the attribute of God. If you imagine something perfect, it must be more perfect if it exists. Also, the most perfect ones have all attributes including existence. Therefore, Descartes believes that a very perfect existence has all the predicates.

In this article I will discuss whether the death penalty is wrong. I support the death penalty and present several arguments that support my position. First of all, we need to understand what the capital punishment is and why it is used. The death penalty is almost the same as human beings. This is a form of punishment, deterrent against other criminals. Furthermore, the death penalty is a way of preventing perpetrators from being executed because they committed other crimes. The strongest argument against the use of the death penalty is that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual sentence. Article 8 amendment of the US Constitution condemns cruel and unusual punishment in protest against the death penalty. When the Constitution was drafted, the death penalty was widely practiced in this country, but it was not wrong or cruel and unusual. Like philosophers who are the basis of the Constitution, many of the authors of the Constitution support the death penalty. John Rock does not say that murder is essentially wrong. At the moment it is the role of criminal law to prove to everyone that preventing the killing is the greatest concern. The death penalty is morally wrong. Because it accepts human life cruelly and inhumanly. The way to enforce the death penalty may include physical torture. Even if you punish a criminal, this is definitely a cruel and inhuman act. After all, the most important argument against the death penalty is that it is immoral. Regardless of what you think, the death penalty is killing and homicide is always wrong! Although murder is considered morally absolute, but not necessarily so, it is necessary to further study the morality of the death penalty. According to the moral form you believe, murder is sometimes considered moral. In ethics classes, I studied five major ethical theories. Four of the theories are flawed: Utilitarianism, Kantoism (moral theory), egoism, relativism, and fifth virtue ethics. Let's see the viewpoint of the death penalty of each theory. In the case of Third Professor, examples of introducing crime and punishment are included, and there are six death sentences contrary to it. Let's think about sample crime first. Brutal repression against all Connecticut family members is horrible. By choosing it you can stimulate your emotions and promote the development of rational thinking. Instinct says: "Kill criminals, take it slowly" This is also the oldest trick of the death penalty. If you do not support enforcement under such circumstances, you must seek the conclusion of society. Third professor also took out "majority vote" card with his rhetoric. He wrote as follows. "Most people (including myself) have no doubt that the possibility that these inhuman beasts will be executed for crime." Do you really want to be a minority ethnic group? What? For example, I have no problem. Third professor continued to dispute the claim that "the majority of civilizations" "the country abolished capital punishment".

This article presents two different perspectives on the subject of design theory. In particular, I will explain the support to William Paley's design controversy and support for Bertrand Russell's design controversy. After introducing different perspectives, I appreciate the discussion to prove that William Paley is debating stronger. There are several forms of design discussion. The general form of design theory begins with the basic idea that part of the universe is such as to indicate that they are designed and have purpose. In the 1800s, British philosophy and moral philosopher William Paley wrote a paper entitled "Theory from Design." In the "design theory", Perry tried to prove the existence of superiority by developing a special theory called the teleological theory. The theoretical argument is an analogical argument based on the similarity between two different themes. In this article, we are intentionally defeating Perry's claim and trying to adopt the next method. Contact Us Discussion about the existence of God of William Perry and David Hume is called a theoretical argument or design theory. Discussion from design is an argument about the existence of God or some sort of creator based on thought of order or purpose in the universe. Hume took the way to oppose design arguments, and Paley defended it. Both Hume and Perry discuss very strongly, but in the end it will conclude to distinguish which philosopher has a stronger position. In Paley 's debate about the existence of God, "design argument", Paley tried to use his argument to prove that God is the sole designer and creator of the universe. He compares the universe with the watch and compares God with a clockmaker. In this discussion, Paley argues that the universe is quite complex and orderly so that only wise wisdom can design and create it. Paley believes that everything that shows design can be inferred that it is actually an intelligent design product. For example, if you look at your watch, you can confirm that it is designed in one of two ways. If a person checking the clock has experience using the watch earlier, it can be said that it is actually designed. If smart design marks are displayed on the watch, such as smooth surfaces and unique complex parts, you can guess the smart watch. essay.com/Paley vs. Hume This is an inductive argument about the origin and nature of God, religion, the universe. Paley vs. Hume This is an inductive argument about the origin and nature of God, religion, the universe.

The morality for God's faith and the moral demands of God remain the widely existing moral norm. In particular, it is a fundamental assumption of Christian fundamentalist social theory. Fundamentalists claim that every social problem, from AIDS to children born out of wedlock, is the result of moral collapse. It is due to the decline of God's faith. This article examines various examples of ways that God will be bad and shows that humans can create rules and ethics themselves. The only religious reaction to this is that "religion does not produce morality, but God creates, so that if God creates animals and humans, of course they are moral." Opinion, we agree that ethics are essential, not based on religion, not even human being. In this case, obviously I can become an atheistic morality. In fact, if you are telling the truth, why do we need faith? You have effectively proved that your religion is unnecessary for moral equations. The moral argument for the existence of God constitutes a multidimensional series of arguments, from the particular characteristics of moral or moral life to the existence of God, often understood as a morally good creator of the universe . Moral argument is important and interesting. They are interesting because evaluating their robustness requires attention to almost all important philosophical issues dealt with in meta ethics. They are important because they occupy an important position in people's defense theory for religious beliefs. Evidence for this is C. It can be found in an amazing epidemic of Lewis 'pure Christianity' (1952). Many ordinary people believe that religion provides some foundation or foundation of morality.

Whether the discussion of Socrates is reasonable or not. Socrates believes that people are not afraid of what they do not know. He thinks that people should not be afraid of death because no one has an absolute understanding of death in the natural world. He is doing some arguments in support of this. In this article, I look at his two arguments and conclude that his argument is irrational as its opinion is not true. First of all, in order to prove that Socrates' claim is irrational, we must know something rational argument. In a reasonable argument, all premises must be true. Soundness - to judge the quality of discussion. If it has a real premise and a true conclusion and it is valid, that is reasonable. Moral arguments are rarely logically effective and therefore rarely justified in a strict logical sense. But our goal is to avoid false reasoning and to create as strong and persuasive discussion as possible. Subjects of moral value - non-moral community deserves ethical considerations (eg, human corpse, human fetus, specific animals, environment, art and culture are subjects of moral value). Unless there is a good reason, they should not hurt, but they are not the same as moral values. Parameters that meet these two requirements are called sounds. In other words, rational discussion is a valid argument with reality premise. Rational discussion is the only argument to prove that conclusion. Any argument whose inference is invalid, or at least with erroneous assumptions, is called incomplete. Irrational arguments can not prove their conclusion. Logic focuses on the validity of the reasoning, not the credibility of the facility. Determining whether the premise is correct is the responsibility of other knowledge fields (law, common sense, science, ethics, etc.). The effective meaning of the discussion is that when the current proposal is true the conclusion can not be true. We sometimes explain this according to "possible situation": there is no possible situation, the premise is true, but the conclusion is not All the discussions made can be judged by a simple evaluation of the site whether it is reasonable or not. Let's see the robustness of these two arguments. Let's start with sound parameters. The premise is that in fact "everything is correct" if the government provides medical treatment for free, it must increase taxes. The government has no way to incorporate health plans into the public services that are provided, but only includes large-scale plans without tax increases. People in this country will not vote for this expenditure to be effective. While some may be receiving medical treatment as a national problem, the scope of such projects is too large to make changes to our existing systems. Clearly, medical care in the US will still be a private company. Another argument, the first discussion is not healthy.

Relativity of moral assertion Over the past 100 years, society has been suffering from many moral dilemmas. A widely accepted view on ethical assertions should be defined as a statement dealing with "rules or standards for managing personal behavior or professional personnel" (heritage in the United States). Our society has made progress, targeting new and larger things, but our curiosity about nature is also true. From this it can be concluded that not all moral descriptions are relative. You can agree with the fact that there must be some statements related to the preceding, but not all. The description is correct to some extent, but not complete. Relativity of moral assertions is not extreme, it is not determined by sacred morals nor by social norms. Essay.com/ "All ethical descriptions are relative." By considering the reasons and importance of this argument, you decide whether you agree or not. "All ethical descriptions are relative." By examining the reasons and importance of this argument, you decide whether you agree or not. Moral relativism thinks that moral (or normative) statements are "objective" and not true, but "realistic" for a particular individual or society that may be a belief. When we say that moral beliefs are relative, it means that these individuals or society are actually believing or trusting functions. In a negative sense, according to E.R. there is no objective moral value, objective right or wrong, universally valid morality, and independence from what the subject believes exactly. Therefore, there is no objective and universal norm for measuring our subjective beliefs about morality. There is no moral knowledge. Note: Opposite perspectives - what is right and wrong are objective and universal - are often called non - relativism or ethical objectiveism. Two versions of ethical relativism Ethics of individuals or individuals Relativism: ethical assertions are personal things. Ethical subjectivityism What is ethical relativism? Relativism is the position where all views are equally effective and individuals determine the truth and relative. Relativism believes that truth differs from person to person, not just thinking that it is reality that things differ from person to person. Relativists exist in science and mathematics, but ethical relativism is the most common relativism. Most people have heard the slogan of relativism: moral relativism represents moral absoluteness, moral correctness and error-free position. This position would argue that our moral evolved and changed with social norms over time. This philosophy makes it possible for people to change ethically with changes in culture, knowledge and skills of society. Slavery is a good example of moral relativism

The problem that always existed in America and other countries is that it contains ethical problems. For centuries, many philosophers, such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, have produced ethical works and theories. Morality can often be defined as moral research (Cohen, p. 17). Aristotle's Nicoma Ethics, Virtue ... There are two kinds of intelligence. Morality and morality, mainly the intellectual virtue, its birth and growth into education (therefore the need for experience). And time), and moral virtue is by custom. The object "dictionary" comes from the word "greedy" and is used for "target" or "target". If ethical advice of morality is fully directed towards goodwill, the moral concept is considered objective. Scopolletec Ethics focuses on results or results, moral judgment is entirely based on judgment of good results or bad results. (Becker, 1992, 1235-8) A kind of argument derived from Kant that aims to establish the necessary conditions for the possibility of transcendental argument. For example, we must believe that we are free to carry out our actions; therefore faith in freedom is a prerequisite for the possibility of action. As part of discussing bioethics in a changing world, you should measure conditions or forces that are inconsistent with it, or just transcend ethical considerations. Some examples include greed, poverty and war. Greedy can be a great force to promote over-exploitation of natural capital such as over-exploitation, excessive logging of marine resources, reckless deforestation and so on. Satisfying desires for personal strengthening and exhibitions are often beyond ethical considerations. From an environmental management perspective, poverty may invalidate ethical considerations. The outbreak of war brought about the cessation of almost all moral principles not only at personal, social and political levels but also at the biological and environmental level. Ecological ethics is different from morality rooted in self-interests of enlighteners. It is the foundation of almost every moral philosophy to date. Ethical and ethical encouragement than short-term, greedy, and opposition to human trend towards limited pity. It also denies any responsibility for the influence of human behavior on millions of other species on Earth and individual creatures. For example, a company wants to cut old old broadleaf forests and turn it into a paper product. Corporate officials believe that local work depends on logging, the public needs logs of trees and trees, old trees can be replaced with special trees of the same high quality, and so on. This is a moral code of human-centricism

While reviewing Descartes's book "Meditation on the First Philosophy," assess Descart's argument about the existence of God. I noticed that there were some fatal flaws in his reasoning in the third mediation. Please read this chapter carefully so please start with the beginning and rate his reasoning. As Descartes thought that I was self-evident, he valued that he was convinced that he was a thoughtful, and then he continues to see other things he can decide I intended to do. He realized that "I am thoughtful", he has a "clear understanding" of what he is claiming, then looking back on it and clearly recognizing that the truth is true . . Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). - All moral arguments about the existence of God are based on the principle that all of us share common sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, in a broad sense, people all over the world have ambiguous thoughts about right and wrong; a moral argument to the existence of God is that this mutual understanding is evidence of the existence of God I will say that. Immanuel Kant advocated this argument (not a moral argument); a god as a source of objective morality Second argument about the existence of God. Because Descartes believes the existence is perfect, it can become a predicate to God. First, I will explain what the ontological argument of the existence of God is. Next, I will explain why Descartes decided to incorporate God into his philosophical approach. As a predicate of God existence reveals some truth about God. Ontology seeks to prove the existence of God from a transcendental point of view In the 17th century, René de Carte defended a series of similar arguments. For example, in the fifth meditation, Descartes claims to provide evidence that God exists within the concept of extremely perfect existence. Descartes believes that there is contradiction in imagining a very perfect existence that does not exist, compared to the idea of ​​a triangle whose interior angle is not equal to 180 degrees. Therefore, he believes that we have a very perfect idea of ​​existence - we imagined a really perfect being - we believe we must conclude that there is a perfect existence Descartes insists that there may be the best existence and will try to gain knowledge about him. However, Descartes is a deadly and finite existence without God's will, who can not seize infinite will and nature. By definition, even if God is permitted to do so to him, God may also ban this. Descartes believes that allowing God to know himself and allowing him to recognize himself through logic is an estimate that heavily depends on two very unstable supports. And God is not a crook. All knowledge claims are easy to base and ultimately seem to be present in some unconfirmed assumptions (according to Russell according to mathematics), but that is unnoticed by us Hypothetical benefits to prevent from giving away

Utilitarianism is an assertion that all actions must bring the greatest happiness to more people (Bentham, 42). Utilitarianism, however, is not necessarily the foundation of human decision. Because people need to pay attention to their own pain and happiness before consulting others' happiness. I will first explain the argument of utilitarian ideals. Let me explain why this argument is not persuasive. Finally, before you think about others, I will prove why people think of their own happiness. Utilitarian utilitarianism is the ethical theory of consequentialism. According to the results, the behavior is right or wrong. John Stuart Mill is an important philosopher who developed practical ideas. Utilitarian believes that actions that bring more happiness in the world are correct actions and actions that bring pain and less happiness are wrong. Utilitarianism can be divided into different versions. Utilitarian utilitarianism is a moral theory, originally named Jeremy, as a guiding principle of action under certain circumstances. Bentham's hedonist (a happy follower) proposed "principle". Utility called 'maximum amount of maximum happiness' Obligations are different, and their supporters are John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism has two types. Behavior Utilitarianism and rule Utilitarianism. Utilitarian critics, however, argue that moral theory can explain the severity of certain moral obligations, such as commitment obligations. However, Sartorius (1969) argues that behavioral utilitarian claims that the characteristics of moral obligation are based on retrospective consideration - utilitarianism and utilitarianism. The two ethical theories included in the course are Utilitarianism and Kant's theory. Utilitarianism is a view that the moral value of action depends entirely on the contribution to the overall utility, ie contribution to all abstracts, happiness or happiness (Wikipedia 2009). It is built on the ability to predict the outcome of an action. This theory is also known as "principle of maximum happiness". For Utilitarians, the choice that brings the greatest benefit to most people is a morally right choice. One of the advantages of this ethical theory is that Utilitarians can use a score system to compare similar predicted solutions and decide which choice is more beneficial for more people. Utilitarianism has two types. These theories are action utilitarianism and dominated utilitarianism. Behavior Utilitarianism is the same as the definition of Utilitarian above.

To eliminate the existence of thematic writings, all writers in the world of thematic writings unite. Everyone who can read and write must unite contrary to the teaching and diffusion of the target writing disease. Writing the theme interferes with the insight and creativity of the people of the world and they must constantly be repressed by their efforts to receive education and be deprived of their very important ability and thinking skills It will not. Over the centuries the world has been divided into three categories, boring students, students, and illiterates. The theme of anti-fear opposes the theme of courage. Self-doubt vs. theme against self-confidence theme. Honest subjects are dishonestly opposed. In this way, the subject argument can be expressed as simple ideological duality: COURAGE vs. FEAR, CONFIDENCE vs. SELF - DOUBT, HONESY vs. DISHONESTY. To show a more concrete example, Chinatown links the value of integrity with the value of fraud. Flying over cuckoo's nest once showed a fight between individualism and integration. In "Godfather", the character suffered from a predicament between moral idealism and moral practice. These two ideological aspects are debated through the movement of the body of the story to determine which is better, which is stronger, which brings victory and which fails. Metaphorically, subjects and anti-subjects have a body of characters that forces them to bid themselves. If the theme of the story is the subject of justice and rebellion, then some personality will be metaphorically by the spirit of injustice. Because they fight for an unfair 'team', each victory of these characters will also be an anti-theme victory. At the same time, other personality is also implied by the spirit of justice. Consistent with the Justice team, each victory of these characters will also be a victory for the theme value. In this way, the character actively participates in the topic debate without knowing himself. This turns the ideological battle into a physical battle. Moral or moral argument gives substance through the role of conflict

Euthanasia is a word derived from the Greek word "Eu Thanatos", which means "good death". Euthanasia is used to explain the terminal phase to eliminate its pain and suffering. To gain humanitarian categorization qualification it is necessary to end the life at hand without any signs of pain or pain before or during euthanasia (Golab 6). In many cases, euthanasia is abused and used for personal benefit (ie free capacity for animals), or simply because no one uses it. My argument is against the use of euthanasia. Euthanasia I think that it is not appropriate to practice in any form. I am against spontaneous euthanasia. But before discussing my argument, let's look at the definition, type, and history of euthanasia. Then let's explain the argument against and against euthanasia. Then, when defending my argument, we will meet some of the organizations against euthanasia and their arguments. For some philosophers, euthanasia is defined in a narrow sense and it is not acceptable as it is wrong that deliberately killing it is equivalent to killing euthanasia. However, it is morally right to make some people die with end-of-life diseases that are very painful due to a dying late stage illness. It is morally right for some philosophers to kill patients and let him die. These thinkers have a broad perspective on the term euthanasia. They refer to patients as active euthanasia and death as passive euthanasia. If these philosophers believe that active euthanasia is morally wrong, contrary to the views of philosophers who have a narrow view of opinion, unless passive euthanasia is also to give up I said not to go. He stated that euthanasia is reasonable if the patient's death is not bad. These thinkers believe that euthanasia is morally supported and active euthanasia and passive euthanasia can be performed from time to time. Therefore, there are many controversies about which forms of euthanasia are morally reasonable. In this article we will explore the relationship between moral and law. Then explain the emotional theme by observing whether spontaneous euthanasia should be legalized in the UK. The arguments for and against the euthanasia are carried out in the context of various moral theories fusing the subjects. From an ethical point of view, euthanasia raises a number of important questions, including the right to life, the right to freedom, avoidance of unnecessary suffering, the proper allocation of medical resources, and the rights and obligations of the physician. Other relevant considerations include a criterion for improving palliative care and a discussion for "landslides". The central rationale for supporting and opposing euthanasia is being evaluated in the context of contemporary mainstream moral theory.

In ordinary society, people want adults to know the right things and bad things, but they can deceive the brain. According to Siegmund Freud's principle of psychoanalysis, the person's consciousness is "self experiencing the outside world through emotion, playing the referee between identity and supergo" (Tyson 25). Id belongs to a person's deep desire for lack of fear against social ban and result, and super ego is a moral rule taught by society and family. In Joaquim Maria Machado de Assis' short story "The Fortune - Teller", there is conflict between him and himself when Camillo encounters an unethical behavior including his best friend Villela. After the collapse of the city state, conscience was formed in the Greek world. Close integration of politics and morality, and the former superiority is no longer impossible: outside the individual there is not enough close power to effectively guide action. Therefore, as a pis allergy, men as the only authority regain internal punishment for conscience. (Pierce 1955: 76) There are three main arguments that can be used to protect the principle of conscience freedom. Two of them are common in philosophical literature in the 16th and 17th centuries. They are "invalid or hypocritical arguments" and "ignorant arguments" (Sorabji 2014: 139). John Stuart Mill proposed the third argument. It may be called "legalization argument". Let's check in order a) Invalid or hypocritical arguments are based on the correlation between beliefs and actions and the definition of conscience. According to this argument it is impossible for someone to believe or believe in something, that is to change conscience. What we can do is to make people behave as if they believe something. This is a hypocritical act. Therefore, if some authority aims to convert people or change the moral values ​​of people, forbidding the freedom to express their own conscience through behavior does not achieve this goal. Studying a small number of people still intact and not guilty of the moral collapse of Nazi · Germany, even if the government legalized, they experienced great moral conflicts and conscience crisis There will be no. There is no doubt that crime is still a crime. And it is best not to participate in these crimes under any circumstances. In other words, they do not feel duty, even if they are no longer self-evident for the surrounding people, they act on obvious ones. So, if so, their conscience has no obligation.

Orwell opposed British control in other countries. He works for the police, but he disagrees with imperialism. From the text: At that time, I decided that imperialism was a bad thing. Theoretically - of course it is secret - I am for the Burmese, both of which are for their oppressor, the British. George Orwell's "Shoot Elephant" deals with the evil aspect of imperialism. Shooting an elephant in Orwell's story is the central focus of Orwell's argument through the two heroes, the elephant and the British officer. The British officer is a symbol of the empire and the elephant is the victim of imperialism. The soldier and the elephant together turned it into an attack on the evil of imperialism. Elephant shooting shows a difference George Orwell took an elephant as an attack on colonialism and imperialism The glorious day of the Empire giant has passed and shows the death of the notorious era of imperialism. George Orwell's article "Shooting Elephants" discusses the evil of imperialism. The inappropriate shooting of an elephant in the story of Orwell is the central focus of Orwell's argument with the establishment of two main characters, an elephant and his executor. - Ethical problems and decisions in shooting elephants at George Orwell's "Taking Elephants", he solved his internal struggle on moral and immoral issues. He wrote several incidents that showed unethical behavior. When George Orwell signed a five-year British officer's position in Myanmar, he was unaware of the moral struggle he was about to face. Likewise, he also has an internal confrontation between moral behavior and unethical behavior.

The purpose of this article is to summarize Peter Singer's view on the moral approach to abortion. His goal is to provide clear answers clearly, and is often considered a moral argument with no solution. For him, the theme of abortion is far from that, because moral issues are erroneously approached. Singer first pointed out that different views on abortion come from discussions about when human life begins. In the interview and the article "split line, Peter Singer: Abortion", the singer keenly talked about his view on abortion and how to minimize the pain when the fetus is about to be killed. As Singer tells us that people are people and people are rational substances, this article may be related to the interview. In the interview he used this example, if the baby was born only in the brainstem and nothing else in the brain In actual ethics, Singer supports the right of abortion because the fetus is neither rational nor self-conscious, hence it can not keep his preferences. Therefore, he considers mothers' choice of abortion a priority. In a nutshell, the singer thinks the fetus is lacking personality. Like his argument about the right to abortion, Singer believes that the newborn is lacking the essential features of the personality - "rationality, autonomy, and self-awareness". Keep on living. "Singer clarified that he" does not differ much from opponents of abortion when life begins. " He believes that private life "is not impossible from the start of conception, otherwise it is no longer possible for the embryo to divide into twins or other multiples after about 14 days."

For example, if Jack tries to steal something for himself, it should be done because it is correct for him. The main argument about psychological self-interest is that people take action to satisfy the desires of others. For example, Jack is playing video games, and he asked that his mother asked her to help with cooking. He did this to meet his desires, not to satisfy his own desires; he sat down to do some mother who fulfilled his desires but chose to help him. However, moral egoism refers to this phenomenon in a completely different way from psychological egoism. And psychological egoism is descriptive theory (people insist on acting in some way), moral self-interest is a normative theory (people insist that they should act in some way). People are not psychological egosists, they may become moral egoists. The problem with this argument is that it contradicts the central idea of ​​moral egoism and ultimately depends on the principle of mercy rather than the principle of true self-interest. In other words, it only supports moral self-interest as a strategy for pursuing other values ​​- clearly general welfare; it does not support moral self-interest as a fundamental principle of morality. Moral egoism is a normative moral position that moral entities should do for their own benefit. It is different from the psychological egoism which claims that people can act only for their own interests. Moral self-interest is also different from reasonable self-interest Rational self-interest thinks that it is reasonable to act for your own benefit. Therefore, moral egoism thinks in this sense that the result can be regarded as moral that it will benefit the actor. Moral egoism is in contrast to moral altruism, and we believe that moral subjects are obliged to help others. Egisim and altruism are in contrast to moral utilitarianism, and moral actors respect themselves more than respect for others (also known as the subject) (by increasing the ego). Profit and "self") identity of others not permitted) At first glance, the theory of moral egoism and psychological self-interest may seem to be very similar, but in reality it is important that their position to make normative or descriptive claims It differs greatly. Moral self-interest is a result-oriented moral theory, everyone seeks something just for their own benefit, and we think that we should propose normative claims in this way. Moseley (2006) says: "Promoting our own interests is always moral, promoting our own morals is never moral.

This is a review on Mary Midgley's new sword trial. At Mary Midgley's she tried to use a new sword, but from a moral relativistic point of view she clearly discussed that people should not be able to understand other cultures and judge them. At Mary Midgley's she tried to explicitly debate from the perspective of ethical relativists using a new sword. If people can not understand other cultures, they should not judge them. This view leads to the concept of moral isolationism. That is the conclusion that the world can be divided into societies separated from ideas and systems of their own. Through Midori's work, she believes that it is impossible to understand new things and ideas if culture is separated from other cultures. Also, if it is necessary to separate cultures from each other, they also insist that society will divide because it itself is composed of people's backgrounds. In other words, her last argument is that there is a world that everyone must live, both morally and physically. So, they should not be isolated from different cultures. Midgley's view is somewhat self-righteous, but since she is making critical thinking from various angles, they are very clear and diverse. Therefore, as there is a world of morality and physicality, it is obvious that her argument, culture should not be separated from each other, and living in it is very effective for everything. This led to the conclusion that Migley had a clear understanding of the world and could easily be regarded as a positive factor for others to discuss. By clicking the order page, you can order customized papers, academic papers, research papers, dissertations, papers, assignments, book reports, reviews, presentations, projects, case studies, course assignments, homework, creation, critical thinking Please give me In Mary Midgley's "Try a New Sword to Man", she can explain what moral isolationism is. As she defines, moral isolationism is simply to deny that we never understand any culture except our own culture, we will judge it. "(Midgely) . She also shared some of her insight about ethics. She said, "Those who recommend this, I think that the world is divided into various societies with their own ideologies, blocked troops." (Mickey) At Mary Midgley's she tried to explicitly debate from the perspective of ethical relativists using a new sword. If people can not understand other cultures, they should not judge them. This view leads to the concept of moral isolationism. That is the conclusion that the world can be divided into societies separated from ideas and systems of their own. Through Midori's work, she believes that it is impossible to understand new things and ideas if culture is separated from other cultures. Also, if it is necessary to separate cultures from each other, they also insist that society will divide because it itself is composed of people's backgrounds. In other words, her last argument is that there is a world that everyone must live, both morally and physically. Therefore, it should not be isolated from different cultures.

... ... It is not a big concept, it begins with the concept of God. The idea that such existence exists only in thought and does not actually exist includes contradiction. Because existence of lack of actual existence is not without big presence. ... Descartes proved the existence of God as soon as possible. However, Descartes does not know that this evidence does not contain errors unless he believes his clear and clear understanding of the step of reasoning is correct. Therefore, clarity and standard of independent recognition, René Descartes 'Discussion on God's Presence Rene Descartes' questions about the existence of God are related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists within his understanding of the perfect God and the nature of God (as a perfect being, it must exist for perfection) . - All moral arguments about the existence of God are based on the principle that all of us share the common sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, in a broad sense, people all over the world have ambiguous thoughts about right and wrong; the moral argument to the existence of God is that this mutual understanding is evidence of the existence of God I will say that there is. Immanuel Kant advocated this argument (not a moral argument); a god as a source of objective morality Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, although views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters believe that these discussions do not regard theological argument as "evidence." They should provide valid arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such Success Criteria clearly sets high criteria for success, and proponents of the argument of the argument almost fail in the fields other than formal logic, philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions to meet such criteria It correctly points out that. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than refusal? Discussion that is most widely accepted and criticized about the existence of God. My purpose of this article is to explain why the cosmological argument is proof of the existence of God, to understand that it is the importance of the posteriori controversy, and to my common objection It is to observe the position of. First of all, as a living person on earth, we can safely conclude that most of the things that exist today have their cause. I confirmed that there is a reason.

The theory of psychological self-interest is certainly reasonable. In the context of this paper, the reasonable meaning refers to the validity or imagination of the theory to explain the nature and motivation of human behavior (Hinman, 2007). Satisfaction gained after they completed the tasks they participated in the stimulated human behavior. For example, Mother Theresa is satisfied with the goodwill and activities he did through his life. As Hinman (2007) pointed out, she may reduce her activities if she complains about her efforts. However, moral egoism refers to this phenomenon in a completely different way from psychological egoism. And psychological egoism is descriptive theory (people insist on acting in some way), moral self-interest is a normative theory (people insist that they should act in some way). People are not psychological egosists, they may become moral egoists. The problem with this argument is that it contradicts the central idea of ​​moral egoism and ultimately depends on the principle of mercy rather than the principle of true self-interest. In other words, it only supports moral self-interest as a strategy for pursuing other values ​​- clearly general welfare; it does not support moral self-interest as a fundamental principle of morality. Psychological egoism is the idea that everyone is always selfish. It expresses human nature as completely self-centered and self-motivated. Psychological self-interest differs from their "fit" and moral self-interest in the world. Psychological egoism is the theory of fact. It is designed to adapt to the world. In the world, it is not psychological self to say that psychological egoism is a problem because someone is not acting selfishly. In my opinion, this argument is completely wrong. The theory of descriptive egoist is called "psychological self-interest". Psychological egoism is expressed as being completely self-centered and self-motivating human nature. An example of this human interpretation precedes the formation of the theory and can be seen in the work of Thomas Hobbs, a British Victorian historian and Thomas Hobbs, a British religious reform philosopher. In response to this question, "Is the proposition of respecting humanity absolute and universal?" Macquarie replied, "We only know one thing ... People always start with their own interests "(Quoting Gavin) In Leviathan, Hobbs says," No one gives, but it is intended for good. Since gifts are voluntary, in all voluntary actions, everyone's goal is their own pleasure There is. "

In our life, people made many choices with the ultimate motive. For example, most people working part-time do not necessarily like the job itself, but instead they want money and earn money and will get through with work. One objection to Utilitarianism is that humans are too high for being human beings. And like the example above, we can not always make the right idea that we still have our own interests. Utilitarianism is not concerned about the motive of this person, it does not care about the result. The argument of another objection that made me most moved was that it established a standard ("defense") that was thought to be "too high for human beings" by utilitarianism. The purpose of this objection is human tendency and unfounded ability. According to this statement, humans lack the intrinsic value of humans as humans compared to other (lower grade) species; for example the ability to think much more than other animals, or examples In the article of 1958, RN Smart introduced the word "negative utilitarianism". "It is the responsibility to do so, which is the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism, against a sufficiently powerful version of negative utilitarianism, and many authors support this argument , And some opposed it The following is an answer to this discussion that has been submitted and discussed. In 1958, R. Ninian Smart introduced the term "negative utilitarianism" in response to Karl Popper's open society and its enemies. Smart also proposed the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism. In addition, everyone has moral responsibility to commit suicide, and prevent future suffering. Many authors have already approved versions of this discussion, and some have proposed counterarguments to it. Q2. Mueller refers to those who oppose utilitarianism because humanitarianism exceeds excessive moral standards. Why does somebody raise this argument? How does Mill react to it? What is your opinion: Are demands on Utilitarianism too strict? why? Utilitarianism does not take into account the disadvantages of human nature, and by doing so, it reaches criteria that society can not reach. People grow and develop over time, the environmental influence calls for happiness.

People with compatibility and incompatibility will discuss determinism and free will. Determinism is that our actions are determined by past events. In other words, in our current state, we can not control our actions, and they are predetermined. Deterministics can be problematic as we are testing the possibility that we do not have free will or control our behavior. There is only one possible result. Compatibility provides a solution to the free will problem. It involves a controversial mismatch between free will and determinism. Compatibility is an argument that free will is compatible with determinism. Compatibility may be expressed as a discussion of compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism, as free will is often regarded as a necessary condition for moral responsibility. The strict definition of a free will criticism is misleading. Because there is no single concept in the philosophical work of this concept. In most cases, philosophers working on this issue have pursued the characteristics of agents necessary for people to have moral responsibility for their behavior. Different attempts to clarify conditions of moral responsibility will produce different institutional descriptions needed to meet these conditions. It is enough to bear moral responsibility. Compatibility is the most popular position in the discussion of free will, but it is made up of conceptual concept which does not satisfy incompatibility. The unique nature of Dennet's compatibility version is that he tries to explain free will in a way compatible with the evolution of human behavior. But this is no different from the way the fellows have defined free will for centuries. Liberalism incompatibility and compatibility issues, there are various compatibility principles, but far from the general argument that a deterministic system can achieve free will, they are difficult incompatible The task that brings about sex is very different from the task presented. Liberal nonconformity (Figure 1C). That is, in a deterministic system, an agent can not be required to be morally responsible for behaviors that can not be triggered.

It is stone, tree, spring, cobblestone, wood chips, house and so on. In other words, anything that can affect the results of human life. Religion seems to be outdated and even harmful to individuals and societies (hindering or hindering scientific progress), in fact religion, your religion (your faith) is your inner emotion and reality It is a spiritual difference of the world. When the religion begins, I repeat, when people get their qualitative self in the natural environment through subjective consciousness of objective facts through their own intellectual consciousness, Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). - All moral arguments about the existence of God are based on the principle that all of us share common sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, in a broad sense, people all over the world have ambiguous thoughts about right and wrong; a moral argument to the existence of God is that this mutual understanding is evidence of the existence of God I will say that. Immanuel Kant advocated this argument (not a moral argument); a god as a source of objective morality Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in areas other than formal logic such criteria Correctly point out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection? There is much debate about the existence of God about the existence of God. For a long time everyone wanted to prove the existence of God. Some people think that God exists and is proved by many philosophical or scientific foundations and religious reasons. On the other hand, others do not believe in the existence of God and their foundation is proved from many theoretical and scientific point of view. Many people try to prove the existence of God with reason. After Descartes proves its existence, he will think the truth about the essence of God, evidence of the existence of God, and the nature of material objects. The main task in Descartes' meditation is to design a system that allows him to understand the truth. He wants to lay the foundation of all further philosophy

"I ended the obvious existence of God, and my existence is always full of God in my life. Evidence for the human soul to know something other evidence and something I can not use it. " The existence of God "You can not think something clearly against yourself ... ... But you can say that the opposite of the proposition" God exists "... ... Therefore, there is no saying the claim of the existence of God "(Thomas · Aquinas) Some people say that God is the omnipotence and omniscient existence of the universe, in other words, God is omnipotent and omniscient and the universe Although it manages, it seems that proving the existence of God caused ridiculous things ... When answering questions about God, the argument of evil is a very unique argument. Most of the discussion is trying to prove the existence of God, while this argument tries to do the opposite Oh, and I really emphasize the word try. Another I think is special One reason is that it is not just a parameter, but a series of three parameters, In my opinion this argument is rather weak, proving that its purpose is not to prove something but prove its role Shall we do not have. All variations of moral argument begin with the observation of moral thoughts or experiences and lead to conclusions about the existence of God. Some of these discussions present the moral facts they claim through human experience and believe that God is the best explanation for these things. Other versions explain some of the objectives that human beings should try to achieve only when God exists. Many of the moral arguments are based on moral norms, which indicates that objective moral truths exist and that the existence of God is necessary to give authority to them. In many cases, they believe that ethics seems to be binding - obligations are considered more than just preferences, but rather believe that obligations are established regardless of other factors and benefits. To make morality binding, God must exist. From the most general form, the moral normative argument is as follows.

In this article we assert that the explanation of Frankfurt's free will has failed. I first outlined the explanation of Frankfurt's free will, then emphasized the opposition, and the explanation of Frankfurt's free will ultimately failed, but that the free will of Frankfurt remains failure. In the essay, the will of freedom and a person, the concept of Frankfurt explained his explanation about free will, by doing so he made some distinctions. First, Frankfurt distinguishes the primary and secondary desires. Among Frankfurt and free will addicts 'Freedom of Will and One Concept', Harry Frankfurt's argument is that the individual is not morally responsible for its actions if it can not do anything else about it. Frankfurt used three examples of intoxication: pleasing, dislike, addictive, and if one has determined their desires, his argument is the existence of free will. I think the discussion in Frankfurt is reasonable. Having free will depends on the fact that the school is a necessary system for the future of the global investment community. The main argument about why the educational institution in the United States should be free is not to give equal educational opportunities for everyone, as Lawrence (History Professor at State University of New York at Albany) states. Amount, hope to improve our economy Please think Frankfurt is right, free will and moral responsibility do not require supervision. How do Frankfurt's views compete with information source incompatibilities? Frankfurt develops free will by enabling self-perception and some degree of depth, self-awareness, and human behavior. Frankfurt is a rich source agent model with a moral depth. For Frankfurt, an agent representing her own free will is not only to express her desire to act but also to reveal the way she wants to be.

In other words, circular reasoning is excluded from justification and the underlying cause is inappropriate due to lack of further reason. If both conditions apply, the chain of causes of some belief can be infinite or infinite. The unrestricted problem is that there are infinite beliefs, regardless of whether they have a potential belief or not. Human has limited thinking and limited life There is no reason to form defense anymore after many doubts. Epistemological skepticism is the lack or justification of knowledge of a particular group of individual propositions (Barnett, 2014). The doubt of all propositions is called global skepticism, which reveals the lack of knowledge (2014). The regression problem is a difficult point of epistemology and one has to be reasonable (2014), since further defense must be inferred in the defense itself. The conclusion of the infinite regression argument is that the individual lacks legitimacy. Epistemological and moral skepticism is a subcategory of theory and its members include Pyronian moral skepticism and doctrinal moral skepticism. All members of epistemologic moral skepticism have two things in common: firstly they acknowledge that it is unreasonable for us to believe in any moral argument. . I believe that the moral skepticism of the Proninian does not make sense why he believes in moral assertion because he believes that moral assertion is truthful or moral assertion is irrational in thinking it is wrong . Therefore, apart from not knowing whether (i) is true or not, the Poronian's moral skepticism is negative (ii). Contracts between reasons and truth epistemology and methods of knowledge production, and questions about different knowledge claims. The problem is what people know. At the heart of this research area is skepticism, many of which involve attempts to refute certain forms of school. In this article we discuss the skepticism of epistemological schools, the creation of contributors to schools, and how the schools developed from there. Skepticism is a questioning point about the validity of some or all of human knowledge. Skepticism does not refer to a specific philosophy school, it refers to clues to many philosophical arguments about epistemology. The first well-known Greek skeptic was Socrates, his only knowledge was that he did not know anything about his resolve. In Indian philosophy, Sanjaya Belatthiputta is a famous skeptic and the Buddhist Madhyamika school is considered a form of skepticism. Descartes' heart and body's most famous survey also began with skepticism movements. Descartes began to question the validity of all knowledge and looked for facts unreliefable. By doing so, he came to his famous motto: I think, so I

In the article 'Peaceful woman explains why she has a gun', the author Linda · M · Hassel Strom has a reliable discussion about taking a gun. Hassel Strom has a firm moral charm, and her argument is logical based on her many dangerous personal experiences. Her articles are reliable, but I use a lot of mistakes so that if a woman has a gun I can protect myself from men. Mr. Hassel Strom has a moral appeal because he supports the ability to own a gun by using his own trustworthy personal situation. Author Linda M. Hasselstrom writes, "It explains why a peaceful woman has a gun." The situation of having a gun eventually brought her a profit. One of the many things that came out in writing that "God made people, but Samuel Colt made them equal" is a very popular phrase in the gun community. Samuel Colt is a person of the same name by Colt, a smithing company in the century. This sentence reflects the meaning of carrying a gun. This means that lack of physical fitness, training, or those who can usually undergo training for what you can do now can be controlled while their lives are online. Whether someone is attacking you, threatening you, or just searching for battle. When they have a gun, anyone can control their own destiny. In an article titled "Explain why a peaceful woman has a gun," the authors Linda M. Hasselstrom has a reliable argument that he has a gun. Hassel Strom has a firm moral charm, and her argument is logical based on her many dangerous personal experiences. Although her argument is reliable, she used many mistakes to prove that women can protect themselves from men if they have guns. Hassel Strom has an ethical appeal because he supports the ability to own a gun with his own personal circumstances. When attacked, the gun will fall easily in the hands of the attacker. In this story of Linda A. A. Hasselstrom, "The peaceful woman explains why he has a gun," the hero talks about letting a man see a pistol released from his property. I will. She also said that one of them was very close to her, several inches away from her face. In the present era, it is easy to fight a gun with someone if the power of you is near you. Then you know that you are begging for life. Pulling a gun to an attacker is dangerous.

Throughout history, we have a couple of problems where we came from, and how we get there. It all results in the problem of the existence of God. In the times of Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim, the existence of God has never been questioned. The problem of the existence of God comes from our new way of thinking after these religions. Science makes us think about how things work in our world and casts doubts on the existence of God. Since Jesus did not do scientific research on the day to prove that God existed, the people of history got the concept of God from where. In this article, I will explain how Descartes uses his existence to prove the existence of God. It is based on "I think that God's thought is in my heart" and "I think so". - First of all, I must say that God believes that he has a universal church, the church of God. To my knowledge, many of the people who claim to be God's saints are not. Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). - All moral arguments about the existence of God are based on the principle that all of us share common sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, in a broad sense, people all over the world have ambiguous thoughts about right and wrong; a moral argument to the existence of God is that this mutual understanding is evidence of the existence of God I will say that. Immanuel Kant advocated this argument (not a moral argument); a god as a source of objective morality A geometric argument to derive the nature of an object from that concept or concept suggests to Descart that a person may infer the existence of God from the concept or concept of God. (The argument about the existence of God is called an ontological argument, these arguments were originally proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century.) Descartes 'description of Descartes' ontological argument listed. How persuasive is Descartes? Is it convincing like a mathematical demonstration? Is it convincing like Cogito?

In Mill's utilitarianism, he explained the definition of happiness and misfortune with the principle of maximum happiness. The principle of maximum happiness is that if behavior promotes happiness action is reasonable and when promoting the opposite of happiness it is wrong. Happiness occurs when there are elements of happiness and lack of pain. The element of happiness itself is the ultimate one, the only thing is good. Happiness without a higher lifestyle creates happiness, so it will make up other events and experiences to a certain extent. The fundamental principles of John Mill's utilitarianism and Emanuel Kant's moral metaphysics suggest different views of the two philosophers about the field of moral philosophy. Compared to Kant 's metaphysical segmentation and its use in proof of validity and error, Mill' s utilitarianism is a more sophisticated ethical theory. Kant takes his confirmation of metaphysical survival as discipline of his moral philosophy. If the law has moral power it will be the foundation. Explain what is utilitarian utilitarianism. What kind of procedures should Utilitarians take when determining a series of actions? What is the difference between Million's Utilitarianism and Bentham? Why does Mill act according to utilitarianism? Next, I will explain how to think Kant's criticism against Mill as a utilitarian. Finally, I will evaluate the credibility of this criticism. Eat factory - meat on farm. Explain the main argument of Alasdair Norcross on why it is morally wrong to eat meat on the factory farm. Then explain what Kant is based on this argument, what Epicurean is based for this argument, and how Norcross reacts to them. Evaluate next: what do you agree with (if any) and why? Do you think that it is ethically acceptable to eat meat raised in the factory? Mill is considered to be one of the great classics of Utilitarianism, but this moral theory deviates from the central characteristics of many philosophers thought by modern philosophers. This explains why Mueller is a more serious practical problem than the initial inspection (see Coope 1998). The problem was caused by an understanding of Utilitarian era error and may reply that abandoning a philosopher who blamed the modern philosophy for the 19th century would disappear. However, this correspondence simplifies the problem too much. It is not clear whether Mill's theory of value has truly hedonism (see Brink 1992). As mentioned above, Mill thinks hedonism is a distinguishing feature of Utilitarianism; if he is not a hedonicist he will not have utilitarianism according to his own definition.

The existence of God Our so-called religious experience may be very different. Several reports on supernatural phenomena are difficult to explain from a rational and scientific point of view. On the other hand, there are various testimonies that seem to convey emotions and some kind of peace - this is something most of us may relate to religious or not. First, I consider the essence of experience. Experience includes experience (by sensory test). Discussion of Rene Descartes on the existence of God Rene Descartes's debate about the existence of God is related to his rationalistic deduction reasoning. Descartes concluded that the truth about the existence of God exists in His idea about the completeness of God and the essence of God (as a complete existence that must exist to be perfect). - All moral arguments about the existence of God are based on the principle that all of us share common sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, in a broad sense, people all over the world have ambiguous thoughts about right and wrong; a moral argument to the existence of God is that this mutual understanding is evidence of the existence of God I will say that. Immanuel Kant advocated this argument (not a moral argument); a god as a source of objective morality Before attempting to explain and evaluate the moral argument about God's existence, it is beneficial to understand the purpose of God's existential argument. Of course, though the views on this are diverse, most contemporary supporters do not believe that theoretical arguments are "proof". They should provide effective arguments and prerequisites that reasonable people can not deny. Such success criterion obviously sets high criteria for success and supporters of the argument of the writer can hardly meet philosophical discussions of interesting conclusions in areas other than formal logic such criteria Correctly point out. Is the premise of these arguments reasonable, at least for reasonable people, more reasonable than rejection?

Aristotle 's ethics includes virtue ethics, which is achieved by ethical behavior finding the mean of each particular range and fitting properly to virtue. Aristotle outlined the two virtues: morality / personality virtue and wisdom virtue. It resembles and is inspired by the moral values ​​of Plato and Socrates, but the moral argument of Aristotle differs in several ways. Plato's student Aristotle is known for his contribution in many philosophical fields and ethics is one of the most prominent fields. Aristotle 's Virtue Ethics Aristotle pointed out that in his virtue ethics, good individuals are people with ideal personality. These characteristic traits usually come from the inherent trends of individuals, but they should be cultivated. After cultivation, these personality traits should stabilize within the individual. Moral consequences Theorists and moralists usually focus on universal doctrines that can be used in all situations that require moral interpretation. It is different from these theorists Aristotle 's ethics includes virtue ethics, which is achieved by ethical behavior finding the mean of each particular range and fitting properly to virtue. Aristotle outlined the two virtues: morality / personality virtue and wisdom virtue. It resembles and is inspired by the moral values ​​of Plato and Socrates, but the moral argument of Aristotle differs in several ways. - The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) includes the concept of systematization, the correct behavior and advocacy and recommendation of wrong action (Fieser, 2009). Many of the decisions faced on a typical day can produce a lot of results. Sometimes it is sometimes difficult to judge whether the decision you make is ethical. Many philosophies were devised to explain the various ways ethical decisions can be evaluated. Normative ethics focuses on the assessment of right behavior and wrong action Ethics started from Socrates and further developed by Plato, Aristotle and Stoic. Ethics is a series of normative ethical philosophies that emphasize the existence rather than existence. In other words, in ethics, ethics is not reflecting personal actions (or the consequences) but rather from personal identity and characteristics. Today, there is an argument among believers of various ethics, and what specific virtues are morally worthy of praise. However, most theorists believe that morality is the result of inner virtue. The inner virtue is the consensus of integrating different normative philosophies into the domain of virtue ethics. Plato and Aristotle treat virtues in different ways. Plato believes that virtue is the purpose that can actually be pursued, and friends may be a useful tool.

David Hume, together with Hobbes and Rock, is considered to be one of the three major British Empires and lives at the end of enlightenment. The Catholic Church is losing control of science, politics and philosophy, Aristotle's view of the world is swallowed by a more mechanical perspective. Galileo found that the theory provided by Copernicus is correct, that is, our earth is not the center of everything, but the celestial body, including the earth, is hovering under the sun. There are many mathematicians. Philosopher David Hume is a pioneer of this view. Hume does not regard morality as a rational company. He thinks the reason is dominated by emotion. Of course, our moral decisions are summarized and presented for reasons, but for Hume these reasons are objective, but they are not only guided by specific emotions, they are sometimes brought about by them. If morality is how we deal with each other, why so many ancient texts put too much space in the rules of menstruation? Explain that these laws are neither rational nor health related. (Why are you Kosher, are not most Grasshoppers?) It seems to me that disgust is the principle of more promising interpretation. Like Hartley and Smith, David Hume (1711-1776) combines moral emotional explanations with utilitarian virtues. The third part of Hum's "humanity theory", more generally, the argument of morality in the investigation of moral principles attempts to answer the inner questions about the meaning of good, righteousness, justice, and virtue It is. People and behavior, men psychologically praise and nurture morality at the expense of their own interests, rules that can be used to judge moral disputes and to support judgment on others. Hume has a clear and good meaning on these topics but his argument shifts carelessly from one problem to another, especially from semantic problems to motivational problems, and to the transformation of moral semantic theory did. Nursing ethics was originally developed as an alternative to Kant's morality and utilitarian moral theory, but it is thought to relate to many other moral theories such as African ethics, David Hume's sentimentism, Asia, etc. I will. Richmond 's Virtue Ethics, Merlot - Ponty' s Phenomenology. , Levinas Ethics and Confucianism. The most important of these comparisons is the relationship between nursing ethics and virtue ethics, but nursing ethics is sometimes classified as a kind of virtue ethics, care is central virtue. Identification of virtues promotes a tendency to classify nursing ethics as virtue ethics, but this classification system is universally accepted.

Aristotle 's ethics includes virtue ethics, which is achieved by ethical behavior finding the mean of each particular range and fitting properly to virtue. Aristotle outlined the two virtues: morality / personality virtue and wisdom virtue. It resembles and is inspired by the moral values ​​of Plato and Socrates, but the moral argument of Aristotle differs in several ways. Plato's student Aristotle is known for his contribution in many philosophical fields and ethics is one of the most prominent fields. Aristotle 's Virtue Ethics Aristotle pointed out that in his virtue ethics, good individuals are people with ideal personality. These characteristic traits usually come from the inherent trends of individuals, but they should be cultivated. After cultivation, these personality traits should stabilize within the individual. Moral consequences Theorists and moralists usually focus on universal doctrines that can be used in all situations that require moral interpretation. It is different from these theorists Aristotle 's ethics includes virtue ethics, which is achieved by ethical behavior finding the mean of each particular range and fitting properly to virtue. Aristotle outlined the two virtues: morality / personality virtue and wisdom virtue. It resembles and is inspired by the moral values ​​of Plato and Socrates, but the moral argument of Aristotle differs in several ways. - The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) includes the concept of systematization, the correct behavior and advocacy and recommendation of wrong action (Fieser, 2009). Many of the decisions faced on a typical day can produce a lot of results. Sometimes it is sometimes difficult to judge whether the decision you make is ethical. Many philosophies were devised to explain the various ways ethical decisions can be evaluated. Normative ethics focuses on the assessment of right behavior and wrong action Ethics started from Socrates and further developed by Plato, Aristotle and Stoic. Ethics is a series of normative ethical philosophies that emphasize the existence rather than existence. In other words, in ethics, ethics is not reflecting personal actions (or the consequences) but rather from personal identity and characteristics. Today, there is an argument among believers of various ethics, and what specific virtues are morally worthy of praise. However, most theorists believe that morality is the result of inner virtue. The inner virtue is the consensus of integrating different normative philosophies into the domain of virtue ethics. Plato and Aristotle treat virtues in different ways. Plato believes that virtue is the purpose that can actually be pursued, and friends may be a useful tool.

Bertrand Russell argues that you are in this situation if you judge the difference between good and evil. Whether there is a difference or not, it is due to God's order. If this is due to the command of God, it says that there is no difference between what is right for God and what is wrong, saying that God is good is no longer an important word. Since God's order is good and he is not independent of the fact that he has committed them, you must say that good and evil have any meaning independently of God's command . Let's say that God is good. From the dilemma of Euthyphro, Plato believes that the order of God is never true morality. Sacred orders belong to God or orders come from God. This argument arises from the idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient, and when he finds a failure he will punish us. So the fear of motivating us to obey these God orders is not a proper motivation for some moral acts. Another argument advocated by Plato is that God prescribes such a command of God to be moral and that morality presents the idea that morality exists as a separate entity from God is. Both views show that God's command acts for the benefit of individuals and casts doubt on the motive of moral behavior, so it is not true morality. Essay.com/ Why does Plato think that sacred orders are never true moral order? Do you agree? Sacred instruction theory is the meta-cognitive theory only if the act is mandatory, as long as it is directed by God. Sacred command theory is often said to have been confirmed by "Euthyphro's Dilemma" (because it first appeared in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro). Philosophers often discuss the sacred command theory as ethical theory based on pure reason, but that theory also raises questions about the relationship between reason and belief, such as: The philosophy of Erkegaard is shown. He discussed Abraham 's dilemma for his son' Isaac 's "leap of faith". It is beyond the moral realm.