Comparing Creighton University's 'Skepticism And Beyond'

In the reading of The Practical Skeptic written by Lisa J. Mclntyre , section one “ The Promise” written by C.Wright Mills talks about the idea of sociological imagination and what sociological imagination looks like. Sociological imagination, defined in the book, can be stated as a different way to see life. Most people have daily routines and those routines become their life. The same with thinking, people come to know one way of thinking and they live their life thinking that way. Sociological imagination, teaches the average person how to think outside of the bubble or thought process they have come to know and live.

P2. We make moral judgments about people based on events that are out of their control.

People are faced with moral issues all throughout their life, and have to make the

Are you being viewed in a negative way than you are being viewed in person? However, how people addressed you may not be how you really are once people get to know you. In the world you live in now your going to come across different types of people that are going to view you differently. To continue, you can get judged for the most cruel situations that didn’t pertain to you. No matter what you do in life people always find something to be negative about. It's not what they say it how you react to it. Our status during this generation is defined by the way we dress and where we come from.

Do you ever wonder if you know anything for certain? For example, have you ever wondered whether you are truly alive or if life is only a dream one simply cannot wake up from? In his argument for skepticism, Peter Unger, states that “nobody ever knows anything to be so” (Unger, Pg. 42). According to Unger’s argument one simply cannot know anything about anything. One cannot know oneself, the world, or others. One does not know pain nor pleasure. One simply does not know anything. Through the use of different methods, however, one can indeed know things about oneself, the world, and others in contrast to what Peter Unger’s argument for skepticism states.

Daily we are faced with the perpetual issue of good versus evil? Right versus wrong, all the while attempting to find a safe middle ground on which to stand so we may distance ourselves from distasteful situations. Humanity often finds itself standing idly by, allowing others to make the hard decisions, letting apathy take over and being blindly lead. Nevertheless, for some this blind faith is not always a viable option

No matter the situation, decisions shape the future. It may be called fate or free will, but society should recognize the dangers of choosing instinct over choice. When making “unconscious decisions” and not thinking of our own morals, our instincts have the ability to change our nature without us even knowing it. This can eventually lead to corruption, as we have no control whether or not those changes are negative or positive. The choices we make define our future and

Quality deep Hume was not an all-inclusive idea, but a person develops into ground and human care compiled. The way people discuss whether an activity is good or bad and uses the same type of exchange to achieve a conclusion strong evidence that the quality is too low right. However, people have feelings of support or opposition to these activities, which confirms that the hypothesis is also part of human nature. Hume holds some contradictory hypotheses, for example, pride and modesty, or love and hate, and how these emotions work with us strongly in our behavior, not as a synthesis of deliberations. Assumptions lead us and we are regularly in a position where we have to make a judgment which is usually done by coordinating the reason and the

From an early age I considered myself to be a skeptic of all different subjects. My mother said that I was always asking “why?” in order to find clarity as a child. I believe that this kind of skepticism lives in all human beings, and that a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing. According to Paul Kurtz, “A skeptic is one who is willing to question any knowledge claim, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic and adequacy of evidence.” With that being said to what extent does clarity in definition, consistency in logic, and adequacy of evidence validate a claim in the areas of knowledge such as ethics and history? What does it take to validate a claim to the point where it becomes a personal truth? I can ask “why?” as much as I would like but when will my skepticism be satisfied and is Paul Kurtz process enough to find truth in different knowledge claims? In my opinion, Paul Kurtz has a great system of evaluation but he is leaving out a key component and that is experience.

right and wrong share a very thin line. The right decision for some might be wrong for others and vice

Using Humes own theory on him he says that we can have a certain action with without a reaction. So just because it is something that is not the norm doesn’t mean it isn’t the norm and that we might just have an impression in are mind that we feel that this is how it should be done. If we were able to remove all impression you had up to this point that you have ever learned in the world and had that person or even all people have basically a clean slate expect for maybe one person then everyone would learn everything in a new way again expect that one person that did things the old way. So because this action is new to everyone else they will allow follow that outcome of that action as this would be the new way they learned it and it would become the new norm. And that one person that would be considered doing it different then everyone else would be considered the lair now, as he would be the only one doing that action the way he remember it or how he was taught. So he would then overtime have to conform to their action as the new norm or be looked as a lair. An example of this might be like taking an animal out its natural environment in the fact that he would have that desire to follow that action but could not because he is removed from that certain state that he was in so he would need to learn a whole new way of life and change those things that it normally did because it liberty to do what was normal to him has been removed and he did not have a choice to follow that action or not, but rather was forced into that

Why do you think it can be so difficult for people to do what is right?

Many things can contribute to what you think is morally right or wrong. Religion, for example, may create a barrier on to what extent you do something. Some religions set rules, or guidelines on which they limit what people do. Cultures, as well, contribute to people’s decisions. Many times our values and ethics disagree with different people who hold different

Where I stand on this topic is that all human beings are very individualistic. We have the ability to choose and act based upon our free will. We may choose to do something that isn’t always responsible or for the benefit of others ,but those are some of choices we choose to make. We are incapable of choosing the worst thing possible for ourselves. We act upon what we feel is best for us at the moment or in the future, even though we aren’t always right. Although we are raised in a society were there are morals, norms, and rules we tend to ignore them at times and do things that are irresponsible and immoral. As humans we perform these irresponsible or immoral acts even though we know the consequences that come with our actions. No

I see right and wrong as a choice made by a person, let me say a boy for instance. He has a conscience and he knows what he is doing is very bad. He can deceive everybody, and make people think he is a good person, but deep inside of him he knows very well that what he is doing is not right. As the old saying ?what goes up must come down? there is an end to every thing, no matter how long it