Vegetarianism Vs Compatibilism

He explains that reductionism only accounts for reducing the mind to physics. However, it leaves out consciousness. Therefore, according to Nagel, reductionism is inaccurate because it excludes subjective experience. In order to explain his point, Nagel provides the reader with an analogy using bats. He states that the he is able to imagine himself with webbed arms, which permit him to fly around at night catching insects in his mouth. He expands, and says he is able to imagine that he has poor vision and has to use sonar to communicate, and finally he adds that he is able to imagine hanging upside down in an attic. However Nagel clarifies that these things would only explain what it would be like for him to be a bat. The question he wants answered is what it is like for a bat to be a bat? (423). He explains how if one tries to image this, they are restricted by their own mind. By presenting this information Nagel is able to support his claim because one cannot look and behave like another organism without changing their fundamental structure. One’s experiences cannot be anything like the experience from the point of view of another organism

Part 5: Connect the argument with facts that prove your points. Note the areas of objections and offer concessions if needed.

Suppose that every event or action has a sufficient cause, which brings that event about. Today, in our scientific age, this sounds like a reasonable assumption. After all, can you imagine someone seriously claiming that when it rains, or when a plane crashes, or when a business succeeds, there might be no cause for it? Surely, human behavior is caused. It doesn't just happen for no reason at all. The types of human behavior for which people are held morally accountable are usually said to be caused by the people who engaged in that behavior. People typically cause their own behavior by making choices; thus, this type of behavior might be thought to be caused by your own choice-makings. This freedom to make

*If you go through each item on this study guide and read about it on the REFerenced page and corresponding TOPic in your text, you should have an excellent study guide for the Final Exam. If you do not do this, you will likely fail this exam miserably!

Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.

Use the lecture folder to help you complete this guide. The more detail you can provide the better prepared for the test you will be.

Introduce the second main point of the argument. Then, provide evidence from the sources. Multiple pieces of evidence should be provided to support the main point.

The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three Free Will and Determinism views. It refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as

The following are study questions for the examination. The examination will be a closed-book examination.

is false, because there are cases where a person is morally responsible for what she has done even if she could not have done otherwise (835-6). Call such cases Frankfurt-style cases. A lot of literature thereafter has been targeted on these Frankfurt-style cases, particularly whether it’s really possible to construct them. Among critics of Frankfurt, David Widerker (2003) takes one step further and he grants, for the sake of his argument, that it is possible to construct Frankfurt-style cases ; however, he argues that even so, Frankfurt’s argument still fails because there are counter-examples to Frankfurt-style cases, which are in favor of PAP (60-2).

Therefore, it is more believable that the universe had a beginning and a personal creator. The third of Aquinas' ways is the argument of contingency. The world consists of contingent items- items that have a property are items referred to as 'being.' These items are generated and perish; they have a beginning and an end.

will and moral responsibility. I will argue, that Frankfurt makes an invalid implicit assumption that the

The incompatibilists argue that one is morally responsible for what she has done given that she could have done otherwise. Further, they think that if determinism is true then one could not have done otherwise, so if determinism is true, one is not morally responsible for things she has done. In debates surrounding the issue of free will, philosophers have focused on discussing whether determinism is true or false. Harry Frankfurt thinks even though the requirement of alternative possibilities in order to be held morally responsible for our actions seems intuitively plausible, it is a questionable premise in the argument provided by incompatibilists. Frankfurt calls the premise that “a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise” the principle of alternative possibilities or PAP (Frankfurt, 829). He argues that PAP is false and a person can be held morally responsible even if she could not have done otherwise.

There is much controversy and hypocrisy when it comes to animals. I, along with thousands of others, am part of the hypocrisy. I squirm and feel a deep sadness when I hear or see animals being abused, yet I am a meat-eater. I have learned that we all have different opinions and taste and we can not force others to change their ways. There will always be people, like me, perhaps, who will continue to eat meat and use animal products because that is what to us is food and normality. There are many ways to solutionize this; Become vegan or vegetarian, do protests and show others the suffering animals are put through, and/or simply let those who do not choose veganism to be themselves.

Assuming that one has to be in a conscious state of mind in order for one to understand what it is like to be something, Nagel starts off his argument with an idea for consciousness. He criticizes the concept of functionalism for disregarding the subjective view of the mind into a purely objective view. Taking into account what he had just stated, Nagel makes his claim: “The fact that [a bat] has conscious experience at all means, basically, that there is something that it is like to be [a bat]” (Nagel 1974, pp. 436). This “what it is like” is the subjective aspect of Nagel’s theory. He suggests that previous theories on the mind-body problem did not capture this “subjective character of experience” (Nagel 1974, pp. 436). The “subjective character of experience” can be defined as the idea that a certain organism can only have conscious experiences that only it can feel. Using the subjective aspect of consciousness, Nagel explains that consciousness cannot be defined through only objective means. I agree in Nagel’s stance that the subjective experience is “not analyzable in terms of any explanatory system of functional states, or intentional states” (Nagel 1974, pp. 436). Nagel’s argument is convincing; when people feel an emotion such as pain, no one really knows how to describe it, for one person’s pain might be completely different from another’s. What is there to say that feelings such as pain could be described purely through objective means? In other words, the