Moral argument

In part one “Moral Minimalism” of Michael Walzer’s book “Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad”, Walzer establish two basic types of moral dualism, thin or minimalist and thick or maximalist moralities. To distinguish these two concepts of moralities, Walzer begins by remembering a picture from 1989 television news showing a marcher in Prague carrying “Truth” and “Justice” symbols. Walzer point out that he and everybody else, including the people of Prague, recognized and acknowledged

psycho-logical egoism. In my opinion this argument is completely wrong and unsound. According to James Rachel, an author of “Elements of Moral Philosophy,” there two main arguments exist against psychological egoism. The first argument can be formulated as such: 1) Everyone always does what they most want to

immediately. For this reason I plan to briefly investigate the arguments for four main sub-premises that either support or reject the statement “If God is omnipotent, then God will be able to make evil good”. These premise’s are: (A) God is not omnipotent and cannot make evil good (B) God is omnipotent, but cannot make evil good (i) God is omnipotent and chooses not to make evil good (C) God is omnipotent and can make evil good. Arguments that support Premise (i) deny statement A of any truth. If

Famine Relief Argument. Rachels argues that the cost of raising a child today, over two-hundred thousand, is so staggering that it would be better spent on donations towards famine relief projects. Throughout the paper, Rachels provides substantial arguments that emphasize the point that having children is the biggest decision that someone will ever make in their life rather than what to believe or whether to get married, and the decision should not be taken lightly. All the arguments presented are

valid argument is an argument which has a conclusion that follows its premises. The premises can be true or false. When one or both premises are false it is possible that the argument seems completely valid, but it has false conclusion. An example for a valid argument which has a false premise is: Permise1: If dog can fly. Permise2: Terrier is a kind of dog Conclusion: terrier can fly (Here the argument is valid, but the first premise is false, and makes the argument unsound. A valid argument can have

highly controversial in the American consciousness for many decades. The main topic of debate has been about whether a fetus deserves the same moral consideration as a physical human being and thus a moral right to not be killed. The answer to this question usually devolves into an argument about whether or when a fetus is a person. This type of argument has not been able to resolve the difference between ideologies throughout the decades. It is for this reason that Don Marquis in his article “Why

Moral responsibility is a concept that has, in some way, existed in every culture and civilization that recorded history can tell us about. From the Law of Hammurabi to beliefs in judgmental gods mankind has always assumed some form of moral responsibility—whether metaphysical or within a society. While pragmatic considerations of moral responsibility seem to be necessary for living within a society, the philosophic concept of moral responsibility beckons many inherent problems that must be resolved

Argument Analysis Paper Currently, the world is in disagreement over tensions in the Middle East. A divided country of the Syrian government and rebels has caused horrific acts. Acts that the president of the United States deemed necessary for military retaliation. That has sparked the debate on if it was not only justified but ethical to launch tomahawk missiles into war-torn parts of Syria. In an article on the Huffington Post, Dr. Helen Ouyang argues that it was justified and that military intervention

female infanticide is not a morally justifiable practice. I do not agree that killing these innocents outweighs the benefits it has to their society. Many arguments that support female infanticide use the Cultural Relativism theory to defend their claim. Cultural Relativism is a theory that depicts how we all have different cultures and different moral codes, therefore, it is impossible to judge another 's culture from our own perspective (EMP, 19). In this way, female infanticide is justified because

world’s population (Singer 9). I will begin this essay by summarizing and explaining Peter Singer’s, an Australian ethic philosopher, basic argument that it is immoral not to give to effective charities, an idea I agree with. After that, I will bring to attention two objections to this argument and show how these objections fail. To begin explaining the argument, this thought experiment will help bring the logic into play. In concise terms, Singer asks, what should you do if you see a young child drowning