Slippery Slope Argument Phil 103 19 April 2006 When one argues against an idea or action‚ one form often used is called the slippery slope argument. In a slippery slope argument‚ one takes a consequentialist view on the action in question‚ then extrapolates the further outcome sometimes based on evidence‚ sometimes not. For example‚ I might argue that my teacher should not eat chocolate ice cream‚ because of two reasons: Eating chocolate ice cream stimulates pleasure centers in the brain
Premium Terri Schiavo case Persistent vegetative state Slippery Slope
law they are considered to be the morally correct action‚ but when actions go against the law they are deemed immoral. The magisterium views homosexual acts to be against the natural law‚ because they are not considered to be complementary. This argument requires an acceptance that male-female sex is considered correct because anatomically male and female parts fit together‚ and have the capacity to create new life. This approach holds validity in that it accepts the biological necessity that life
Premium Homosexuality Marriage Sexual orientation
than theism. He mentions the evil that is in the world and how it doesn’t make any sense to find comfort in a God that purposely causes pain‚ disease and natural disasters. McCloskey also mentions it is unreasonable to live by faith in this world. In this article‚ he argues the three theistic proofs including‚ the argument for design‚ the teleological argument and the cosmological argument. In order to add illusive power to his argument‚ McCloskey uses the work “proof” rather than “theory.” Many
Premium Existence Universe Cosmological argument
“Wax Argument”: Rene Descartes was an extraordinary philosopher who introduced a new‚ obscure‚ way to understanding the difference between the mind and the body. Descartes’ argument seems to be directed to Aristotle‚ in order to counter Aristotle’s “sensory argument;” in which everything is a conclusion of the senses. Descartes uses the “wax argument” to distinguish between the mind and body‚ separating the mind into its own form. The use of wax allows Descartes to prove and make his point because
Free Mind Perception René Descartes
Outline of Rowe’s Chapter on the Argument from Contingency in His Philosophy of Religion‚ Part II Notes on Rowe on the Cosmological Argument‚ Part Two: Four Criticisms of the Argument 0. Review 0.1 Dependent beings: a being whose existence is accounted for by the causal activity of other beings 0.2 Self-existent beings: beings whose existence is self-explanatory‚ or accounted for by their own inner nature 0.3 The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): There must be an explanation for (a) the
Premium Metaphysics Existence Cosmological argument
Instead of claiming that our sensory experiences are sometimes wrong and that our sensory equipment can be faulty and misinterpret reality‚ the arguments for dreaming claims our sensory equipment is not adept enough to distinguish such reality. So it is not the case that an object we observe from afar has‚ in reality‚ a different size‚ but that all we experience all together is false. The dream argument implies that all of the empirical knowledge and experiences we had so far‚ could be distorted‚ and
Premium Epistemology Metaphysics René Descartes
Many people have tried to deny Christ’s Resurrection. There are four main arguments in which they try to do so. Although‚ each one of them can easily be proved false. The first argument is the stolen-body story. This argument means that the Body of Christ was stolen from the tomb by the Apostles while the guards were asleep. This however‚ does not make sense. If the guards were asleep‚ how do they know the Apostles stole the body? Adding on‚ Roman soldiers did not sleep on duty‚ especially when
Premium
and social acceptance that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy. This is a cause for concern. In America‚ land of the free‚ how is our society condoning blatant exclusion and bigotry towards a group of people who only want to be accepted? Looking at the current situation of gay rights will show that there is only one logical way to proceed: the legalization of gay marriage. The various arguments against gay marriage will be examined. First off‚ God does not hate homosexual people
Free Homosexuality Same-sex marriage
a review the “End-to-End Argument in System Design” paper [1]. In our your submission you need to briefly summarize the main idea(s) and contribution(s) of the paper. In particular‚ your review needs to address the following: 1. Discuss the three most important things the paper advocates‚ 2. Discuss the most glaring problem(s) with the paper‚ and 3. The paper was written with the design of the original Internet in mind. Discuss what impact‚ if any‚ may the argument presented in this paper have
Premium Transmission Control Protocol Internet Protocol Design
Section 1: Socrates’ argument Socrates sits in a prison cell‚ sentenced to death. His wealthy friend Crito has come to speak with him as he waits for a ship from Delos to return and allow executions to begin. Socrates knows that he‚ “must die the day after the ship arrives (Plato‚ 44).” Socrates also knows that he is not guilty of the crimes he was convicted of‚ stating‚ “There have been many who have accused me to you for many years now‚ and none of their accusations are true (Plato 22).” It is
Premium Plato Philosophy Socrates