Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Google
The overall viewpoint of the author is, well, the article is a bit of a hatchet job, running down a list of grievances collected on the Internet, going so far down the intellectual scale as to use snarky name-calling from random bloggers as evidence (p.310). There are logical fallacies contained in pretty much every point of argument the author makes. So while the overall viewpoint is clear -- the author does not like Google -- the argument is constructed primarily out of pathos, avoiding any hard discussion of ethos, and undermining its own logos by failing to resist the temptation to indulge in fallacy. It is tough to critique the article as a whole, as the author has utilized the classic shotgun argument fallacy.
The first issue, that of censoring search results in China, is a good example of fallacy -- leading the respondent. After reading about all of Google's crimes against morality, there is little doubt what conclusion the author wants you to reach. To agree that such censorship is evil, you would first need a clear definition of evil. Truthfully, Google should have had that, lest it invite just this type of smarmy hack criticism. But then...
You can make a case, based on Western morality, that the PRC's censorship policies are a form of evil, but that's not an easy case to make, and the whole point of having nation-states is that one country's sense of morality is not applied universally around the world -- China has its own. It's a highly complex philosophical issue, and leads to some interesting conflicts with the other points the author is trying to make.
As to speculating why Google did not want to supply the requested information concerning the Child Online Protection Act, Google may have been thinking about the slippery slope here. Normally, a slippery slope is a bad way to make an argument, but our legal system works on precedent. It is perfectly conceivable that allowing law enforcement warrantless search for one thing will be leveraged as precedent in the future to allow them to search for other things. In our legal system, slippery slope logic is used, so Google would have reason to be concerned about it.…
References
Driver, J. (2014). The history of utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 18, 2014 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/
Johnson, R. (2008). Kant's moral philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 18, 2014 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
Initially St. Augustine favoured the dualistic view that evil was external and separate from the world and mankind that in evident from the Manichean worldview. However, he was later to reject this strict dualism and taker another view of the nature of evil. This was more Platonic and was based on the writings of Plotinus and Porphyry. This refers to the view that evil is a measure and result of
Evil The free will defense suggests that God permits, but does not cause evil. Therefore, it is possible to live in a universe in which good and evil continually coexist. Human beings are blessed with the ability to make a choice that can further the objectives of God and good, or to promote the interests of evil. Although this view is logically coherent, there are clear objections to it. One objection is
If humans are not the architects of good and evil, then, it is easy to see how a human cannot be wholly good or wholly evil. An architect may be trying to emulate the style of Frank Lloyd Wright, but his or her work will, ultimately, be different from Wright's in some ways. The emulating architect will create some aspects of his or her building that are entirely his or
Evil and Suffering The logical problem of evil is that if God is all-good then evil should not exist. Perhaps one can argue, then, that evil is a creation of man and that God cannot not prevent that, but God being Omnipotent, and, therefore, by definition able to accomplish all should be capable of preventing if not destructing evil. Either then God is not all good, or he is not all
"I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." Conversely other people state that they dislike the formality of religion, of beliefs and practices, but do believe in God and in some sense of 'higher truth.' This confusion might be best addressed by doing away with the category of religion altogether -- religion is whatever a society defines it to be, and the term has grown so meaningless, people even speak of making golf
Evil is PowerPoint? Business Author's contact information with further details of collegiate affiliation, etc. Edward Tufte is not fond of PowerPoint. To say he is not fond of PowerPoint is an understatement. Edward Tufte hates PowerPoint; he firms believes that it is evil. This paper serves as reflection of the PowerPoint and Tufte's attitudes about PowerPoint. I am conflicted in this matter. I both agree with his position and also disagree with