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.
The inferior soldier knows that he is likely to die, but he will endure in the war and fight anyway. His knowledge of fact is that he is likely to die; his knowledge of value is that he can increase his odds of survival with endurance in fighting. The superior soldier knows that he is likely to win and will endure because of this likelihood. His knowledge of fact supersedes any need for knowledge of value.
Despite this discrepancy, both soldiers show endurance. But the discrepancy itself disproves the counterexample because the variable does not allow for a consistent comparison. Whether or not the inferior soldier is foolish or wise would determine the validity of the two soldiers counterexample.
My counterexample of the battered wife demonstrates an argumentative failure based on the knowledge of fact and the knowledge of value. The battered wife who stays with the abusive husband is showing endurance, not based on knowledge of fact, but despite knowledge of fact. She knows that she is likely to die if she does not leave her violent husband (knowledge of fact). Yet she endures the relationship and endures...
This does not show any knowledge of value and defies reason based on knowledge of fact, thereby showing a flaw in my counterexample based on the following argument: A. Wise endurance is courage. B. Endurance in spite of a detrimental knowledge of fact is not wise. C. Therefore endurance that is not wise neither proves nor disproves D3.
Professor Lewis is correct about the counterexample involving the two soldiers. The inferior soldier is wise and not foolish, thereby negating this argument as a counterexample.
In order to change this argument so it becomes a valid counterexample of Laches definition of courage, the story would have to be modified. A successfully altered version of this counterexample would remove all knowledge of fact and value, thereby forcing the two soldiers to choose endurance over retreat based on its own merit. If the two soldiers chose to endure, even in the face of possible death with no knowledge of value to base their decision on, this would satisfy the criteria for D3. The soldiers' choices in this situation would either display or disprove Laches' D3 of courage.
However, when it comes to health-related issues, I do not believe that subjective personal impressions and feelings can influence one's ethical decision-making. The evidence is clear that smoking is harmful to the smoker, and also to the person who inhales second-hand smoke. Additionally, we were in my parents' home. I know that they have hard and fast rules about smoking on their property. My friend took a different point-of-view: he acquiesced
Philosophical Legal Theory: Analyzing the Rhetoric in Civil Rights Speeches by King and Wallace While Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) is remembered as a hero in the Civil Rights struggle, it is important to keep in mind that, during his time period, he was vilified by many who claimed that his efforts to secure equality for African-Americans were somehow unnatural. One of his most vocal opponents was George Wallace (Wallace), the
His social contract put forward the notion that citizens at some point give their consent to live under a "certain political structure" and that requires a social contract. John Locke is often seen as the "…philosopher of the American Revolution," Heineman explains. Locke's view was that in the early period of human existence, mankind lived in a state of nature, but though it was reasonably pleasant, there were problems. And
In fact, tolerance often stands in the way of engagement. Tolerance does not require us to attempt to understand one another or to know anything about one another. Sometimes tolerance may be all that can be expected. It is a step forward from active hostility, but it is a long way from pluralism" (Eck 1993). Achieving true dialogue and understanding, of course, is easier said than done. Also, teachers must
Philosophical Approaches The question of ethics, what the right thing to do vs. The wrong thing, can be a difficult one. There are occasions where right and wrong are black and white distinctions. The right thing to do is easy discernable, though it may not be the easiest things to do. However, this is the rare occasion. More often than not trying to determine right and wrong in a given situation
Philosophical Analysis of Animal-Human Interactions Both animal rights and ecocentrism discourage hunting, although for different reasons. Thesis: Animal rights philosophy views hunting from a moral perspective, as the unnecessary infliction of suffering on sentient beings, no less immoral than the persecution of human beings. Ecocentrism views hunting from a perspective of self-interest, as an activity with unforeseeable consequences which could threaten the ability of many life-forms to sustain themselves on planet