Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Teleological argument alevel essay
Importance of happiness to society
Importance of happiness to society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Teleological argument alevel essay
While several argue against the teleological argument speculate that we need to live in a society where truth is known, many of them can be easily diminished. While few would say that living in a society where people could lie would ruin society, our happiness ties up the need for truth on how to successfully live our lives. If teleology is about promoting happiness, people would be inclined to tell the truth if it had a better effect on the world. Whereas if lying in the situation of “does this dress make my butt look big?” could bring happiness and less suffering in the world when you lie. But what about promise keeping? While yes, as stated earlier we are happiest when we can trust our society which means we are told the truth, breaking
promises aren’t always negative. Think of a situation where you are a leader at a summer camp with a group of young children and one of them comes up to you needing to speak in private. As you agree to do so, you are forced to promise not to say anything which you agree to and she proceeds to tell you that her father comes home drunk everything and abuses her and her mother since she could remember. While you made a promise to this little girl, I know that no one would second guess bringing the police into the matter to save this girl. How is that any different from changing your promise to the man dying on the streets when you learn you can make someone’s life happier by giving them this money. Also, think about a terrorist attack that is about to happen and one of the accomplices gets arrested and the only way to figure out where the attack will take place is to torture the man. Few argue that this man deserves a fair trial, to save thousands of lives would it be worth breaking the law and torturing this man? Is his life above than the thousands of people that would die if he had a fair trial? I would have to argue that no, this man’s life is not worth the death of thousands. That these thousands are people that deserve to have a life while one man doesn’t.
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
Stanley Kramer's film, Inherit the Wind, examines a trial based on the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Often referred to as "The Trial of the Century" (Scopes Trial Web Page), the Scopes trial illuminated the controversy between the Christian theory of creation and the more scientific theory of evolution. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was arrested for illegally teaching evolutionism to his class. "The meaning of the trial emerged because it was seen as a conflict of social and intellectual values" (Scopes Trial Web Page). Kramer's film dramatizes this conflict between the Christian believers and the evolutionists in "Hillsboro, heavenly Hillsboro, the buckle on the Bible belt" (Inherit the Wind). Prosecutor Matthew Brady represents the values of fundamental Christianity while defense attorney Henry Drummond is the voice of reason and science. Although the two men have been good friends and partners in the past, the case in Hillsboro illuminates the difference in their values. Through the scene on the porch with Matthew Brady and Henry Drummond, director Stanley Kramer illustrates the incessant tug-of-war between religion and science. More specifically, camera angle and Drummond's metaphor of the "Golden Dancer" help deliver Kramer's belief in evolutionism.
In the article “Is Lying Bad for Us”, Richard Gunderman persuades his readers the effect of lying can have on our daily lives. He expresses strong opinions towards being honest and how lying has negative consequences on not only our mental health but
Traditionally, it is agreed that any and every form of telling the truth is always the best thing to do. In the essays of Stephen L Carter and Stephanie Ericsson, this ideal is not exactly true. It is expressed in "The Insufficiency of Honesty" as well as "The Ways We Lie" that honesty is hard to come by and that there is more to it than believed. The authors convey their views by first defining what the concept is, picking it apart, and then use common occurrences for examples of the points they had made.
As children we are taught to always tell the truth in every situation. Catchy clichés such as "the truth will set you free" are used to reinforce honesty in our minds. However, is it possible that lying can further your success in life, more so than honesty? Literary evidence seems to support this. Even the Bible offers stories of lying and cheating without consequence. Three literary works–the book of Genesis, William Shakespeare’s Othello, and Sir Walter Ralegh’s poem The Lie–offer support that, perhaps, the truth is not always what it’s cracked up to be.
The society that we live in today is built around lies. Banks lying to customers in order to feed the capitalist mindset, politicians lying to citizens in order to gain power, and charities taking donations with open arms however are stingy when giving back to the cause. The common reason why these organizations lie is to hide what they truly are. People also deceive others in order to hide who they truly are. From a young age, lying becomes engraved into one’s mind, we are taught to walk, talk, and lie.
When confronted with a problem, why does the human brain default to lying? Dishonesty is never a solution, although it may seem like the best option in the spur of a moment. My grandma always gave the example of her youth: she avoided and deceived her friend’s sister because the little girl riled everyone. Come to find out, the sister passed the following month due to an illness. I could never imagine the guilt she experienced. Nevertheless, everyone has been deceitful before and many characters were in the tragedy, The Crucible, by playwright Arthur Miller. Reasons for lying are understandable, but most people will admit that mendacity has only caused pain. Lying’s outcome is never positive: it may seem like a good option, for falsehood can save a person’s life, benefit someone, and it eases stress, but these are all transitory.
Telling the truth can have some consequences, but a lie can cause more damage in a relationship once it has been figured out. People believe that by just lying, a problem is solved, but problems start when lies are told. Lying destroys relationships and truth builds honest relationships which, can last forever. In both F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and Rob Marshall’s Chicago, characters lie because they feel that it is easier. However, lying leads to a downward- spiral. The society we live in can either lead us to a complicated relationship with the truth or easygoing. The problem with constantly telling lies is that it starts off with one, then leads to another until everything you say is a lie. Being truthful
Stephanie Ericsson’s The Ways We Lie, analyzes and reflects on how lying has simply become the norm in our society. We all lie, there is not one person in the world that does not lie. Most people lie because they are afraid of telling the truth, however what they do not know is telling a lie can lead them in the wrong direction because many things can happen when lying to a person. The person can find out when everything unravels that person will not have trust in you and you would be known as a liar. To every action there is a consequence, so why not deal with just one consequence when telling the
The argument from design or the teleological argument points to the existence of order and direction in nature to a kind of purpose. The argument essentially proves the existence of God. A designer must exist because the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their complexity. Design-type arguments are unproblematic when based upon things nature plainly could not or would not produce, like human artifacts. If designs entail a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was created. An intelligent designer is an entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the development of life. Essentially, the claim being made is that certain aspects of the universe are too perfectly arranged to have not happened because of a supernatural being called God.
William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
agree that “physics is the manner in which we argue about the objective side of
One may concede that if a person lies to another on the premise of a selfish goal where they are the only person who receives benefits, such as a person who borrows money without the intent of returning it, as in Kant’s example in section 4:22, they are effectively treating that other person strictly as a means to some other end, and therefore defying the second formulation which dictates that others should not be viewed purely as a means to other ends. However, as with the first formulation, there is the possibility for lying to admit of degrees and take the form of an imperfect duty. If one supposes that lying to another could be beneficial, as in a case where a small, permissible lie may boost one’s confidence and therefore chances of success, or similarly when promising insincerely may cause someone to go out and gain valuable life experience they would not have gained otherwise, the lie has the potential to prevent harm, but to actually breed positive consequences. In such a case, lying could again be seen as an imperfect duty, unlike the perfect duty insisted by Kant, and should not only avoid blame, but be celebrated as it is helping another
We lie all the time, lying is not something new to our culture. We lie to our parents, we lie to our friends, we even lie to our significant other, but why do we do it? There is not one set reason on why we lie but they can vary from an insignificant reason to something more nefarious. A good operational definition of a lie is “A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally.” (Freitas-Magalhães) We have been raised to know that lying is usually a bad thing, and it’s better to tell the truth, not to mention the circumstances get exponentially worse if you are caught lying. No one wants to be labeled as a liar, or untrustworthy. This may sound unorthodox but I personally think lying is perfectly fine; depending on the situation. If you have a prima-facie duty to be dishonest it’s perfectly acceptable. Ross says a prima facie duty or obligation is an actual duty. “One’s actual duty is what one ought to do all things considered.” (Carson) I’m not the only one who finds this too be true. Ross would also agree with me, He says “Lying is permissible or obligatory when the duty not to lie conflicts with a more important or equal important prima facie duty.” (Carson) As I was doing research on this topic I did read one extremely compelling argument on why we ought not to lie. Aristotle basically said a person who makes a defense for lying could never be trusted. (King.)
To be honest is to be believed in to create a bond that will grow and prosper. To be dishonest is to be led astray to harm others to where they might get in trouble, injured, or even worse death and all bonds, present or future, will be no longer. Honesty is a means to build one’s trust. In the end, honesty can help a person go a long way, while dishonesty will lead to nowhere as stated by some of the Proverbs.