Having a Definite Answer to a Question
Some questions do not have definite answers and are usually judgments
of value. This means that they cannot be proved true or false, they
include; religious judgments, aesthetic judgments and moral judgments.
They aspire to be as definite as judgments of fact. However it is
debatable as to whether them not having a definite answer makes them
more or less important. We find that as we discover the answers to new
scientific questions we can expand our knowledge. However it is the
questions that we cannot answer that which are remembered most
prominently in history and that inspire films and literature, for
example what is beauty? This essay will discuss whether all questions
can have a definite answer and whether having a definite answer makes
a question more or less important.
Judgments of fact are the only one which can have definite answers;
they can be proven true or false. They can be either inductive or
deductive. Inductive is scientific and is bases on empirical evidence,
evidence from the senses. It is contingent and not as definite as
deductive as the senses can lie and laboratory experiments are
constantly changing in light of new measuring devices and other
equipment. Deductive reasoning is from logic and mathematics and is
definite. Truths derived from logic or mathematics are referred to as
apriori truths, meaning they do not refer to human experience.
Judgments of value, however, are different, in that they cannot be
proven true or false. There are three types of judgments of value;
aesthetic judgments, religious judgment and moral judgments. Judgments
of value are subjective...
... middle of paper ...
...t moral or immoral, such as lying. The utilitarian
theory is good because the theory refers to human emotion and desires;
however it ignores the rights of the minority and does not account for
human differences. Enlightened self-interest does encourage working
together, however it does not give an exact definition of what is
moral. Therefore after looking at these theories I have noticed that
there is no exact way of proving morals with reason and that moral
judgment is still on the basis of personal opinion. Lastly is the
question of whether having a definite answer makes a question more or
less important. While judgments of fact are important because they
widen our knowledge, it is the ambiguous questions that seem the most
important. It is they which inspire art and to which has been
dedicated much work and thought.
Throughout this honors ignition seminar, I have come to distinguish between two very useful, and powerful words: subjective truth and objective fact. Subjective truth, as I understand, is truth. The only difference separating it from universal or general truth is “subjective.” Our understanding of truth can cause arguments when trying to distinguish what is universally true. My definition of subjective truth, not necessarily perceived as true to others, is that the truth of something that happened may not be what actually happened to you, but what you felt happened to you. Objective fact, however, are based on facts that cannot be denied. They are legitimate, universal facts that everyone takes as true, but each may have a different interpretation of it. The main differences between subjective truth and objective fact is that subjective truth expresses one's own experience when understand the objective fact. Subjective truth has no correct definition, but I define it as: Subjective truth deals with subjectivity. Something th...
The relationship between certainty and doubt has been a heavily debated topic throughout history and especially in the mid-1800s. For most people, having some doubt on one’s opinions is much more beneficial than having absolute certainty because doubt allows one to review his potential choice and leaves room for him to make improvements on his choice. Someone who lives with absolute certainty cannot weigh the pros and cons because he has the confidence that what he believes is the right decision for everyone; however, there are situations in one’s life where absolute certainty is necessary, such as in team sports. With the exception of competitions, however, it is more important for one to have doubt in his or her life because doubt allows
The Topics seeks to discover a method by which we reason(1) from generally accepted opinions (endox_n) about any problem (100a18-19, 100a30-b18)—i.e., dialectical reasoning. By "generally accepted opinions,"Aristotle means the kind of "opinion held by everyone or by the majority or by the wise—either all of the wise or the majority or the most famous of them—and which is not paradoxical; for one would accept the opinion of the wise, if it is not opposed to the views of the majority" (104a8-13). Since Aristotle contrasts dialectical reasoning with demonstrative reasoning which proceeds from true and primary premises (100a27-28) and are supported by the "things themselves," it seems easy to suppose that dialectic cannot get us to objective first principles.
Our perception of moral judgments sometimes affects the ways in which knowledge is produced. In these two areas of knowledge, the natural sciences and the arts, the ways of knowing are different as is the nature of the knowledge produced. Likewise, ethical judgments may or may not limit knowledge in these areas but in different ways. Ethical judgments may lead to questioning the means by which some scientific knowledge is produced. Significant, meaningful works of art are produced only when the artist is able to transmit an emotion to the spectator, reader or listener effectively. This is why powerful emotional reactions to a work of art sometimes produce strong and often opposing ethical judgements which can limit the artist’s opportunities to produce knowledge.
Absolutism is a political theory giving rulers complete sovereignty. Louis XIV was one of the most popular successful absolute monarchs. He exercised absolute paternal rights of a father on France and his powers were unlimited by church, legislature, or elites. Calling himself the "Sun King" after the God Apollo, he worked to banish feudalism and create a unified state under his absolute power. To illustrate this power he built the Palace at Versailles and created an elaborate, theatrical royal lifestyle. His reign of 72 years, from 1638 to 1715, it is the longest documented reign of any European monarch. To establish absolutism in France Louis XIV used divers strategies including the centralization of the French state, diminishing the nobles' power and oppressing the third estate.
In David Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”, he proposes two types of human enquiry: relations of ideas and matters of fact. The two common examples that represent the two enquiries are mathematics and science. Hume argues that people who rely on induction - cause and effect to perceive the world have no understanding of it since there does not exist any justification for them to believe in induction at the first place.
...individual beliefs, one can form their own educated opinions regarding what kind of action he should take. Morals are also not always concrete. Relativist thought contends each group of people may contain different morals. From that opinion, one may assert that morals themselves are not absolute. Still, deontological moral theory provides a strong base for making correct decisions. There are few realistic exceptions to the theory and one can easily notice when an exception is to be made.
There are many philosophical stories that try to explain the meaning of true and false (Armour-Garb 258). Human beings have to find a way of communicating with each other. The process of determining what has been said, presented or occurred is true is referred to as the criterion of truth (Kulvicki 20). There are various procedures to determine the criterion of truth where different scholars have developed varying claims on what should be concealed as truth and false. In most cases, for a long time, the truth has been identified to be related to facts, reality or specific standards and originality (Armour-Garb 262). Modern definitions of truth revolve around authenticity based on factual or logical evidence. The concept of truth has created debate among philosophers, scholars, in art and religion (Kulvicki 259). Most philosophers point that the concept of truth can only be discussed on its terms that it cannot be described in any other context. In this
“There is nothing outside contingent discourses to which a discourse of values can be grounded—no eternal truths, no universal human experience, no universal human rights, no overriding narrative of human progress. This assumption carries many radical implications. The foundational concepts associated with artistic judgment such as “universal value” and “intrinsic merit,” with science such as “truth” and “objectivity,” and with ethics and law such as “rights” and “freedoms” suddenly have no meaning outside of particular discourse and are deeply involved in the qualities they are alleged to be describing objectively’’ (Faigley 1992, p. 8).
Knowledge has always been a parameter through which human progress has been measured, Knowledge could be an aspect gained from a fact or a situation present. The production of knowledge relies on different ways of knowing, sense perception, emotion, reason and language. The production of knowledge differs from each human being leading to acquiring of personal knowledge and contributing to the shared knowledge. Society also plays a role in influencing the production of knowledge through various judgments that it passes on the manner in which knowledge is produced. Ethics is a set of principles which are morally right and are used to govern people’s actions and on the basis of that judgments are passed, rules made and norms are established. This leads us to the issue : to what extent does compromising ethical judgement lead to useful knowledge in natural science and arts.
“There is no such thing as a neutral question.” Evaluate the statement with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
Utilitarianism is a theory aimed at defining one simple basis that can be applied when making any ethical decision. It is based on a human’s natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
According to Hunt and Vitell (1986)1, ethical judgment is the process of considering several alternatives and choosing the most ethical one. In my opinion, ethical judgments are the moral principles that justify the values of certain behaviors. Ethical judgments can be very subjective for different people because people use their own cultural backgrounds, religious beliefs, personal perspectives and life experiences to make judgments. The question arises: how do we justify what ethical judgments limit methods in art and nature science? The way to justify and who justifies the judgments brings different results in limiting methods in art and nature science. Most of the ethical judgments reduce the amount of methods in the production of knowledge; however, a few expand the methods to create art and explore natural science. People usually use reasoning to address ethical judgments, but at the same time personal emotions also affect their judgments.
Both the arts and the sciences have completely different methods to create knowledge, thus the effects ethical judgments have on the arts and the science are different. Ethics limits the production of knowledge in both the arts and natural sciences, however, in the arts ethical judgments do not limit the methods available in the production of knowledge, rather it limits the propagation of knowledge. On the other hand, ethical judgements do limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in the natural sciences, because ethical judgments are self regulated in the natural sciences by reason because of the role of ethics in the methods.