More handpicked essays just for you.
Descartes 2 nd meditation summary
Summary of descartes meditations
Reasons why same sex marriage should not be legalized
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Kim Davis may have very strong beliefs in regards to gay marriage; nonetheless, they seem to be very problematic after studying Rene Descartes’s arguments from his meditations. This is problematic due the way she made her statement. Kim Davis stated, “According to the Holy Scriptures, “marriage” is the union of one man and one women; The Holy Scriptures are the word of God, We know that God is good because it is taught in the holy Scriptures, Gay marriage involves the union if one man and one man or one woman and one woman. Therefore, gay marriage is morally wrong because it violates God’s will. ”
Kim Davis does make a reasonable statement in regards to her interpretation of what was in the scriptures. Nevertheless, she makes a catastrophic
…show more content…
error. Davis is very circular in her statement of gay marriage being wrong. She explains gay marriage is wrong because the bible says so, and the bible is the word of God, so gay marriage is wrong. Indeed, she states that marriage in the bible is between a man and a woman; she fails to provide evidence of why we would even regard what the bible says, and why it is relevant. The Holy Scriptures are the word of “God”, and ended with the same idea which was “Gay marriage involves the union if one man and one man or one woman and one woman. Therefore, Gay Marriage is morally wrong because it violates God’s will.” Nonetheless, completely disregards the argument of God being non-existent. One may think Descartes did a splendid job explaining why God exists.
Seeing that Descartes is a believer of God, he would also think her argument is circular and in need of further support because that is what he thought about his own beliefs, which is why he came up with doubting everything that he doesn’t know for sure. He stated that he was a believer of God from early on in the text, but Descartes premises of why God exists did not assume that his conclusion of God existing was true, (he doubted everything). His premises in his arguments did not immediately assume that his conclusion was true. The problem that Kim Davis has is that she commits the begging the question fallacy in her argument. Davis did this by assuming God exists in her reason of why gay marriage is wrong.
C.S. Lewis was thought to be a man that one may turn to in a controversial case like this. C.S. Lewis came up with the Moral Law Argument. C.S. Lewis discusses the Law of Human Nature, which describes what human beings should do; and The Law of nature describe what bodies do. Lewis explains that we are free to disobey the law of nature and we do it all the time, not even science can explain this. According to Lewis, We all have a moral standard inside of us- something in this world wants us to act a certain way and one can conclude that being is
…show more content…
God. Lewis stated that we all have human nature, which is what human being “should” be doing, but we are free to disobey it. Lewis stated that we all feel that we have to behave in a certain way, and know the law of human nature but we break it. (Lewis, 244) Ultimately, he says a divine mind (God) has given us this moral standard, and He makes us feel bad when we violate it. C.S. Lewis says it is plausible to believe in God based on his moral argument. Therefore, his argument cannot conclude that there is God, but that there is something beyond this world. Concisely, Lewis’s argument consisted of him stating there is some sort of universal moral law, and if there is a moral law, there is a divine mind that has placed these morals in us. One can apply Lewis’s argument to this case because Kim Davis’s argument says gay marriage is morally wrong in her initial statement.
She brings up the moral aspect of gay marriage, which is directly correlated to C.S. Lewis’s argument of a moral standard, and on his belief of this moral law being given to us by something being out there that is beyond this world. We can apply C.S. Lewis’s idea in regards to gay marriage not being morally correct, and that God put that feeling in us. Nonetheless, I do not think Lewis’s overcame the circularity of religious faith because one may argue what moral law may even mean. How does one know what is the universal moral law, and what abides by the premises of that? One can state that C.S. Lewis eliminates the circularity of religious faith, but even in his premises of why there is some sort of being that is a moral law giver, one may argue the idea, level, or standard of morals, which brings us back to his first premise not being valid to create a strong conclusion. Ultimately, even if one does not argue C.S. Lewis, the only way he can help Davis in her argument is by saying that gay marriage is morally wrong, and it is wrong due to a higher being giving us that instinct. Though, as stated before one can argue gay marriage even being morally
wrong.
I wish someone would punish her and not just sweep it under the rug. Even though I do not personally agree with Nancy Davis, in the United States of America she has the freedom to believe in whatever she wants to believe in. She has not once been asked to believe that a marriage is not only between a man and a woman, all the citizens of Rowan County want Davis to stop interfering with what they believe. She is an elected state official governed by the Kentucky Constitution.
Despite her beliefs threatening both civil and ecclesiastical law, Hutchinson’s presence was not immediately removed from the community, for she “appeared again; (she had been licensed by the court, in regard she had given hope of her repentance, to at Mr. Cotton’s house that both he and Mr. Davenport might have more opportunity to deal with her)”. In dragging out Mrs. Hutchinson’s case, she still continued to defy the wishes of the church, “much to the astonishment of all the assembly”, displaying another instance of tolerance because she still lingers in the community. “So that after much time and many arguments had been spent to bring her to see her sin, but all in vain, the church with one consent cast her out”.
One of the main points of dispute at the trial was of Packard’s religion in relation to the virtues of True Womanhood. Cheree Carlson point out that “in the minefield of womanhood, even a pure moral life can be used against you?” This was because the plaintiff was in question of Packard’s sanity in relation to how well in past experiences she has embodied the ideals of True Womanhood. Her new religion was argued to be a sign of her madness but it seemed to be that it was only an issue because it went against her duty as a wife to submit to all of her husband 's wishes. Infact religiosity was known to be at the very core and nature of a women and was classified under the element of piety which was very desirable in a woman.Her Purity was also put into question when a “love letter” between her and Dr. MacFarland was presented to the court. This letter was a desperate attempt of Packard trying to persuade herself to freedom and any reasonable person could sympathize with a person who was unjustly incarcerated and labeled
Davis is emphasizing throughout her two lectures the importance of the lasting freedom from human beings. She also talks about how society’s dedication for freedom is so strong when ironically we have organizations who stop certain groups like class, race, gender, sexuality, etc. from being free. Furthermore, she’s intensely involved in her writing for social justice in our country. In “We need to talk about injustice” Bryan Stevenson mentioned how powerful and important for someone is. He mentioned his grandmother at the beginning of his speech and how much her experience as a slave had shaped her in how she saw the world. Furthermore, the imprisoning of her husband and the alcohol related death of Stevenson’s uncle had shaped her the way
Why is it wrong to let humans of the same sex marry someone they truly love? Many people in our society share different opinions on why it is right and why it is wrong. Kim Davis (a clerk in Rowan County Kentucky) decided to say no to handing out marriage licenses to same sex couples because she felt it was against her religion. She refused to give a license to a couple of the same sex and was put in jail. In this case, I am against Davis because you as a person have no right to go against law and this individual freedom. I am very religious, but I have come to see that there should never be a reason to forbid someone from the person they love just based off of their sex. The law in the U.S permits same-sex marriage and no matter how mad people get, it is now allowed. Men and women now have freedom to love their partner with comfort in society. They now have the right to be married. Gay marriage has a historical background dating back to the 1970’s. In the case of Baker v.s Nelson, two men applied for a marriage license and were rejected even though the Minnesota law did not specify gender in the law of marriage. This is another point where law did not specify gender, so why was it rejected? This tells me that people judged and did not like the idea of same-sex marriage, so they just agreed to reject it. Individual freedom to love another person and get married was taken away from these people just because
...e same sex, regardless of race or the other characteristics provided, will never be able to fulfill this biological and societal expectation of the word “marriage.” Marriage was not created just for any relationship between humans, but is considered something governed by human nature and therefore natural law. Each of these valid reasons contradicts Corvino’s response that gay sex is not “unnatural,” proving that they clearly violate natural law.
Outline and assess Descartes' arguments for the conclusion that mind and body are distinct substances.
In conclusion, Descartes made an argument to prove God’s existence and seemed to be able to prove that he existed, but after a taking a closer look and revaluating his theories you see that he uses a lot of circular reasoning. It is really tough to believe any of what Descartes is saying. After reading his meditations you are left confused, mostly because you are trying to decipher what he is saying and you end up going around and around because of the circular reasoning. Even without the circular reasoning the argument just doesn’t make any sense, especially in today’s world, without any data. To be able to fathom a sound argument for the existence of God just sounds too preposterous to believe. To believe that God exists based of faith and religion is what people today and in Descartes time, as well, believed. To say that God exists because there must have been some superior creator that put this idea in my head is very far fetched. People don’t need to be told that God exists because most people already believe and most of them know that he does.
...ircle may have had a solid foundation and belief. However, I just gave you, with supporting evidence, my view of why the Cartesian circle is wrong and why I believe that Descartes was trying to make the point that God must exist in order for him or us to even have the clear and distinct perception to dwell on the idea of God, an idea that only God himself created. I hope this solves the issue of the Cartesian circle and hopefully strengthens Descartes argument of how the circle is false and he was maybe just misunderstood. My claim will stand that the Cartesian circle was just a big misunderstanding, and Descartes, by no means, interacted with the belief and structure of this falsified circle.
In the New Merriam Webster Dictionary, sophism is defined as a plausible but fallacious argument. In Rene Descartes Meditation V, he distinguishes the existence of God, believing he must prove that god exists before he can examine any corporeal objects outside of himself. By proving that the existence of God is not a sophism, he also argues that God is therefore the Supreme Being and the omnipotent one. His conclusion that God does exist enables him to prove the existence of material things, and the difference between the soul and the body.
She believed in Standpoint Epistemology, a term to explain how people can have multiple viewpoints of the world based on what groups they fit into. In the article ‘Racial Divisions Challenge Gay Rights Movement’ we get a glimpse of what this is like for people when Jasmyne Cannick asks, “’I 'm black and I 'm also a lesbian, so, I mean, what side am I supposed to be on?’”(Karen Bates 2008). Being a lesbian during Proposition 8 she was excited for the possibility of legal marriage for gay couples, but being black she was raised, and her friends and family whom are black, are homophobic so the appose gays
Descartes’ first two Meditations are arguably the most widely known philosophical works. Because of this, one can make the error of assuming that Descartes’ method of doubt is self-evident and that its philosophical implications are relatively minor. However, to assume this would be a grave mistake. In this paper, I hope to spread light on exactly what Descartes’ method of doubt is, and how, though it furnishes challenges for the acceptance of the reality of the external world, it nonetheless does not lead to external world skepticism.
Lisa Miller uses the Bible as a basis for her argument for gay marriage in her essay "Our Mutual Joy: The Religious Case for Gay Marriage". She first begins her argument by saying that neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament show model examples for marriage. Therefore, neither a homosexual or heterosexual couple would want to look to the Bible for marriage advice. Instead, the Bible should be read for its universal truths. Miller goes onto say that there is no real definition of marriage in the Bible, and the laws and guidelines in the Bible were put in place for a culture that no longer exists. If Christians no longer subscribe to animal sacrifice, then why would they condemn homosexuality? She ends by discussing the fact that Jesus ' message was one of inclusion. So, all those who claim to follow the Bible 's teachings should love others regardless of their sexual orientation.
Firstly, Descartes made the mistake of supporting a conclusion with premises that can only be true if the conclusion was a premise for the other premises that were supporting it. To clarify, Descartes basically stated that the clarity of his reasoning and perceptions are only possible through the existence of a non-deceiving God and that the non-deceiving God can only be proved through the clear reasoning and perceptions that the non-deceiving God bestowed upon him (51, 52). This is clearly a...
Cartesian Skepticism, created by René Descartes, is the process of doubting ones’ beliefs of what they happen to consider as true in the hopes of uncovering the absolute truths in life. This methodology is used to distinguish between what is the truth and what is false, with anything that cannot be considered an absolute truth being considered a reasonable doubt. Anything which then becomes categorized as a reasonable doubt is perceived as false. As Descartes goes through this process, he then realizes that the one thing that can be considered an absolutely truth is his and every other individual’s existence. Along with the ideology of Cartesian skepticism, through the thinking process, we are capable of the ability to doubt that which is surrounding them. This ability to think logically and doubt is what leads us to the confirmation of our existence.