The fallacy is—assuming that an action helpful for one person is helpful for all people if they perform the same act.
I recently finished a class, Ethics in Literature. In it, the focus was extreme cases—Frankenstein, Antigone, The Hunger Games. I wanted to understand how to take the ethical theories and apply them to life’s choices.
Paul Ryan, the newly elected speaker of the house, has agreed to use the majority of the majority, aka the Hastert rule, to decide which bills are brought to vote before the full House.
The Hunger Games, Frankenstein, and more.
The essence of the most intellectually difficult problems in laws and government is the resolving of conflicting rights. A simple example is the right to smoke cigarettes and the right to not inhale cigarette smoke. How do laws resolve this? In the US is to rule unilaterally that one rule governs. For decades the right…
What does science know about reality? Since science works from particulars, how can it claim to give universal truths? I think of science as a collection of ideas, organizing empirical facts. That is, scientific laws are contingent on what facts we have. They are to be measured, in my opinion, not by their truth, but…
If I walk to the apple tree, is that a freely willed choice?
It feels like free will but is not divorced from physical reactions.
1. If a person believes in religion, then events are subject to supernatural interventions. How then can one deny voodoo, black magic, reading of minds, evil curses, and the like?
2. Since science explains everything by cause and effect, how can anything we do be attributed to free will?
In some discussions, if you claim a person is not being rational, it’s an insult of their ability to think. I’d like to reclaim some positive territory for the act of thinking in a non-rational way. How is that even possible? If you are not thinking rationally, aren’t you irrational, illogical? No, there is another…
Fatalism and free will coexist.
Catholic strength or universal weakness?