Logic as the Universal, Miscellaneous, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous

Logic as the Universal

Logic as the Universal The solutions I came up with in all three cases, although seemingly strong in one favor, had an underlying moderate position. Each solution to the case was deduced by carefully examining both sides of the argument. Furthermore, I evaluated the logic behind both perspectives and came up with the more compelling and rational settlement. In all three case studies, I used the principle of reasoning that implies the following: a) Logical argument, which includes supplying empirical evidence in support of one’s position. b) Logical consistency, which involves avoiding fallacies and making sure that one’s argument follows smoothly from one point to the next until it arrives at a logical conclusion. c) A certain detachment from feelings; this springs from reasoning’s formality which forces one to consider the truth and validity of what the individual and others are thinking and saying. d) A common means by which differences in feelings, opinions, and thoughts can be arbitrated. (Thiroux, p 157) This principle of reasoning and the methods it implies is what I adhered to when considering solutions to the cases. For example, in the "Abortion" Case, I had the following reasons for my argument: a) All human life is very precious, including that which is yet unborn. b)Human life begins at conception. c) Women do not have absolute rights over their own bodies when those bodies contain another life. d) Personal emotion, such as gender preference, should not determine the life or death of a potential being. In addition to the principle of reasoning, I also applied the Value of Life Principle to the "Abortion" Case. The Value of Life Principle proposes that no life should be ended without very strong justification. In the "Abortion" Case I nullified the moral justification in aborting the child. First of all, Isabel and Bill upon learning of her pregnancy have already adjusted to the idea. In other words, at that point, they have decided to not have an abortion. Secondly, and most importantly, Isabel is tested and the baby is going to be healthy - completely normal. Thus, there will be no added difficulty in caring for the child and furthermore, the child will be well suited for the "present-day" conditions". That is something that prochoice advocates claim to be declaring as important. Therefore, does the minor gender difference that the couple comes to know by way of checking for abnormalities entitle them to abort the child? No, not even prochoice advocates could agree here. In fact, it makes the action more immoral especially since the child will be healthy and there sole basis for having an abortion is backed by a mere preference of healthy boy over healthy girl. ("Abortion", pp2-3) In the "Stealing" Case, I applied the principle of reasoning using this central argument: Preserving human life is far more important than property rights. This is consistent with the abortion cases in that life takes the highest precedence. Without human life there can be no goodness or badness, justice or injustice, honesty or dishonesty, freedom or lack of it. (Thiroux, p162) Furthermore, this notion of life being held in the highest regard takes priority over any other principle or moral reasoning; in the particular case of "Stealing", it would be life over property rights. In the "Animal Rights" Case, the principle of reasoning was applied to prove that experimenting of animals for use of cosmetics was not justifiable when, in fact, there was a greater issue of imposing torture on innocent creatures. Again, there is a regard for the living creature; this notion is consistent in all three cases. The main moral philosophy in all cases involves revering and respecting the living being; nothing can justify killing a baby, starving a family, or inflicting torture when the tradeoff is personal preference, property rights, and cosmetics. There is no straightforward answer to whether these principles or moral philosophies cohere with the principle I apply to choices in my life; I have never directly been involved in any of the three specific cases. However, in most controversial cases I have come across, I always examine both sides of the issue and then come up with what I think is the most logical solution. I can say without reservation that in any case involving a living creature, the preservation of that life will always take precedence over personal emotion, material and/or superficial gain. Furthermore, the principles of reasoning and of revering life most definitely are consistent with the principles I apply to the choices I make in my life. The main principles of my personal philosophy center on doing what is right consistently with the necessary exceptions. I have a fairly moderate position when it comes to various issues. For example, I do not consider myself prochoice or prolife. Also, I don’t believe that lying, cheating, breaking promises, or stealing is right; however, I do believe there are times when these acts can be undoubtedly justified. In addition, I am not an avid animal rights activist; I do believe that if testing on animals is essential for aiding in the discovery of a cure to some disease, it is morally justifiable. At the same time though, I do not believe that superfluous cosmetics is an excuse for inflicting pain on to innocent creatures. Mainly, I believe that every case involving each and every issue is unique and of its own. No maxim can be placed because the conditions and details of all situations can vary immensely. It is important to use logic and reasoning to come up with solutions for any problem; what is important, though, is to treat each case separately and without bias. This is why the subject of philosophy is so complicated and there are so many teachings and principles. That is why there are several philosophers; there is no one answer that can be applied to all things. My main and personal principles incorporate what an ethical egoist thinks to what a utilitarian believes. The foremost moral obligation one has is to do what is right with sufficient and compelling reason with the appropriate exceptions; that is what I practice no matter how uncertain, contradictory, or indirect that may appear to be. An interesting revelation, or perhaps conflict, I came across when preparing my Case Studies Dossier was the issue of whether my proofs in any of the cases were truly objective. The reason I considered this issue was due to the fact that if one’s own personal principles are consistent with those used to defend a case, does that make your proof biased. The conclusion I came to was the following: what is logical is universal and can be applied to all things. Each case maintained a consistency with regards to logic and therefore my proofs were unbiased even though they were based on my personal philosophies. Bibliography:

Word Count: 1150