Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings


Homework answers / question archive / I)Define ethics in narrow and broad senses in terms of the spectrum of relevant interests and due considerations to all of the consequences of actions

I)Define ethics in narrow and broad senses in terms of the spectrum of relevant interests and due considerations to all of the consequences of actions

Philosophy

I)Define ethics in narrow and broad senses in terms of the spectrum of relevant interests and due considerations to all of the consequences of actions. Provide an example of an ethical choice, action, or situation as opposed to one that is not. Also, reflect on the differences between biological and cultural roots of human behavior, and provide an example of a progressive extension of the cultural realm toward a new or better form of human ethics.

 

II)Define logic, critical thinking, and logical fallacies. Choose 3 different classic logical fallacies, define and explain them, and try to identify an instance where you see each fallacy at work in any of the material we have read or viewed this semester (including the Fox News documentary from Week 4 that was widely ignored in the discussion board), or any editorial, news item, TV pundit discourse, etc., you have noticed or will begin to identify. Fallacious thinking is everywhere, and should not be too hard to identify, especially during election-mania.

 

III)Given the serious issues raised in the areas of skepticism, emotivism, and relativism, what chances do we have for making any knowledge or truth claims about (1) the nature of the world generally, and (2) ethical discrimination between right and wrong actions? Are cross-cultural judgments possible - as when, for instance, white Western animal advocates criticize Chinese or Japanese cultures for their "barbaric" traditions, respectively, of eating cats and dogs and of killing whales and dolphins - or is there no possible grounds for such moral judgments? Consider the case of bullfighting: advocates (e.g., from Spain) claim it is a vital part of cultural tradition and an art form; critics (e.g., from the US) claim it is a barbaric blood sport that ought to be banned. Which side of the debate would you argue and why? Provide your reasoning.

 

NOTE: Can you answer the question extensively to understand it better.

Purchase A New Answer

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE

Related Questions