A prioris Burdens lecture

A prioris Burdens lecture - Contradiction ex. Econ...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Value - Structural form of the value Implication of structure Condition for being consistent with that structure Respecting the worth of moral actors A prioris need to follow the above structure False vs. not true False: The sky is red – in order to prove false – you prove it’s blue Not true: “The sky is red”. Hasn’t been proven yet The truth of the resolution is something we care about Truth is a property of language Must know the meaning of term Knowing the meaning of terms requires knowing the conditions for those meanings Knowing the necessary and sufficient conditions for the definition of terms Moral facts can’t be proven as truth claims Tautology – all bachelors are unmarried men
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Contradiction ex. Econ sanctions are a contradictory action b/c they can be defined as affecting trade. However, any ac tion that a gov. takes affects trade. Leveraging either use def. and Critique of truth of resolution Gender Ks Theory arguments Deontological NC dont make sense because they talk about moral prohibitions. So, using sanctions , implying a positive obligation, doesnt make sense. If deontology talks about the ends, then it is not deontology Burdens ways to make goal Espistemology is flawed Ink prestandards to multiple parts of rez. A prioris need warrants Preempt standards arguments Dont simply outline burden conditions, but demonstrate why opp. Cant meet...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/09/2011 for the course HIST 101 taught by Professor Trelawney during the Spring '10 term at Colby-Sawyer.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online