What Does Justify Mean Essays

our boys are in iraq giving up their lives to stop terrorism……if we pull them out right now, many feel it will cause greater chaos in the long run.we have to make a choice….do we sacrifice our boys for the betterment of the regions, or keep our boys at home and let chaos develop which will eventually come back to us one day and hurt our children.“The ends don’t justify the means” is the classical saying, and there is a lot of philosophical debate about how far this can go.The end does not justify the mean ” What does it really mean …???Such is the war in iraq.

Let’s take a look at Teresa M. Hudock’s article entitled, ‘The End Does Not Justify The Means’.The ‘end justify the means’ is a philosophical maxim popularized by Niccolo Machiavelli during the renaissance era.But if a soldier is engaged in killing innocent people just because he could not identify the enemy exactly, then, his action does not justify his motive.This maxim is supposed to justify the actions of a leader or what Machiavelli calls ‘the Prince’, to do whatever is in his power in so far as the ‘end/s’ justifies the ‘means’ of attaining it.Does the end justify the means in this case?

24) ?Reliabilist Accounts of knowledge.Beliefs can be wrong, so beliefs must be justified before we can claim to have knowledge.What does it mean to have epistemic justification, and is this necessary?We cannot know about things we do not believe in.What does it mean to say that we know something?

The values that we have as humans are what make us humans.To justify their ends by some type of means sometimes involves doing a wrong thing when trying to achieve a positive end.They justify the wrong act by pointing to the outcome that was good.Therefore, if one mean in itself is morally bad, it cannot really serve an end that is good, even though it would appear good on the surface.This individual would later justify the lying by saying that it is a means to receive a larger income to provide for his or her family more effectively.

Reforming a criminal does not mean that justice has been served and all the mistakes the crook has made are suddenly non-existent.In order to justify a murder then you have to take the murderers life.There is a fine line between punishment justifying actions and punishment to reform a man.This statement is the founding belief of every legal system ever created, but does justice necessarily mean punishment?You cannot justify the two lives he took by just taking his life because he only has one life to give.

If exceptional assumptions are required, the theory is not parsimonious and extensive data and/or rationale would be necessary to justify their use.Are they consistent with the theory?Furthermore, a good theory is never “proven,” which would mean that it holds up under all known conditions–that simply cannot be tested.* Does the research design really control for internal and external sources of influence (design controls) so that sound conclusions can be drawn?* Does the format of the measurement really allow variability along important dimensions?

Unfortunately, foundationalism does not affectively counter these scepticisms, and so it is an inadequate method with which knowledge can or should be justified.These scepticisms include the Regress Problem, the inability to justify knowledge of the external world, and arguments against both classical and contemporary foundationalism.This lack of properly empirical basic beliefs makes it impossible for foundationalism to justify beliefs regarding the external world, and as such makes it an inadequate method with which to justify knowledge.Foundational justification works similar to a chain, where justification is non-reciprocal (belief A can either justify belief B or be justified by belief B, but not both).There are several scepticisms ...

She wrote: "Another such escape from the area of ascertainable facts and personal responsibility are the countless theories, based on non-specific, abstract, hypothetical assumptions.... which are so general that they explain and justify every event and every deed: no alternative to what actually happened is even considered and no person could have acted differently from the way he did act..... All these cliches have in common that they make judgment superfluous and that to utter them is devoid of all risk."3 See, for example, Steven Poe and C. Neal Tate, "Human Rights and Repression to Personal Integrity in the 1980s: A Global Analysis," American Political Science Review 88 (1994): 853-72; and Steven Poe, C. Neal Tate, and Linda Camp Ke...

In conclusion, the types of knowledge present different outcomes for the process to justify the knowledge.As observed by the behaviors of humans, knowledge that affects lives directly will provoke curiosity and therefore, an approach to satisfy the curiosity is executed.Frequently, we justify knowledge through perception because of its convenience.In the given situation such as this quote, what we accept as valid and what we justify to be knowledge is based on how it affects our lives through order of importance.As human beings, we justify knowledge in different ways to prove as valid.

This is similar to beliefs and knowledge, we can have a priori knowledge of a religion, like a blueprint in our mind of a God and we can build on our belief of this by using empirical knowledge to know more about it and by adapting what we already know and interpreting it with our senses.Accommodation-as new experiences occur which do not fit into existing schemata, the child adapts them t fit, or creates new ones.As said in Agrippa’s Trilemma, beliefs justify themselves instead of going on forever, this is shown by the idea that if a belief was to be justified by another belief and so on, then empirical justification moves in a circular motion.So a) It goes on forever, b) Ends with some of the beliefs justify themselves, c) Ends with so...

On the other hand, just because we only vote once every five years, it doesn’t mean we have to resort to civil disobedience as our local MP’s are their to represent us and can be contacted through letters, and turning up to weekly surgeries.To conclude further, it is in my opinion that civil disobedience is never justifiable unless all other methods and paths have been taken to obtain their goal and express their opinion and even then it should be carefully considered whether taking illegal action will help the cause be reached.It is then also the case that the course of civil disobedience should only be taken if its serves the majority and not a minority unless the majority are in no way effected by it.It is always not easy however to d...

Sosa, E., 1991, "Reliablism and Intellectual Virtue," in Ernest Sosa, Knowledge in Perspective, New York: Cambridge University Press.Fumerton, R., 1995, Metaepistemology and Skepticism, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.McGrew, T., 1995,The Foundations of Knowledge, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.Lewis, C.I., 1946, An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation, La Salle: Open Court.But what does 'good reason for thinking that it is true' mean?

Toronto: Irwin Publishing, 1963 .So again clearly through points and quotes all three used reprehensible means which harm others, in order to achieve their own personal goals and in the end are never justified.His selfish acts towards himself hurt his friends and his family and do not justify his means for eternal salvation.Work Citied .With Sir Thomas More, Richard Rich and King Henry VIII all having their means not justify their actions it showed that they were all doing this for some self-advancement in life.

Also, only the upper class society would be able to afford these procedures so it could create a social class split with ‘healthier humans’ in the upper class.For this reason I feel it is difficult to justify whether authority as a WOK is sufficient to justify whether DB’s are ethical.Does this mean that people with genetic diseases are not ‘normal’ or as ‘good’, personally I don’t think so.From experience, in particular history I fear a similar situation to the Nazi Eugenics could potentially occur again.Designer babies have a lot of potential but the potential may not always result in a positive outcome.

London: Stevens & Sons .[48] It would be extremely difficult to determine who intends to commit crime therefore, intention to punish before a crime is committed is hard to justify.[35] He argues that, when someone threatens to attack you, in order to deter them you are justified in making almost any threat you want as long as, should the threat be ignored, you can justify carrying out the threat.(1963) Crime and the Criminal Law.Consequentialists traditionally justify punishment with an assessment of its costs and benefits.

(49) Haack, 1990, op.cit p. 119. .Does it mean returning back to the a priori methods in dealing with such questions?But what does it mean that some naturalists didn’t see the traditional question of justification as illegitimate or incoherent, and tried to give an answer to it?2- If we ask Goldman: why are the perceptual processes, remembering, good reasoning and introspection examples of the processes he takes to justify our beliefs?"Language, truth and Logic "penguin books, 1980 p. 48, 50. .

BonJour outlines the underlying problem with justifying induction, and that is whether or not a real and constant causal relation between the objects in the universe.It is likely that this crossed Hume’s mind when he formulated his sceptical solution, and as he believed such an a priori justification was not possible, his sceptical solution is all he had.If there is, then an a priori justification of induction can be found.What matters is how we can justify on a rational basis that the theory is true.How we should go about finding this out, is the problem.

The author also sites certain inefficiencies regarding intelligence gathering and security that took place before the event which could have been done to justify a more strict and thorough security.He manages to justify it because of the impact of 9/11 to the people all over the world.Although the author mentions the libertarians and the authoritarians, notes that the 9/11 tragedy was not a solely the result of unrestrained liberty but of inefficiency as well, and takes a conservative stance in conveying his call to sacrifice liberty for the sake of security (which by his tone seems to be equivalent to life), it is obvious that he is only arguing from one point of view—the point of view of those in encouraging the curtailment of civil ri...

Therefore, reason and emotion are equally necessary in justifying moral decisions.Thus, reason must present in the process to justify and correct what emotion think of.Reasoning comes from the emotion process but the emotion itself cannot justify the decision that going to make.So, the reasoning process continues until the women can justify her decision to do the abortion or not.Since the birth of human onto this earth, reasons and emotions are frequently used by us to justify any decisions made.

Coercion is a last resort for him, but if it is necessary, he believes that the ends do justify the means.* His political views are therefore those of the party, he accepts what is force fed to him without thinking critically about it.Therefore he doesn’t believe in the idea of persuasion.* He is a man of violence.However this does show that he believes the end justifies the means.

There are lots of people who are ignorant.Cypher’s quote, “Ignorance is bliss,” is a foolish way of thinking that the world would be happier if they were uninformed of anything.It is blindness from seeing the reality.Ignorant people, therefore, have opinions for themselves, but they do not have “true, justifiable belief”.They can obtain partial information from the rudimentary knowledge that they hold, but they cannot get the bigger, clearer picture of the information they look for.

International Review.Countries frequently justify the use of torture as a necessary means to extract confessions, identify terrorists, and obtain intelligence critical to preventing future violence” (Global Anti-Torture).Amnesty International.In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.In Merriam-Webster.

Karl Popper argued that if everything has to be justified then to have a theory you have to have another theory to justify it.Popper sends his efforts into criticizing his beliefs to get better one.Popper argues that we should think about these things, try to poke holes in our own theories and fix them.People who devote themselves in justification devote themselves in thinking their right.By correcting the error, the new theory would contain more truth then the old one.

2013 Tinsley, Charles.Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.” We have all been in situations where we have interacted with non-believers and those from other cultures.Romans 1-8 shades an outstanding representation of a strong biblical worldview in relation to the natural world, human identity, human relationships, and culture.Illustrated Bible Survey An introduction.Not only does Paul provide us with details and instructions concerning these topics, but too many others as well.

It does not mean that eating meat makes one cold hearted about animal deaths, but that he’s aware of how that animal turned into his meal and he’s grateful for it.He informs the readers about his personal visits to slaughterhouses which make his point even stronger showing that he is not just an author who wants to prove his point but also a reader that wants to understand the meaning behind his own arguments.Michael Pollan does an excellent job of convincing the readers that it can be.“The Making of a Divorce Culture” is a piece that debates whether the slaughtering and killing of animals can be justified....emanded the slaughter, not their own” (Pollan 220).

Regardless of the answer, Jackson’s message is that doing anything simply because it’s “what always has been done” is not an acceptable approach to life.While reading, it sort of sounds like she wants an extra chance to win some money or something of that nature.Is killing wrong no matter what, or does its intended purpose – prosperity for the many at the expense of the few – justified?She is trying to tell us that we should be guided by our moral compass, not merely by the expectations of society.We should question and analyze our traditions, and understand why we continue to observe them.

A company should establish policies that affirm the company’s commitment to equal opportunity, stating clearly that discrimination and harassment will not be tolerated.A company should make every effort possible to discontinue and rid the permeation of inequalities within every venture, business opportunity, operation and policy they are associated.Does the fact that the agreement was voluntary and temporary make the case morally different?A society in which all are equal in education, job, and monetary opportunities, and each individual is measured by their merits and deeds and not by their race or gender.There are several laws that have been enacted to compensate for past discrimination, all of which are developed in hopes of achieving...

I am no fan of weakness or suicide.Of course, many will pooh-pooh my call for careful, public deliberation with shibboleths heard during all wars: We have a "fighting constitution," which is not a "suicide pact."What data might justify special searches of anyone who looks "Arab" at an airport?Americans love to use data and statistics to justify their actions.But I do not delude myself into thinking that the Constitution in itself makes us strong.

The most relevant case is Israel, where the ticking-bomb rationale has been used to justify the “physical coercion” of terrorists during interrogations (Israel has always refused to call it torture).Does the end really justify the means?Is there any reason in the world that would justify the use of torture on any human being?Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006: Torture .For example, how imminent must the attack be to trigger the exception and justify torture – an hour, a week, a year?

Of course it is not, unless they attempt to use the law to suppress those ideas.In such exceptional cases, the harm principle may justify restricting speech.This does not mean freedom of expression should be banned.In this paper, I will offer observations about some of the arguments used to justify restrictions on free speech and suggest how they might apply in some cases.To do so, I will be focusing on some of John Stuart Mill’s arguments including the harm principle and the offense principle and their applications in order to justify or not restrictions of free speech.