Final Argumentative Paper: Three Important Sub-Disciplines

Final Argumentative Paperthree Important Sub Disciplines Of Philosophy

Final Argumentative Paper Three important sub-disciplines of philosophy are addressed in this course: ethics, epistemology, and religion. For this paper, you will develop an argument that includes your own view on one specific topic relating to one of these sub-disciplines. It is recommended that you choose a topic that interests you or that you have thought about previously.

In philosophical papers, it is always best to present both sides of the issue, then articulate your position supported by logical reasoning and factual evidence. Ensure to utilize the philosophical content and ideas encountered in this course, clearly defining the specific problem within your chosen topic. Present multiple perspectives on the problem, then prefer and defend the one you find most convincing, critiquing opposing positions’ weaknesses. Use primary philosophical texts and at least five academic sources, three of which must come from the Ashford University Library, with others from peer-reviewed academic resources.

You may choose from the following sub-disciplines and topics:

- Ethics: What is the best ethical system? Is universal ethical principles necessary? What are the fundamental principles of ethics? What is the good life and how does one achieve it? Is ethics natural or learned behavior? What is an ethically bad life? Do ethical actions have value beyond their outcomes? Are humans free or determined, and how does that relate to responsibility?

- Epistemology: What can humans know for certain? How can we justify knowledge claims? What are the limits of perception and cognition? What is the relationship between scientific and other knowledge? What are the limits of skepticism? How did consciousness emerge, and where is it headed?

- Religion: Is proof of God's existence necessary? Which argument for God's existence is strongest? Can morality exist without belief in God? Are science and religion in conflict? Can God’s omniscience and human free will be reconciled? Is there a rational basis for atheism?

Your paper must be at least six pages long, formatted in APA style, including a title page and a references page (the latter not counted in page length). It should begin with an introductory paragraph containing a clear thesis statement, followed by a critical analysis of your chosen topic, and conclude with a paragraph reaffirming your thesis. Use at least five scholarly sources, ensuring three are from the Ashford University Library, and cite all sources in APA format.

Paper For Above instruction

The exploration of philosophical sub-disciplines such as ethics, epistemology, and religion offers profound insights into fundamental questions about human existence, knowledge, and belief systems. This paper will focus on the sub-discipline of ethics, examining the question: "What is the best ethical system?" and exploring the necessity of universal ethical principles. By analyzing various ethical theories, such as deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, and considering their implications for human behavior and societal norms, I aim to argue that a balanced approach incorporating both universal principles and contextual sensitivity provides the most comprehensive ethical framework. This synthesis fosters moral consistency while allowing flexibility in diverse cultural and individual circumstances, promoting social harmony and personal integrity.

Initially, it is essential to define what constitutes an ethical system. An ethical system is a structured set of principles guiding human conduct, aimed at promoting good and preventing harm. Among numerous theories, deontology emphasizes duty and adherence to moral rules, exemplified by Kantian ethics; consequentialism, such as utilitarianism, assesses actions based on outcomes; and virtue ethics focuses on character and moral virtues, tracing back to Aristotle. Each presents distinct advantages and shortcomings. For instance, strict deontology may lead to rigid moral mandates that conflict with real-world complexities, while consequentialism risks justifying morally questionable actions if they produce favorable outcomes. Virtue ethics encourages moral development but can lack clear decision-making procedures, making it difficult to resolve specific dilemmas.

The debate over universal ethical principles centers on whether certain moral rules apply to all individuals regardless of context. Proponents argue that universal principles, like justice and honesty, are necessary for building a morally coherent society. Kant’s categorical imperative exemplifies this view by asserting that moral laws must be universally applicable. Critics, however, contend that cultural relativism challenges the feasibility of such universality, emphasizing that moral norms vary across societies. This raises the question: should ethics be rigid or adaptable? I contend that a flexible universalist approach—grounded in fundamental principles but open to contextual interpretation—best addresses this dilemma.

Achieving the good life is central to many ethical theories. Aristotle’s virtue ethics suggests that living virtuously and developing moral character are essential for happiness. Meanwhile, utilitarians believe that maximizing happiness for the greatest number is the path to fulfillment. Both perspectives share a common goal: a life characterized by moral integrity and well-being. However, the challenge lies in operationalizing these ideals in complex, real-world situations. For example, prioritizing individual happiness may conflict with social justice, highlighting the importance of balancing personal virtues with societal needs.

The question of whether ethics is natural or learned remains debated. Some argue that moral instincts are innate, rooted in evolutionary biology, aiding humans in cooperation and social stability. Others believe morality is primarily cultivated through education, culture, and rational reflection. A synthesis of these views suggests that innate tendencies provide a foundation, but deliberate moral development ensures ethical maturity. This understanding underscores the importance of moral education in fostering responsible citizens who value both innate compassion and societal norms.

In conclusion, an effective ethical system integrates universal principles with contextual sensitivity, accommodating human diversity and complexities. Such an approach promotes moral consistency while respecting individual and cultural differences. The pursuit of the good life involves cultivating virtues and balancing happiness with moral duty. Recognizing that ethics encompasses both innate tendencies and learned behaviors allows for a comprehensive understanding of moral development. Ultimately, a flexible but principled ethical framework is essential for navigating the moral challenges of contemporary society.

References

• Aquinas, T. (1990). Summa Theologica. Batoche Books.
• Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (2002). Utilitarianism. Hackett Publishing.
• Ross, W. D. (2002). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press.
• Virtue Ethics. (2021). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/