“Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of time.” (Einstein) Critically evaluate this claim.
IB Theory of Knowledge Essay
Einstein claims “Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science,” and that “Truth is what stands the test of time.” However, in this paper, an attempt will be made to show that finding and testing of axioms are done differently in the two areas, and that “truth” as we know it, does not stand the test of time, just as nothing else does.
First of all, a definition should be brought to axioms. Axioms are “self evident truths” or “universally accepted principles or rules.” The former definition can be applied more closely to ethical axioms while the latter more closely to the scientific ones.
In this sense, an ethical axiom can be “It is wrong to take someone’s life,” and a scientific axiom can be “Every object continues in its state of rest or uniform speed in a straight line unless a force acts on it.” The first example shows an obvious truth that is universally accepted by people with healthy minds. This conclusion must have been reached like a scientific axiom — by observation — that is, by seeing that killing someone arises strong emotions and counter actions in people related to the victim in some way. A widely accepted test to see if an action is ethical is to try evaluating if one would like the same thing done to oneself. When this test is applied, the immorality of killing someone is supported. Let’s leave this example briefly to look at the example of a scientific axiom, called a law. It was stated that every object continues in its state of rest or uniform speed in a straight line unless a force acts on it. This example is known as Newton’s first law of motion. This law has been reached through careful observation of objects in motion, and with the recognition of friction as a force. Recognition of friction is crucial since when friction is present, objects slow down and eventually stop. However, friction can be minimized for experimental purposes. A puck on a hockey rink will move nearly at a constant speed and in a straight line unless a force acts on it, that is, when someone hits it.
The Essay on Three Tests Of Truth
"Three Tests of Truth" Philosophy Essay -word count: 1,528 In a court of law expert witnesses are required to demonstrate the truth "beyond reasonable doubt". This is difficult for a 'knower', such as a historian, to be able to assert this at the witness stand. Let's say that a young couple has just been married. The young couple stays together for a couple of months before they break up. When the ...
In both examples, the axiom was reached by generalizing observations, and later a small test was done to show how they apply. The way these axioms are reached and tested appears similar up to this point. However, when the tests are further examined, it can be seen that the test for morality requires asking oneself if one would want others to act in the same way. The answer is intuitive and subjective. There may not be much question about being murdered, but people clearly have differing views about euthanasia. There are even cases where this test may not apply, such as capital punishment. On the other hand, the test for Newton’s first law of motion shows clearly that as much as senses can perceive, the law holds true. For further precision, the test can be repeated taking the small friction into account, and using instruments that will provide more precision than our senses.
In cases where there are exceptions, scientific and ethical axioms are treated quite differently. The initial example of an ethical axiom, that it is immoral to kill, still stands. Killing would be “acceptable” if one was being attacked, and it might be acceptable (the “might be” is stressed to show that there is controversy) to put one out of his misery – euthanasia. It might be acceptable in countless other cases, but the general idea that it is wrong to kill remains. However, scientific axioms are treated differently. If only one case contradicted the law stated above, the law would be disproved and could not be used reliably. This difference is the result of differences in the nature of the two types of axioms. Political and ethical laws “are prescriptive: they tell us how we ought to behave,” so a choice can be made whether or not to follow it. On the other hand, “scientific laws are descriptive: they do not say how nature should behave, but rather are meant to describe how nature does behave.” When a new exception to an ethical axiom is brought up, it is either accepted, often with controversy, or rejected saying “that’s not the way it ought to be.” When a case contradictory to predictions in a scientific law is found, it is further investigated in order to improve the law, and that particular case is excluded until a better law is stated.
The Research paper on Law Case Study 2
Tort Sport and the Law Nathan Bracken vs Cricket Australia Case This case study will outline and discuss the lawsuit by Australian test cricketer Nathan Bracken against Cricket Australia for negligence which he believed ended his cricketing career prematurely. The following article is from the Australian newspaper on February 9, 2012. Nathan Bracken sues Cricket Australia for $1 million over knee ...
As it can be seen in the final example, both types of axioms change over time. As new cases arise, new axioms are formed to improve the predecessors or to replace them altogether. Some ethical axioms lose their strict shape as the demands of the new generations change, and new axioms are being developed as new issues, such as the possibility of cloning, arise. Axioms in science also undergo great changes. As new dimensions to problems are seen, axioms change. Revolutions in scientific axioms are called paradigm shifts.
Newton’s second law has a background reaching the time of Aristotle. Through observation, Aristotle reached the conclusion that an initial push was needed to put an object in motion. However, the object would slow down and stop if some force was not always applied, therefore the natural state of an object was believed to be being at rest. At his time, this was just as sound a law as Newtonian laws are in our time.
In the development of Newtonian Laws, a third person, Galileo, should also be given credit since he was the first person to see that friction was the force slowing the objects down. This creative idea might be obvious to us now, just as many other ideas that we can not even imagine may be obvious to future generations. Newtonian view of motion is not any more “true” than Aristotle’s view. It only appears so to us because we see something Aristotle omitted, friction, just as future scientist may see many things that we omit. As new cases arise, such as motion at very high speeds, new explanations are made. Einstein already brought a whole new view to motion at speeds close to that of light. One of the statements in his theory (it is only called a theory because scientists now avoid claiming “laws”) is that a part of the energy put into an object to accelerate it increases the object’s mass, thus making it more difficult to accelerate. This already shows that our calculations using Newton’s second law of motion (which relates force with mass and acceleration) while assuming a constant mass are imprecise.
The Essay on LAW (Ceciro, Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas)
QUESTION: Define the origins of natural law and the contributions of the following theorist. PLATO · The idea that law should strive to reflect certain universal, absolute, and eternal truths or virtues. · The Republic (famous treatise), Plato portrayed an idealistic or utopian society governed by philosopher-kings. · His followers believe in the existence of certain ideas that are universally ...
As seen in the examples throughout the paper, the two types of axioms are reached and tested partly in similar ways, but also in differing ways. However they may be, no “truth” of our time can be claimed to last. Just as many other products of human effort: buildings, statues, and machinery have rumbled down to the ground, the products of thought will also be twisted, distorted and falsified by time – which in itself is not absolute, as Einstein himself claims.
