Deontology, as seen in Kant's ethic, is primarily based on aiming at and achieving positive consequences.
Indicate whether the statement is true or false.
Answer: False.
You might also like to view...
Make this inductive (statistical) syllogism into a strong argument by supplying an appropriate premise or conclusion: People who go to Burning Man are not like you and me. Why just look at how odd Greg is!
What will be an ideal response?
Which of the following statements is necessarily false?
A. "Some humans are winged creatures." B. "No even numbers are numbers divisible by two." C. "All cars are vehicles with combustion engines." D. "All squirrels are grey animals."
Should art ever be banned or censored if its content and/or effects on audiences are deemed seriously offensive or harmful? Begin by exploring the arguments for banning or censoring art. One place to start would be Plato's argument in The Republic, but you are not limited to this perspective. You should consider what kinds of effects art would produce on people that could plausibly, or not
plausibly, be construed as offensive or harmful. Why would these serious effects require that "bad" art be censored or banned? After exploring this viewpoint, develop a counterargument against banning and censorship. This argument should address the issue of whether even obviously offensive and harmful art should be permitted and why. What makes the production, display, and appreciation of "bad" art permissible, despite its being bad? Throughout, focus on specific forms of art, such as paintings, plays, movies, and music. What will be an ideal response?
The kami particularly dislike:
a. oil. b. incense sticks. c. blood. d. water.