...On May 2nd, 2011, Osama Bin Laden was assassinated by United States Navy Seals in his compound in Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden was an infamous terrorist who led attacks on the United States and several of its allies. He created the jihadist group called Al-Qaeda, which he used to carry out several major terrorist attacks across the world. Although Bin Laden could have been interrogated for information, his assassination was justified because he organized the 9/11 terrorist attack, he had an extreme hatred for the United States, and he was the leader of Al-Qaeda. The September 11th terrorist attack was the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States. Approximately 2,753 people died in the attack after a total of four planes crashed into the North and South World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania (CNN Library, September 11th Terror Attacks). Additionally, on December 13, 2001, the United States government released a video of Osama Bin Laden claiming responsibility for the September 11th terrorist attack(CNN Library, September 11th). This evidence shows that his assassination was justified because the terrorist attack killed thousands of people and the video shows...
Words: 645 - Pages: 3
...Knowledge and Justified Belief What is knowledge? This is the question we used to be sure of according to Plato’s theory of recollection, which tells that the knowledge is the justified belief; if this belief is true, then there is some fact make the proposition for this belief to be true; since the belief is justified by some evidence; therefore people comes up with the standard analysis of knowledge. This idea has been generally agreed till Edmund Gettier came up with the article questioning if knowledge is the justified true belief. Gettier provides two cases wherein intuitively the subject gains a justified true belief does not equal to knowledge. By contrast, Gettier’s arguments indicate the situation in which someone has a belief that is both true and well supported by evidence but fails to be knowledge. That is, it is sufficient and necessary to have belief, truth and justification to define knowledge as in classical theory, yet, the Gettier’s theory by questioning knowledge that justifiably believe one of the true proposition and dismiss the other is necessary and sufficient add-on to the classical theory to redefine knowledge. First of all, according to Plato’s theory of knowledge, that knowledge is justified true belief, or as Gettier concluded Plato’s classical theory of knowledge as: “ S knows that P if and only if P is true; S believes in P and S is justified in believing P” (Gettier 1). In the Meno, written by Plato, he believes that knowledge appears to...
Words: 1447 - Pages: 6
...can be theoretical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with justifying war ethically. The role of ethics is used to examine whether war is justified and if so can the aspects be changed. The just war tradition also considers the thoughts of various philosophers through the ages and examine their philosophical visions of war’s ethical limits and whether their thoughts have contributed to the justification of war. The just war theory was firstly developed by Saint Augustine of Hippo. Looking back at the Bible he realised that although older generations sided with the more peaceful aspects of the Bible (New Testament) the aspects which included violence (Old Testament) could not be ignored. In Mathew 5 it Jesus said “blessed are the peacemakers” however he did not oppose those who crucified him. This links to how war can be justified because Jesus Gods only son did not punish those who purposely killed him without reason. So to punish those with to an extent have a valid reason could be seen as hypocritical. Augustine believed that justified wars were commanded by God in the bible and split his theory into two parts they are; jus ad bellum-just reasons for going to war, and jus in bello-just practice in war. This was then further developed by Aquinas. Jus ad bellum contains seven key points. If these points are met then war can be justified. The points are; just authority-war must be ordered by legitimate authority, just cause-there must be just reason for going to war, just intention-...
Words: 1501 - Pages: 7
...Definition 3-5 How is the term justification defined by scholars? What is your own definition based on your research? Basis 5-6 What is the act of being justified based or grounded on, that is, what is necessary to have happened or to be true in order for justification to be possible? Means 6-7 How does one obtain justification? What is the means by which one is justified? Time Factors 7-8 Is justification an act or a process? Is it instantaneous or gradual? Results/Fruits 8-10 Once one has been justified, what benefits or results follow? Assurance 10-12 How can one be assured of justification? Conclusion 12 Bibliography 13 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH “Justification by faith alone” (justificatio sola fide) summarizes the doctrine of justification that has come to us as the great legacy of the Protestant Reformation. We frequently hear this formula used in preaching and teaching. The doctrine of justification by faith is a biblical doctrine. The Apostle Paul gives a full exposition of this doctrine. The letters he wrote to the Galatians and the Romans are especially important in this connection. However, the core message of justification by faith is found in the Old Testament. Paul himself argues from the Old Testament, asserting that the faith of Abraham teaches us that a man is justified by faith alone and not by works. The prophet Habakkuk testified, “but the just shall live by his faith” (Hab. 2:4). The purpose of this paper is to gain a...
Words: 3443 - Pages: 14
...Topic 1: “Terrorism is never justified.” Critically assess the claim. Under what circumstances, if any, would you think terrorism is justified? How would you answer the person who offers what you think is the best argument against your conclusion? I am always leery to use the word never when critically assessing something, especially a controversial issue like terrorism. Who can honestly say that terrorism is under no circumstances justified? Obviously the people conducting the terrorism think it is justified to them. What is even more perplexing is that the term terrorism is relative and one sided. Who we call terrorists may call themselves defenders of their nation. Terrorism, as we now know it, is most troubling to me because I feel as if we do not have enough information to totally condemn it. However, if we had all the facts surrounding terrorism, or even one specific act of terrorism, I would still say that there is at least one instance in which terrorism can be justified. When all other peaceful measures have been taken to get a point across and the point is critical, such as maintaining ones way of life, I do think terrorism can be used. From our own history we’ve learned that not every message can be conveyed without violence. If one nation finds it justified destroying ones way of life because it does not coincide with their own, then I see no reason why that country using violence to show they will not comply is not justified as well. Surely the aggressive act...
Words: 889 - Pages: 4
...live in today and everyone who resides on Planet Earth. Knowledge has traditionally been understood as “justified true belief”. This is the idea of people initially having faith in something they believe to be true and then logically thinking about in order to justify their belief. Once agreed it is a justified true belief it becomes common knowledge between everyone. This later introduces the idea of Epistemology which is how beliefs can be verified. Some beliefs are justified through epistemology making them a true belief thus disproving the fact that there is no such thing as a true belief. People who believe them have good reason to believe them. For much of what we believe however, we do not have any good reasons: we make guesses; we take things on faith. Epistemology is important because it is fundamental to how we think. Without some means of understanding how we acquire knowledge, how we rely upon our senses, and how we develop concepts in our minds, we have no coherent path for our thinking. Some beliefs would appear to be justified solely by the use of reason (WOK). Justification of that kind is said to be a priori: prior to any kind of experience. Coherentism is a theory of epistemic justification. It implies that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs. For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that make up that system must cohere with one another. Foundationalism holds that beliefs are justified...
Words: 724 - Pages: 3
...war because according to them Mexico killed some of their people on U.S. land. The United States was not justified in going to war with Mexico because Polk provoked Mexico for the land, the Mexican Army never crossed a border, and the U.S. did not respect Mexican laws. In 1846 the war with Mexico started over the disputed territory between Mexico and the U.S, The U.S. wanted more land that they started to revolt against Mexico so that they could get land. Before this happened the Texans got their independence. Protestants are people who were pro slavery. Annexation...
Words: 769 - Pages: 4
...Justification by Faith Galatians 2: This brings us to the doctrinal section of this marvelous epistle, which deals with justification by faith. In this section Paul shows his perspective as a Jew. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles [Gal. 2:15]. The Jew in that day looked upon the Gentile as a sinner. In fact, Gentile and sinner were synonymous terms. Therefore, the rebuke that Paul gave shows the folly of lawkeeping -- how really foolish it is to try to be good enough to go to heaven, and how ridiculous to consider others to be sinners when you keep failing at your own lawkeeping. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified [Gal. 2:16]. This is a clear-cut and simple statement of justification by faith. Believe me, the legalist has trouble with this verse. This verse will upset every legal system there is today. To say that you have to add anything to faith in Christ absolutely mutilates the gospel. Notice what Paul says here. If a Jew had to leave the Law behind -- that is, forsake it -- in order to be justified by faith, Paul's question is, "Why should the Gentile be brought under the Law?" That was the great argument at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15; "Should the Gentile be brought under the Law?" Thank God...
Words: 2817 - Pages: 12
... 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the position that abortion is morally justified only in cases of rape and/or incest? It is argued that women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest can be safeguarded best by abortion. The biggest strength of this argument is obvious in eliminating the amount of abortion by denying the justice of abortion in other cases. It also makes sense because pregnancies caused by rape or incest always involve terrible trauma and injustice that the victim has no reason to carry the fetus to viability if this would keep reminding her of the violence committed against her and causing her mental anguish. In comparing women’s mental health and the value of the fetus which is an aggressor against woman’s integrity and personal life, one has to conclude that abortion is justified in these cases if it is the only way to defend personal and human values. Despite the above appeal to our sympathies, the weakness can be interpreted in two ways: one is that abortion is not justified even in the case of rape/incest and the other being it is morally justified for cases outside the extreme scenarios. The greatest weakness pertaining to the first part is that the unborn entity is not an aggressor when its presence does not endanger the mother’s life. It is the rapist who is the aggressor and the unborn child is innocent. Therefore, abortion cannot be justified on the basis that the child is an aggressor. Plus, the above argument also assumes that...
Words: 564 - Pages: 3
...Nobody likes a robber.Especially when they live right next door. You see, the Americans had just gotten the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 which gave them lots of land. Then later Mexico gained its independence in 1821. After that in 1836 Texas decided to be independent too.(Background Essay) The Texans decided to sign a treaty with the U. S. and then the Americans got greedy again. They wanted the land from the Nueces River down to the Rio Grande. They wanted it so bad that they decided to go to war over it with Mexico. The United States might have been justified in going to war. No, the U. S. was not justified in going to war with Mexico because America was being disrespectful, America was stealing land, and America wanted a war. The first...
Words: 501 - Pages: 3
...officials, among others, have often concerned themselves with whether or not breaking the law can be justified. Some questions through which this query has been posed include, Should people be allowed to break the law? Should individuals be able to ignore the laws in which they do not believe? Can breaking the law ever be justified, morally or ethically? In his situation, King discusses how many other countries are moving forward in how they develop and treat others. He criticizes the United States as they creep forward with the pace of a horse and buggy when it comes to civil rights. He discusses how those who were not while have been lynched, beaten, killed, prosecuted, turned away from and denied access to certain places and ridiculed with mean language. King and his followers supported the de-segregation laws which opened up schools to children of all colors, but broke laws that he did not agree with and, to clarify, he separated the laws into those which are just and those which are unjust. To promote his point, he quoted St. Augustine as saying, “An unjust law is no law at all,” as it is not rooted in eternal and natural law (King, 2013). It is likely that there are situations in which breaking the law would be justifiable, as proposed by King, as well as many others. Some, such as John Rawls, have set forth guidelines to determine whether or not breaking a law would be justified. Rawls believed that there must be a clear injustice, the act of disobedience must be a public...
Words: 647 - Pages: 3
...Censorship is sometimes justified Whether censorship is justified is always a controversial issue that attracts great public attention, and views of different people might vary greatly. As far as I am concerned, I tend to think that the censorship in China is somehow justified otherwise how can China developed so rapidly for the recent years. I know there are many voices against the censorship of our country, but let’s think from another way, how can we build our welfare and prosperity culture without certain kinds of proper censorship in china? Censorship is the best justified method to make sure everyone's rights. In a society which is made up by variety of people, there must be some law that everyone follows to make the society in order. Justification means everyone is treated the same; anyone who obeys the law will have their rights equally; anyone who offends the law will be punished or circumscribed. Justification doesn't mean that, as someone thinks, everyone can do whatever you want to do because that will make the society happens to be in chaos. In today's modern society, censorship is everywhere in all sorts of media, TV, Internet, etc. It is necessary for government to use censorship to prevent illegal or harmful information which is now contaminating the minds of many people, especially those teenagers like me. As one of the teenagers myself, I am sure that all of us can be easily addicted to these materials. These will do great harm to both our mental...
Words: 631 - Pages: 3
...what, torture will always reflect negatively on the society as the only way of justifying it is through perfect knowledge of the consequences that no one knows but God. I also considered the scenario of ticket- time bomb because it is considered to be the heaviest argument that justifies torture. So, let’s see how torture isn’t justified. One night, I went into my house and saw a man, on TV, beating a defenceless tied person. The man was actually beating the guy and enjoying the extreme pain he’s suffering from. He even cut the guy’s feet with a butcher’s knife. My whole family was watching the movie. My dad seemed to enjoy the movie. My brother was just shouting for the man and encouraging him to beat the guy further. My mom had no reaction towards what’s happening. And still my sister who looked really annoyed and demanded to change the channel over and over. This gives rise to the question of whether torture should be accepted or not. And does accepting torture imply that it is justified? The movie, called “Hostel”, turned out to be talking about a group of Man hunters. It talks about three men in Amsterdam who were encouraged by a stranger, who showed them images of hot women, to visit Hostel known as “Paradise of Sex on Earth”. As they reach Slovakia, and Hostel in particular, they meet gorgeous girls. However, they come to realize that they have been sold to...
Words: 2644 - Pages: 11
...experimentation is justified or not has been undecided for many decades. Many years back, the debate was carried out by animal rights groups which were led by the Cambridge University to get rid of its plan for a primate research in 2004. Since this debate, many supporters have become more confident in speaking out what they believe and getting their points across to people. In this written report, I will be including both sides of the argument which enable me to form my opinion as well as conclusion. Do you believe that animal testing is justified? Or do you believe its not? Well you will find out what I believe at the end of this report. What is animal experimentation? Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation. Annually, it’s been estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide from zebra fish to non-human primates are used to experiment upon. Most animals after being experimented on, they are euthanized. Animal experimentation is used for many products such as cosmetics, drugs, household products, medication, industrial chemicals, pesticides and several more. [1] How did animal experimentation begin? The history of animal experimentation goes right back to the writings of the Greeks in the 3rd and 4th centuries BCE. Aristotle and Erasistratus were the first to perform experiments on living animals. Galen also known as the “father of vivisection” was a physician in the 2nd century in Rome, who dissected on pigs...
Words: 3683 - Pages: 15
...The author states that Paul was Jewish so culturally he could not dismiss the law completely. So he left was neither right nor wrong but suggested that they needed to let go of it a little bit. The Author also states that Jews in the Second Temple period used the Law to separate they from the Gentile. They wanted to create that bearior that was there in the First Temple period. The problem with this was that Christianity broke that barrier that the Law set between them but the Jewish Christian were trying to keep it the Law. This created a separation and thus Paul wrote Galatians. Do you think the author’s use of the Bible in the article is justified? Why or why not? I do not think that that author’s use of the Bible in the article is justified...
Words: 386 - Pages: 2
