You’re exploring a new island where you discover the native population has a practice of doing something of which you ordinarily disapprove. Name the island and the inhabitants, and describe the practice and why you disapprove of it, using examples nobody else will use.
Give a convincing argument for why the practice is actually wrong (not just something you personally dislike), using at least one normative premise and one empirical premise, and identify each.
Next, give a convincing argument a moral skeptic would make against accepting the conclusion of the argument you just presented. Say why a moral skeptic would make that argument.
Then, give an equally convincing argument a moral relativist would make against BOTH of the two conclusions of the previous arguments. Say why a moral relativist would think that.
Finally, give a devastating critique of ONE of the arguments you just presented.
(Note: an ARGUMENT presents reasons for or against a certain conclusion; whereas a CRITIQUE shows a mistake or weakness in the
reasoning of an argument. Be careful about this difference!)
LENGTH: 3-5 pages, double-spaced (could be less but not more)
The post You’re exploring a new island where you discover the native population has a pra appeared first on blitzarchive.com.