Even if violent television does not have clear effects on adolescentsâ aggressive behavior, is it possible that it has other effects, such as on their moral development? What other effects should be considered, and how would you design a study to test your hypotheses?
Sample Solution
words of Sartre: âLife has no meaning a priori⦠It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.â (Being and Nothingness). If Sartre is correct then Aquinasâs argument deteriorates. Whilst I understand that existentialism has become popular in postmodern philosophy, and is something that I agree with to some degree, I do not think that it is able to disprove Aquinasâs argument. There is not enough logical evidence to say that either theory is correct and so I do not think that this theory either weakens or strengthens the validity of natural law. Infamous atheist, Richard Dawkins, would again find weakness in the common purpose idea. Whilst Dawkins does propose that everybody has a common purpose, he does not think for this to be God-given, or indeed metaphysical at all. In his novel The Selfish Gene, he proposed that the only purpose of man is to pass on our genes to the next generation. Dawkins has said, âWe are survival machines â robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genesâ. Since there is scientific evidence to back Dawkinsâs claim, I do feel that it is an important weakness to consider â Aquinas was after all living in a pre-science age and so this is not something that he could have taken account of when developing his theory. Some Christian critics have argued that Aquinasâs theory does not fit with Christianity because not all people have the same purpose. In 1 Corinthians 7:7 it says, âEach man has his own gift from Godâ, which implies that not all people are the same and that people have different jobs to do whilst on earth. Indeed, Mother Theresa did not comply with the primary precept of reproduction and remained celibate so as to help the people of the Indian slums. Despite telling people to âbecome one fleshâ (Genesis 1:1), the Bible also teaches that people should remain celibate â âIt is good for a man not to touch a womanâ (1 Corinthians 7:1), which suggests that people all have different purposes from God. This would render Aquinasâs argument incorrect. Whilst I am not Christian, I feel that this is the strongest weakness that has so far been stated because Aquinas decided to base Natural Law from Christianity. The fact that the two contradicts suggests that his theory was not properly thought out, and could suggest that there are further flaws which he was trying to hide.>
words of Sartre: âLife has no meaning a priori⦠It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose.â (Being and Nothingness). If Sartre is correct then Aquinasâs argument deteriorates. Whilst I understand that existentialism has become popular in postmodern philosophy, and is something that I agree with to some degree, I do not think that it is able to disprove Aquinasâs argument. There is not enough logical evidence to say that either theory is correct and so I do not think that this theory either weakens or strengthens the validity of natural law. Infamous atheist, Richard Dawkins, would again find weakness in the common purpose idea. Whilst Dawkins does propose that everybody has a common purpose, he does not think for this to be God-given, or indeed metaphysical at all. In his novel The Selfish Gene, he proposed that the only purpose of man is to pass on our genes to the next generation. Dawkins has said, âWe are survival machines â robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genesâ. Since there is scientific evidence to back Dawkinsâs claim, I do feel that it is an important weakness to consider â Aquinas was after all living in a pre-science age and so this is not something that he could have taken account of when developing his theory. Some Christian critics have argued that Aquinasâs theory does not fit with Christianity because not all people have the same purpose. In 1 Corinthians 7:7 it says, âEach man has his own gift from Godâ, which implies that not all people are the same and that people have different jobs to do whilst on earth. Indeed, Mother Theresa did not comply with the primary precept of reproduction and remained celibate so as to help the people of the Indian slums. Despite telling people to âbecome one fleshâ (Genesis 1:1), the Bible also teaches that people should remain celibate â âIt is good for a man not to touch a womanâ (1 Corinthians 7:1), which suggests that people all have different purposes from God. This would render Aquinasâs argument incorrect. Whilst I am not Christian, I feel that this is the strongest weakness that has so far been stated because Aquinas decided to base Natural Law from Christianity. The fact that the two contradicts suggests that his theory was not properly thought out, and could suggest that there are further flaws which he was trying to hide.>
