Consider the following: "If we lower the standards we lower the results, so if we raise the standards we raise the results" (in passing this is about education). I have the impression that there is a fallacy in this - even if I assume the first part of the inference, I suppose we could raise educational standards and just watch everybody fail miserably), but I cannot phrase clearly why/how this is a fallacious claim. Am I right? Is this fallacious and if so, is there a technical term for it?

I'm writing to find out if anyone would care to comment about the ethical considerations involved when the news media, political organizations and/or companies and corporations respond to private criticisms made to social media outlets by the average Joe exercising free speech within its legal limits. I've seen increasing examples of organized groups publicly reacting to individuals' negative or critical comments (which were not directly aimed at them or intended to be viewed by the general public) not only to simply respond or defend themselves, but to fulfill or further their political agendas and promote their ideology (in other words, to use the individuals as scapegoats). The definitions of both libel and the First Amendment are generally clear, defining the limitations of "free" speech in the U.S. It seems to me extremely unethical (if not bullying and violent) for organized groups to react to critical social media postings by thrusting the individuals who made them into the national spotlight and...

My father replaced the lenses on his glasses. Then he replaced the frame when it later broke. Same type of lenses and same model of frame. He claims they're still the same pair of glasses. When I argue he's wrong and that they're now a different pair, he claims the same could therefore be said of him as he's replaced all his cells several times since he originally bought the glasses but, since he's still him, the glasses are still the glasses. Who's right?

I am very interested in the idea of aesthetics as a spiritual phenomenom. Spirituality for me is not something limited to one religion. I recently bought the Routledge companion to Aesthetics and I also have a collection of academic essays in aesthetics that is supposed to be comprehensive. But I am very disappointed, the only essays or chapters that relate aesthetics with spirituality are those of 19th century German thinkers but no thinkers that are modern. I would really like to study this subject (probably entirely outside the university) and contribute an article in a journal but I don't know the names of those journals or if any exist. So what journals are there on that subject? (the intersection of spirituality and aesthetics)

Many pro-life advocates maintain that certain attendant may make abortion a reasonable choice from the perspective of the pregnant woman. Such circumstances are not limited to life-and-death cases, or even concerns directly related to the health. For instance: if a pregnant teen claimed that she had to forego motherhood in order to attend college and go on to to achieve her life goals, many would think this understandable. Such justifications seem plausible to me. And yet it strikes me that we almost never find cases where a mother expresses serious regret at having had children. As far as I can tell, it's very rare for a mother to admit, "On balance, I wish that I had aborted my children." And this holds true almost no matter what the difficulties surrounding the mother's pregnancy may have been. Whether a child is born into poverty, or suffers a birth defect, or prevents the mother from pursuing a career, we hardly ever look back and say, "Yes, this one should have been aborted." That's not to say that...

Are the American Soldiers at Abu Ghraib responsible for their actions, and should they be considered the 'evil wrongdoers' they were made out to be.

I have a very basic question that greatly puzzles me. Why do we consider reasonable sounding imaginings to be wisdom, for example Plato's idea of the existence of an ideal of each kind of object, such that an actual physical object is merely an approximation? I can see that this may have entertainment value; but why to serious intelligent educated people take such metaphors seriously? Why is a chair not simply any object designed primarily for sitting? Why does no one seem to question the VALIDITY of the notion of ideals and approximations? It seems that we elevate mere metaphors to the status of realities. Why do we do that? I am genuinely confused.

In Christian teachings, Jesus is said to have died for our sins. Is such a thing even possible? One person can pay another's financial debt, can 'moral debt' be transferred in the same way.

i have a lot questions about the possibility of immortality , and i want a list of the most important essays and books on this subject .would you please send me a list that survey this problem in rational way ? thank you . ali a. , iran ,shiraz .

Is this a valid argument? If not, what is the fallacy committed? (1) A hypocritical agent is one that says one thing, but does another. (2) The government kills people. (Through wars, the death penalty, etc.) (3) The government tells us not to kill. (By making it a law to not murder. Murder is a form of killing, thus making it a law to not murder is a form of making it a law to not kill.) __________________________________________________ Therefore, (4) The government is hypocritical.