Someone please analyze this for me, I absolutely don\'t understand any of this.

Question

Someone please analyze this for me, I absolutely don't understand any of this. Explain everything as thorough as possible in an outline format
Chapter 2 s, not an idea of action (of which some kind or other is Dr occur anyway), but is rather the idea of possible agents whom it claims that such ought to exist (fallible as they mu ple ey must be thus ontological," that is, an idea of being-it follows that principle of an "ethic of futurity" does not itself lie within etth i doctrine of action (within which thereafter all duties toward futu belong), but within metaphysics as a doctrine of being, of which thecine of Man is a part as 6. Two Dogmas: There Is No Metaphysical Truth" and 'No Par Leads from 'Is' to 'Ought'" The last contention contradicts the most firmly entrenched dogmas ur time: that there is no metaphysical truth, and that no be derived from "being. The latter has never been seriously examined nd is true only for a concept of being that has been suitably neutralized beforehand (as "value free"-so that the nonderivability of an "ough from it follows tautologically. To expand this trivial conclusion into a general axiom is equivalent to asserting that no other concept of be possible, or: that the one serving as the premise here (ultimately borrowed from the natural sciences) is the true and complete concept of being Thus, with the very assumption of such a concept of being, the rigid separation of "is" and "ought" reflects in itself already a definite meta- physics, which can only boast the critical (Occamistic) advantage that makes the most parsimonious assumption about being (therewith, of course also the most meager for the purpose of explaining the phenomena, hern at the price of the latters' impoverishment) of ought can But if the dogma that no path leads from "i of its ontological presupposition, a metaphysical proposition, the under the interdict of the first and more fundamental dogma: that there is no metaphysical truth. This proposition has its own presupposit which its validity is tied. Just as the dogma of is and ought" presupposes a definite concept of being, so does the denial of metaphysical truth pre- suppose a definite concept of knowledge, for which it is indeed true: s to "ought" is, by reason scientific" truth is not to be had about metaphysical objects-once agai a tautological conclusion since science is just concerned with physical objects. So long as it is not indisputably shown that this exhausts the whole concept of knowledge, the last word on the possibility of meta- physics has not yet been spoken. But be this as it may, even its con denial would not be an objection peculiar to the ethic we are seek n every other ethic as well, in the most utilitarian, most eudaemoni most this-worldly, etc., a tacit metaphysic e.g., s is imbedded (materialism would be one), and they are not a whit better off in this regard. What t our case is only that the inherent metaphysics e remain hidden but must come to light-Which for the proximate busi

Explanation / Answer

Anthropocentric exclusiveness believes in the concept of supremacy of humans. Humans are supreme and above all environmental entities. This concept needs a fresh look to mitigate the environmental problems created by human actions.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.