Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
John Stuart Mill (1859) A Few Words on Non-Intervention at the Online Library of Liberty "A Few Words on Non-Intervention Archived 22 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine" from Foreign Policy Perspectives No. 8 ISSN 0267-6761 ISBN 0-948317-96-5 (An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance, 25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London SW1P 4NN.)
Foundationalism seeks to escape the regress argument by claiming that there are some beliefs for which it is improper to ask for a justification. (See also a priori.) Foundationalism is the belief that a chain of justification begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified by another belief.
Defeasibility is found in literatures that are concerned with argument and the process of argument, or heuristic reasoning. Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning , where the reasoning does not produce a full, complete, or final demonstration of a claim, i.e., where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion ...
Justification (also called epistemic justification) is a property of beliefs that fulfill certain norms about what a person should believe. [1] [2] Epistemologists often identify justification as a component of knowledge distinguishing it from mere true opinion. [3]
Evidentialism is, therefore, a thesis about which beliefs are justified and which are not. For philosophers Richard Feldman and Earl Conee , evidentialism is the strongest argument for justification because it identifies the primary notion of epistemic justification.
It is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of any statements submitted, as distinguished from impeachment or contradiction by evidence or known facts, is not justifiable basis for denying the application of the reasonable doubt doctrine if the entire, complete ...
Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether one's assertion is true or false. Where an objection to a belief is made, the assertion of the right to an opinion side-steps the usual steps of discourse of either asserting a justification of that belief, or an argument against the validity of the objection. [4]
The just war theory postulates the belief that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option. The just war theory presents a justifiable means of war with justice being an objective of armed conflict. [4] Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war. [3]