Question 1:(1 Mark) Suppose you are a member of a group asked to find ways to cut costs throughout your organization for the upcoming year. Sales have fallen sharply, and the company is in danger of going out of business. After gathering information, your group concludes that the company will save the most money by freezing pay for a year, despite a tradition of annual salary increases. How can you make sure this is a fair decision? How can you make sure that others in the organization will see it as a fair decision? Question 2:Case Analysis(2 Marks) Care, a health consultancy company in Saudi Arabia, is studying the economic benefits of a program of preventative COVID-19 flu vaccinations. Care has to give advice to government for COVID-19 vaccination.If vaccinations are not introduced then the estimated cost to the government if flu strikes in the next year is SR.70m with probability 0.1, SR.100m with probability 0.3 and SR.150m with probability 0.6. It is estimated that such a program will cost SR.70m and that the probability of flu striking in the next year is 0.75. One alternative open to the committee is to institute an “early-warning” monitoring scheme (costing SR.30m) which will enable it to detect an outbreak of flu early and hence institute a rush vaccination program (costing SR.100m because of the need to vaccinate quickly before the outbreak spreads). Question As a consultant of Care, Develop a decision tree for alternatives and make recommendation to Indian government that which alternative can maximize expected economic benefits? Question 3:(1 Mark) Decision support tools rely on objective, mathematical data. What part does ethics play in using decision support software? Question 4:(1 Mark) If you collect too much information for analyzing a decision, you can suffer from analysis paralysis, where you spend too much time thinking about a decision rather than making one. Recall a major financial decision you made recently, such as of a car or housing purchase or rental. Describe your process for making the decision. How could analysis paralysis have affected this process?
MGT 312 SEU Decision Making and Problem Solving Critical Thinking Questions
Smackey Dog Foods Inc.—Scenario SummarySmackey Dog Foods Inc. started in the kitchen of Sarah, Kim, and Jillian’s family home in the suburbs of Chicago. The three sisters initially bought the ingredients for their natural dog food recipes from the local grocery store. They used their dogs and the neighborhood dogs as their taste testers. Their dog food products were so good, the local kennels and veterinary offices were glad to distribute the sisters’ products to their customers.Local demand increased significantly. Local pet stores and small grocery stores discovered the products and became distributors. The sisters moved the expanding business into a larger facility and hired a few more workers. Although their competitors’ sales were flat or declining, Smackey Dog Food Inc.’s sales were on a vertical climb!Sales were so good last year that the sisters opened a boutique division named Best Boy Gourmet, specializing in freshly manufactured, one-serving packages meant for consumption no later than 3 days after production. They sell this product at three times the cost of their other products and by special order only through their new website. Demand is high, but waste has been an issue.Sarah is the president and general manager of the operation. Sarah has been very proactive in growing the business. She has met with her banker to discuss expanding the facilities and equipment with another $150,000 loan. Their first loan for $150,000 was secured by the industrial-size food production equipment purchased with the loan. The banker now demands an audit of the corporate financial statements before releasing another loan to the company. Sarah has offered to place the corporate account receivables up as collateral to secure the second loan. Based on revenue projections by her sister Jillian’s sales team, Sarah believes that the company will not have trouble paying down the loan in a short period of time.Kim manages the production operations. She oversees the inventory, production, and shipment of dog food products. The Best Boy Gourmet line has taken almost all of her attention lately. The winter holidays are approaching, and sales demand based on forecasts from the sales force are higher than ever. Attaining fresh, raw ingredients is more difficult in the winter months. If any of the fresh ingredients are delayed, production comes to a standstill. There has been significant inventory waste as a result.Kim’s assistant, Henry, monitors the production and shipment of Smackey Dog Food’s regular line of products. Henry takes pride in his work and is involved in every facet of the operation. With only one other warehouse employee to help, Henry personally is involved in preparing and approving all inventory records. Henry ensures that very little finished inventory sits in the warehouse. However, the shipping dock always seems to be full of returned dog food that should be restocked. When Kim asks him about it, Henry laughs and tells her that “first in, first out” applies to dog food returns as well. Kim smiles and just accepts that answer.Jillian is not very good at understanding accounting. The sisters placed Jillian in charge of sales. She manages a sales team of 12 salesmen in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Her fear of flying and poor driving skills limit her ability to get around to the areas outside of Chicago. As a result, she has placed a lot of faith in her sales team. The sales team complained last year that they did not like waiting for their commissions until after bookkeeping calculated the actual revenues. In order to keep their spirits fired up, Jillian has her salespeople project what their sales will be in the upcoming quarter, and she pays commissions in advance on those projections. The sales team loves her, and Jillian loves their approval. Jillian has noticed that the projections typically are off by 11% on average.The employees of Smackey Dog Food Inc. all own dogs. It was a hiring requirement on the job application. One employee was fired when it was discovered she never owned a dog when she was hired. A lawsuit is pending by the fired employee.At this time, the receivables represent 29% of the corporate assets. The Chicago retail chain Pup Stores Co. is Smackey Dog Food’s largest buyer. It alone represents 31% of overall sales and usually pays within 30 days. However, Pup Stores is facing a major lawsuit from an animal rights group. The legal fees are eating into the company’s cash reserves, and it is facing some store closures.The accounts receivable aging indicates that 38% of the receivables are 30 days or less, 22% are 31-60 days, 21% of the receivables are 61-90 days old, and 10% are 90-120 days. The remaining receivables are older than 120 days. Sarah has not written off any of the receivables, nor will she.Sales are projected to steadily grow at 16% next year if the company does not expand its facilities. With the expansion, sales are projected to rise 26%, with the most significant jump in the last quarter after expansion is completed and holiday sales pick up.Your RoleYou and your firm, Keller CPAs, have never audited a dog food manufacturer. Although it is late in the year to be accepting a new calendar year-end audit, you need the work and have the time to devote to the audit before your 2-week ski vacation in February.You begin the audit process just prior to year-end by sending your audit manager, Pete, and two audit staffers, Ben and Maureen, out to the client. They spend time assessing the client and planning the audit.During the first month of field work after year-end, Ben and Maureen note that the dog food bags piled high on the docks are marked “Returned.” One employee is seen throwing bags of the premium Best Boy Gourmet dog food into the dumpster in the morning and pulling it out and throwing it into Henry’s car during the employee lunch hour.Pete’s new best friend, Alan, was married to Smackey Dog Food Inc.’s owner, Kim, 4 years ago. Alan is also good friends with the banker from whom Sarah is seeking the loan. Pete is unaware of the relationship. Pete has talked about some of the details of the audit to Alan over a few beers.
DeVry University Smackey Dog Food Inc Case Study
NURS 605 Walden Global Health Issue Antimicrobial Drug Resistance Paper
NURS 605 Walden Global Health Issue Antimicrobial Drug Resistance Paper.
I’m working on a Nursing writing question and need support to help me understand better.
Please select additional country of your choice. Review the World Health Organization’s (WHO) global health agenda and select one global health issue to focus on for this Assignment.Select at least one additional country to compare to the U.S. for this Assignment.Reflect on how the global health issue you selected is approached in the U.S. and in the additional country you selected.Review and download the Global Health Comparison Matrix provided in the Resources.The Assignment: (1- to 2-page Global Health Comparison Matrix; 1-page Plan for Social Change)Part 1: Global Health Comparison MatrixFocusing on the country you selected and the U.S., complete the Global Health Comparison Matrix. Be sure to address the following:Consider the U.S. national/federal health policies that have been adapted for the global health issue you selected from the WHO global health agenda. Compare these policies to the additional country you selected for study.Explain the strengths and weaknesses of each policy.Explain how the social determinants of health may impact the global health issue you selected. Be specific and provide examples.Using the WHO’s Organization’s global health agenda as well as the results of your own research, analyze how each country’s government addresses cost, quality, and access to the global health issue selected.Explain how the health policy you selected might impact the health of the global population. Be specific and provide examples.Explain how the health policy you selected might impact the role of the nurse in each country.Explain how global health issues impact local healthcare organizations and policies in both countries. Be specific and provide examples.Part 2: A Plan for Social ChangeReflect on the global health policy comparison and analysis you conducted in Part 1 of the Assignment and the impact that global health issues may have on the world, the U.S., your community, as well as your practice as a nurse leader.In a 1-page response, create a plan for social change that incorporates a global perspective or lens into your local practice and role as a nurse leader.Explain how you would advocate for the incorporation of a global perspective or lens into your local practice and role as a nurse leader.Explain how the incorporation of a global perspective or lens might impact your local practice and role as a nurse leader.Explain how the incorporation of a global perspective or lens into your local practice as a nurse leader represents and contributes to social change. Be specific and provide examplesRubrics Response provides a clear and accurate explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of policies in the U.S. and another country.Response provides a clear and accurate explanation of how the social determinants of health impact the issue in the U.S. and in another country. Specific examples are provided.Response provides a clear and accurate explanation of how the governments of the two countries address cost, quality, and access related to the issue.Response provides a clear and accurate explanation of how the policy in each of the two countries impacts the health of the global population. Detailed and accurate supporting examples are provided.Response provides a clear and complete explanation of how the policies in each country impact the role of the nurse.Response provides an accurate and detailed explanation of how the global health issues impact local healthcare organizations and policies in each of the two countries.
NURS 605 Walden Global Health Issue Antimicrobial Drug Resistance Paper
I need a reply to the discussion below. the reply must be at least 150 to 200 words. Do not just say “good job” or “I learned something from your post.” Replies are not a cheering exercise. Instead, y
programming assignment help the reply must be at least 150 to 200 words. Do not just say “good job” or “I learned something from your post.” Replies are not a cheering exercise. Instead, your replies must be substantial, reflecting what you learned from reading the post, offering an extension, or correcting a mistake. Use what you learned in researching for your post (or knowledge gained from other classes or personal experience) to either supplement or critique the post you are writing about. There’s no question that Microsoft is a jack of all trades and the king of computer software. I never knew that Microsoft created an information, intelligence, system for businesses to use. Microsoft Power BI is a product that was created to simplify the processes of input, analysis, and organization of data for those employees, especially accountants, who do this type of work. Financial Management says that, “Power BI is far from the only business intelligence software available, but it’s not as expensive as many of the other BI tools and it’s easily accessible as part of the Microsoft ecosystem.”(Bastick, 2020). Microsoft is building their information system empire on being one of the most affordable products on the market and they are doing a very good job at it. Power BI’s biggest competitor in the market currently is Tableau, which is just a bit different in how it works with other applications and seems similar to Microsoft Excel (Thomas, 2020). I always struggle with learning new products and software that are from Microsoft because some of them are not as user friendly as one would think they should be. Another article I read says that “The learning curve for Power BI isn’t steep because the user interface is quite similar to that of other Microsoft products like Excel, Word, ect.”(Yang, 2021). There is an issue with Power BI, which truly is not that much of an issue, is that it is new to the market and was only introduced in 2015 (Yang, 2021). This is not a big issue because there does not seem to be any major issues in the infrastructure of the software but it is almost too new to be able to see how it has impacted businesses and their relationship with data. The amount of time it takes in the first several stages of using data is almost too time consuming for those who do the data input and organization of data. Chapter 1 of the textbook shows Figure 1.3; this figure is a diagram of the functional components of an information system. It labels 5 major components being input, storage, processing, output, and users (Gelinas, Dull, Wheeler,
Economics homework help
Economics homework help. Submission FolderÿWeek 8 Assignment Paper DInstructionsÿPaper D: Reflective paper on class learning.Consider this assignment as a reflective piece on class learning as it applies to Ethics in Information Technology. It describes yourÿAh-haÿor Eurekaÿmoments. It is hoped that this course made you think about the ethical issues that occur in your personal and work lives and how to go about making ethical choices. Please use the ideas you learned from this course; how you will synthesize what you learned from your research about your topic including – over-arching issues, readings, discussion from class, and conclusions from other assignments that apply to your research.Please address the following elements:From a class learning perspective,ÿwhat were some of your ?take-aways??How has thisÿimpacted your understandingÿof the ethical issues?What will you do differently?How has what you have learned in this courseÿinfluenced your career?As we continue to move toward a global community,ÿwhat new challenges might we see relating to ethics in IT?You are to prepare a reflective piece ofÿnot more than 2-3 pages, double-spaced and submit it to your Assignment Folder as an attached Microsoft Word file.ÿThis paper may be subjective in nature!Due DateÿMar 5, 2017 11:59 PMHide RubricsRubric Name: Paper D – Fall 2016ÿÿÿÿÿCriteriaLevel 1Level 2Level 31. What were your take-aways?’2 pointsSpecific take-aways were presented and discussed by the student.1.6 pointsGeneral take-aways were presented and discussed by the student.1.2 pointsTake-aways were not presented, nor discussed.2. How has this course impacted your understanding of the ethical issues?2 pointsThe impact or impacts of the understanding gained concerning ethical issues was specific, logical, and well supported.1.6 pointsThe impact or impacts of the understanding gained concerning ethical issues was general and somewhat supported.1.2 pointsThe impact or impacts of the understanding gained concerning ethical issues was cursory and was not supported.3. What will you do differently?2 pointsThe student described specifically what they would do differently.1.6 pointsThe student described in general terms what they would do differently.1.2 pointsThe student did not describe what they would do differently.4. How has what you have learned in this course influenced your career?2 pointsThe student described specifically how this course would influence their career.1.6 pointsThe student described generally how this course would influence their career.1.2 pointsThe student did not describe how this course would influence their career.5. What new challenges will arise regarding ethics in IT?1 pointThe student described specific challenges to ethics in IT.0.8 pointsThe student described general challenges to ethics in IT.0.6 pointsThe student did not describe any challenges to ethics in IT.Mechanics1 pointGrammar, personal pronouns, contractions, spelling, and punctuation correctly applied.0.8 pointsFew grammar, personal pronouns, contractions, spelling, or punctuation errors exist.0.6 pointsNumerous grammar, personal pronouns, contractions, and spelling errors. ÿPunctuation not correctly applied. Underline errors in MS Word not correct.Overall ScoreLevel 110 or moreLevel 26 or moreLevel 30 or moreEconomics homework help
Ontological Argument After Anselm Philosophy Essay
The ontological argument was first formulated by St.Anselm. In this argument Anselm says God is the most perfect being and therefore he exists. The very concept of God includes its existence. In other words existence is one of God’s essences. It is a logical argument as conclusion follows the premise. The premise is God is the most perfect being and the conclusion is, therefore he exists. The idea or concept of God is only in mind. It also presupposes the Existence as conceptual perfection like truth, goodness. There are many philosophers who supported it and many are rejected it. Aquinas rejected this argument saying is existence of God is self-evident? Though the famous a priori argument for God’s existence was revived by various modern authors like Descartes and Leibniz but it is Kant provided the clear critique of its reasoning. He showed “existence” is not an essential perfection. In this assignment I am going to show the some of the philosophers who are for and against the ontological argument. 1.1 Rejection of the argument by Thomas Aquinas: Thomas writing two centuries after Anselm rejected the ontological argument. Where he says the concept of God doesn’t exists or orginates in mind but it is a “self-evident”. He formulates his argument as follows. 1.1.1 Whether the existence of God is self-evident? Obj1: he formulates the existence of God is “self-evident”. He says those thing are said to be self-evident which are known as soon as the terms are known. Thus as soon as signification of the name of God is understood, it implied that God exist. The very name God implies that “thing than which nothing greater can be conceived”. He says that which exists actually and mentally is greater than that exists only mentally”. Hence Aquinas derives that as soon as the name God is understood it exists mentally, and then it follows that exists actually. Therefore the God exists is “self-evident”. Thomas explains this self-evident like this. A thing can be self-evident in two ways, i.e. self-evident in itself and known to us and self-evident in itself and unknown to us. A proposition is self-evident since the predicate is included in the subject. “E.g. “Man is an animal” in this the predicate is contained in the essence of subject. Thus if the essence of subject and predicate is known to all then the proposition is self-evident to all. It is according to the first principles of demonstration”. Now take the proposition God exist. This proposition is self-evident in itself, for predicate is as same as the subject, “because God is his own existence as well be hereafter shown”. Since the essence of God is unknown to us, the proposition is not self-evident to us, though it needs to be demonstrated by those things which are known to us, not likely by nature, but by their effect”. Thomas Aquinas’s “self-evident” proof gives a better understanding of ontological argument. In original ontological argument Anselm takes existence as one of God’s essence, But Aquinas rejects this by saying essence of God is unknown to us. Here he differentiates existence from essence. Whereas Anselm in his ontological argument highlights existence is same as essence. 1.2 Restatement of Ontological argument by Descartes: Descartes is a “Father of Rationalism”. For him knowledge is possible only through reason not by sense experience. The criterion for truth is anything that is “clear and distinct”. Descartes derive the existence of God from his concept of innate ideas. This means we are born in this world with some inborn ideas. One of these ideas is the idea of a most perfect being. Descartes says we are finite, imperfect being. How can we get the idea of a most perfect being? He explains these ideas are implanted directly by God in our mind. Therefore we are born with certain innate ideas. This shows the existence of a God. Descartes idea was existence cannot be separated from essence. He says I cannot conceive God without existence like mountain without valley. From the fact that I conceive mountain with valley doesn’t mean that there is such mountain in the world. Similarly if I conceive a God possessing existence, it doesn’t mean that God really exists. Here Descartes shows that I have an idea of something in mind or understanding of God as supreme perfect being, But it doesn’t mean that idea of something in my mind should necessarily exists in reality. The essence of Descartes argument follows here. From the fact that mountain without valley cannot conceivable, doesn’t follow that there such mountain or valley exist. But whether mountain or valley exists or not exist, they cannot be separated from each other. So he derives “I cannot conceive God without existence, it follows that existence is inseparable from him, and hence that He really exists”. Here Descartes also falls into Anselm’s mistake by considering existence as perfection. I disagree with Descartes proof for the existence of God. Most philosophers prove the existence of God using the world or physical reality; But Descartes isolated himself from the world. One cannot prove the existence of God by isolating oneself from the reality. Like Anselm “he recognises that existence is perfection”. Existence doesn’t add. It is not an attribute; rather existence is “that it is”. His starting point of philosophy is “I think, therefore I am”. This starting point itself is an abstraction. He cuts off himself from the reality of this world. Being a rationalist, For Descartes reason is the only right way to know the truth. but only through reason one cannot arrive at the truth. Since reason has its own limit. 1.3 Leibniz’s argument for Ontological proof: Leibniz repeats St. Anselm’s ‘ontological argument’ saying that the idea of most perfect being is conceivable. He also adds his own thought that God is the only sufficient reason for the existence of contingent beings. Leibniz blindly follows Descartes idea of “innate ideas”. He says “what Descartes has borrowed from Anselm is very beautiful and really very inspired”. He appreciates Anselm for discovering a means to prove the existence of God without reason rather ‘a priori’, i.e. with its own notion without looking at the effects. Leibniz follows Descartes idea that existence is itself perfection, which is a wrong understanding. He justifies that “This perfection which consists in existence, is in this supreme all-great, all-perfect being otherwise it would be contrary to its definition”. Here Leibniz follows that most perfect being must exists. He supports Descartes view that “the idea of the all-great or all-perfect being is possible, and it doesn’t implies any contradiction. And by this remark it is proved that, assuming that God is possible, he exists, which is the privilege of divinity alone”. God is a most perfect being. It is true; his existence is not because of perfection. The existence doesn’t add, rather perfection could be an essence of God. But we don’t know the essence of God. Leibniz also follows the rational principle and concludes the existence of God with the idea of a most perfect being in the mind. 1.4 Critique of Ontological argument by Kant: Kant was the one who gave the extensive criticism of the ontological argument, which arriving at the conclusion that ‘existence is not a predicate’. It was Descartes who had treated existence as a “perfection” and therefore as a “predicate” or “property” of God. For Kant there are two types of knowledge. They are a priori and a posteriori. The former is the knowledge that you get before experience and latter is the knowledge that you get after experience. Kant differentiates the unconditioned necessity and the absolute necessity. The absolute necessity of the judgement is only a “conditioned necessity of a thing or of the predicate in the judgement. E.g. a triangle has three angles. In this proposition the three angles are not absolutely necessary but under the condition that there is a triangle. Three angles will necessarily found in it. So when we form a priori judgement/concept of a thing we include existence in such manner that it should match the meaning of a thing. We presupposed that existence necessarily belong to the object, our conclusion always posits as if the thing is existing. In an identical proposition if I reject retaining the subject the conclusion would be contradiction. Suppose if I reject both subject as well as object, there will not be any contradiction results. The E.g. he gives “To posit triangle, and yet to reject its three angles, is self-contradictory; but there is no contradiction in rejecting the triangle together with its three angles. The same truth holds for the concept of an absolute necessary being. If we reject the existence of a being, we reject the thing itself with all its properties. Then there can be no contradiction could arise. “God is omnipotence” is a necessary judgement. The omnipotence of God cannot be rejected, if we assert an infinite being. Since these two concepts are identical. Suppose if I say “God doesn’t exist” then it follows that I reject all the internal properties of God together with the subject. He answers as follows. “There is a contradiction in introducing the concept of existence. No matter under what title it may be introduced- into the concept of a thing which we profess to be thinking solely in reference to its possibility”. If this would be allowed as legitimate, Kant says “the assertion is mere tautology”, which means same thing but saying in a different way. We must ask “Is the proposition that this or that thing exists, an analytic or a synthetic proposition?” Being is not a real predicate. I.e. it is not a concept of something which could be added to the thing; rather it just posits the thing, as existing in them. The proposition “God is omnipotent,” contains two concepts, each has its object- God and omnipotent. The word “is” just posits the predicate in its relations to the subject. Suppose if I take God as subject with all its predicates and say “God is” here we didn’t attach any new predicate, but only posit the subject in itself with all its predicates including the “omnipotent” and also posit it as being an object that matches with my concept of being in mind. Kant explains “My financial position is, however, affected very differently by a hundred real thalers than it is by the mere concept of them. So for the object, as it actually exists, is not analytically contained in my concept, but is added to my concept synthetically”. So Kant’s answer for the ontological argument is if we want to ascribe the existence to a concept we must go outside it. In the case of objects which are experienced by our senses have their connection with one of our perceptions according to the empirical laws. But those objects outside the sense experience, like objects in pure thought, there is no way to know their existence. Since it would have to be known in a priori knowledge. “Our consciousness of all existence (immediately through perception or mediately which connect something with the perception) belongs exclusively to the unity of experience”. Anything existence outside these field, wouldn’t declare impossible, is of the nature of assumption which cannot be justify. The concept of Supreme Being is a very useful idea. But just because it is a mere idea, by itself alone, it is incapable of expanding our knowledge in regard to what exist. He says “since the criterion of the possibility of synthetic knowledge is never to be looked for save an experience, to which the object of an idea cannot belong, the connection of all real properties in a thing is a synthesis, the possibility of which we are unable to determine a priori”. Kant says that Leibniz succeeded on achieving, what is known as a priori possibility of this sublime ideal being. Kant in his book “critique of pure reason” explains how pure reason cannot prove the existence of God. Pure reason cannot prove the existence of God because God’s existence cannot be experienced by any of our senses. Reason can only think about things that we have experienced through our senses. So whatever data that sense receives through various experiences sends it to understanding where thinking/reasoning process. So for Kant knowledge is a combination of both sense experience and reason, where he tries to reconcile between rationalism and empiricism. According to Anselm idea of perfect being is only in mind there is no sense experience, which is according to Kant is an a priori. Here Kant is not proving the existence of God but showing the impossibility of ontological argument to prove the existence of God. Kant doesn’t prove the existence of God. In his book “critique of practical reason” he shows how practical reason can postulate the existence of God. 1.5 Contemporary discussion: Norman Malcolm Malcolm is a contemporary philosopher. He has produced one of the clearest and most striking defences of St. Anselm. In his argument he distinguishes two lines of thought in St. Anselm’s Proslogion. In his first line of thought he rejects as inconclusive, agreeing with Kant, but the second thought which he shows not merely the existence, but the necessary existence of God is correct. Malcolm says in Anselm’s “Proslogion and Responsio editoris” you will find two different pieces of reasoning which Anselm did not distinguish. From psalm, when fool in his heart says there is no God when he hears the word “God”, Anselm says, “something a greater than which cannot be conceived,” understands what he says. This understanding is in mind though the fool doesn’t understand the very thing exists in reality. Here Malcolm raises two questions in order to clarify what Anselm means. They are “(a) existence in reality by itself is greater than existence in the understanding, or that (b)existence in reality and in the understanding together are greater than existence in the understanding alone”. Anselm holds, “something exists in reality and understanding is greater than it exists only in the understanding”. This called the doctrine that “existence is perfection”, where Descartes maintained in his book “Meditation V”, although he doesn’t argue in the same as Anselm does in “Proslogion”. In Anselm’s first Ontological argument Malcolm says he merely believe in Kant’s observation that notion “existence” or “being” is a “real predicate”. Where Kant says you cannot add a least predicate to a thing, when you declare the thing “is”. If we do this, there would be different thing than what we had in mind and we cannot say the exact object of my mind exists. So Malcolm derives that “Anselm’s ontological proof of Proslogion 2 is fallacious because it rests on the false doctrine that existence is perfection”. The same thing I have pointed out in my introduction. In further discussion I want show how Malcolm proves a part of Kant criticism of the ontological argument is wrong. When Kant says if I reject subject there can be no contradiction results. E.g. when I say “there is no God” I am rejecting the subject along with all its predicates. But Malcolm says when you understood the word “God” correctly, there is no way one can reject or say “there is no God”. Here Kant wants to show that subject can be rejected, even in the case of “God”, which is wrong and it is pointed out by Malcolm. It is necessarily false statement. “Anselm demonstration proves that the proposition “God exist” has the same priority as “God is omnipotent”. Here the Anselm’s argument falls because omnipotent is the one of the attribute of God and you cannot consider since God is powerful therefore he exists. Many modern philosophers agree with Kant regarding existence is not a property. “Although considering existence as a property with regard to the being that have the contingent existence means whose existence is not necessary, is wrong, but it doesn’t seem to be wrong considering necessary existence as a property of God” . I donot agree here because in any case one cannot take existence as a property that may be in the case of limited beings or in the case of unlimited being i.e. God. God’s existence would be necessary but it doesn’t mean that it is the property of God. When Anselm says “God necessarily exists” here he implies that “God is an absolutely unlimited being”. For this Kant says “I think a being as the supreme reality, without any defect. The question is whether it exists or not. Malcolm explains with the example that “there exists an infinite number of stars” when you say this in some sense you assert the existence of something? So in the same why can’t say the proposition “God necessarily exists” assert the existence of a thing, in some sense? The logical necessity “reflects the use of words” implies that nothing has a necessary property; moreover the existence cannot be a necessary property of anything. So all the propositions including “God exists” must be contingent, but the concept of God understood in such a way that the existence of God is a necessary truth. Malcolm also points out the misunderstanding of some of the philosophers in considering the proposition “God is a necessary being” is equivalent to the conditional statement “if God exists then he necessarily exists.” He says this implication was made in order to show that the “subject can be rejected”. Malcolm puts in these words “God necessarily exists” according to Kant and other philosophers, who says this conditional necessity; is an absolute necessary and it implies that it is possible that God doesn’t exist. But is it not a self-contradictory? “The conclusion of this analysis would be there is a lack of symmetry”. The proposition “the triangle has three angles” and “God has necessary existence”. The former can made into conditional like “if a triangle exists, then it has three angles” but for the latter we cannot put the conditional assertion because it creates a contradiction. This conclusion of Malcolm would shows that “God’s existence is necessary” which is wrongly understood by many philosophers including Kant, where they put the conditional statement and also you cannot compare God’s existence with the finite or contingent beings. 1.6 Conclusion: I cannot arrive at the authentic conclusion saying whether Ontological argument is a correct or incorrect argument to prove the existence of God. My limitation in this assignment is studies or reading only on few philosophers on ontological argument after Anselm. But there are many philosophers who worked on ontological argument analysing from different perspectives and drawing their conclusion on strength and weakness of this argument. In the beginning I disagreed with Anselm’s argument saying existence is one of God’s essences. Which is a wrong observation made by Anselm. You cannot consider existence as attributes. Existence is that it is, it doesn’t add. Only essence adds. But I agree with Malcolm’s observation saying that “God’s existence is necessary”. Since the very name “God” signifies that he shouldn’t come into existence by chance, but his existence should be a necessary existence.
Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay
Review This Service