Category: Justification

In your opinion, what conditions need to be met for civil disobedience to be justified?

In my examination of the conditions which justify civil disobedience, I will first examine Rawls’ conditions for civil disobedience and then consider arguments that I will show fail to defend the position that civil disobedience can never be justified in a democratic society. I will examine the relationship between civil disobedience and Natural Law and argue that morality is fundamental to the justification of civil disobedience. I will extend the justification of moral reasoning to include harm to innocents and future harm, as not only a justification for civil disobedience but a right and a duty. I will go further than Rawls and argue that civil disobedience should not be restricted to conditions based only on existing laws and claim that the absence of law can also result in clear and significant moral injustice. I will conclude by offering the reader a concise framework of the necessary conditions which in my opinion need to be met for civil disobedience to be justified.

Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience in a democratic society forms part of a wider procedure of opposition to state-imposed laws. There are procedures an objector can take in personal opposition, including that conscientious refusal, a personal objection to follow a rule which is in direct odds with one’s own deep moral convictions. Their aim is not to convince others to join them in refusal, it is a private form of dissent. If a moral conviction compels the individual that societal change is necessary, then further legal channels to challenge the state are available within a democratic society. These take the form of lobbying, petitioning, and demonstrating using peaceful protest to communicate a message publicly to gain support. It is only once these channels have been exhausted that Rawls (XXXX) claims civil disobedience can be justified as a last resort measure. Rawls defines civil disobedience as a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of government’. (XXXX)

Rawls claims that civil disobedience must be nonviolent with an emphasis on its civility. I agree that it should be a nonviolent procedure where intentionally violent forms of dissent causing harm to others, should be further defined under the parameters of radical protest or revolutionary action, a move beyond civil disobedience. Civil disobedience should never challenge laws that are fundamental to the foundation of society. Violence and harm to others threaten the social contract and therefore cannot uphold respect for justice and the state in the main. Civil disobedience as a procedure is a communicative challenge to an injustice that threatens liberty, equity, and fairness in order to make a progressive change, not to challenge society, justice, and the state itself.

Rawls claims civil disobedience can only be justified in a ‘near just state’, (1971), one that is democratic, whereas dissent and opposition to illiberal regimes can be justified. Rawls is concerned with contraventions of the first principle of justice, the ‘liberty principle’, (1971), which is no surprise as he is a ‘theory of justice’, his aim is not to create a moral theory. He necessitates a procedural recourse for the immoral violation of minority groups under majority rule. I uphold there must be a clear and significant injustice that contravenes the liberty and fair opportunity principles and action contrary to law must only be a last resort. Rawls states that justified dissenters respect the legal justice system in practice and are willing to accept the legal consequences. This acceptance is shared by Thoreau (1849), whose conscience would not allow him to pay taxes to a government he considered engaged in an unjust war with Mexico, and accepted his imprisonment. Thoreau appealed to others to join his cause claiming, ‘In an unjust society the only place for a just man is prison’. Thoreau believed it was a moral duty of all men to follow one’s conscience, ‘Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator?’. Raz (XXXX) claims that in a democratic society, it can never be justified to break the law, as the majority party has been fairly elected, therefore, its legislation is already just. He argues that civil disobedience is reserved for illiberal regimes, focussing his justification on the denial of participation rights, whereas, in a liberal society, there are adequate channels, therefore, no participation rights to claim. Raz fails to recognise that it is harder for minority groups to have their voices heard under majority rule and history shows that unjust practice can be written in law, as in the case of slavery and apartheid.

Dissent grounded in deep belief is generally tolerated for private conscientious refusal under freedom of religion and expression rights, however, I argue that deep moral beliefs also justify communicative action. We have a long history of demonizing dissenters and recognizing their achievements in retrospect, such as Martin Luther King, Mandella, Gandhi, and more recently Edward Snowdon. Society rarely identifies injustices at the time, only later being able to reflect on historic injustice. Through my examination, I conclude that the right to engage in civil disobedience in liberal societies is not only justified but necessary in order to protect minority groups from unjust legislation. I uphold Rawls’ conditions for civil disobedience to be grounded by clear injustice and last resort action, however in challenging only existing law, Rawls is too restrictive. In order to allow for future protection over potential injustices not currently protected in law, consideration must be given to moral reasoning and a moral right to engage in civil disobedience based on conscience.

Natural Law

I will now consider that the justification for civil disobedience should be based on what is right and wrong and this may not align with what is legal or illegal in human law.

‘Civil disobedience involves not just a communicative breach, but a conscientious communicative breach of the law motivated by steadfast, sincere and serious (though possibly erroneous) moral convictions’ (Brownlee, XXXX)

It is these moral convictions that natural law theory explains are rules that govern human behavior, derived from the inherent nature and natural reasoning of human beings. Socrates, (XXXX), viewed the law as a product of correct reasoning, while Aristotle, (XXXX), claimed there were universal and immutable standards, discoverable only through reason, therefore any man-made laws should conform to those standards. Similarly, Plato claimed that ‘ultimate justice is discoverable through reason’. Through the middle ages, natural law became entwined with religion and faith. St Thomas of Aquinas, (XXXX), argued that man could find out natural law by applying reason and claimed ‘ unjust law deserves no obedience’. He considered man-made law unjust where it furthered the interests of the lawgiver only and imposed burdens unequally on the governed. The Renaissance period moved away from relying on scriptures for reason and philosophers such as Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke, looked toward the purpose of human life to extract natural law principles, which formed the foundation of social contract theory and natural rights. The modern period saw the emergence of positivists who believed that the role of the jurists is to study and analyze Law as it is, not as it ought to be. Natural law played an important role in establishing moral concepts such as the principle that agreements are to be honored. It inspired the formation of democratic constitutions and the incorporation of fundamental rights. Principles of equity were developed on natural law including a reduction of the harshness of common law at the time. Natural law played a key role in the development of natural justice, which gave the principle of entitlement to a fair hearing. It is this natural law and inherent moral reasoning of humans that enabled democracy and justice in modern society. The right to act in accordance with sincere conscientious moral convictions is protected under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (XXXX), protecting the right to freedom of thought, belief, and religion. This right allows citizens to put thoughts and beliefs into action and justifies conscientious refusal. Civil disobedience as a public communicated action can be argued to be for a greater good than to serve self, however, Article 9 cannot be used as a form of defense where an action is unlawful. Brownlee, (XXXX), argues that acting on conscience and fulfilling human nature, by communicating their belief of injustice publicly to seek change, is more virtuous than private conscientious refusal. Brownlee argues that if you have a morally justified claim, then you have a moral right, and although this cannot translate into a legal right it can ground legal excuse in the case of civil disobedience, which she terms the ‘demands of conviction excuse’.

Moral Duty

If we have a moral right to act it begs the question as to whether citizens ever have a moral duty to engage in civil disobedience. This may appear inconsistent with a duty to uphold the law, therefore, it is necessary to identify the point at which the duty to act outweighs the duty to uphold the law. Brownlee, (XXXX), argues we need to look at fundamental basic needs to justify moral urgency and while many of these are recognized in the universal declaration of human rights, many are not, such as the right to breathable air. Threats to basic needs provide a way to identify when a situation of moral urgency arises. When we think of situations of moral urgency, it seems logical that any reason to believe that an individual or group is being harmed or is likely to be harmed would be a morally urgent situation. While harm to persons in the past or present can be readily accepted, the idea that future generations could be harmed is somewhat controversial when trying to identify the claimer of a right who is not yet in existence. Appiah, (XXXX), defines how we can identify which societal practices future generations will condemn and outlaw in the future. Appiah claims the evidence against a practice will already be well known, those who defend a harmful initiative will not be able to give moral counterarguments, instead, they practice strategic ignorance grounding their arguments in economics, tradition, and lifestyle. Applying this to the current climate crisis where evidence already exists, we can reason that we are in a morally urgent situation, which on the balance of probability will harm not just innocents, such as future generations, but critically harming other species in the process, a justification for civil disobedience would be to communicate the absence of protective laws in this case. Singer’s, (XXXX), drowning child thought experiment argues that ‘we have a duty to come to the aid of innocents’. The moral duty to act to prevent future harm to others is not adequately countered by the fact that there are no future persons yet in existence to claim a moral right. I argue that if we take existing evidence and the reason that future generations will conceivably exist, and the evidence demonstrates on the balance of probability that those future generations, whoever they turn out to be, are innocents that will be harmed, then this grounds a moral duty to act. I do not accept that we must not risk stability in society in order to fulfil such an urgent moral duty, where harm is clear. Moral duty should ground a legal excuse for the law-breaking nature of civil disobedience where moral urgency necessitates.

Conditions

Through moral reasoning set out in this essay, I wish to go further in defining which conditions should be met for civil disobedience to be justified in order to allow for the moral duty that is necessitated by a situation of moral urgency.

The primary justification for engaging in civil disobedience requires there to be a clear and significant moral injustice in human law or an absence of protective law, which can be evidenced to directly or indirectly cause harm to others.

Additionally, the following must apply:

1. Engaging in an act of civil disobedience can only be justified as a last resort, where legal procedures can be demonstrated to have been exhausted.
2. The act of civil disobedience can only be justified where the act of dissent is absent of intent to harm others.
3. The act of civil disobedience can only be justified where harm to others can be evidenced to have occurred either in the past, present, or upon the balance of probability of future harm to others.

Introduction

According to the world health organization (WHO), health is defined as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO, 1948). Martino (2017) also states that this is consistent with the biopsychological model of health that considers physiological, psychological, and social factors in health and illness.

WHO (2016) also states that health promotion allows individuals to increase control over their own health. Health promotion covers a wide range of social and environmental interventions and they are designed to benefit and protect people’s health and quality of life by addressing and preventing the root causes of ill health. There are 3 main key elements of health promotion and they are good governance for health, health literacy, and healthy cities (WHO, 2016). Under good governance for health, policymakers are needed as they must factor health implications into decisions, they as well as prioritize policies that prevent people from being ill and protect individuals from injuries. Health literacy on the other hand is about having the knowledge, skills, and information in order to make healthy choices, for example, choosing what people eat and the healthcare services they need. Healthy cities have a key role in promoting health. having strong leadership and commitment is important to healthy urban planning and building up preventative measures (WHO, 2016)

Diabetes is being focused on this promotion. research and diabetes is defined as a serious condition where an individual’s blood glucose level is too high. There are 2 main types of diabetes which are type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, these are 2 different conditions, however, both are serious (Diabetes UK, no date).

Outline of the resource.

According to an article published in 2017, there are five risk factors of deaths around the world and one of the risk factors included is poor diet. Healthline (2016) states that the more foods that are high in calories and sugar an individual consumes, the more a person is at high risk of developing diabetes. A statistic from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation carried out in 2016 shows that poor diet is the second leading cause of death worldwide (Boseley, 2017).

The most common metabolic long-term condition in the elderly is diabetes (British Geriatrics Society, 2009). The British geriatrics society (2009) also states that the effective way of caring for older people with diabetes is requiring clinicians to aim for the highest category of health status and quality of life commensurate and achieve a level of metabolic control that minimizes both diabetes-related complications and the adverse effects of treatment. It is also mentioned that the aims of care can also be classified from medical/healthcare team perspectives also patient/carer perspectives. This means that maintaining a normal healthy lifestyle, a high level of functioning, minimizing complications, and access to education.

Food labels are important as a useful part of managing diabetes as well as following a healthy diet and lifestyle. The resource made for this health promotion is carrying out the traffic light food method for diabetics. The idea of the traffic light method is to help raise awareness and help make a quick assessment of whether foods are good choices or not. The way traffic light method is going to be carried out is through using the visual aid whereby, the elderly people will be given a picture of or a diagram of the foods that are categorized as a traffic light which shows the appropriate foods that should be eaten and the foods that are unhealthy and are not allowed for diabetics. For example, the red light represents the foods to avoid, the yellow light represents the food that can be eaten but in moderation and the green light represents the foods that can be eaten for the diabetics.

Justification of why it is needed.

The NHS (2017) carried out an audit which is called the National Diabetes Inpatient Audit (NaDIA) in 2017 whereby the audit measures the quality of diabetes care provided to patients with diabetes while being admitted to the hospital whatever the cause and aims to support quality improvement. According to Diabetes UK (no date) there are 4.7 million people in the UK that are diagnosed with diabetes and an individual is diagnosed with diabetes every 2 minutes. In the audit carried out in 2017, the results show that 1 in 6 or 18% of all people in hospitals had diabetes. 1 in 4 (25%) of inpatients had diabetes in some of the hospitals.

A statistic shows that half of people with diabetes in the UK are people aged over 65 years old and a quarter are over 75 years (British Geriatrics Society, 2018). NHS spend 5% of their budget on diabetes and its complications. Elderly people in nursing homes or care homes are more likely to be underweight compared to being overweight (Diabetes UK, no date). Reducing fat, salt, and sugar is not always appropriate for older people with diabetes however, poor diet and irregular eating can often cause hypos (Diabetes UK, no date). There are some medications that can have poor effects on the digestive system as well as poor oral health, limited mobility, and dexterity, all of these can contribute to discomfort with eating. Poor fluid intake is very common in elderly patients and poor fluid intake can lead to dehydration it is important for a diabetic to always be hydrated, the reason to this is because according to the Royal Doulton Elite (2017), drinking water helps the kidneys flush excess sugar out of the body. If an individual has a high level of glucose, it draws out fluids which put people with diabetes at a high risk of being dehydrated (Royal Doulton Elite, 2017).

The elderly are vulnerable to malnutrition according to WHO (no date). WHO also states that several attempts in providing adequate nutrition encounter many practical problems. Based on research showing how the elderly are very much prone to malnutrition and not having enough knowledge on the foods that should be eaten, the traffic light method would be a great promotion to raise awareness on the different kinds of foods that elderly patients with diabetics can eat.

Aims and objectives of the resource

As already mentioned above, the aim of this promotion is to raise awareness among elderly patients with diabetes on healthy food choices and the importance of a good diet to help decrease symptoms of diabetes arising and to help avoid hypotension and hypertension or manage the symptoms. The objective of this resource is to provide and come up with a health promotion plan which is the traffic light method and ensure that it is easily understood by elderly patients and is educational.

Target audience

The target audience chosen for this resource or promotion is the elderly with diabetics and elderly people who are borderline diabetics. The reason why the elderly was chosen is because the elderly is more prone to diseases due to poor immune system and poor physical activity and most elderly patients lacks awareness of the food-appropriate foods that should be eaten. However, this resource or this promotion may not only benefit the elderly but as well as adults, young adults, and children. According to Diabetes UK (2010), about 22,000 people are diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 17 and under. In 2018, a new analysis has been carried out whereby 6,836 children and young adults were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in England and Wales.

According to a study carried out in 2009 by Rizvi, A. there are several studies that show the impact of nutritional and lifestyle changes in the elderly with diabetes. He also states that the popularity of diabetes increases with age because the rate of metabolism slows down when aging due to the decrease in lean body mass and an increase in sedentary lifestyle leading to reduced daily energy requirement.

Richard White wrote Inventing Australia: Images and Identity, 1688-1980 in 1991. In his book, White examines how an Australian national identity has been shaped in the past and continues evolving through time. The title he chose for the book reflects his belief that national identity does not exist but is invented. He talks about three main points in the making of this identity. The first one concerns Europe and its influence on Australia. The second one is the importance of the intelligentsia which defines at a particular moment a certain identity and the last one concerns the presence of the economic power of the ruling class which has the possibility to influence and chose a particular identity. In his book, White talks about events through history that have helped to define a particular identity at a given time.

For instance, the myth of the ‘Coming Man’ which excluded women and gave a very ‘manly’ definition started to appear at the end of the 19th century. After creating the coming man, Australia wanted to come up with its own culture. Artists wanted to idealize Australia. This new spirit “was often associated with the growth of local manufacturing and like the manufacturing interests, Australian intellectuals and artists sought to protect the local product by advertising it as being superior to the imported and even called for tariffs.” It was during WWII that the idea of a national type and identity was changed. Instead, the Australian way of life was created and promoted by the manufacturing sector. Numerous campaigns and ads were built around this concept. During the 70s, the idea of Australia as a tolerant and multiculturalist nation began to develop. And in the 80s, Australia would put forward its great resources and sell them to the rest of the world.

White wants to put forward that it has always been difficult to find and define an identity for Australia. Australia used to be a convict land and when the Utilitarianism of Ruskin reached Australia, culture in general existed only for its moral purpose. This purpose helped to build new buildings such as libraries and schools in the 1840s. What the bohemian group/ the artists of the Heidelberg school claimed, was the acceptance of art for its own sake. They demanded the professionalization of the intelligentsia “distinguishing the professional artists and the amateurs who established the colonial cultural institutions”. The artists wanted the possibility to live off their art. Art for them needed to be more than “leisure and pleasure”. The Australian Artists’ Association (1912) and the NSW Society of Artists were created later on to protect and recognize artists in Australia. These new cultural changes brought political changes too and the labor party started to gain more importance.

In the chapter ‘Bohemians and the Bush’, White takes a closer look at the conflict which took place in the 1890s between the two different generations of artists. The Australian-born bohemian generation wanted to break away from the English influence that had been going on in Australia. They wanted to give their country a new image, and “create a distinctively national culture”, one that would represent them. For them, the image of Australia created by the Europeans was “biased and blurred” whereas theirs was “clear and pure”. They turned to France and Bohemia to oppose the older Victorian values.

The War on Terror became an international issue when President Bush stated, ‘Every nation in every region now has a decision to make,’ he said in a national address. ‘Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.’ The invasion of Iraq became one if not the most controversial international foreign policy decision made by the United States and the United Kingdom in recent history which was accompanied and triggered by The War on Terror. Up to this day, controversy and speculations lie around if this international action was just or falls under the category of Jus ad Bellum. Jus ad Bellum and just war theory as we discussed in our class can be summed up in the idea of the accounts of St. Augustine wherein it determines and judges whether a state may have an option to enter a war and fight the war which became a pivotal core of the modern international legal system. This is where the international community comes in and either supports or opposes an action made by a country to enter a war with one country. Jus ad Bellum surrounds the idea that for one state to declare war, a state must have a just cause, the correct intentions, have used and exhausted all other forms of diplomacy, and or have no choice other than to protect itself from an imminent attack or danger. Now that we’ve established what Jus ad Bellum means, let’s focus and try to analyze the situation and the justifications of the United States and the United Kingdom for invading Iraq and their dictator leader, Sadam Hussein. The War on Terror precedented this attack because of the 9/11 attack which made the United States interested in the politics and geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. Due to prior events and actions, the United States government’s most important national policy became to stamp out and eradicate ‘global terrorism at its core’. Because of the gravity of the 9/11 attacks, the United States justified its attack on Iraq on that the very essence of a preemptive and preventive strike. They justified their action by foreshadowing the possibility of future strikes may use Weapons of Mass Destruction or more commonly known as (WMD). This became the grounds and justification used by the United States to engage in a physical campaign globally while using all their might to engage states, organizations, and or individuals who are either hosting, supporting, financing, or helping terrorism. Since the aforementioned clause, the first target of the United States became of that the allies of the attackers which was Al ‘Qaeda, then they attacked Afghanistan and the Taliban because that was where the leader of Al ‘Qaeda was hiding which was Osama Bin Laden. Then this became the first phase of the wars that precedented them.

It was clear to both the United States and United Kingdom governments then that there was an imminent threat coming from Iraq, for them to justify the invasion, the threat must be substantiated by the just war theory to fulfill the conditions and legality in the international community. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom then stated in his speech, ‘We must be prepared to act where terrorism of weapons of mass destruction threaten us’ This convinced the parliamentary then to support this action and made the Iraqi invasion possible. Bush also added that the Iraqi regime then supported Al ‘Qaeda and other terrorist groups to go against the United States. Although this was heavily opposed by other world powers like Germany, France, and Russia, the United States declared an end to the diplomacy ultimatum which triggered the invasion of Iraq.

Though the invasion of Iraq at that time was seen just because of the findings of the U.S. government than of their weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and their regime’s crimes against humanity. Later findings would show that Iraq and Saddam Hussein did not have any WMDs in their personnel. An article from Washington Post stated, ‘The intelligence community’s assessments on Iraq’s WMD stockpiles and programs turned out to be woefully wrong, largely because analysts believed that Iraq had kept on a path of building its programs rather than largely abandoning them after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.’ They also stated that these bits of intelligence were used for political purposes to build support from the public to support a war that the Bush administration orchestrated.

What is the difference between justification and sanctification in Romans?

To start you need the overview of Romans and the historical context, of where all this began.

• The Book Of Romans
• Author: The author is the Apostle Paul.
• Purpose: To present Paul’s Gospel message to the believers in Rome and to explain how the Gospel heals divisions between Jewish and Gentile believers.

Date: A.D. 55-57

Key Truths:

• Jews and Gentiles are sinners under God’s judgment.
• Jews and Gentiles receive justification through faith alone apart from works.
• Sanctification, which leads to glorification, takes place through dependence on the Holy Spirit.
• Jews and Gentiles have interconnected roles in history.
• Jewish and Gentile Christians must learn to apply the gospel to practical living.

Author: The opening (Rom. 1:1) and the biographical details (Rom. 1, 15-16) show that the letter to the Romans was written by the apostle Paul. The letter was already cited and listed as Paul’s during the second century. Its authenticity has been disputed only rarely and never convincingly.

Of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament, fourteen have traditionally been attributed to the great missionary Paul of Tarsus. These fourteen books all take the form of letters addressed to a given individual or community. In the traditional canonical ordering of the New Testament, these fourteen books are arranged in a block following Acts and separated into three groups: the nine letters addressed to communities, the four letters addressed to individuals, and the Hebrews.

Why was Romans Written Paul follows his introduction with a flattering greeting to the Roman church, and expresses his desire to preach in Rome someday. Paul gives a summary of the theme of his letter: ‘The Gospel . . . is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Now that there is the context around Romans upon research I found two different definitions of Sanctification and Justification to define what they are and how they are different.

Sanctification means to make holy, purify or consecrate; to set apart, to separate

• The process of being made holy results in a changed lifestyle for the believer.
• examples from the Old Testament Certain times are sanctified in that they are set apart, especially to the Lord: the sabbath, the various festivals, and the year of Jubilee. The land of Canaan, as well as Jerusalem, was holy to the Lord and was not to be polluted by sinful conduct. The Tabernacle/Temple and all the objects related to it were holy.

The priests and Levites who functioned in the sanctuary, beginning with Aaron, were sanctified to the Lord by the anointing of oil. Sanctification is the result of salvation. it is transformed from human to divine nature being made Holy This is a process to undergo through a lifetime in obedience to the Holy Spirits and puts of works of the flesh and takes on the Fruits of the Spirit which are found in The Holy Bible. [1: SparkNotes: Bible: The New Testament: The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Romans) ‘Sparknotes: Bible: The New Testament: The Letter Of Paul To The Romans (Romans)’. 2019. Sparknotes.Com. Accessed October 25, 2019. What Is the Difference Between Justification and Sanctification? — Beautiful Christian Life ‘What Is The Difference Between Justification And Sanctification? — Beautiful Christian Life’. 2019. Beautiful Christian Life. Accessed October 25, 2019. https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-justification-and-sanctification.]

Justification is the forensic act of God which is centered around the works that Jesus did. By the payment of sin paid on that cross by, we (his creation) can be (choice) made righteous because of His work, not human works. The doctrine of justification is explained and developed well by the apostle Paul, teaching that salvation is not only for Jews but also for Gentiles. Salvation has always been centered on Christ, in the Old and the New Testament. Without divine truth in Him, there would be no unity or relationship with God or Christ without the works of His Justification.

The meat of Justification does come out of the writing of Paul, which he spare heads the unity of the Jews and Gentiles regardless of the law. The Jews were always concerned with their man-made laws, circumcision, or other works. In this state of thinking, the Jews forgot what the law stood for, forgiveness and justification.

Justifications are forgiveness the clearing of guilt and deserved penalty for committed sins through faith in Jesus Christ who took on the penalty for everyone’s sins and paid the price.

They do not differ in their importance both are essential to salvation, and without either, we must perish. Justification and sanctification differ in their cause justifications come from the three righteousness of Christ whereas sanctification is from the holy spirit. Second, in their effect, the effect of justification consists of our external restoration to the favor and bestowment on us as a covenant title to eternal life. Sanctification in the removal of our inbreed corruption and the renewal of the divine image of the soul. Thirdly Justification is an act of God done in his courts of heaven. Sanctification is done in the work of the holy spirit though done through inner man Earth. fourth. The justification lies at the beginning of the Christian life, and, except in its consequences, does not extend beyond it, but is instantaneous and complete upon our first exercise of saving faith. Sanctification begins where justification ends, runs throughout the [footnoteRef:2] Christian life, and is partial and progressive, from measure to measure, until it reaches its perfection in glory. In short, justification is God’s act for us, through the righteousness of his Son; sanctification is his work in us, by the power of his Spirit. Justification is our title to Heaven. Sanctification is our education for Heaven. In justification God acts alone; in sanctification, he brings us to co-operate with him. To thrust ourselves into the former would rob God of his glory; to keep ourselves out of the latter would perpetuate our incapacity for bliss.’ [2: ]

So long as churches preserve this distinction clearly and entirely, its influence for good will be manifest. In some respects, men may widely differ on doctrinal points, but if right here, [footnoteRef:3]you will find them rallying around the vital truths of Christianity in a manner very pleasing. Justification is never specially referred to the Holy Spirit as its author, but the sanctification of the soul is often said to be through the Spirit. [3: What is the difference between justification and sanctification? | Monergism “What Is the Difference Between Justification and Sanctification? | Monergism’. 2019. Monergism.Com. Accessed October 25, 2019.https://www.monergism.com/what-difference-between-justification-and-sanctification.]

Paul does not confound justification and sanctification, nor put one for the other—as some have erroneously supposed, yet it is a blessed truth that these gifts of God are never separated. Whoever has one—has both. The prophet David in Psalm 32:1, 2, and the apostle Paul in Romans 8:1 have both taught us that the justified walk after the Spirit[footnoteRef:4]. He who would separate things which God has thus joined together does wickedly; while to distinguish between them is an important duty and of great influence for good [4: What is the difference between justification and sanctification?| Monergi’What Is The Difference Between Justification And Sanctification? | Monergism’. 2019. Monergism.Com. Accessed October 25, 2019.https://www.monergism.com/what-difference-between-justification-and-sanctification.]

Sanctification means to make holy, purify or consecrate; to set apart, to separate. Justification is the forensic act of God which is centered around the works that Jesus did. By the payment of sin paid on that cross by, we (his creation) can be (choice) made righteous because of His work, not human works. In saying this we need both just as much as the other to live a Christian life none is bigger or better than the other.

Introduction

Redemption and justification are recurring themes in literature and philosophy, exploring the concepts of atonement and moral absolution. These themes delve into the complexities of human nature, the pursuit of forgiveness, and the potential for transformation and reconciliation. In this critical essay, we will examine the significance of redemption and justification in various literary works and their profound impact on characters and readers alike.

The Concept of Redemption

Redemption refers to the act of making amends for past wrongdoings or finding salvation from guilt or sin. It often involves a personal journey of transformation and seeking forgiveness. In literature, we encounter characters who strive for redemption, such as Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo’s “Les Misérables.” Valjean’s path to redemption is marked by his commitment to moral righteousness and selfless acts of kindness. Through his journey, he demonstrates the capacity for individuals to redeem themselves and find spiritual salvation.

Another notable example is Amir in Khaled Hosseini’s “The Kite Runner.” Amir’s guilt over betraying his childhood friend leads him on a quest for redemption, ultimately finding forgiveness and redemption through acts of bravery and sacrifice. These literary examples highlight the profound impact of redemption on character development and the potential for moral growth.

The Notion of Justification

Justification centers around the idea of moral absolution and the validation or defense of one’s actions. It involves providing reasons or explanations for one’s behavior, often to oneself or others. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment,” the protagonist Raskolnikov wrestles with the justification of his heinous crime. Through his internal struggle and subsequent redemption, Dostoevsky explores the boundaries of morality and the consequences of attempting to justify immoral acts.

In Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird,” the character Atticus Finch embodies the concept of moral justification. As a lawyer defending a wrongfully accused man in a racially charged society, Atticus justifies his actions based on principles of justice and equality. His unwavering commitment to his beliefs demonstrates the power of moral conviction and the importance of standing up for what is right.

The Complexity of Redemption and Justification

Redemption and justification are complex and multifaceted concepts that challenge conventional notions of right and wrong. They often blur the lines between morality, ethics, and personal growth. In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter,” the character Hester Prynne seeks redemption for her sin of adultery, but her journey is not straightforward. While she embraces her guilt and actively seeks redemption, the society around her struggles to justify her actions. Hawthorne explores the complexities of redemption, raising questions about societal judgment, personal growth, and the role of forgiveness.

Additionally, the concept of redemption can be explored through religious and philosophical lenses. In religious contexts, redemption often involves seeking divine forgiveness and salvation. This is evident in Dante Alighieri’s “The Divine Comedy,” where the protagonist Dante undertakes a journey through Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven to achieve spiritual redemption.

Conclusion

Redemption and justification are powerful themes that resonate throughout literature, exploring the depths of human nature, the pursuit of forgiveness, and the potential for transformation and moral growth. Through characters’ quests for redemption, readers are invited to reflect on their own actions, motivations, and the possibility of personal transformation. These themes challenge conventional notions of right and wrong, delving into the complexities of morality and the complexities of human nature. As readers engage with these literary works, they are compelled to contemplate the significance of redemption and justification in their own lives and the world around them.

Introduction

State violence refers to acts of brutality that are meted out by government agencies against foreign or domestic targets that are considered enemies of the state. A classic example is the enactment of anti-gang policies and laws in Latin America whereby security organizations have killed many children under the guise of quelling gang activities (Jackson, 2018). Recently, there have been numerous debates on the justifications for state violence. For instance, proponents of the approach posit that there are moral justifications for the same. On the other hand, those opposed to state violence allude that it is somehow similar to terrorism. The paper gives an in-depth analysis of the justifications for state violence. Further, it compares these assumptions with the on arguments used to justify terrorism and lists the problems that such claims cause.

Justifications for State Violence

The first justification for state violence is where it is employed to attain self-determination. By and large, this right is regarded as inalienable. There is also the quest for independence when people are under foreign or racist dominations. The legitimacy of such struggles is typically employed to substantiate state and political violence (Baylis, Smith, and Owen, 2012). The justification, in this case, is implied. By expressly reaffirming the people’s right to pursue independence and self-determination, there is certain support for the state violence that ensues in the midst of these struggles.

The other justification for state violence is whereby there are rebellions against legitimate regimes aimed at destabilizing them. In some democracies, opposition leaders start revolutions and rebellions against the government of the day in a bid to dethrone them. Such actions are usually done oblivious of the fact that the regimes of the time were legitimately elected and thus should only be terminated via democratic processes rather than riots and revolts. For this reason, proponents of state violence conclude that in such case scenarios, the state is justified in deploying its security agencies such as the military to neutralize the threat of overthrow.

There is also the argument of self-defense. According to proponents of state violence, the need to protect government entities or those linked with the state in one way or another justifies the brutality. In essence, since self-defense is an accepted principle in criminal law, it should also be extended to the nation. According to the nature of the former, a person or entity could defend itself against imminent unlawful violence. However, the defensive actions should be proportionate to the level of danger posed by another individual or a group (Blakeley, 2009). Governments, in particular, practice self-defense as a preventive measure against anarchy and civil unrest. For instance, political brutality tends to mutate into the destruction of public property, and violence against agencies linked to the authorities among others. In the midst of such scenarios, people justify the employment of state violence to protect the country’s machinery and bring back stability.

However, self-defense justification has some limitations. For instance, while the act of killing a leader of a violent gang by the police accomplishes a political objective, the deed is only regarded as self-defense if the murder and the associated force meted on the deceased were reasonable and proportionate to the force applied by the leader of the violent gang (Blakeley, 2009). Therefore, self-defense should never be used as justification for state violence against innocent civilians

As previously mentioned, state violence could be motivated by various factors. For instance, the authorities could employ brutality as a strategic means of governance. The development plans of the state could conflict with the wants of a people occupying a specific area in the country (Wilkinson, 2006). In situations whereby the general good of these frameworks outweighs the interests of a specific group of persons, the nation justifies its use of violence to carry on with its development plans irrespective of whether the local communities are in agreement or not. For instance, when a valuable mineral has been discovered in a particular area in the country, the community would want to obtain a vastly disproportionate share of the proceeds of this material. The state, on the other hand, might want to share the resources equitably around the entire territory. If the local community fails to reach an agreement with the state on the sharing of the said supply, the government justifies its use of violence to go ahead and exchange the means at its will. Other than the distribution of resources, the state could employ brutality when the said society utilizes violence to stall projects that are being advocated and steered by the authorities. For instance, some countries in Europe have taken the initiative of taking in refugees from war-torn countries such as Syria (Duyos-Álvarez et al., 2016). Such decisions are not always entirely accepted domestically, especially by far-right groups. The latter sometimes resort to violence to discourage and chase away the incomers. In such case scenarios, the government could use brutality to combat the opposition demonstrated by the far-right groups against innocent refugees.

The other principle that could be used to justify state violence is ideology. By and large, different countries lean toward various ideological beliefs. For instance, most western states are capitalistic. However, there could be small groups or uprisings within a nation that advocate for an agenda that is the polar opposite of that assumed by the state. To ensure that the entire country runs on a uniform ideology, the state could employ certain violence with the purpose of coercing people into adhering to a particular view (Baylis et al., 2012). A textbook case of force application emanating from ideological differences between the government and people is whereby the former advocates for absolutism, while the latter opts for democracy. The state could utilize its machinery to neutralize any types of uprisings that emanate with a view of changing its political ideology.

State Violence vs. Terrorism Justification: A Comparative Analysis

The reasons mentioned above are employed to justify state violence. Further analysis proves that many of these arguments are more or less similar to claims made by terrorists and their sympathizers. For instance, the need for state violence to support a political ideology is similar to employing terrorism to support religious convictions. The nation could justify the application of brutal force on a people as a means of reinforcing its political ideology. Similarly, radical religious ideologies are also cited as reasons why some terrorist groups commit violent criminal activities against the public.

Additionally, supporting counterinsurgency campaigns has also been employed to justify state violence. According to those with this viewpoint, the fact that it is the insurgent groups that were the first to threaten the legitimacy of the state through violent means, are justified in employing similar tactics to cement their authority (Poynting and Whyte, 2012). The same sentiment is shared by various terrorist groups who view their work as countering forces that seem to fight their religion. For instance, radical Islam is usually premised on the myth that western civilization is a threat to the faith’s existence.

The other comparison between justifications for state violence and terrorism is on the right to self-determination. As previously mentioned, proponents of state violence cite self-determination among the necessities for the state to employ violence against insurgents and their sympathizers. For instance, when a country is under the control of imperial power, the nation could use the available machinery to counter the might and power of the imperial power with a view of achieving independence and self-determination.

Similarly, terrorists and their supporters also cite the right to self-determination as one of the justifications for their acts. A textbook case is whereby Palestinian terrorism is frequently defended as a moral right for the former to free themselves from the domination of the Israeli government (Fraser, 2015). In essence, they hold the view that the right to self-determination is not meaningful without a plan of action to accomplish it. For this reason, they employ terrorism as a means to an end of achieving autonomy and independence from Israeli domination (Lawrence, 2005). The terrorists state that their acts are justified if they have a probability of accomplishing objectives irrespective of the costs that will be incurred therein (Sterba, 2003). A good analogy would be the use of atomic bombing by the United States against Japan in World War II which is explained as state violence by a country against citizens of another nation. In this case, the United States felt as if the attack on Pearl Harbour threatened its self-determination and independence.

Problems of Justifications for Terrorism and State Violence

The argument of the right of self-determination and independence to justify terrorism and state violence is problematic because of the following reasons. First, in most instances of the aforementioned approaches’ applications, the actors do not face the imminent danger that warrants the necessity to employ brutality that affects innocent civilians. For instance, in the fight against gang violence, there are better ways of making sure that perpetrators or leaders of such gangs are apprehended without necessarily using innocent civilians as collateral damage. On the other hand, the argument by terrorists and their sympathizers on the need for self-determination as a justification for their deeds also lacks merit. In most cases, people do not face the severe and imminent danger that could necessitate the use of violence whose effects spill over to innocent civilians (Beverley, 2006). In the case of Palestinians, for instance, it is clear that they face oppressive occupation by the Israeli, economic deprivations, and some human rights violations (Fraser, 2015). However, they do not face such acts as genocide or threat to their existence which are some of the issues anticipated by the law of necessity of International Human Rights.

The other problem that state violence under the guise of seeking self-determination raises is that it breaches other people’s fundamental human rights. Similar to terrorism, it results in the loss of lives of many innocent people. Therefore, it is counter-intuitive for the perpetrators of state violence to claim that they are fighting for their rights through means that result in the disregard of the rights of civilians that have nothing to do with their struggles. Further, it is proven that acts of brutality against innocent people are usually counter-productive. For instance, instead of alleviating the existing concern, they lead to more problems. The attack on innocent civilians when the state is on counter-insurgency campaigns puts more people against the state because they feel like the state agencies are biased against them. Similarly, terrorist attacks also create tension between different religious or philosophical adherents (Primoratz, 2004). The innocent population used as collateral damage will resent the ideologies or religious convictions that were used to justify such attacks.

The other problem of moral and political justifications of state violence is the assumption that they are representative of a whole group of people. For instance, terrorists influenced by radical religious convictions claim that they represent the entire faith (English, 2009). State violence actors also assume that their deeds are always defending the interest of the whole country. Despite such assumptions, nothing could be further from the truth. Both state and non-state actors of violence are not always representative of the whole group they purport to represent. A classic example is an assumption that national political ideologies are expressive of the will of the people. There are several ways in which countries can be run. However, the political ideologies of the government of the day are not always supported by everyone or the supermajority of the population.

Other than the similarities, there are also distinctions in the justifications for both state violence and terrorism. For example, one of the reasons the nation resorts to brutal force is to cement its authority in the height of uprisings. In essence, the purpose of the government is to reaffirm its control and power over the country and discourage any acts of insurgency that threaten this state of affairs. In contrast, terrorists and their sympathizers argue that their acts are the most effective for the weak that lack any other means to fight the state which has the monopoly of power compared to small rioting groups (Hoffman, 2006). For instance, religious persecution could make people resort to terrorism as a way of countering the state. Unlike state violence, terrorists’ objective is not to cement their authority. Instead, they aim to fight oppressive acts or policies that are advocated for by the nation. There are also arguments that terrorists try as much as possible to minimize violence. For instance, liberation forces could employ various tactics in order to prevent a conflict from mutating into an armed conflict. Usually, violence is often resorted to if these strategies fail to bear fruit.

However, both arguments on state violence and terrorism justification are problematic for a variety of reasons. First, the notion that state violence should be seen as a means of cementing the government’s power is illogical. There are many methods that various agencies could use to cement their authority and reaffirm their power. For instance, negotiating with the insurgent groups and looking into their plight makes for a more peaceful ending than resorting to state violence. Second, the government has the power of investigating and identifying the main perpetrators of insurgencies. They can be apprehended and sued as a deterrent to discourage future uprisings without involving violent means.

On the other hand, the argument that perpetrators use violence as a last resort is also farfetched. First, there are many scenarios whereby terrorist groups choose brutal force when other means of solving their conflicts are not entirely exhausted. Most acts of terror are usually driven by resentment rather than the need to ensure that human rights are upheld. The fact that these attacks end up affecting more innocent civilians instead of the purported enemies of the terrorist group is another reason to disregard those justifications.

Conclusion

Overall, there are many political and moral justifications for state violence. For instance, the brutal force proponents usually posit that it is a necessary tool that the government employs to fight the insurgency. The other common justification is that it is used by the nation for strategic purposes to enforce the development plans such as equitably sharing natural resources. The other argument for violence employed by states is when they seek to gain independence from foreign dominations or fight racist regimes that threaten their self-determination. Many of these substantiations of brutality application are similar to those utilized by terrorists and their sympathizers. For instance, the use of violence as a means of achieving self-determination and independence is commonly employed in both quarters. Through a comparative analysis of claims made by both of the groups, the problems many of the reasons harbor become apparent. For instance, most of the justifications disregard the rights of innocent civilians usually affected by acts of violence. The state and non-state actors of violent struggles usually have not exhausted other conflict management methods to warrant their resort to employing violence.

References

1. Baylis, S., Smith, S. and Owen, P., 2012. The globalization of world politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Beverley, M.-E., 2006. Islam and violence in the modern era. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
3. Blakeley, R., 2009. State terrorism and neoliberalism: the north in the south. London: Routledge.
4. Duyos-Álvarez, S., Dill, K., McAtackney, L., Hoewer, M., Anastario, M., Moradi, F., Pohlman, A., Walsh, S.D., Jäppinen, M. and Johnson, J.E., 2016. Gender violence in peace and war: states of complicity. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
5. English, R., 2009. Terrorism: how to respond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Fraser, T. G., 2015. The Arab-Israeli conflict, 4th edition. London: Red Globe Press.
7. Hoffman, B., 2006. Inside terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. Jackson, R., 2018. Writing the war on terrorism: Language, politics, and counter-terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
9. Lawrence, B., 2005. Messages to the world: the statements of Osama Bin Laden. London: Verso.
10. Poynting, S. and Whyte, D., Eds., 2012. Counter-terrorism and state political violence. London: Routledge.
11. Primoratz, I., 2004. Terrorism: the philosophical issues. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
12. Sterba, J.P., Ed., 2003. Terrorism and international justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Wilkinson, P., 2006. Terrorism versus democracy: the liberal state response. London: Routledge.

Introduction

This essay is set to question the adequacy of Williamson’s claim that evidence equals knowledge hence the E=K Principle. According to Williamson, when you have evidence of a given fact, you have knowledge; and that knowledge is a mental state. The aim of this essay is to that argue there should be a reliable criterion for a knowledge claim, which Williamson did not give, hence we will hold that evidence does not equate to knowledge. Given the reality that evidential status is for the most part a matter of degree, the reality that we frequently talk of a person’s evidence when showing their subjective reasons, for believing and accepting for basic cognitive process what she will, and therefore the indisputable fact that what counts as evidence varies with context (Joyce, 2004). This will argue in terms of how evidence can equate knowledge considering the different factors that appear in the process of our evidence acquisition. Maybe if there is a criterion to determine what count as evidence, in the time of forgotten memory we can say that there is knowledge of our claim.

For Williamson, evidence cannot be understood independently of knowledge. He analyses evidence in terms of knowledge, hence he defended the E=K principle that only knowledge constitutes evidence. S’s evidence [is] S’s knowledge, for every individual or community S in any possible situation” (Williamson, 2002: 185). Prior to Williamson, knowledge requires justification as justification requires having evidence for one’s belief which is assumed that evidence can be understood independently of knowledge. E=K does seize a few aspects of our concept of evidence, but it also comes up short in that it fails to secure some others. Williamson characterizes austere evidence that leaves out many core capabilities of our cognitive practices and social practices. Williamson recognized the role of evidence and its ability to elucidate core options of our evidential practices. Williamson addresses both issues of a proposition to both serve as evidence for a hypothesis h and of its evidential status, the kind of creditable standing that e must have (Williamson, 2000: 186).

In setting out the claim that evidence does not equate to knowledge, I will first, give the approach to give what counts as evidence, the criterion for evidence to count as knowledge, and question the reliability of our evidential claim. First, this essay will question Williamson’s criterion for a knowledge claim as can be seen he tried to avoid the traditional criterion for knowledge (Greenough and Pritchard, 2009). In Williamson’s aim to avoid the traditional definition of knowledge, which I think is quite needed in the process of philosophical inquiry, Williamson fails to make known the criterion for knowledge, for a proposition to count as knowledge, and the criterion for evidence. Evidence is an external factor and thus we should know when and how we can achieve evidence for a knowledge claim. Secondly, we will argue in the line of inferred beliefs. which involves cases where the evidence base contains false beliefs. And lastly, we will talk about the state of forgotten evidence and limited evidence. Our argument will show instances where a subject has prior evidence of a knowledge claim, and then later forgets the evidence or how the evidence came about of the knowledge he has. We will question if in such a situation the knowledge changes since the evidence is already forgotten, or the knowledge ceases to exist given Williamson’s E=K Principle. This essay will conclude with the view that there should be a reliable way for our beliefs to be justified.

Our first approach is to understand the general overview of knowledge and evidence, and also see how Williamson views knowledge and evidence.

Knowledge

People know things at different stages of life. It is not enough to say we know such and such, what is important is how we come to know the things we claim to know. The traditional way is that you know a thing if your belief that that thing is true, and you are justified in believing that it is true, then you have knowledge of that certain thing. Though through different fields and environments, we have different ways of knowing and different knowledge claims we make, for the purpose of this essay, we are looking at propositional knowledge. This is the knowledge that is either true or false. When you make a knowledge claim, it is either true or false. This is commonly expressed as S knows P.

Propositional knowledge is the knowledge that shows something to be as it is. ‘’propositional knowledge is just knowing that something is the case, for instance, the earth is flat, etc’’ (Pritchard, 2018: 3). But to state a given proposition as a knowledge claim, it must fulfill certain requirements, and these are that the proposition must be True and believed to be True (Truth and belief). These are essentials for a knowledge claim. Propositional knowledge removes the knowledge that comes from lucky guesses or correct wishful thinking. It ‘’requires that one have an adequate indication that a known proposition is true’’. (Pritchard, 2018: 5). when we say a subject claims to know a given proposition to be true, what he/she knows must meet up with what qualifies as knowledge and this can be done through adequate evidence possessed by the knower. The knower must have evidence for a claim proposition. That is a justified True Belief. The traditional criterion of knowledge faced a lot of problems most especially from the Gettier cases, where it is argued that a subject might have false beliefs.

Williamson on knowledge and evidence

Williamson argues for the E=K Principle, where ‘E’ stands for evidence and ‘K’ for knowledge, E=K. He argues for the following which implies E=K:

1. All evidence is propositional.
2. All propositional evidence is knowledge.
3. All knowledge is evidence. (Williamson, 2000: 193)

To Williamson Evidence is that which justifies belief. This means that evidence is that which proves our belief to be true or false. Williamson holds that evidence is propositional; only propositions are reasons for beliefs. Evidence is the kind of thing that a hypothesis explains (Williamson, 2002: 187). And the kind of thing which the hypothesis explain is propositional. Thus, evidence is propositional. To Williamson, the totality of proposition one knows is one’s evidence. This sets to explain whatever one holds to be true or false is based on the evidence the individual has as to the given claim.

For us to have a better understanding of the E=K principle, it is important to start with what Williamson does not consider the evidence. According to Williamson, a bloody knife is not evidence. Only propositions can be reasons for beliefs and He put forward considerations aimed to show that ‘’what functions as evidence are propositions one can grasp’’ (Williamson, 2000: 195). We may seek to explain a given proposition, but only one we can grasp can function as our evidence. When a hypothesis explains one’s evidence, what is explained are propositions that state the true or false state of things. Williamson tends to rule out hypotheses by seeking roles played by evidence that is filled by propositions only. But this strategy is also with alternative roles played by evidence, consistent, and non-propositional. Suppose that S’s belief that P is justified by his evidence e. Williamson holds that e must be a proposition in order to play that evidential role. At initial, Williamson says nothing concerning whether s should further believe e, but he concludes that s must grasp proposition e. This thus seems to be a very plausible view to hold unto that e can function as S’s evidence for believing P only if S also believes e. we might want to ask that If e is merely a proposition that S grasps but does not believe, and perhaps disbelieves, then why would e count as part of S’s evidence? Williamson does eventually bring belief into the picture. It is “granted” by him that knowledge entails belief. (Williamson, 2000: 202) Since he maintains E=K, his overall position has the consequence, which he notes, that S believes e: e’s evidential status for S entails that S knows e and that in turn entails that S believes e.

Criterion of Justification

The starting point of our claim about Williamson’s principle is that Williamson did not give a criterion for knowledge, hence he holds that knowledge is prime. Knowledge is prime means that knowledge does not constitute smaller components like the traditional definition of knowledge that entails justified truth belief [JTB]. To Williamson, evidence equals knowledge, but the criterion for knowledge is not stated. Knowledge is a mental state for Williamson (2000: 21). This means that Williamson’s account of mental state is a precise internal state, and in the mental state, beliefs are justified only by things internal to the individual. With this claim, there cannot say to be a unified criterion for justification or knowledge claim. Williamson did not set to give us what constitutes evidence. Going with Brueckner, Williamson did not state what evidence that generates knowledge for us to have a knowledge claim; or how propositions come to be part of our evidence and attain the status of knowledge (Greenough and Pritchard, 2009).

Justification is epistemically valuable as it increases our knowledge and aid in avoiding errors.

Let’s take an example put forward by Anthony Bruechner: ‘I am justified in believing that my cup is red in virtue of, or because of, my knowledge that my cup is red. How exactly is this supposed to work? Suppose that I have not yet looked at my cup. So, I do not yet know c (the proposition that my cup is red). So, c is not yet a part of my total evidence and so cannot be used to justify any beliefs. I need to gain some evidence that will serve to justify a belief of c on my part if I am to come to know c and thus enable c to become part of my total evidence. I look at the cup and come to believe c. if I am to be justified in now believing c and thus be in a position to know c, I must have some evidence that serves to justify the belief’ (Greenough and Pritchard, 2009: 8). I tend to agree with Buechner, to say that Williamson seems to be missing a step in saying that it is because of a subjects’ knowledge of C, that he is justified in believing C. but what is the evidence that generated the knowledge of C, enabling that knowledge to serve as the evidential justifier for the subject’s belief of c? (Greenough and Pritchard, 2009:8) C must have gotten into my total evidence as a result of my coming justifiably to believe it on the basis of some evidence. But what evidence? What criteria should something be counted as evidence to be able to justify my belief? This brings us to the challenge of inferred beliefs and limited knowledge.

Inferred beliefs.

There are cases of inferred beliefs where a person’s evidence base contains beliefs that are false. In such aspects, it is possible to hold a belief that P is justified if and only if one properly bases this belief on evidence that one possesses in favor of that P.

The cases that will involve our consideration include inferred beliefs that are justified since there is evidence for them. Let’s take into account a popular version, consider the following ‘’I believe that nobody can enter my office (O for now) because I hold the belief that I have just locked the door (LD for now). Let us assume that I have inferred (O) from (LD). I pushed the lock-in and gave it a quick twist to the left, which usually does the trick; however, my lock is damaged and does not work. Hence, (LD) is false. If Williamson’s proposal that (E = K) is correct, then (LD) cannot serve as an evidential ground for (O). This seems to generate issues for (E = K)’’ (Rizzer, 2009).

The first difficulty is that it is exceptionally conceivable that (LD) does partially constitute my evidence for (O). After all, I am justified in believing (LD), (LD) supports (O), and an explicit inference from (LD) is my most immediate premise or ground for (O). I have other indirect grounds for (O) as well. For example, whatever my evidence for (LD) is, is also evidence for (O). Why should my indirect grounds for (O), count as evidence for (O) when (LD) does not? Obviously, Williamson’s answer is going to be, ‘‘because (LD) is false but the beliefs that provide evidence for (LD) and ultimately (O) as well are true.’’ (Rizzer, 2009)

Let’s look at another case of inferred belief. molly arrives at home at 5:30 and knows that her mother does not get off work until 6. Molly also sees that the lights are off in their house. Molly can infer that her mother is not yet home and is said to have the knowledge that her mother is not home going with the E=K principle. With the E=K principle, Molly has knowledge that her mother is not home, based on her previous experiences and the line of events. Assuming that Molly’s mother closes early from her workplace and went home but didn’t turn on the light as usual which makes Molly assumes that her mother is not back from work. With the E=K principle, molly’s knowledge claim is therefore false. Molly’s previous evidence that gives her knowledge of her mother’s presence in the house is true, while knowledge is false. In this instance, one will argue against Williamson’s claim that evidence does not equate to knowledge. Evidence is that which justifies belief, molly’s belief that her mother is still at work is justified by the darkness of the house by virtue of the lights being off. So, we can claim that there are instances where we can have evidence for our beliefs but not knowledge.

Imagine I happen to meet someone for the first time who I heard called Fredico from his friends. I am justified in believing that is his name, for the reason that he is called Fredico and he in turn answers to the name. I, therefore, say to others that his name is Frederico, assuming that I have not seen his real name either from his documents or even asked him for his name.

What I tend to prove by this example is that we might hold the wrong evidence concerning a belief or evidence concerning a false belief that is justified by different means available to us. Our evidence might prove true but what its claim is, is wrong. I might hold a belief that I have evidence for but my knowledge claim is wrong. Consider that I later found out that Fredico’s real name is Fred from someone else, but I see him responding to Fredico, how do I know what to believe? My guess is to go with my evidence. This will lead to the question of testimony in the knowledge claim, but I don’t intend to go that route.

Williamson ought to give a criterion for justification and not merely state that my belief that Fred’s name is Fredico is justified by virtue of (or because of) my belief that his name is Frederico. My evidence in this case obviously won’t give me knowledge of my claim or make it true.

Another question to ask with regard to the above cases is whether evidence is a necessary and sufficient condition for knowledge. In a Necessary condition, If P is necessary for Q, then Q cannot be true unless P is true. Put another way, Q is true only if P is true. In a Sufficient condition, if P is sufficient for Q, then P’s being true is enough to make Q true. If p is true, then q is true. From this, evidence is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for knowledge. This implies that for evidence being true, is not a sufficient condition for knowledge. That I believe and my evidence that he answers Fredico is True is not a sufficient condition to say that his name is Fredico. Thus E=K principle is questionable. Williamson should therefore provide additional conditions or criteria for the knowledge claim.

Forgotten evidence and limited evidence

For most theories that explicitly analyze rationality, the puzzle about evidence possessed arises for them, mostly in terms of the evidence possessed. One such view is evidentialism, which is believing P is rational for a person provided believing P fits the evidence the person has (Feldman, 2004). Believing is an important factor for knowledge but what counts as evidence for which the person believes affects this view. Theories that believe that something is justified provide a person has a reason for believing as being greatly affected by what counts as evidence, especially since they analyze justification in terms of prima facie reasons. This shows that believing is justified for a subject provided that the subject has good reasons for what he or she believed. When it comes to evidence, a lot of theories about epistemic justification appeal to its notion that persons do have evidence at different times of their lives in terms of what they believe, but little has been written about the condition for which a person is said to have something as evidence. It varies how this concept is being interpreted and the challenges we face with evidence that a subject possesses at a time. Most especially with cases of forgotten evidence. When someone knows something, that is, has knowledge of a given fact but forgets where he got that information from, will it still hold that he has knowledge of the fact or information? If the individual never remembers that evidence, then he/she never knows that fact, but it is proven to be true.

We, therefore, know certain things for which we have forgotten the original evidence. One problem is if I assume that my original evidence cannot be recovered or gained, and is not part of any stored justification that I might have. That is, let us assume that I currently entertain my belief about Abraham Lincoln that he was born in 1809(Feldman, 2004: 219), but I seem to have forgotten how that knowledge came about, and that the original source of the belief is not part of my justification of it. It might be argued and questioned how my belief is then justified. One way to answer is to bring up my qualities of recollection. But it is only what is conscious that can count and justify a belief. If I lack any supporting information or lack trust in my memory, then my belief is really not justified. That I am in my office or at home and I could no longer call to mind my conviction that I locked the door or that I kept the key. It is not true that I now have zero evidence since what I hold is a justified inferred belief and I have forgotten my original source. With the E=K principle, it seems I now have false or zero evidence for my belief. And it is not possible that one can have evidence that they no longer have access to. What does it mean to have evidence that you don’t have access to? This might mean that one has memory loss or that whatever information I had is completely lost to me. It is difficult to say that relevant evidence is limited to what one actually believes just as it is to figure out if things stored or buried in one’s memory are among what one believes and to tell whether they are part of one’s evidence. Thus, facts about the sources of my beliefs in time past are hard to decide if they are among my beliefs as it is to decide if they are included in my evidence. This posits a problem for the E=K principle. If the evidence one is exposed to is limited, then it means knowledge is limited. There lies another challenge in the principle. Internalism will require justification which might face the problem of reliance on memory. We depend a great on memory although memory doesn’t seem to be trustworthy. Whether we can trust our memory depends on how reliable it is. We will question the internalism state of knowledge and see if it can answer the question of empirical knowledge or knowledge gotten from testimony. This led to the problem from skeptics, but I am not going that route.

Williamson’s view entails that justification entails evidence. He can say that a subject who once had evidence for a belief is justified if his rational degree of confidence is maintained in the belief that reflected his original evidence base (Rizzer, 2009). Our degree of confidence does not prove our evidence to be true when faced with the issue of forgotten evidence. There is not much room for the E=K principle to escape this. Since the evidence is forgotten, our degree of confidence is already affected by not being about to provide adequate evidence for our knowledge claim. People sometimes entertain beliefs that were initially on the basis of evidence that they cannot recall. It is unclear whether such evidence counts as part of the evidence they have. But I will agree that this will depend on how it can be recalled.

There is also the question: Does knowledge change as evidence changes? Also, in situations where evidence changes, does knowledge change with it, if so, then knowledge is not absolute. Yes, it is important to note that as we acquire evidence, we are forming our knowledge basis. Once we say that we have evidence, with the E=K principle, we already have knowledge. But when our evidence changes as to the particular knowledge claim just like in the above case of my friend who I thought his name to be Fredico but instead his name is Fred, it is given that our knowledge will change. Then knowledge is not certain. If I am not sure of my knowledge claim being that it might change from time to time or due to circumstances, then I am not sure if I can know anything for certain.

The whole challenge rest on the criterion for evidential justification. So, at what point can one say with this given evidence, I have knowledge? There is a need for just criteria even when evidence and knowledge become relative, to the individual subject or to the community

In order to overcome the challenges of inferred belief and the problem of the criterion for evidential justification, there is a need for a reliable source of evidential justification. The focus here is on evidence. I agree with Goldman to say that an ideal mode for justification should be a hybrid view of the two-component theories of justification. Goldman incorporated the evidential element emphasized by evidentialism (Goldman, 2012).

Reliabilism as an approach in the nature of knowledge and of justified belief holds in its simplest form that a belief is justified if and only if produces by a reliable psychological process, meaning a process that produces a high proportion of true beliefs (SEP 2015). Reliabilism has invoked mental states, both doxastic and non-doxastic states, in its set of resources (Goldman, 1979, 1986). But mental states have usually been treated as mere inputs and outputs of processes. No relatedness between target belief and these have featured in the formulation of reliabilism. This two-fold combines the strength of reliabilism and evidentialism. This provides a sufficient condition by which belief can be justified by a reliable process. But going to our earlier example of inferred belief in the case of Fred, this seems to me to be a reliable process. A reliable process of name calling (by friends) and name answering (by Fred). One will say because I called James and he answered and it’s true that his name is James, so is it for Fred.

To respond to this challenge, it is important to note that in a reliabilist account for knowledge, two further conditions are added. First, is that the target belief must be true, and, second, its mode of acquisition must rule out all serious or ‘relevant’ alternatives in which the belief would be false (Goldman, 2012). This means that an accurate visual identification of James does not constitute knowledge unless it is acute enough to exclude the possibility that it is his twin brother John instead (Goldman, 2012). So, for reliabilism, knowledge is necessary for knowing a belief. A justified belief may be false, but its mode of acquisition must be a kind that yields truths. This can be to respond to challenges raise with regards reliability process of the knowledge of Fred’s name. reliabilism will exclude the possibility that his name is Frederico.

It is also important to note that Reliablism can also help stand the threats of skepticism which is one problem we mentioned earlier in the essay but didn’t delve into. So, one advantage of reliabilism is that it seems to have a way of handling challenging issues which proves straightforward treatment for justification.

Conclusion

Conclusively, this essay has been able to show the challenges that lie between having evidence and regarding it as a knowledge claim. This was shown in the fact that the E=K principle allows instances where one can infer belief and claim to have a knowledge base. But we have seen that in cases of inferred beliefs and forgotten or limited evidence, we are faced with challenges with the E=K principle. Hence, we stated that evidence does not equate to knowledge. It was also noted that with the E=K principle, there was no criterion for evidential justification, that is what we count for evidence to be true. There should be a process and what forms our evidence claim. This led us to the reliabilism theory posited by Goldman. This served as a composition of both evidence and reliable process. Though the reliabilism theory might face some challenges, it nevertheless gives us the advantage of having a reliable process of justification.

Knowledge can be described as the possession of information in a psychological form that has been obtained through reason, perception, emotion, or language; it is a justified true belief. Knowledge can be classified as solidly justified if there is adequate evidence to support it. The knowledge must be consistent with previous data and clarified with regard to language and logic. Knowledge can only have solid justification if there is no contradiction or counter-evidence ensuring the given argument is irrefutable. To be justified, the knowledge must be proven as fact.

Due to its evaluative role, justification is often used synonymously with rationality. Epistemic justification is the right standing of a person`s beliefs with respect to knowledge; although this can be defined in various ways. For example, a person`s actions might be justified under the law, or before God. People may rationalize their actions around their epistemic status, regardless of whether this just refers to the right belief or responsible belief, or whether it plays a normative or naturalistic role, it is thought of as essential when regarding knowledge.

This essay explores some of the reasoning behind regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than historical knowledge discussing the methodology used within these areas of knowledge and how this influences how people regard the knowledge. It will look at whether this reasoning is justified and if this just changes depending on the person. This essay will also discuss how the perspectives of people influence how knowledge is regarded, discussing how these perspectives come about and what changes them.

Knowledge in the Natural Sciences may be regarded more highly due to the application of research. Seeing the results of Natural Science experiments in day-to-day life would make people regard the knowledge more highly having personally experienced its effects. One example of this is the COVID-19 virus, due to Natural Sciences; a quick development of vaccinations was invented to counter the limitations set with its arrival such as quarantine. In terms of the application of Natural Sciences, the opinion of Natural Sciences depends on the perspective of the person in question. Those with the same culture would likely share the same views, and having the same morals and beliefs may mean they would act similarly thereby having similar experiences.

Culture is not solidified but is a dynamic set of customs that are influenced and affected by geographical locations and human interactions. The incongruence in culture, and thereby the inconsistency of perception, is becoming less obvious. With the production of the internet and the advancement of technology, societies, and cultures are becoming interconnected and intermingled. For example, in more traditional cultures such as China, homosexuality is disapproved of, whereas in a young and liberal global culture, it is greeted with social acceptance. With the onset of globalization, culture is becoming less and less prevalent in forming individual perceptions as humans are forming a globalized and collectivized culture. For this reason, whether there is solid justification in regarding Natural Science knowledge more highly than other areas of knowledge depends on the cultural experiences of that person in question as their culture influences what they believe classifies as solid justification.

On the other hand, some areas of Natural Science are not applicable to the workings of society, for instance, theoretical physicists. All forms of Natural Science involve creating laws and theories which take decades to prove. Theoretical physicists are dedicated to investigating these theories, one such theory is the Multiverse theory. The multiverse theory suggests that our universe might not be the only one but that there may be several entirely different universes distantly separated from ours and each other. On account of the difficulty in proving this the multiverse theory remains one of the most controversial theories in science. Often people have disproved scientific theories believing them to be imaginary due to the lack of physical evidence. Theories in physics take centuries to prove and require a deep understanding of the subject to determine how realistic and accurate the theory is. Due to the in-depth scientific understanding required to understand scientific language and theories it is likely that experts in the field would regard Natural Science highly.

Having an in-depth understanding of science may mean that society is more likely to trust the opinions of experts regarding knowledge in the Natural Sciences despite the lack of physical proof. This would be because previous scientific theories were originally believed to be unrealistic but proven over time true. For example, when Charles Darwin developed the theory of evolution many believed his theory was inaccurate because of their religion and the believability of other theories at the time. However, over time more evidence came to light that dismissed these theories and proved Darwin`s theory. As stated previously, for knowledge to be justified it must be consistent with previous data. The theory of Evolution along with other theories such as Einstein`s relativity has been proven as fact over time due to improvements in technology and previously uncharted information. Therefore, Natural Sciences may be regarded more highly by the majority in society if their trust in natural scientists has not decreased.

The justification regarding historical knowledge highly depends on the methodology used to obtain the information. Historians obtain information by viewing both primary and secondary sources. Unlike other areas of knowledge, there is no firsthand perception of events therefore these sources must be used to obtain knowledge. They often use cognitive tools such as imagination and perception to evaluate whether the information from the sources is logical or not. Due to the retrospective perception, historians can be easily fooled because they are not seeing things as they actually happen. This means they need to be able to trust their ways of knowing, namely; language, reason, and emotions to decide what is and isn`t true.

A primary source gives direct access to the subject of research ensuring that the material is untarnished and intact. This gives confidence to the researcher that the knowledge has not been misinterpreted making it more reliable. It can include government documents or maps, archaeologists often use primary sources in the knowledge they provide as they personally find the source. Being able to track and attribute the source back to where it originated gives more credibility to the provided knowledge. For example, a book like the Diary of Anne Frank would be considered a primary source as the information provided has not been interpreted and it is clear where it emerged from. For this reason, historians would regard historical knowledge more highly as there are no assumptions made before the knowledge is created.

However, primary sources are not readily available, original documents may be too old that they became unusable. For example, old documents from Taiwan are written in Pazeh, a language lost to time, affecting the validity of the knowledge as nobody would have enough context to understand it. Furthermore, relying on primary sources means relying on your personal knowledge and interpretation. This may not be sufficient in really extracting as much value as possible out of the original materials. This may make the knowledge regarded less highly as it is more difficult to understand.

Secondary sources provide second-hand information and commentary from other researchers analyzing, interpreting, and describing content from primary sources. One example of this may be student textbooks, these are specific to the needs of students making them more understandable. Despite being previously interpreted, the fact that secondary sources use other sources to support the knowledge ensures that the provided knowledge is justifiable making the knowledge be regarded more highly.

In conclusion, there is solid justification for regarding knowledge in the natural sciences more highly than other areas of knowledge, specifically history. The general consensus of society is that for knowledge to be regarded highly it must be irrefutable. However, for the knowledge to be considered irrefutable depends on the perspective of the person in question. Experts in this field would regard natural science knowledge more highly believing the knowledge is irrefutable having personally gone through the process of gathering it. Due to the education system, the majority of society may think in a similar way having a basic understanding of the methodology involved. Unlike history, knowledge in the natural sciences is based purely on the physical proof so cannot be easily disregarded. Its methodology involves a smaller number of people; therefore there is a smaller chance of the evidence being tampered with. It uses techniques such as microscopes to increase the accuracy and reliability of its knowledge ensuring the knowledge is factual. However, methodology in history involves a large amount of human interaction. The interpretations of historians are subtly based on their personal thoughts so provided evidence is never the exact same despite the researched secondary information. Ultimately one can conclude that people rely on an abundance of physical evidence when regarding knowledge as justifiable. Unlike many other areas of knowledge, evidence in the natural sciences has been researched and counter-proved to ensure the provided proof is solid.

So as to unravel the PT, it is important to describe the attributes of its keywords. Firstly, I am defining an ‘analogy’ as providing a figurative correlation of one circumstance to another similar circumstance. Its job is to help the cognizance of the circumstance at hand, by using a similar, yet alternate, perspective. The word ‘understanding’ is depicted as, seeing the planned significance and building up a cognizance regarding the matter, while ‘justification’ is demonstrating that something is sensible. I agree with the Prescribed title(PT) above greatly. The logical use of an analogy, which can be considered an example of some sort, would be to aid in the awareness of a situation by relating it to something more feasible based on the circumstance. Analogies are broadly perceived as assuming a significant heuristic job, as it helps to create a solution without denying the context. Analogies have been utilized, in a wide range of settings and with significant achievement, to create understanding and to define potential answers for issues. An analogical contention is an express portrayal of a type of analogical thinking that refers to acknowledged likenesses between two frameworks to help the end that some further similitude exists. When all is said in done (yet not constantly), such contentions have a place in the classification of ampliative thinking, since their decisions don’t follow with sureness but are just upheld with differing degrees of solidarity. Be that as it may, the best possible portrayal of analogical contentions is liable to discuss.

The first Aok I chose to use is that of history. Historical analogies can now and then be valuable when they are utilized to illuminate a discussion and give a group of people more analytical viewpoints on recent developments. They are used to delude individuals so they acknowledge an approach that might possibly have appeared decades prior in a totally different circumstance. Despite the fact that some authentic analogies sound persuasive, they are frequently inaccurate. In that capacity, depending on them to comprehend another circumstance could have lamentable outcomes. Various elements influence the quality of historical analogies: the importance of the possibilities, the sum and assortment of the models in the similarity, and the number of shared attributes among the things being analyzed. For instance, present China and Japan for sure offer a few likenesses to Britain and Germany before 1914, for example, close financial ties and security competitions(Wang). This parrel between two countries and their similarities only makes sense if there is an understanding of both circumstances. One would have to know the extent of conditions in Present China and Japan as well as conditions in Britain and Germany in 1914. On the contrary, a lot of people have the notion that history repeats itself. That being said, this logic can further justify a historical pattern. In that instance, the comparative analogy becomes a justification internally due to the preconceived notion that history repeats itself.

The next Aok I’m going to talk about is that of art. In art, analogies are utilized to clarify complicated and complex thoughts. Any two things that are similar in at least one different way allow for a multitude of perspectives due to the different elements of art. Since there are no definitive criteria for what art actually is, art can be compared to anything and still be considered an art analogy. The similarity is an essential component of imagery. Contrary to History, instead of comparing significant events in art, you compare visual things to real-life situations. For example, when I am walking through my high school and I see a picture of colorful rocks on top of a butterfly, I think about my heavy workload in the ib program but still being my own person underneath. This comparison in itself does not provide justification for why I have a heavy workload but aids my perspective by using a symbolic image. If you were to use another artistic component like a song, for example, different tones and sounds might remind you of a specific memory. If there are lyrics, those lyrics might justify the reasoning behind something by stating a solution or telling a story. Most songs, however, are written in the experience of the artist themselves so It does not directly correlate to my specific circumstance but provides a possible explanation. On the contrary, you can interpret an artwork by putting your scenario in the meaning. Going back to my example about the rocks on the butterfly, I can create my own justification for why my workload is so hard. I can conclude that the disregard for my individuality makes it harder for me to be successful because the rocks (i.e my workload) are always on top. I created justification by looking at it from a logical perspective.

That being said, the contrast between an understanding of something and a justification for something is that an understanding is normally flexible to a wide range of people, while the justification for something is a general set-in-stone answer. Scientifically, a justification would require extensive research following a guided structure to be approved by multiple people as an answer. Yet an analogy lacks the essential meticulousness that justification needs. It might get the job done as a premise to frame speculation but it is not accurate in terms of a scientific standpoint.