How to Write a Good Justification Essay A justification essay is a common assignment at high school and college.
References and Further Reading 1. Knowledge and Justification The foundationalist attempts to answer the question: This question assumes a prior grasp of the concepts of knowledge and justification. Before the development of externalist theories of knowledge see entry on internalism and externalism in epistemology it was assumed that knowledge required justification.
On a standard conception of knowledge, knowledge was justified true belief. Thus investigation on foundationalism focused on the structural conditions for justification. The following essay discusses foundationalism in terms of justification see BonJour for a defense of the claim that knowledge requires justification.
Where the distinction between justification and knowledge is relevant for example, weak foundationalismthis article will observe it. What is it for a belief to be justified?
Alvin Plantinga observes that the notion of justification is heavily steeped in deontological terms, terms like rightness, obligation, and duty. A belief is justified for a person if and only if the person is right to believe it or the subject has fulfilled her intellectual duties relating to the belief.
Most accounts of justification assume some form of epistemic internalism. Externalists have a much easier time addressing concerns over foundationalism. Arguments for Foundationalism This section discusses prominent arguments for a general type of foundationalism. Section 4on varieties of foundationalism, discusses more specific arguments aimed to defend a particular species of foundationalism.
The Regress Argument The epistemic regress problem has a long history. In the 20th century the regress problem has received new life in the development of the coherentist and infinitist options see BonJour and Kleinrespectively.
To appreciate the regress problem begin with the thought that the best way to have a good reason for some claim is to have an argument from which the claim follows.
Thus one possesses good reason to believe p when it follows from the premises q and r. But then we must inquire about the justification for believing the premises.
Does one have a good argument for the premises? Then we can inquire about the justification for those premises. Does one have an argument for those claims? If not, then it appears one lacks a good reason for the original claim because the original claim is ultimately based on claims for which no reason is offered.
If one does have an argument for those premises then either one will continue to trace out the chain of arguments to some premises for which no further reason is offered or one will trace out the chain of arguments until one loops back to the original claims or one will continue to trace out the arguments without end.
We can then begin to see the significance of the regress problem: Does one eventually come back to premises that appeared in earlier arguments or does one eventually come to some ultimate premises, premises that support other claims but do not themselves require any additional support?
Skepticism aside, the options in the regress problem are known as foundationalism, coherentism, and infinitism. Foundationalists maintain that there are some ultimate premises, premises that provide good reasons for other claims but themselves do not require additional reasons.
These ultimate premises are the proper stopping points in the regress argument. Foundationalists hold that the other options for ending the regress are deeply problematic and that consequently there must be basic beliefs.
Coherentists and infinitists deny that there are any ultimate premises. A simple form of coherentism holds that the arguments for any claim will eventually loop back to the original claim itself. As long as the circle of justifications is large enough it is rationally acceptable. Infinitists as well as coherentists claim that the foundationalist options land in arbitrary premises, premises that are alleged to support other claims but themselves lack reasons.
Against the coherentist, infinitists claim that it simply endorses circular reasoning: Positively, infinitists maintain that possessing a good reason for a claim requires that it be supported by an infinite string of non-repeating reasons see Klein Foundationalists use the regress argument to set up the alternative epistemological positions and then proceed to knock down these positions.
Foundationalists argue against infinitism that we never possess an infinite chain of non-repeating reasons. At best when we consider the justification for some claim we are able to carry this justification out several steps but we never come close to anything resembling an unending chain of justifications.
For this criticism and others of infinitism see Fumerton 'The doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas: it bears a world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of saving grace This is still the best text book on the subject, from the standpoint of the classic covenant theology.'.
The Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) is the annual presentation to the Congress that justifies the entire Foreign Operations Budget Request and reflects the continuing process to provide improved strategic focus, data quality, and information on topics of greater Congressional interest.
Justification reports recommend changes in business policies or procedures. They provide evidence justifying a course of action that solves a .
Jun 13, · Format the business report as formally as possible, creating a table of contents to make it easy to reference and flip through your report. Include all relevant sections, especially the executive summary and conclusions%(67).
To download as a single PDF click here ( pages, MB). The Congressional Justification of Appropriations (CJ) reflects the President's Budget request for the Department of the Treasury, and is prepared in accordance with OMB Circular A In Christian theology, justification is God's act of removing the guilt and penalty of sin while at the same time making a sinner righteous through Christ's atoning sacrifice..
The means of justification is an area of significant difference among Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. In Lutheranism and Calvinism, righteousness from God is viewed as being credited to the sinner's account.