Many by defining the key terms of the

Many people believe that a rich idea, a rich belief or
a strong knowledge can never be opposed to, as it becomes a fixed knowledge.
However, many of those people suggest that a robust knowledge requires to both
consensus and disagreement. Here in my essay I will first start off by defining
the key terms of the prescribed title chosen: a robust knowledge is a strong
knowledge, as solid statement. Consensus means a general agreement and for
disagreement, refers to a lack of approval. Essentially the question asks what
would be the claims that support the statement whether a strong knowledge
(robust) do require to be consensus or disagreed with, this being answered
referring to two areas of knowledge such as: Ethics and Human sciences to
support the answer. This essay will focus on how ethics and human sciences link
to the statement, as a source of reliability, not forgetting including emotions
and reasoning as the ways of knowing as an addition to support my answer and  to understand the conclusion easier.

If a robust knowledge cannot be debatable, then it is
not a robust knowledge at all, as the statement remains a fact that cannot be
unchanged, whereas the characteristics of a robust knowledge is a strong
knowledge that requires to be toughly opposed but also supported. Why is it
believed so? Because, having History or Natural Sciences as an example, if
there were not any disagreements or agreements where historians or scientists
have different theories on that particular statement, then one can believe that
nothing in History or Natural Science would be artless, unprompted or
different. Since everything would become one-sided, biased, prejudiced with a
single truth or theory, typically just the same and no difference in the
History kind. For example, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, the two of the
greatest black activist icons that fought against the Black segregation and
disfranchisement. With the strong argument that Martin Luther King strategy of
non-violence resistance for the discrimination against the Black Americans was
way better off than Malcolm X tactic to respond to discrimination by fighting
violently for segregation, “by any means necessary”, yet, it does not mean that
one person would agree with this strong awareness, and others would strongly
disagree and support Malcolm X’s ferocious rebellion strategy against segregation
better than the Martin Luther King’s humble way.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Human Sciences can be relied to be a robust knowledge.
As many agree and disagree with different theories of the studies psychologist
and doctor’s gather, such as the continuous debatable dialogue concerning
emotions and reasons. Many studies have shown emotions and reasons somehow influence
decision-making. Questions such as to what extent do our emotions influence our
reasoning? How do feelings justify decision-making? What role do emotions play in
the role quest for knowledge? “Deep thinking is attainable by only
a man of deep feeling”, said Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Coleridge an English poet,
philosopher and thereon who believed that moral reasoning could only be
attainable by one’s feelings.  Emotions
can twist one person’s attempt to justify their reasoning. Relying to one
study, the Damasio theory, developed by a Portuguese-American neuroscientist,
that we tend to rely on our emotions to take the wheel when it comes to
reasoning, when our brain faces difficulties to think wisely or the thoughts
are unclear, vague. For example, in an office, an employer might have been
missing days of work due to an accident, the logic reason of the manager would
be to fire the employer, however emotions can make you feel sympathy and
disrupt your reasoning for the good.

However, Plato disagree with Damasio’s theory,
claiming that emotions in the heat of the moment can lead us into making the
wrong decisions, due to the reasoning that was affected by our current emotions.
He describes emotions and reasoning to be two horses that are pulled in the
opposite directions of each other. What Plato is trying to say is, if for
example, there’s an argument that is starting to hit up for the worse, then one
can say things they did not mean but hurt the other person’s feelings.

The strong belief that reasoning can be influenced by emotions
has it claims and counter-claims that strongly with reliable theories
contradict each other.

 

Ethics do contain robust knowledge. Ethics refers to the
discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong (Britannica).  “Everything has been figured out, except how
live.” Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher acclaiming the freedom of the
individual human being. Yet insinuates that we are ignorant, oblivious and
unaware of what we have in front of us. Whereas we live in a society where the
will to live have disappeared and only man exist, we live to live but find no
meaning into it, he believes man has ignored or is oblivious of the meaning of
life and its importance. In terms of ethics, taking euthanasia as a robust
knowledge as an example requires a consensus and a disagreement, to whether it
is ethical  to take away your life and
right to make it legal elsewhere. When we debate about ethics, normally there a
typical claims that we generally commonly agree as a moral principle and try
make up for the obvious, for example, it is wrong to steal, if one steals,
therefore it was an immoral act. Basically we tend to argue about ethical
questions, and that brings into questions such as, does our indigenous
knowledge affect our moral beliefs? Is it ethical to rely our reasoning due to
our emotions? This were euthanasia comes in. “In quixotically trying to conquer
death doctors all too frequently do no good for their patients’ “ease” but at
the same time they do harm instead by prolonging and even magnifying patients’
dis-ease.”, Doctor (good reads, 1991)Kevorkian has helped
more than a dozen terminally-ill people kill themselves. As a result,
physician-assisted suicide has once again become a red-hot debate, with the
inventor of the “suicide machine” at the centre. “We
must be willing to accept the bitter truth that, in the end, we may have to
become a burden to those who love us. But it is necessary that we face this
also. The full acceptance of our abjection and uselessness is the virtue that
can make us and others rich in the grace of God. It takes heroic charity and
humility to let others sustain us when we are absolutely incapable of
sustaining ourselves. We cannot suffer well unless we see Christ everywhere,
both in suffering and in the charity of those who come to the aid of our
affliction.”

? Thomas Merton, No Man Is an Island

The claim that human beings are universally selfish is
brought up by Merton, however Doctor Kevorkian agrees with the statement that
euthanasia should be legal, was he includes his reasoning before his feelings,
and starts off by thinking about the person that wants to end their life, as
they have terminal illness and endure severe pain and see no point in fight the
undefeatable. Whereas Merton puts his feelings and his beliefs forward, where
he’s more general on the topic and thinks widely of his surrounding, the
society in which he lives in and sticks to there might be wrong in ending lives
legally.

The robust here is legalizing euthanasia has its
consensus and disagreements. Doctor Kevorkian supports the notion of suicide as
it is to end one’s suffering, as he also believes it is our right to, when to
die, to have control over our own lives. Especially If we endure our who lives
a terminal illness that are incurable, euthanasia being beneficial putting an
end to the suffering. But Sartre claims humans misuse the opportunity we have
in our lives by outing it to waste by killing ourselves. That hope has been
lost. Another example treating different races discriminatorily could be
ethical to some and unethical to the others, depending on how their emotions
may affect or influence their moral reasoning.

 

In conclusion, human sciences and ethics can prove
that a robust knowledge does require an agreement as well as contradictions to
it. Ethical views and human sciences views proves that a solid argument have be
two-sided. The human sciences claiming that emotions influences our reasoning
and then contradict by other certified sources that are reliable, claiming that
emotions and reasoning are two opposites, that are diverged and have no link.
Then the ethic views that strongly believe euthanasia is beneficial to the
society, as a means to end pain and reduce the population, whereas other
philosophers contradicting the statement and mentioning euthanasia is waste and
ruins the future generations, not forgetting the religious beliefs that are
obstructed.