Categories
Philosophy

Living philosophy: a historical introduction to philosophical ideas, vaughn, third edition,2021

4 parts to the short essay! read each part and answer carefully. Living Philosophy: A Historical Introduction to Philosophical Ideas, Vaughn, Third Edition,2021

Categories
Philosophy

In addition to the final paper, students will be tasked with creating a short (~10min) presentation giving their classmates understanding of what was studied, how it was analyzed, and what conclusions were drawn.

*Prior paper is attatched on files*
In the final paper, students are tasked with the job of taking one of their prior short papers, expanding on this project, and reaching a conclusive judgment about a specific ethical case study.
This paper should accomplish the following objectives:
1) A solid revision of your original case study assignment, resolving the shortcoming s of the original project. This can include a more robust account of the case study, refinement of the theoretical approach, and/or more careful appreciation of how to apply the theory to the case
2) A new theoretical discussion which both describes an additional ethical theory, and brings this into conversation with the original case study
3) A penultimate section in which students provide clear judgments about why one ethical approach is able to provide a more substantive, complete, or useful reading of the case study. This section should demonstrate a high-level and sophisticated account of the strengths a limits of each of these ethical approaches, and why the chosen case study allows us to better understand the conflict between these ethical theories
In addition to the final paper, students will be tasked with creating a short (~10min) presentation giving their classmates understanding of what was studied, how it was analyzed, and what conclusions were drawn. While there are no formal time minimums, for the sake of the class presentations will be cutoff if they exceed 15 minutes. This presentation will account for 25% of the grade for the final assignment.

Categories
Philosophy

Explain the allegory of the cave using the 4 levels of cognitive activity.

1. Explain the Allegory of the Cave using the 4 levels of cognitive activity. This should be a detailed response. Include what the 4 levels are, when the prisoner is in each level, and what occurs. (at least 4 sentences)
2. Explain Plato’s notion of truth. In your response, include how the physical world leads us to truth. Then, explain where we can find truth. ( at least 4 sentences)
3. To what extent, if any, do you agree with Plato’s notion of truth? Explain your reasoning. (10 sentence minimum)

Categories
Philosophy

All of the material for the assignment below.

Please follow all instructions and meet the criteria i need good grade.
Below is link to google doc of assignment instructions please use this
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xx2pDtEvBYUF2tMcEVMaKjuLWEpyh7ytH05gSjabmuc/edit?usp=sharing
ALL of the material for the assignment below.
Google Slides:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ayPOZ0muJjxL_NnIqpW2H1ktJR58hf2g7R2cKU9b1fc/edit#slide=id.p
Video:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3bdsjrmjtlpt3mk/VIDEO%20-%20Cosmological%20Argument.MTS?dl=0
Audio:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/joj8bcur57xpq6j/AUDIO%20-%20The%20Cosmological%20Argument.m4a?dl=0

Categories
Philosophy

Consult the essay writing resources for more help on structuring an argumentative paper.

Read the attached New York Times article “A $30 Alarm Can Stop a Silent Killer. Why Many Hotels Don’t Install Them.” Download “A $30 Alarm Can Stop a Silent Killer. Why Many Hotels Don’t Install Them.”and then answer the following question: Given the events described in this article, is it ethically justifiable for hotels to refuse to install carbon monoxide detectors? Why or why not?
To make your argument you should identify the ethical issues involved, and compare how two different moral theories from Chapter 2 would apply. The paper should argue for the view (i.e. the theory) that you find most convincing. Essays should aim to be between ~750 to 850 (maximum) words. Do not use point form. Please save your document as a WORD file. No outside sources should be used for this assignment. Use only the textbook as a source and paraphrase in your own words. Cite the idea/concept/theory etc. that you are paraphrasing by referring to the last name of the author and the page number. For example: “Morality can be understood as providing guidance for both our interactions with others (the narrow sense) and the way that we live (the broad sense).” (Shaw, p. 19).
Begin with a clear thesis that indicates what the paper will argue and how the argument will be made. Consult the Essay Writing Resources for more help on structuring an argumentative paper.
Be sure to support your argument with your own claims, rather than just repeating the claims of the theory you agree with. For example, you don’t want to argue that “A Utilitarian says X, Y and Z and I agree with it because X, Y, and Z.”
You will need to briefly describe or explain each theory and demonstrate understanding by applying each correctly to the case.
Although you should refer briefly to the article, you need not describe all the details. The assignment is not to discuss the specifics of the cases described, but rather to discuss the ethical issues involved.

Categories
Philosophy

Also make sure you right what they teach you about the world during this time and what they do and don’t have in common.

Check attachments.
Also make sure you right what they teach you about the world during this time and what they do and don’t have in common.

Categories
Philosophy

Why couldn’t the problem arise if one of the properties were removed?

Take-Home Paper Assignment 1
I. Please answer any one of the following paper topics/questions. If you want to write about any other topic/question listed below, you must clear it with me two weeks before the writing assignment is due.
1. Explain, reconstruct, and evaluate the first version of the Argument from Evil discussed by Sober. Make sure your paper minimally addresses such questions as (a) why does the problem of evil arise only with a conception of the 3O God? Why couldn’t the problem arise if one of the properties were removed? (This is part of the explanation); (b) What is a theodicy and how is it supposed to work as an objection to the argument from evil? (c) Do you ultimately think that the theodicy attempt to refute the problem of evil is successful? Use Sober’s discussion in the evaluation process. Use plenty of concrete examples!
2. Explain, reconstruct, and evaluate Pascal’s argument for why, even in the absence of knowledge, one should believe that God exists. Your paper should minimally discuss (a) the distinction between evidential and prudential reasons for belief and whether belief acquisition can be successful on prudential basis alone; (b) Pascal’s actual argument for why is it prudentially better to believe in God than not (the detailed gambling process); and (c) some of the assumptions in Pascal’s argument. Use plenty of concrete examples!
Your papers must be 5-6 pages long Word Documents (1250-1500 words), 12” font, typed, double spaced, with 1”margings all around, and properly footnoted.[1]You must turn in an electronic copy on Blackboard by midnight, October 11. (Rough publishs are welcome on first-come, first-serve basis so the sooner you send me one, the better the chance you will get revision suggestions. Also, I can only receive Word documents). Late papers will suffer the penalty of a reduced grade determined by me. All papers will be checked for possible plagiarism through SafeAssign, and any found to be in violation will be dealt according to the administrative guidelines outlined in the Students’ Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. NOTE: You are allowed to use only your textbook for this class as a source. No other sources are acceptable.
[1] Sober, Elliott. Core Questions In Philosophy. New York: Pearson, 2013, p. 73.

Categories
Philosophy

You will not receive full credit if the text is not cited frequently in your papers.

First, what are the main moral positions on health care, as outlined by Vaughn in our textbook? Which view do you feel fits best with your own view and why?
Next, provide an outline of Smart’s views on spare organ donation? Make sure to explain DJC and rectifacory justice, as described by Smart What are some of the arguments and reasons in the reading that claim preferential treatment for non-drinkers and non-smokers would act as a kind of punishment or punitive consequence for those who do drink or smoke? How does Smart argue that preferential treatment would not be a type of punishment, and do you agree?
Lastly, explain the argument concerning spare organ donation (specifically liver transplants for alcoholics) laid out by Cohen and his co-authors? Do you agree with their reasoning, and if so, why? If not, why not? Do you think that Cohen or Smart have the better argument? Provide your own views for what you think is the most moral decision to make when dealing with the dilemma of organ donation.
The papers need to be in MLA format and be at least 3 pages in length (around 900-1,000 words). Always cite passages from the reading, when writing these assignments. You will not receive full credit if the text is not cited frequently in your papers. The purpose of the writing assignments is to show that you are doing the readings and have a clear understanding of each side of the arguments being presented, as well as demonstrating that you are developing your own thoughtful analysis of the topics. Papers submitted late will have 5 points deducted per day. Talk to me immediately, if you are having trouble with your papers.

Categories
Philosophy

(that is: how does the natural law tradition concretely inform the ethics of mlk jr?)

Relate MLK Jr’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail to the natural law tradition as espoused by thinkers like Socrates and Aristotle. (That is: how does the natural law tradition concretely inform the ethics of MLK Jr?)

Categories
Philosophy

What are the logical flaws inherent to them (be specific!)?”

at least 3 full paragraphs, responses should include “What merit do these arguments have? What are the logical flaws inherent to them (be specific!)?”