philosophy

There are 4 questions to be answered. Each question needs to. be 2 pages. Format is Times New Roman, 12 font, double spaced. Here are the questions. 1. What is the good will? Why is it alone “good in itself” according to Kant? What is the connection between persons being able to have the good will and persons having value?          2. Take up either formulation of the CI test, the universal law formulation or the never treat persons merely as means formulation, describe what it is supposed to do, and criticize it.                                                  3. Describe Sartre’s view of moral goodness. Why does he think this view is right, or plausible? Give a criticism of this view. 4. Describe Singer’s view of obligation. Say how it is rooted in utilitarianism. How does this view get applied to famine relief in his view, and what follows?

Write a paper arguing why drugs should or should not be legalized in America (you can choose whatever view you prefer but I personally believe they shouldn’t (other than marijuana). Doesn’t have to be too formal at all just try and argue/display the different topics in the word document the professor talks about.

Moore & Parker (2017) advise students to examine a passage to see if it is actually a viable argument, and if it contains premises and a conclusion that supports or demonstrates a claim. (p. 51) Sometimes a passage in question is a report, description, or explanation—or some other form of “window dressing.”   Find an example of such a passage in your own life (that someone has given you, or you used) or in an advertisement or news article. Why is the passage not an argument? How might you reconstruct it to be an argument?

Make sure your name is at the top of the paper. You must use at least 3 resources (You can use other books, online resources, articles, DVDs/CDs, etc.) Cite your sources using MLA format and include a reference page. Absolutely No Plagiarism! If you need to quote an author, reference it.  All resources, used in your essay, must be documented. You will lose points, up to and including a failing grade, if this is not done. Single-spaced. (Double-spaced assignments will NOT be accepted) 12-point font in either Calibri or Arial font. The margins must be 1 inch on all sides. Must be at least 3-full pages in length, and no more than 4-full pages in length. If your essay does not meet this requirement, it will result in a point deduction, up to and including, a failing grade. *Please note that your reference page does not count towards your page requirements. When you upload your assignment, your file name must be: “Your Last Name, Your First Name_Yogic Philosophy Essay“. Essays not labeled correctly, will NOT be accepted. (Ex. Jerard, Paul_Yogic Philosophy Essay).

How does Spinoza handle the matter of free will? What sort of freedom can humans aspire toon Spinoza’s view? What is your view of free will? Are we indeed completely free or limited? 300 words or more

refer to at least three authors from reputable sources in your analysis. If using direct quotes please include page numbers, as well as complete citation details. Any referencing style is accepted, but it needs to be consistent. you should always define the terms, concepts. In this case, you would need to define what you mean by ‘violence ‘, ‘non-violence’, ‘aggressive’.  You would need to include what you understand by ‘nature.’ Put forward your position, give adequate reasons to justify your position.

4 to 5 large paragraphs about 3 pages answering and following the prompt I require a great paper let me know if you need any further instructions pleasure doing business

Describe and explain at least four unique characteristics of virtue, according to Aristotle. Each characteristic should include one short quotation from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Each quotation should be no more than one sentence. Also, each characteristic should be supported by a valid or strong argument( your argument, not Aristotle). If you choose to include secondary sources, you may use: the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the chapter on Aristotle by Samuel Stumpf and James Fieser and The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. No other secondary sources may be used. You should primarily focus on Aristotle’s text. All sources should be cited. All essays must be formatted properly.

Please answer your assigned question as thoroughly as you can. A good SW will almost never be shorter than half a page and they will usually be about a page long. No heading other than the number of the question that you’re answering is necessary or useful. You need not and should not paste the question onto the page. These are supposed to be thoughtful responses to course material, not final term papers. They should be clear and not ornamented with English-paper nonsense. Just come to the point and stick to it. Tell me what it is to have the right to do something. Be sure not to focus on some specific example, and don’t make the mistake of thinking that having the right to do something is being able to do it — we aren’t able to do plenty of things we have the right to do, and we don’t have the right to do plenty of things that we’re able to do. Justify your answer. When Jefferson says that “we hold these truths to be self-evident”, what does he mean by ‘self-evident’? He does not mean “obvious”. (Hint: calculus is also “self-evident” in the same sense.) Why, according to Paine, do governments exist? Explain his view as deeply as you can. Those “truths” that Jefferson says are self-evident: are they true? If they’re mostly true but one of them is false, explain why that one’s false. If they’re mostly false but one of them is true, explain why that one’s true. If they’re all true, why? If they’re all false, why?

You must do two things. First, you will need to post a substantive response to any one (or more) of the open-answer questions provided below of this week (week 3)(150 words). Second, you must provide critical feedback to at least two of your peers this week in 48 hours.(each 75 words, total 150 words)   Questions For This Discussion Forum: (1) What, if anything, would be wrong in simply saying that anything counts as art so long as this is what was intended by the creator of the artefact in question? (2) What is the institutional account of art? Describe the dilemma that Wollheim’s poses for this view. Is it effective? (3) What is the five-part account of aesthetic experience? What, if anything, is problematic about it? (4) What is the relationship between aesthetic judgement and aesthetic experience? (5) Can two identical objects differ in their aesthetic properties? (6) Can one properly form one’s aesthetic judgements via testimony from aesthetic experts?