philosophy

You may write on any topic covered in the course. I will also provide topic suggestions early in the class to help you in choosing a topic. In each paper, you must minimally incorporate at least three reputable academic sources: these would include academic books or academic (“professional” or “scholarly”) journal articles. In this way, the papers are research based. However, the primary goal of the papers is to encourage the student to argue clearly, carefully, and compellingly for or against one of the positions brought up in the course. For example, if the student disagrees with Thomas Aquinas’ views on the soul, then the student must clearly, respectfully, carefully make a philosophical case against his views while incorporating the kinds of academic sources mentioned above to support one’s case. Or, for example, if the student agrees with Blaise Pascal’s Wager, one must similarly make a careful, respectful, rigorous, and well sourced argument in favor of this position. In short, the papers should be an argument defending your own philosophical views on a given topic, but this argument must be informed by, interact with, and cite relevant reputable sources.

Students will complete a major paper detailing his/her views related to the central disciplines of philosophy. The paper will display the student’s ability to articulate the central issues in each discipline of philosophy, and present their own views related to each topic. Every student in this course is a philosopher, and this paper is a chance for the student to detail his/her philosophic worldview. The paper requirements are as follows: The paper must be a minimum of 8 pages (excluding cover page and bibliography), double spaced, written in 12pt Times New Romans font, with standard 1” boarders. The paper must use proper APA formatting. The paper must reference at least 4 academic sources (scholarly books, articles, presentations, etc. Popular sources such as blogs, Wikipedia, and the like are not acceptable) beyond course texts in the paper.  The paper will include sections on the following: Metaphysics  Epistemology Philosophy of Religion or Aesthetics (pick one) Ethics or Political Philosophy (pick one) In each section, students will: Describe the central question(s) of each branch of philosophy. Engage the thought of at least 2 philosophers discussed in class. Enumerate their own answers to these questions. Each paper should have a brief introduction and conclusion (1 short paragraph).

Answer all of the following questions thoroughly. Remember that if you take direct quotations from any sources including yours books for class, you must do inline citations and a bibliographical entry on the Reference Page. 1)    A copy of the first five amendments of the United States Constitution are listed below the questions. Considering the 8 point definition of justice that we developed in relationship to The Republic of Plato, explain whether Plato would agree or disagree with each of the first 5 amendments and why. (10 points) 2)    According to Plato, what is the best form of society, who leads such a society, and upon what virtue is it run? Explain the four degenerate forms of society and upon what principle is each governed? Explain how each society deteriorates into the next worse society after it. Describe the soul of the Tyrant. Should this person ever be in charge of people? Why? Explain how the story of the tyrant is an answer to Glaucon and the myth of the ring of Gyges. (10 points) 3)    Explain Aristotle’s argument about time and how he undermines Plato’s Concept of God and creation. Next explain how Aristotle explains the nature of the universe we live in and why it exists as it does. (10 points)   Amendments 1-5* 1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 2) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 3) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized 5) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

1)On New Year’s Eve Sober Stan sneezes while at the wheel of a car and accidentally plows into a family of four, killing them all. On the following morning Drunk Dan, inebriated after a night of partying, loses control of his vehicle and plows into a different family of four, killing them all. Was Stan free to do otherwise? Is he morally responsible for the deaths? Was Drunk Dan free to do otherwise? Is he morally responsible for the deaths? Briefly explain hard determinism, soft determinism, and libertarianism, and show how proponents of each approach would answer all of the above questions. Along the way, you’ll want to be sure to explain the difference between compatibilism and incompatibilism. In the end, which approach seems strongest to you here? Why? Elaborate fully. 2)Zeus, Inc., a supplier of athletic shoes, operates its central manufacturing plant overseas. The bulk of its workforce is under age twelve. These employees receive the prevailing wage for that area ($1.50 for a fourteen-hour day). Unemployment is so high in the region that these children are sometimes the sole source of income for their families. Laws regulating workplace conditions and environmental impact are non-existent in that part of the world. Zeus is the largest vendor of athletic shoes in the U.S., in part because the company is able to sell its product at a far cheaper price than goods produced domestically. Is Zeus engaged in morally permissible behavior? Or is Zeus guilty of certain moral transgressions it should correct? Do U.S. consumers have any obligation to refrain from purchasing such products based on concerns regarding environmental impact, workers rights, and child labor? Or may they purchase these products in good conscience? Explain Mill’s greatest happiness principle and suggest how Mill would respond to these questions. Be sure to cite instances of both positive and negative utility. Next, explain Kant’s categorical imperative in detail and suggest how Kant would respond. Who makes the strongest case in the end? Why? Explain fully

This examination is worth 150 points. You should submit your work as a single file, with each response marked clearly. The format, otherwise, is up to you. Please aim to make your submission readable. The examination divides into three section, as follows. Section 1: Short Essays  Provide a brief response to each prompt. An outstanding response provides examples to illustrate abstract claims, and offers a thorough explanation of those claims. 1.In Chapter 2, Williams makes a distinction between “real goals, humans goals” and “low-level engagement goals.” Explain the distinction (in the abstract, and with examples) and why the distinction matters. 2.At the end of Chapter 6, Williams distinguishes between three kinds of attention: spotlight, starlight, and daylight. Explain the differences among these kinds of attention (in the abstract, and with examples), and why the distinctions matter. 3.In Chapter 12, Williams proposes, as one tactic for addressing the harms of persuasive design, that we rethink advertising. Explain why he thinks the current approach to advertising is unsatisfactory, what he thinks the purpose of advertising ought to be, and at least one idea he has for reorienting the way advertising works so that advertising is more ethical. 4.Select an idea from Williams’ book that you do not discuss elsewhere on this examination. Explain the idea, why you think the idea is interesting, and whether/why you find the idea plausible. Section 2: Extended Essay  Provide an essay that responds to the each component of the following prompt.  Williams claims that there is a “deep misalignment between the goals we have for ourselves and the goals our technologies have for us” (page 9). He goes on to argue, in subsequent chapters, that this misalignment is dangerous. 1.What is his argument for thinking that the misalignment is dangerous? (Note: This is not asking you to give his argument for thinking that the misalignment exists.) Be sure to clearly identify the main premises of William’s argument, and to provide evidence relevant to supporting each of those premises. 2.Develop an objection to the claim that the misalignment of goals is dangerous. The objection should take the form of a concise argument with clearly discernible premises, and you should provide supporting evidence for each premise of the argument. 3.Develop a reply, on behalf of Williams, to the objection you formulated. The reply should take the form of a concise argument that has, at its conclusion, the denial of one of the central premises in the argument for the objection, and it should provide supporting evidence for each premise of this argument. Section 3: Reflection Essay  This course has five objectives: 1.Recognize philosophical problems, issues, and questions about technology. 2.Understand philosophical methodology. 3.Know important philosophical arguments, objections, and positions. 4.Construct and evaluate positions and objections. 5.Discuss with others, in a charitable and reason-driven manner, significant concerns about how technology affects our lives. Discuss how well you have achieved three of these objectives. Your discussion should mention specifics of your performance in the course.

Question: Is building a wall on the US/Mexico border, immoral? How would the three theories respond to that?  Three theories being: Mill’s Utilitarianism, Kant’s Deontology and Moral Nihilism Each theory needs to be defined, applied to the question, and the 2nd and 3rd theories need to ne compared to the first.

This paper requires you to look at either a historical person or fictional character to evaluate, whom according to one of the theories we have read would be a “bad person.” Most people would agree that Hitler was a “bad” person. My point is that you ought not pick people whom others regard as bad, but whom others regard as good. For example, most people think that Cesar Chavez, or Gandhi was a good person, given their contributions to the world. People also think Batman, and Spiderman are “good.” But in thinking about theories we have read in example to name a few: Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, Deontology, Social Contract, etc. whom is valued or honored by society but would be “bad” according to a specific Philosophical theory? Be sure to pick only one historical or fictional character to analyze and one Philosophical theory to analyze. You only have 5 pages to make your point, so to go into depth requires analysis and research of both philosophical theory and historical and fictional character. We will examine historically significant ethical/moral theorists: Choose one person to evaluate (1500 words minimum) on a person (fictional or historical) who you believe to be a bad person based on that philosopher’s views.  Answer two questions:  What is the key parts of the philosopher’s moral theory that is relevant to your analysis?  Why is this person bad on that moral theory?

This examination is worth 150 points. You should submit your work as a single file, with each response marked clearly. The format, otherwise, is up to you. Please aim to make your submission readable. The examination divides into three section, as follows. Section 1: Short Essays  Provide a brief response to each prompt. An outstanding response provides examples to illustrate abstract claims, and offers a thorough explanation of those claims. 1.In Chapter 2, Williams makes a distinction between “real goals, humans goals” and “low-level engagement goals.” Explain the distinction (in the abstract, and with examples) and why the distinction matters. 2.At the end of Chapter 6, Williams distinguishes between three kinds of attention: spotlight, starlight, and daylight. Explain the differences among these kinds of attention (in the abstract, and with examples), and why the distinctions matter. 3.In Chapter 12, Williams proposes, as one tactic for addressing the harms of persuasive design, that we rethink advertising. Explain why he thinks the current approach to advertising is unsatisfactory, what he thinks the purpose of advertising ought to be, and at least one idea he has for reorienting the way advertising works so that advertising is more ethical. 4.Select an idea from Williams’ book that you do not discuss elsewhere on this examination. Explain the idea, why you think the idea is interesting, and whether/why you find the idea plausible. Section 2: Extended Essay  Provide an essay that responds to the each component of the following prompt.  Williams claims that there is a “deep misalignment between the goals we have for ourselves and the goals our technologies have for us” (page 9). He goes on to argue, in subsequent chapters, that this misalignment is dangerous. 1.What is his argument for thinking that the misalignment is dangerous? (Note: This is not asking you to give his argument for thinking that the misalignment exists.) Be sure to clearly identify the main premises of William’s argument, and to provide evidence relevant to supporting each of those premises. 2.Develop an objection to the claim that the misalignment of goals is dangerous. The objection should take the form of a concise argument with clearly discernible premises, and you should provide supporting evidence for each premise of the argument. 3.Develop a reply, on behalf of Williams, to the objection you formulated. The reply should take the form of a concise argument that has, at its conclusion, the denial of one of the central premises in the argument for the objection, and it should provide supporting evidence for each premise of this argument. Section 3: Reflection Essay  This course has five objectives: 1.Recognize philosophical problems, issues, and questions about technology. 2.Understand philosophical methodology. 3.Know important philosophical arguments, objections, and positions. 4.Construct and evaluate positions and objections. 5.Discuss with others, in a charitable and reason-driven manner, significant concerns about how technology affects our lives. Discuss how well you have achieved three of these objectives. Your discussion should mention specifics of your performance in the course.

Picking a position on one of the topics discussed and stating it as your thesis; Presenting an argument for your thesis (could be one that has been discussed in class) (between 250-500 words); Presenting a considered objection to your argument (could be one that has been discussed in class) (between 250-500 words); i) ii) iv) Presenting a response to the considered objection (could be one that has been discussed in class) (between 250-500 words); and v) Having an original contribution in your your paper. An original contribution consists of giving an argument, objection, and/or rebuttal that you have come up with on your own vi) Your paper will be evaluated on the basis of clarity, how strong the argument, objections, and responses are, and the quality of your original contribution. When the paper shows excellent clarity, structure, and understanding of the material, but poor original contribution, then the student would get at most a B.

Write a 4-pages paper in response to the following prompt.        In the first and second Meditations, Descartes develops and deploys a method, the “method of doubt”, by which we can discover those beliefs that are absolutely certain. What is this method of doubt? What are the assumptions of this method (about the nature of belief, justification of belief, and certainty)? And what are the details of the method itself? That is, generally, what are the steps that one follows in executing it? What are the three stages of skeptical doubt that Descartes goes through in the execution of this method in the first Meditation? What makes the final stage of doubt the one that Descartes settles with, that is, what does it achieve that the other two stages fail to achieve? And why could one not just object to the final stage of doubt by denying that there is an all-powerful deceiver? What misunderstanding of the method of doubt does objection rests upon? Finally, what is the one belief, discovered at the beginning of the second meditation, that is immune to the evil deceiver doubt? What makes it immune to this doubt? And what grounds the certainty that we enjoy in it?