philosophy

ASSIGNMENT: After a careful reading of the arguments for and against reproductive cloning (RC), please try to give your view on the subject. Do you support RC or not? What arguments do you find persuasive or not persuasive and why? If you are not able to make up your mind, just describe your current thoughts on the issue: what makes sense, what doesn’t, which way you are leaning and why, which arguments you like so far and why, etc. LINKS: https://iep.utm.edu/cloning/ https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Cloning-Fact-Sheet VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tELZEPcgKkE STUDY QUESTIONS: What is cloning? What are the three types of cloning? Be sure to note one crucial issue that comes up a few times in the course of the reading, namely, the fallacy of genetic determination or the “view that a person’s genes are the sole determining factor of her behavior and physical appearance; essentially, that a person’s identity is solely determined by her genetic constitution. If a person were to believe that genetic determinism is true, then it follows that she believes that a cloned person would be psychologically identical with her genetic predecessor because they are (almost) genetically identical” (see section 2 of the reading). This view is false since an individual is not reducible to his or her genetics: environment also plays a role in the formation of individuality. Nonetheless, this fallacy is often brought up in discussions of cloning and plays a crucial role in how people evaluate various dilemmas. What are the arguments for and against reproductive cloning? Just be sure to know the central arguments that are listed in the menu of the IEP overview. You don’t have to know all the objections to the central arguments. How can we apply utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, and natural law theory to this issue? Here are some quick notes: ? Utilitarianism can certainly be applied in therapeutic cloning since here we are investigating what therapies might come from cloning, i.e., how much pleasure might come from new discoveries and how much pain might be avoided. You will also see that many of the issues that fall under reproductive cloning have to do with how much the clone might suffer, how much pleasure might be brought to those who long to see a loved one cloned, how much we might all benefit – or not benefit – if we could clone certain good or evil people, etc. Just think about consequences for pain and pleasure as you read and how the greatest Happiness Principle might be applied. ?  Kant’s emphasis on dignity and autonomy, as you will see, comes up quite a bit in cloning. For example, would people expect certain things of clones thereby violating their right to an autonomous and open future? Wouldn’t such expectations lead many cloned humans to be seen as commodities? Wouldn’t many children become designer babies to be made in a way that reflects the wealthy and privileged background of the parents? In all these cases we might fear that clones might be seen as a means to an end only thus violating the second categorical imperative. ?  The development of virtue can be easily related to these concerns as well: what kind of people might we become if we clone humans? People, as we just noted, might expect certain things of clones thereby violating their right to an open future. Wouldn’t people develop vicious character traits that led them to see others as commodities, replacements, and so on? Some people who think cloning would be a matter of playing God might add that cloning would make us excessive in many ways – perhaps in our desire for power and control over life – and deficient in others, such as humility, reverence, awe, and so on. ?  Lastly, many think cloning is profoundly unnatural in many ways. Thus natural law theory can come in at this point. Those who claim we shouldn’t be playing God will obviously employ a more religiously motivated natural law approach. But objections about cloning not being natural need not be related to religion: they can simply revolved around the dangers involved in going against certain natural processes. And be sure to note that natural rights, which are so important in natural law theory, can have an important role to play as well and can link nicely to Kant’s emphasis on autonomy. So be on the lookout for ways in which these suggestions can be connected to the reading.

Explain whether we have an ethical obligation to forgive ethical harm done to us, using at least one of the ethical theories. Under what circumstances is forgiveness required, if ever? Is it a supererogatory (ethically good but beyond requirement) obligation? Does it differ if we forgive harm done to others? Also?I need the outline.

What is violence? Do you think self-defense is violent? Why or why not? Use at least one of the readings to back up your answer.

This is the essay prompt: Identify at least one objection that is raised to motivate the phenomenology or existentialism of one of the thinkers in the course. Provide a sufficient account of the targeted position to clarify the point of objection. Develop a sufficient account of the objectors position to clarify the role played by the objection in the development of their thought. Assess the adequacy of one of the above positions I would like the topic to be centred on Heidegger’s rejection of humanism (Letter on Humanism), which Sartre says he is (Existentialism is a Humanism).

Socrates is famous for saying that “an unexamined life is no life for a human being to live.” What does he mean by this? What’s so valuable about the examining of one’s life? Please reply, and respond to at least two classmates for full credit.

Topic: Does the use of Social Media tend to improve or harm relations?” Attached is the rubric, the example copy of the essay due and the essay I used in my previous assignment. If you have any questions, please let me know.

The paper is supposed to expound the meaning of rationalism and empiricism as well as their relationships with related conceptions of the nature of reality. Please do not write too professional. Please just use the information from the powerpoint i give you, you do not have to use the sources on internet.

The paper is supposed to expound the meaning of rationalism and empiricism as well as their relationships with related conceptions of the nature of reality. Please do not write too professional. Please just use the information from the powerpoint i give you, you do not have to use the sources on internet.

Introduction to Philosophy Final Paper Prompt        Due Monday January 4th by 4:00 PM EST For your final paper, pick one of the following questions related to the different philosophers we have been discussing the past 4 weeks: 1.      Compare Plato’s use of similes to show that there are levels of knowledge with John Stuart Mill’s more “ordinary” argument regarding levels of knowledge in judgments of quality. Which approach seems most compelling, if does? Explain. 2.      Some philosophers doubt that we really do have a clear and distinct (precise) idea of God. Reflect on the idea of God. Is it clear and distinct? Do you have a clear and distinct idea of perfection—in beings or automobiles or marriages or anything? Does Descartes’ argument? 3.      Do you think morality must disappear if everything we do can be explained according to scientific laws and patterns? Could there be another kind of morality based on laws of behavior and biopsychology? Why or why not? What is lost in the purely scientific view of humanity, of personhood? Anything important? Explain. 4.      Do you think that the presence of a perspective makes a neutral stance impossible? What do you think neutral means in this kind of case? Does it mean perspectiveless? If it means something else, what else? Are perspectives the same thing as biases?   Try to develop a strong set of reasons aimed at convincing the reader of your paper (me, the professor) that your view is correct. Make use of the different theories presented by the authors studied over the semester, as well as additional readings on the topic (some of these can be found in the bibliography at the end of the textbook), to support your position.   à Your paper should be at least 4 pages double spaced, in Times New Roman 12 pt. font with 1” margins. Be sure to include an introduction and conclusion that state your thesis (the general claim you are defending in the paper) and that summarize the supporting points you will be making. Please include a works cited page at the end of your paper. Any format for the works cited page is okay if it is consistent throughout your paper.   Also, when in doubt, cite a source! Even if you are not quoting a text directly, be sure to include a note of the author and date for any paraphrasing of statements, or even the mentioning of ideas, that come from another source. Using the ideas or written material from an outside source without citing it constitutes plagiarism and will lead to a failing grade on the assignment. In text citations at the end of any sentence using material from another source are the best way to successfully point out the use of an outside source in the paper. These citations should look like the following (Last Name, year) or, for example, (Fosner, 2018). The full bibliographical information for any outside source should appear on the works cited page at the end of your paper. Please email me if you have questions about citations or what constitutes plagiarism!   This assignment will be graded based on the following four factors:   1. Completeness: Have all parts of the prompt been answered?        2. Accuracy: Have the course texts been accurately represented? Is the discussion of philosophical theories and concepts accurate? 3. Insight: Have novel and interesting points been made? Is your own view clearly expressed? 4. Style: How easy is the paper to read? How clear and concise is the writing?

First, provide an introductory paragraph with a thesis statement about how you will be discussing radical skepticism (also known as external-world skepticism) and scientism.Second, explain radical skepticism. Based on course materials, tell the following:What is it?What are the implications of it for knowledge and for the rest of life (e.g., as it concerns God, self, others, the world)?What are some problems with it, according to the Christian worldview?Third, explain scientism. Based on the course materials, tell the following:What is it?What are the implications of it for science and for the rest of life (e.g., as it concerns knowledge of God, self, others, the world)?What are some problems with it, according to the Christian worldview?Finally, write a concluding paragraph, summarizing your points about radical skepticism and scientism. Make sure to summarize/state why these two views areincompatible with the Christian worldview.Use and properly cite information from the course materials (for example: class lectures, topic overview, textbook, topic videos, additional supplemental academic sources) and at least one additional academic source (for example: GCU Library databases for journal articles, philosophy dictionaries and encyclopedias) to inform your response.