philosophy

Research Paper Instructions In this paper you will discuss various elements of a pre-approved cultural study. Research Paper Content: Begin with an introduction with a thesis statement. Provide a brief history of your culture. Explain how your chosen culture is represented in the United States. Discuss whether your culture individualistic or collectivistic. Provide at least one example. Detail some of the artistic (art, music, architecture, dance) contributions of your culture. Explain some of the values of your culture. Provide at least three examples. Discuss your culture’s religion(s). Include name and basic belief system of at least one of the major faiths. Detail some of the sex and gender role differences in your culture (provide at least three examples) Discuss what we would need to know to acculturate into your culture. (If a past one, what would we need to do for preparing for our time machine to fit in). Provide at least one concrete suggestion. End with the conclusion. Specific Paper Requirements: Length of paper four to six pages in length (Times New Roman; One inch margins; Font 12; Double-spaced) Must contain in-text citations in current APA Style Check your spelling and grammar Include a minimum of three or more credible sources (books, journal articles, magazine/newspaper articles, etc.)

If everybody has self-interest in their own welfare and safety, then everybody also has self-interest in the welfare and safety of others. Self-interest involves community interest, and we must think about what we are willing to give up in order to get that safety and stability for ourselves, our families, our community, our nation, and even the world. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are just two examples of social contract moralists. Locke’s philosophy helped Thomas Jefferson formulate the United States Declaration of Independence. We are interested in what it means to live together in an orderly way under a social contract. Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, address one of the following sets of questions: What is a time when you or someone you know of experienced a conflict between duty to self and loyalty to the community? What would logical reasoning say should be done in that case? Why that? What would an Ethical Egoist say to do? Why would they say to do that? Note what you feel is the best course of action. What is a time when you or someone you know experienced a clash between professional duties and familial duties? Reference a professional code such as that of the American Nurses Association or American Bar Association in explaining the clash. What moral values should have been used in that case? Why those values? What would social contract ethics have said to have done? Why would social contract ethics say that? Note what you feel is the best course of action. Articulate and evaluate a time when you or someone you know saw personal obligations collide with national obligations. How did that tension involve differing positions on a moral debate? Did those positions rely on any key moral theories? If so, how so? If not, why not? Note what you feel is the best course of action.

Write a paper in which you compare and contrast the design arguments of Aquinas and Paley. The papers for reading are attached to this. You must read Thomas Aquinas pages 1-8 and Paley pages 46-55. A good paper should address the following points: Compare and contrast the explananda (the features X) of each argument by identifying why each requires an explanation beyond the laws or processes of nature. Discuss the analogies used by Aquinas (the archer) and by Paley (the watchmaker). Do these analogies present different kinds or ways of being a designer? If so, why? If not, why not? Evaluate the reasons given by Paley and Aquinas respectively for why each one’s respective feature X could not happen by chance. Are either susceptible to objections from scientists (like Carroll and Dawkins) that these features do plausibly arise by chance? Instructions Length: Minimum of 500 words. Formatting Requirements: Double spaced, 12 point font, Times New Roman, 1 inch margins Citations: Chicago Manuel of Style. You may use footnotes or parenthetical citations .

Choose three artworks in three different medias (i.e. painting, sculpture, architecture, music, film, photography). Write an essay (in your own words; 500-1000 words) in paragraph form. Explain how each of your chosen artworks reveals human values. Give equal treatment to each of your chosen artworks

Objective: Analyze the concept of worldview. Mindset: Appreciate concept mapping as a way to visualize knowledge and make it more applicable to your personal life. Instructions The use of concept mapping is a valuable and effective way to visualize knowledge, as well as find relevance in your personal life. Worldviews are very personal. Concept mapping will help provide individual relationships and insights with a worldview. Create a concept map that visually represents one of the worldviews presented in Week Two. World views from week 2 follow as below : Analyzing worldviews can be an overwhelming and confusing task, but filtering the worldviews through the “seven questions” is very helpful. Write at least one paragraph for each question below as to why each of these questions is important in understanding a worldview. Do not answer the questions per se; instead, discuss the importance of the questions themselves. What is prime reality: the really real? What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? What is a human being? What happens to a person at death? Why is it possible to know anything at all? How do we know what is right and wrong? What is the meaning of human history?

In his essay ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, J.L. Mackie presents and defends a version of The Problem of Evil. As part of his discussion, Mackie goes through a number of ‘fallacious solutions’. One of these solutions that Mackie discusses is the claim that ‘evil is necessary as a means to good’. Briefly state and critically discuss Mackie’s view regarding this solution, making sure to explain whether or not you agree with him Articles links: http://www.ditext.com/mackie/evil.html http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcSlowAhvUk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iICJQs4qWk For this discussion, students will apply the concepts they’ve learned in the module on social contract theory, looking specifically at the issue of government surveillance. Directions: Watch the video, “Glenn Greenwald: Why Privacy Matters” Watch the video, “GOP’s vocal defense of NSA surveillance” Create a discussion board post responding to the following prompt: A key aspect of Hobbes’ and Locke’s social contract theories deals with trying to find the proper balance between security and liberty. Using the ideas of Hobbes and Locke, respond to the issue of government surveillance. What are the limits of justifiable government surveillance? How should the government balance its responsibilities of (a) maintaining security and (b) the protection of liberty? In your response, be sure to substantiate your response with references and quotations to the readings to support your view.

Arguments on God Worth: 200pts Length: 1000 words min/max We’ve covered two sets of arguments concerning the existence of God • The Ontological Argument (pro: Anselm | con: Gaunilo, Aquinas, Kant) • The Design Argument (pro: Aquinas, Paley | con: Hume, Mackie) For this paper you’re asked to do three things: 1) Explain (in thorough detail) either the Ontological or the Design argument for God 2) Explain (in thorough detail) the corresponding objections to the argument you picked 3) Explain which argument you think is right and why. Explain why one is right and the other is wrong. General Guidelines (Mandatory): • All arguments should be explained in such a way that someone who had never heard of them could understand the arguments after reading your paper. When writing, imagine that you’re explaining the concepts to someone who is unfamiliar with them. • When explaining arguments and counterarguments, do so as if you agree with the positions. Even if you think the argument is wrong, don’t let that show in your explanation. You’ll have the opportunity to critique all the arguments in section (3)! • Relevant quotes (and proper page citations) should be employed for each position you discuss. Remember to explain the meaning of the quotes you use. • Provide examples to help elucidate your or the philosophers’ points. • Do not go off track in section (3). Remember that you’re evaluating arguments here. Even if you agree with the conclusion (that God exists or that God doesn’t exist), that doesn’t mean you have to agree that the argument is good. Take care to not introduce irrelevant information here. For example, if you’re discussing the Ontological Argument and its criticisms, section (3) is not the time to discuss a miracle you experienced, since that doesn’t have any bearing on the arguments. Keep things on track! • Remember that we’re looking at the strength of the arguments here! Even if you agree with a philosopher’s conclusion (for instance, that God exists), that doesn’t mean you should feel compelled to think that their argument that supports that conclusion is a good one. It’s ok to concede that one argument is superior even if you disagree with the conclusion for personal reasons. Specific Guidelines: Ontological Argument: • Take care to explain Anselm’s argument as thoroughly as possible. Go through each step and explain how it works toward the conclusion. • Do the same for the criticisms (all three). Explain them as completely as possible. This will take more than a sentence or two for each one. Design Argument: • Make sure to explain the Design argument as comprehensively as possible. • Remember that Hume approaches the issue in the form of a dialog. One speaker defends the design argument while another denounces it. • Hume offers 3 principle arguments against the Design argument. • Mackie’s points fit nicely with one particular criticism from Hume. Think of which one that is and incorporate it.

Explain and Analyze the positions of Locke, Berkeley and Hume separately. Next, discuss cognitive scientist, Donald Hoffman, and what ramifications his knowledge have on our philosophers’ ideas.

What is a Just State? In a 2–3-page paper, address the following: Explain intersectionality Explain at least one social philosophy from the textbook. For instance, you might discuss utilitarianism, Rawls, Marx, Nozick, Du Bois, King, or Beauvoir. If the theory has a clear correlate, please discuss it as well. Illustrate your understanding of both the intersectional and traditional social justice approaches with examples. Support your account of the theories with citations to the textbook and online lectures in correct APA format. MUST USE THIS REFERENCE FOR CITATIONS: REFERENCE: Mitchell, H.B. (2015). Roots of Wisdom: A Tapestry of Philosophical Traditions: (7th ed.). Boston: Cengage.