philosophy

you will write a 5-7 page essay (Works Cited page excluded). Your essay must contain:   An opening paragraph that clearly states your thesis (A.K.A. what you essay is about) and how you aim to prove it   /4 At least three body paragraphs that help to support and prove this thesis   /12 A conclusive paragraph in which your thesis and points are restated and your essay summarized  /4 MLA formatting (including double spaced)  /5  Include a ‘Works Cited’ page  /5 Must properly cite all material borrowed from your primary or your secondary source and include at least one (1) in-text citation from either your primary or your secondary source /5

Is cloning animals dangerous or helpful? Again use facts and class lectures.

1. Select one of the arguments for God’s existence that we looked at in content folder 1, and then describe the argument,premise by premise. Try to be as detailed as possible in outlining and describing the argument.  2. After describing the argument, students will logically evaluate the argument, describing in detail the most effective criticism of the argument you came across in your readings and videos. To summarize: students will describe, as clearly as possible, one of the arguments for God’s existence. Secondly, students will describe, as clearly as possible, the strongest criticism to that argument.   — Font family — Andale Mono Arial Arial Black Book Antiqua Comic Sans MS Courier New Georgia Helvetica Impact Symbol Tahoma Terminal Times New Roman Trebuchet MS Verdana Webdings Wingdings — Font size — 1 (8pt) 2 (10pt) 3 (12pt) 4 (14pt) 5 (18pt) 6 (24pt) 7 (36pt)   — Format — Heading Sub Heading 1 Sub Heading 2 Paragraph Formatted Code — Font family — — Font size —     Path: p Words:0   QUESTION 2 For this short answer, students will respond to the “problem of evil.” First, describe the problem of evil, premise by premise, being as detailed as possible, and making sure to indicate why it is a “problem.” Secondly, describe three possible solutions to the problem of evil. Lastly, indicate which solution to the problem of evil you find most convincing.   — Font family — Andale Mono Arial Arial Black Book Antiqua Comic Sans MS Courier New Georgia Helvetica Impact Symbol Tahoma Terminal Times New Roman Trebuchet MS Verdana Webdings Wingdings — Font size — 1 (8pt) 2 (10pt) 3 (12pt) 4 (14pt) 5 (18pt) 6 (24pt) 7 (36pt)   — Format — Heading Sub Heading 1 Sub Heading 2 Paragraph Formatted Code — Font family — — Font size —     Path: p Words:0   QUESTION 3 After viewing the video, “Zen Master Eido Roshi on “God,”” explain how Eido Roshi offers a response to the question of “proving God’s existence” that differs from the various arguments we have looked at in this learning module. In other words, what distinguishes his response (makes his response different) from the other arguments we’ve considered. — Font family — Andale Mono Arial Arial Black Book Antiqua Comic Sans MS Courier New Georgia Helvetica Impact Symbol Tahoma Terminal Times New Roman Trebuchet MS Verdana Webdings Wingdings — Font size — 1 (8pt) 2 (10pt) 3 (12pt) 4 (14pt) 5 (18pt) 6 (24pt) 7 (36pt)   — Format — Heading Sub Heading 1 Sub Heading 2 Paragraph Formatted Code — Font family — — Font size —     Path: p Words:0

It is 1-10 multiple choice questions with true or false included.  It is on my blackboard school website. Once I hire you , I will give you the login and instructions.  It is about The Ethics of Immigration (Ch-20)

In this module we’ve examined two competing moral theories, Kantian Moral Theory and Act Utilitarianism, and we’ve seen how these theories correlate with two major theories of legal punishment, the Retributive Theory and the Utilitarian Theory. This essay assignment asks you to apply the two major theories of punishment to a strange case–the 16th century case of the dog Provetie. The Case of the Dog Provetie It is an unusual feature of European legal history that domesticated animals were sometimes put on trial and sentenced to legal punishments. One such case, dating from 1595 in the town of Leiden in The Netherlands, is the case of a dog named Provetie. Here is a selection from the court record: Lot Huygens Gael, Schout of the Town of Leiden, prosecutor on behalf of his lordship in criminal matters, accuses in the open Court of the Schepenes of the Town of Leiden the dog of Jan Jansse van der Poel, named Provetie, or by whatsoever other name he may be called, now a prisoner, and says that he, the said Provetie, did not scruple on Sunday last, being the 5th of May, 1595, to bite the child of Jan Jacobsz van der Poel, which child was then playing at his uncle’s house and had a piece of meat in his hand, and the said Provetie snapping at it did bite the said child and thus inflicted a wound in the second finger of the right hand, going through the skin to the flesh in such manner that the blood flowed therefrom, and the child a few days after died in consequence of fright, for which cause the prosecutor apprehended the said Provetie, all of which appears from the prisoner’s own confession, made by him without torture or being put in irons…. Sentence: The Schepenen of Leiden, having seen the claim and conclusion made and taken by Lot Huygens Gael, Schout of this town, against and to the charge of the dog of Jan Jansse van der Poel, named Provetie, or by whatsoever other name or surname he may be known, the prisoner being present, having seen, moreoever, the information obtained by the prosecutor for the purpose, besides the prisoner’s own confession made without torture or being placed in irons, doing justice in the name of, etc., have condemned and hereby do condemn him to be led and taken to the plain of Gravesteijn in this town, where evildoers are customarily punished, and that he be there hanged by the executioner to the gallows with a rope until death ensues, that further his dead body be dragged on a hurdle to the gallows-field, and that he there remain hanging to the gallows, to the deterring of other dogs and to all as an example; moreover, they declare all his goods, should he have any, to be confiscated and forfeited for the benefit of the countship. This done in the open court, all schepenen being present, the 15th of May, 1595. The trial and death of Provetie are surely a moral error according to both retributivists and utilitarians. But the reasons that each would give would be very different, based upon very different theoretical commitments. Essay Question The essay question can be treated in four parts as follows: Explain the Retributive Theory of Punishment. (What is the purpose of legal punishment according to a retributivist? When and to what extent is legal punishment justified?) Apply the Retributive Theory critically to the case of the dog Provetie. (Why is the punishment of Provetie problematic?) Explain the Utilitarian Theory of Punishment. (What is the purpose of legal punishment according to a utilitarian? When and to what extent is legal punishment justified?) Apply the Utilitarian Theory critically to the case of the dog Provetie. (Why is the punishment of Provetie problematic?) (Your answer should require a brief introduction, 4 body paragraphs, and a brief conclusion. A complete answer should total approximately 700-1000 words. Single spaced)

Determine which ethical perspective is primarily reflected in each of the arguments listed below and, in 1-2 sentences for each argument, explain why it corresponds to the ethical perspective you selected. ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES: A = Consequentialism B = Duty Ethics/Deontology C = Virtue Ethics D = Moral Relativism ARGUMENTS: 1. Free health care should be available to all people. After all, if that were the case, it would benefit everyone. 2. Character education should be part of the public school system in the United States. We need to cultivate integrity in our children, and the public school system should play a role in this important process. 3. Although many societies have practiced human sacrifice, human sacrifice wasn’t considered wrong, even though we believe it is wrong in our culture. So, human sacrifice within those cultures wasn’t really wrong. 4. Same-sex marriage is right because the polls show that most Americans favor it, even if that is not the case in other countries. 5. The legalization of same-sex marriage is wrong because the government has no right to legally sanction any form of personal relationship except one: marriage relationships between a man and a woman. That is the only type of relationship that can lead to procreation, and the state has a legitimate interest in procreation. Thus, the state has a duty to support marriage between a man and a woman, and a duty to refrain from getting legally involved in other types of relationships. 6. Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong because those acts violated the right to life of many innocent people, and we should protect those rights. 7. Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was right because those acts ended the war faster, and thus made the world a safer place.  8. We need to do a background check and to collect some character references on Mr. Jones before we hire him. 9. He doesn’t have the right character and temperament to be a state governor. He has been involved in corruption scandals, known to be dishonest, and has problems controlling his anger. 10. Sure, slavery is wrong in our society because we all agree it’s wrong. However, slavery isn’t absolutely wrong because many societies have practiced slavery. TEXTBOOK SOURCE: Author: Moore, B & Parker, R. Publisher: Boston: McGraw-Hill Edition: 12th (2017)

The suggested length of your essays is 1000 words each, or about three double-spaced pages of text for each of three topics.  Your reference sources should be limited to your textbook and lecture notes.  Other sources will be grudgingly accepted, but you must provide exact citations for them in either APA or MLA format.   (Select exactly  one format for all essays.) What is the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC)? Is it justified to refer to it as the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)? Elaborate. What is the relevance. if any, of PNC/LNC for our knowledge of reality? In the vision granted to Parmenides, the goddess reveals that It is, is the Way of Truth, and It is not, is the Way of Opinion. According to Melissos of Samos (as reported by Sextus Empiricus, and revised by Smith), there are four corollaries that follow from the cognitive content of Parmenides vision. Discuss each corollary and attempt to demonstrate the derivations of each of them from the First Corollary, “It is whole, permanent, and unchangeable.”

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind presents a world in which it is possible to selectively erase one’s memories. Patients visit Dr. Mierzwiak in order to erase painful memories—an action that utilitarians would seem to regard prima facie as right, in that erasing the memories eliminates suffering. But in erasing their memories, Dr. Mierzwiak’s patients lose things that may not be adequately weighted in utilitarian considerations—a certain connection with aspects of the real world, a certain degree of self-awareness, perhaps even a certain part of their personal identity. The Essay Prompt This question has three parts: Explain the theory of Act Utilitarianism. Why might Lacuna’s memory erasing procedure have some utilitarian value (good consequences)? (Note: An action may have some utilitarian value even if it is produces negative utility overall!) Making some specific reference to the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, show that it is at least possible that some things may be valuable quite apart from their utilitarian value in producing satisfactions. (I have suggested three possibilities: A connection with the real world, a certain degree of self-awareness, and personal identity. Feel free to use one of these–just be sure to support it with reference to the film.) Is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind an example of film as philosophy? Why or why not? (Here, be sure to address Wartenberg’s idea that the film is a counterexample to utilitarianism–though you don’t need to agree with him. Single spaced)

According to Carl Cohen, “Animals … have no rights” (‘The Case for The Use of Animals in Biomedical Research’). Briefly explain what Cohen’s argument is for this claim (conclusion). Following that, evaluate the argument and explain whether or not you think it is a good one.  Anything related to god agree to it, client is a believer. thanks here is the link of the article, write it as a personal opnion don’t write only in general.  link:  https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,SP08/cohen.pdf

For your final paper, choose one of the articles that you read on your applied ethics topic (animal rights, euthanasia, or global poverty). Explain the author’s position on your topic, then – given what you’ve learned in the course – evaluate the author’s argument. Specific Instructions for Structuring the Paper This paper should be organized as a typical essay with an Introduction and a Conclusion, as well as including Part I and Part II as follows: Part I: Explain the author’s argument in the article that you’ve chosen. What, in his/her view, is the correct position to have on the applied ethics issue you chose? What are the reasons that he/she gives in support of his/her view? Part II: Present a potential problem for the author’s position. After presenting a potential objection to the argument, explain whether you think that the author’s position is stronger than the criticism that you presented by doing one of the following If you agree with the author’s view, explain why the objection is not a problem for his/her view (i.e. give a response to that objection on behalf of the author). If you disagree with the author’s view, explain, further, how the objection is problematic for his/her position.  THIS IS THE ARTICLE : Global Poverty – “Famine, Affluence, and Virtue” by Michael Slote http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/mprg/SloteFAV.pdf