philosophy

An Abstract is not required. American Psychological Association (APA) format is required. Note: script for research papers should be in Times New Roman with a font size of 12. Your paper should include a critical review in which you should debate the merits of your research and include your rationale for supporting a particular view.

Your readings in this unit will focus your attention on three very basic theories of morality:  Cultural Relativism – the theory that morality is “about” which cultural conventions are accepted. Simple Subjectivism – the theory that morality is “about” individual preferences. Emotivism – the theory that morality is “about” expressions of attitudes Now that you’ve had a chance to think a little bit about what morality might be like, respond in the thread below to the following prompt: The three theories presented in this unit’s reading tempt our intuitions in various ways, but each creates serious problems for our understanding of ethics.  In particular, some of the theories suggest that Moral Disagreement never occurs or that Moral Progress is impossible.  Do you think that Moral Disagreement occurs?  Do you think that Moral Progress happens?   Why or why not?

Assigned reading of Kupperman, as well as the online file about Melissa Click. Explain what Kupperman thinks autonomy is and (2) what has to happen within educational institutions to encourage its development in students.

https://www.chegg.com/reader/9780190621315/70/ Use the link above to read over chapters 3&4 and answers the questions review and reflection at the end of each chapter. No other sources should be used, thanks.

Similar to the cell phone example in the talk by Horowitz, in this discussion you will clearly explain the key components of Kant’s deontology, utilitarianism, and the ethics of care through their application to a single dilemma or question. In your initial post, please give an example of an issue and then clearly explain how each moral theory would apply to your example. You may use the video by Damon Horowitz, as well as the material covered in the textbook, to help you in figuring out examples and applications of the theories. Be sure to clearly describe your example dilemma, as well as how each of the three moral theories apply.

Third Short Reflection Response  Due: Format: Worth: Friday, September 11 by 11:59 p.m. (submit an electronic version of your response, as either a PDF or a Word document, on Blackboard) no more than half a page, single spaced, 12 point Times New Roman font, 1 inch margins (papers over one page will not be graded); header must include: your name, the date, the course code 2% of final grade Answer one of the following questions (and I’d suggest doing so BEFORE completing the week’s reading): This is a three-part question. Describe a courageous (or cowardly) person you know. What is good (or in the case of the coward, bad) about their behavior? What does the courageous person bring into the world, or what wouldn’t happen if they were cowardly? This is a three-part question. Describe a moderate (or self-indulgent) person you know. What is good (or in the case of the self-indulgent person, bad) about their behavior? What does the moderate person bring into the world, or what wouldn’t happen if they were self-indulgent? Students are required to use gender-neutral language. For instance, use “human” and “humankind” instead of “man” and “mankind,” and, when appropriate, “she” over “he.” The purpose of these Reflection Responses is to encourage students to start thinking independently thought, to stay involved with the course and to keep on top of the readings. Unless specifically directed to do so in the question, answer the question in your own words and with your own reasoning, drawing on experiences that will be familiar to your reader. Aim to not just say what you think; instead, aim to say what is true and to persuade your reader of that truth. Responses will be graded as Pass or Fail. A passing grade will answer the question, show independent thought, that the student has read the text, and that they have applied themself. Incomplete and incoherent responses will fail. A pass is worth 2% of the student’s final grade; a fail, 0%. Students may be required to share their response on the course discussion board. 1

Students will complete the fourth part of their research manuscript project by applying the problem-solving method to a current problem related to their topic. Objectives Apply critical thinking skills to moral decision making. Instructions Research and discuss a problem related to your research topic. Identify the problem and generate two alternatives. What are the advantages and disadvantages for each alternative? What do you think the solution should be? What impact would this solution have if it was put into place? The paper should follow the paper guidelines and be 500-750 words. Make sure to apply the information found in your lectures and readings. Assignment Submission Use of outside resources is required and all papers must be cited and written in APA format. Once you have completed the assignment, click the Submit Assignment option in the menu to the right and select a format for submitting your assignment. Click the Submit Assignment button when you are ready.

Second Short Reflection Response August 31, 2020 Due: Format: Worth: Friday, September 4 by 11:59 p.m. (submit an electronic version of your response, as either a PDF or a Word document, on Blackboard) no more than half a page, single spaced, 12 point Times New Roman font, 1 inch margins (papers over one page will not be graded); header must include: your name, the date, the course code 2% of final grade Answer the following question BEFORE completing the week’s reading: 1. This is a three-part question. In your view, what makes a person happy? In your view, what makes a person good? Can a person be happy without being good? Students are required to use gender-neutral language. For instance, use “human” and “humankind” instead of “man” and “mankind,” and, when appropriate, “she” over “he.” The purpose of these Reflection Responses is to encourage students to start thinking independently thought, to stay involved with the course and to keep on top of the readings. Responses will be graded as Pass or Fail. A passing grade will show independent thought, that the student has read the text, and that they have applied themself. Incomplete and incoherent responses will fail. A pass is worth 2% of the student’s final grade; a fail, 0%. Students may be required to share their response on the course discussion board.

According to Socrates, must one heed popular opinion about moral matters? Does Socrates accept fairness of the laws under which he was tried and convicted? Would Socrates have been wrong to escape? I. Thesis statement In this paper I will express and elaborate on why one must either accept or disregard popular opinion and finally prove that Socrates is right in the act of the rejection of what one may think is right. In doing this what naysayers may deem Socrates view being different it may allow readers to assume the views and opinion of something of greater magnitude. I intend on explaining to you the reader these viewpoints and to do so I must first outline the strengths and weaknesses of using popular opinion before challenging the strengths and weaknesses of not using popular opinion. In doing so I will also establish the need to obey laws that have precedence on our everyday being and prove that Socrates may very well have accepted the fairness under which he was tried and convicted. Based on mankind’s obligation to abide by the laws of the state and country in that he resides in I would uphold my reasoning of why it would have been wrong for Socrates to escape. II. Discuss rights or laws and morals a. How citizens benefit from laws b. Discuss the emphasis of the effects of majority opinion III. Discuss reasoning a. Evaluate how a person’s opinion is based upon education b. Determine one’s moral values through a matter of opinion IV. Discuss strengths and weakness a. Socrates position on the majority or popular opinion b. Explain how Socrates came to this decision V. Socrates stance/acceptance a. Discuss doing what’s right vs. doing what’s wrong b. Discuss his decision of abiding by the law VI. Conclusion I explain Socrates position based from the fact that certain aspects of a person’s thinking under a majority ruling may outweigh a minority thought pattern then it is best to reason that the majority views will ultimately outweigh that of the minority which furthermore solidifies my position. VII. Work Cited Philosophy Forums, “Plato’s Crito.” (n. d.). 7 R. Rufus, “Plato, ‘Crito’, and Should we Obey Bad Laws? (2010), 4. ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2010/05/20/plato-crito-and-should-we-obey-bad-laws/ Sandrine Berge’s, “Plato’s Defense of Justice: Socrates contra Nietzsche.” The University of Leeds School of Philosophy (October 1999), 14. Berges.bilkent.edu.tr/phd.htm https://brainly.com/question/10642073#readmore

1. The following passage presents a deductively valid argument. What is the conclusion of the argument? Some of the sentences state premises, propositions that, taken together, strictly imply the conclusion. Some sentences are neither premises nor conclusions, but instead provide illustrations, explanations, clarifications, or serve some rhetorical purpose. Which sentences state the premises that strictly imply the conclusion? Which premise would someone who does not accept the conclusion of the argument most likely challenge? “Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die? It seems obvious to common sense that it is worse. We allow people to die, for example, when we fail to contribute money to famine-relief efforts; but even if we feel somewhat guilty, we do not consider ourselves murderers. Nor do we feel like accessories to murder when we fail to give blood, sign an organ-donor card, or do any of the other things that could save lives. Common sense tells us that, while we may not kill people, our duty to give them aid is much more limited. Some philosophers, however, have argued that common sense is wrong about this.They have defended the Equivalence Thesis, which says that killing and letting die are equally bad. This is a more specific version of the idea that there is no moral difference between making something happen and allowing it to happen. […] [One argument for the Equivalency Thesis] appeals to the parity of reasons. Whether something is good or bad depends entirely on the reasons that can be given for or against it; therefore, if we have identical reasons for or against two things, they are equally good or bad. With this in mind, suppose we ask why it is bad to kill someone. The basic reason is that the victim loses his or her life: he will not be able to do the things he wanted to do or experience the things he wanted to experience. Secondary reasons may have to do with the effects of his death on others. But it is also bad to let someone die, and if we ask why, we find the very same reasons: the person ends up dead, with the same effects for both him and his survivors. Thus it appears that killing and letting die are equally bad.” – James Rachels, “Killing vs Letting Die” 2. Explain the difference between deductive and inductive arguments. A strong inductive argument can become weak by adding premises, but a valid deductive argument cannot become invalid by adding premises. Why? 3. Give one example of a fallacious argument in popular discourse: eg, on a blog, newspaper editorial, radio program, facebook post, etc. (If you’er stuck, try reading some Letters to the Editor at The Tennessean). Be sure to to anonymize references to or quotes from social media. Write a summary of the argument and explanation of why it commits the fallacy.