philosophy

For this week’s assignment respond to one of the following options, and include Option 1, 2, or 3 as part of your heading. Option 1: The first option is to name and describe in detail a key specific and recent healthcare technology. What are at least two key moral problems this technology creates? What are the proper moral guidelines for dealing with it in your view? Compare your approach to what a utilitarian and ethical egoist would say (each independently). Option 2: In the second option, name and describe in detail a key specific and recent social technology. What are at least two key moral problems this technology creates? What are the proper moral guidelines for dealing with it in your view? Compare your moral approach to what a utilitarian and social contract ethicist would say (each independently). Option 3: John Doe, Patient One, is in late-stage of kidney disease. If he does not receive a new kidney, then he is predicted to die within a week. Doe is 45, single, and has no children. Doctors theorize that Doe damaged his kidney by not following a low-salt diet. Doe inherited one million dollars and is known for giving money to charity. Without a transplant, he will probably be forced to spend all his money searching for a kidney outside of the usual legal channels. Patient Two is Jane Doe (no relation to John). Patient Two is the mother of two children (ages 21 and 24). She is divorced and 55 years old. She developed kidney problems due to eating a high-fat and high-sugar diet. If she does not receive a kidney within one month, doctors believe she will die. Patient Three is an orphan. This orphan lives in a state facility. She was born with a genetic condition that constantly damages her kidney. The only known approach to her condition is to provide her with a kidney transplant every so often. She is 11 and has already undergone two kidney transplants. She will perish in two months if she does not receive another transplant. All three patients are at the same hospital. The hospital only has one kidney to give out. The orphan’s birth parents were known to be of a religion that is opposed to organ donation. The other patients come from religions that do not oppose organ donation. Who should get the kidney? Why should that candidate receive it over the others? Devise a course of social action and a solution for this case by using the ethics of egoism and then utilitarianism to a key moral conflict involving health care in this case. Appraise the interests of diverse populations (in terms of ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) and how they relate to the case. For all the options: Cite the textbook and incorporate outside sources, including citations. You should not be using any text you used in a discussion board or assignment for this class or any previous class. You will submit all of the following: A written report that presents one of the options above (Be sure to give equal time to each element.) An oral presentation that summarizes the report and examines the ethical ideas beyond the particulars of each case. The link or a scan of the article mentioning the health technology, social technology, or case you are reporting on. If you made up the case, please indicate that in your report. You should not be using any text you used in a discussion board or assignment for this class or any previous class. Cite the textbook and incorporate outside sources, including citations. Writing Requirements (APA format)

The  paper should address the theme of ‘Ethics and Art,’ which brings  together the readings from the fourth part of our course (Xingjian,  Borges, Lispector, Achebe).I would like you to write a short essay of 1000 to 1200 words (in Times New Roman -12 point font, 1.5 spacing, with a Title at the beginning, and a Works Cited page at the end).   Again, you are asked to take a position on one (or two) of the readings and/or stories that we have examined in this fourth part of the course. What this means is that you can write your paper entirely on one of the readings or stories from Part IV of the course: 1. Gao Xingjian (The Case for Literature) 2. Jorge Luis Borges (The Secret Miracle) 3. Clarice Lispector (Love (“Amor”)) 4. Chinua Achebe (The Madman) Or, you can compare two of the readings/stories: 1. Xingjian and (any of the stories) 2. Borges’ The Secret Miracle and Lispector’s Love (“Amor”) 3. Lispector’s Love (“Amor”) and Achebe’s The Madman 4. Achebe’s The Madman and Borges’ The Secret Miracle As before, the main point of the assignment is that you take a position in your essay on the reading(s), and/or, story (or stories).  In close detail, and from the texts that we have read, clearly and accurately describe the main ethical issues presented in the story (or stories), and/or, the reading.  Also, how do you personally relate (or not) to the characters in the story, or to the reading itself?  Above all, as you were required to do in your previous papers, take a clear argumentative position, and argue for it convincingly throughout your  essay. Suggested Questions and Topic: As before, you are free to develop your own original topic for the essay,  as it relates to the readings we have read in this fourth part of the course. You  are also free to bring back certain theories and ideas from earlier  parts of the course, if they will help to strengthen your main thesis  (i.e., any of the philosophers that we have looked at in the course).  Here are two suggested essay topics that may help to guide you with the assignment. 1. (Ethics and Literature) How is the theme of ethics central to Gao Xingjian’s essay and Nobel lecture, The Case for Literature  (2000)? What are the main ideals and qualities that Xingjian argues are essential for an individual writer? How have the politics and history of the twentieth century affected Xingjian’s ideas about ethics and literature? And finally, and most importantly, do you agree or disagree with Xingjian’s views about ethics and literature, and why? 2. (Short Stories and Ethics)  Each of the three stories that we have read presents an individual in the midst of an ethical “crisis.” Each story also asks us to reflect upon this crisis in relation to the four themes of our course (ethics and knowledge, ethics and the individual, ethics and society, and ethics and art). In  “The Secret Miracle” (1944), by the Argentinian writer, Jorge Luis  Borges, we find a character, Jaromir Hladik, who is sentenced to death by a firing squad, during the Second World War in Prague. In  “Love (“Amor”)” (1960), by the Brazilian author, Clarice Lispector, we  follow a day in the life of a woman who experiences a strange “crisis”  on a tram in Rio de Janeiro.And  in “The Madman” (1972), by the Nigerian novelist, Chinua Achebe, we follow the events in the lives of two villagers who each go into town to  a market.  In your essay, choose One or Two of the stories, and answer the following questions:   i).  What is the central “crisis” that the main character(s) experiences in  the story? And how do you interpret the crisis and the character’s actions in relation to ethics? ii).  Does the story (or stories) you choose to write about in your essay remind you of any of the ethical themes and questions that we have examined so far in the course, and how? (i.e., are there any clear  ethical theories and philosophers that come to mind from our readings?) iii).  How did the story (or stories) affect you as a reader? How did it make  you feel? Does the way the story is written influence your interpretation? And if so, how might the aesthetic qualities of the  story be understood in relation to the main ethical themes and questions that we have been examining in the course? (As always, please remember to use examples from the text to support your arguments). For more information on Ethics read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

In order to get full credit for your original post, you need to clearly connect your responses to evidence from the book. Indicate the page number where you found the information.  Read chapter 2 from (Wilkens, S., & Padgett, A. G. (2018). Introduction to Philosophy: Christianity and the Big Questions. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Which philosophical position discussed in Chapter Two, “What Is the Meaning of Life?” comes closest to your own personal understanding of the “meaning of life,” the position of Sartre, Hegel, Rousseau, Boethius or Pascal?  Explain your choice in a detailed and well-developed,  brief essay. For more information read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life

Consider the terms vague, ambiguity, and generality as they relate to our textbook reading for this week. How are vagueness, ambiguity, and generality used in politics or in law in order to achieve the desired outcome? What are some examples of how this might be applied in your future career? Include an example or two from current events that demonstrate the use of vagueness, ambiguity, and generality. Feel free to share an article, a screenshot of a social media post, a video, etc Please use the textbook as a reference and also cite the reference at the end

” I’m working on a Philosophy exercise and need support. PORTFOLIO CONTENT #1 ANIMAL RIGHTS/BLACKFISH • EXPLAIN THE ETHICAL THEORY KNOWN AS VIRTUE ETHICS.   • INCLUDE A ONE-PAGE CRITIQUE OF VIRTUE ETHICS. • PROVIDE A ONE-PAGE REPORT IN YOUR OWN WORDS ABOUT AN ON-LINE ARTICLE THAT RELATES TO SEA WORLD. ATTACH THE ARTICLE TO […]

-There is a  difference between an educated and a knowledgeable person. – Education should follow discovery methods to be more comprehensible.  -The curriculum should be constructed according to children’s needs In a well-developed essay, discuss these ideas by referring back to the traditional and modern school of thoughts and by explaining how your classroom practices reflect your philosophy of education in your teaching career.

Prompt: This discussion link will serve as an opportunity to talk to each other regarding the importance of the reading and why you find it important. Discussion here consists of responding to two questions: (a) What is the most important point raised in Plato’s Euthyphro? (b) Why do you think it is important? “What” is most important—part (a)—means you present an unbiased, straight-forward account of what you think is the most important point in the reading, with as full an explication of what this point means. The “why” part—part (b)—is evaluative, which means you offer critical analysis, reflecting on why this point matters.  Instructions: Make your initial post. Respond to two other classmates’ posts. Initial post limited to 250 words (but no fewer than 225). Response to classmates’ posts should be between 150-200 words. Responses must be substantive. “I agree!” or “Good point!” is insufficient. Must be followed by reasons why. Both parts to the question (a & b, above) should be given equal weight.  Read “Tips for Discussion Assignments” (link located below) for guidance here. Grading Rubric  Grades will be determined—in part—by how well you follow the instructions.  >>> Replies are only visible to those who have posted at least one reply. <<< P.S. I will reply with classmates' posts after submission as I can't see them until I post my reply.

In this module/week, we have been discussing arguments for the existence of God, as well as the chief argument against God – the “problem of evil.” (It is assumed you have read ch. 13 in Dew & Gould before beginning this assignment.) In this essay, you will consider three additional articles related to the problem of evil in theism: ·         “The Absurdity of Life without God,” by Craig ·         “Suffering: Richard Dawkins Contra Jesus,” by Thomas ·         “The Plight of the New Atheism: A Critique” (only pages 822–823), by Habermas   Your assignment is to read these three items and then write an essay of at least 600 words (in current MLA, APA, or Turabian format). While you are free to quote from sources, and you must cite at minimum the 3 above readings, quotations will not count towards the minimum word count. Your essay must address each of the questions below:   1.      Compare and contrast the three readings: what are some philosophical similarities and differences?   2.      Can life have objective meaning without God? Defend your answer making reference (pro or con) to the reading(s).   3.      Could life be “good” without objective meaning? Defend your answer making reference (pro or con) to the reading(s).   4.      What effect do your conclusions regarding the problem of evil have, in your view, on the philosophical case for God’s existence? Explain how and why.   Submit this assignment by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of Module/Week 7.   Your assignment will be checked for originality via the SafeAssign plagiarism tool. Plagiarism of any kind will result in a 0 for the assignment and may result in being dropped from the course.

Write a description of each and include any thoughts, feelings or questions you may have

Please find attach my essay that has already received great feedback, this paper only needs to have a few things added which I have mentioned in BOLD RED FONT to incorporate and also move a few things around which is in blue bold font with instructions on where I would like it placed.  Also a clear thesis statement which I have already started but can use some help in developing fully.   PLEASE FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS.