Category: Philosophy

can you fix my essay and lengthen it to be 1200 word. the first page is the prompt for the essay. and please don’t use AI when writing.

Term Paper Topics
Pick one of the following topics and write your term paper on it. Indicate which topic you have selected in your paper’s title.
Papers should be a minimum of 3 typewritten pages in MLA format using Times New Roman 12 point font, double-spaced. When you quote from your book, please make sure to use correct MLA citation formatLinks to an external site.. Remember to create a Works Cited page and list all sources you quote in the paper. If you need help with MLA formatting and citation, please check out the MLA GuideLinks to an external site. at Purdue’s Online Writing Lab.
Socrates & Plato
Topic A:
Suppose Meletus overheard the discussion in the Crito and went to Plato’s Socrates saying “In your discussion with Crito you indicated you were able to propose and defend substantive theses–you claimed to know whether escape would be just, that it is never right to return a wrong for a wrong, and you claimed to know what sort of life is worth living. In making such claims you show you do not really believe that human wisdom amounts to little. That is, you lied during the trial when you professed ignorance.  It seems to me your sentence is just!”
How would you respond to this charge? Is Plato’s Socrates inconsistent or contradictory? Can Plato’s Socrates both claim to be ignorant and to know moral truths?
Topic B:
Suppose you encountered someone who maintained:
much of what Socrates went through at the end of his life could have been easily avoided if he had only taken his own advice and lived a private life (Apology, 32a).  He would not have offended the rich and powerful, he would not have been put on trial, and he would not have had to reason with Crito about the appropriateness of escaping.
How would you reply?  Would “being private” in this sense mean giving up anything that he holds to be important?  If so, clarify what would have to be forsaken, and why you think he would not be willing to do so.
Descartes 
Topic C:
Consider the Problem of Error: if God exists, and he is not a deceiver, then why is it so often the case that he allows humans to form false beliefs? What is Descartes’ reply to the Problem of Error? Is his reply successful? You may find it worthwhile to critique Descartes’ model of how error arises in Meditation IV. Are there cases of error which can’t be covered on the model? Does the model succeed in solving the Problem of Error?
Topic D:
Descartes famously argues “I think, therefore I am” (though he doesn’t say this in Meditation II). What is Descartes’ basis for the conclusion that he exists? Is his argument compelling? What does he take himself to be? Consider one of your own objections to Descartes’ proof that he exists. How would Descartes respond, and would that response be adequate? 
Hume
Topic E:
Sometimes, Hume seems to have meant to suggest that we revise our beliefs about causal relations: instead of thinking there is a necessary connection between cause and effect we should just think in terms of constant conjunctions. In other places in the text, he seems to have held that we will inevitably believe in necessary connections between cause and effect. Explain each option, listing what you see as its most important advantages and disadvantages. Which way of thinking about causal relations do you think we should adopt?
Topic F:
How are impressions and ideas related to the psychological laws of association? What role do matters of fact and relations of ideas have in Hume’s philosophy? Show how all of these concepts work together to form a picture of the human mind. Do you think Hume’s picture is complete? Why or why not?
Hegel
Topic G:
What is the role of Reason in history, according to Hegel? How is Reason related to the development of Spirit in Hegel’s philosophy? Focus your paper by defining what Hegel means by Reason and Spirit before attempting to explain their relationship. Does this analysis of history seem plausible? Why or why not?
Topic H:
Hegel writes that with philosophic history, one considers history’s raw materials according to “thoughts, a priori.” Explain this statement and show how the rest of his Introduction to the Philosophy of History reflects Hegel’s definition. Use examples drawn from the text and be sure to cite any quotations you pull to illustrate them.
Marx
Topic I:
Describe Marx and Engels’ views on the development of capitalism found in the Communist Manifesto and compare it to this definition standard of capitalism: “Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.” How would Marx and Engels add to the definition? Formulate a new definition based on your understanding of their work.
Topic J:
Outline the various types of socialism mentioned in the Communist Manifesto. How is socialism distinct from communism, according to Marx and Engels? How is each type of socialism related to the development of capitalism? Try to find examples of each type of socialism in current-day politics to illustrate Marx and Engels’ categories.
Sartre
Topic K:
What does Sartre mean by the claim that existence precedes essence? According to Sartre, what follows from this? That is, what does it tell us about human beings and the nature of free choices? What does this tell us about human freedom? Do you agree? Disagree? Why or why not?
Topic L:
How does Sartre establish atheistic existentialism? How are anguish and despair related to atheistic existentialism? Does Sartre succeed in explicating a “coherent atheistic position”? Why or why not?

) Explain the insights that Plato offers about the soul in his dialogues, Phaedo and Republic.
First, explain what Socrates means when he claims that philosophy is a “practice for dying and
death” in Phaedo. Why is the soul important for this claim? What are all of the important things
we learn about the soul that follows from this claim? Second, explain Plato’s tripartite notion of
the soul in Republic. What are all of the important qualities of a ‘just’ soul?

You are faced with the trolley car problem.  A runaway trolley is barreling down the track. You’re a passer-by who has notices this from afar.  Ahead of you are five people caught on the track who will surely die if you do nothing.  You see a lever to your side. You have option of pulling the lever which will divert a runaway train saving five people’s lives but will switch the car to another track where you see only one person who is caught on the track. Should you pull the lever this person will surely die.  You are not aware of the identities of any of these people.  Do you pull the lever? why or why not?
Would your argument change in the bridge version of the trolley car problem in which you are forced to push someone over a bridge to stop the car from killing five people instead of just pulling a lever? 
Finally, consider the transplant surgeon objectionLinks to an external site..  You are a transplant surgeon and a healthy patient could be used for their organs to save five human lives at the cost of their death.  Would you still spend one life to save five? If so, why? If not, why is this situation so different from the first two examples to make it less moral? 
Defend your position as either a Utilitarian or deontologist  Use a citation from either the reading assignment from Kant or Mill to defend your point.  If you knew any details about the identities of these individuals would that change your answer? Your response should be written in paragraph form with in-text MLA citations. Refrain from writing in a numbered, bullet, or outline format. No formal works cited page is needed for this entry. This assignment is worth 10 points and will be graded according to the discussion rubric. No reply is necessary for this particular discussion apart from your initial post.

Part 1 from Lecture Notes: ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM and CULTURAL RELATIVISM (POWERPOINTS)
Distinguish Ethical Subjectivism from Cultural Relativism. What makes both relativists’ theories?
What were David Hume’s and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s arguments that promote individual relativism and support ethical subjectivism? Explain:
What were Charles Darwin’s theory and Herbert Spencer’s arguments that supported the development of cultural relativism? Explain:
Criticize individual relativism. Why is it not an acceptable ethical position?
Criticize cultural relativism and why it is not an acceptable ethical position.
Part 2 from lecture notes: Divine Command Theory (POWERPOINT)
Define the role of religion in ethical life. What is the foundation of the Divine Command Theory? What is the grounding of this theory?
What was Feodor Dostoyevsky’s argument regarding Divine Command Theory? What is the implication of this argument in finding ethical grounding?
What was Kai Nielsen’s argument regarding Divine Command Theory? What is the implication of this argument in the search for ethical grounding?
What is this theory’s weakness that cannot be universalized (accepted by all)? Write your criticism on this theory. Do research, what is the advantage and disadvantage of this theory?
If you are to write one last paragraph: What can be the role of religion in shaping the moral attitude of the person? Is religion still relevant today in molding a human person?

Hide Assignment Information
Turnitin™
This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin™.
Instructions
Description:
For this assignment, you will choose a scientific theory and write a proposal for how you intend to research it and argue on its behalf.
Before you begin writing your proposal, it is imperative that you understand how to write a philosophy paper. First, read the excerpt by Peter Horban below (all of which can be found in the APUS library). Second, read my directions for how to format your paper as an argument. Third, read my directions for how to write your proposal.
Directions for how to write your proposal:
Once you know where you are going with your topic and have gathered the pertinent sources for your research you can begin your proposal. Start by outlining your intentions for the paper (see Supporting Materials), then write a brief overview of what you hope to accomplish in the paper, i.e. how you will defend the theory you chose, and finish with an annotated citation page.
This proposal should be 300 – 400 words, in MLA or APA format. Additionally, it should include an annotated bibliography of five resources. An annotated bibliography is a regular bibliography but with a couple of additional sentences after each entry that you write that describes how the resource will assist you in writing on your topic. It is expected that your topic and your resources will develop as you do your research and writing, and you may feel free to make adjustments as you go. You should also incorporate as much of our assigned reading/course materials as possible.
In addition to our course materials, a good place to get started is at the Philosophy Research Guide in the APUS Library (see link below). For your annotated bibliography, at least three of your references should be from the APUS Library, including two which are academically, peer-reviewed journal articles. In your annotation, make sure that you describe where you found them in the APUS Library.
Please look at the following to help you write a philosophy paper.
Please look at the following to help you format your paper as an argument.
Due on Apr 28, 2024 11:55 PM

3 to 5 page essay over the prompt that I have chosen. For the which approach question, I chose some of both since it’s circumstantial. For the theory I chose utilitarianism since I think you should think about how actions affect everyone. I listed the sources required.

Note: Please write in the case of Myanmar and it’s current political issues after the military coup.

Please choose any one of the following:
(1) What in your everyday life do you consider to be aesthetically meaningful? Describe why you think of it as aesthetic. How is it different form a work of art that you might encounter in a museum or a gallery? How is it similar? How would you defend your view – that it is aesthetically meaningful – against a skeptic?
(2) Are you a feminist? Why or why not? What sort of issues are feminists concerned with, and how does feminism propose remedies for these issues? Is feminism (still) a vital movement?
(3) What is deep ecology? According to this view, what are the root causes of our environmental problems? Is any of this plausible?
(4) First, consider the following harrowing situation: You are a paramedic on the scene of a car crash. A car went over a bridge and fell into the river. The driver of the car was unable to escape from the car and drowned. Based on your examination of the body, the car and so on, you can tell that she did not die instantly, but had tried furiously to escape from the car, as it filled with water. The other members of the family have been notified, and they have now arrived. The husband is devastated – and asks you if at least she was killed instantly by the crash, or did she also suffer before she died? Now, what should you tell him? In considering this question you should contrast (a) a utilitarian, (b) a Kantian, and (c) a virtue ethics approaches. That is, you should say what each of those theories would determine to be the right thing to do here, and then you should say why you side with one of them, or perhaps why you would go another way entirely.
notes:
(a) The paper is due in to Canvas (there will be a drop box there for it) by 11:59 pm on Friday, June 14. The paper must be typed (font size 12, please), double-spaced, and 2-3 pages (1000-1500 words): too long is almost as bad as too short. Late papers will receive no written comments. Very late papers risk receiving no credit.
(b) No research (in particular, no scholarly source) is required for this paper.
(c) A thesis is required. You should be very clear about your thesis early, and then devote the rest of your paper to its defense.
(d) At some point, you should consider an objection to your thesis, or perhaps just a part of it – preferably, you will take on the toughest objection you can imagine, and then reply. And bear in mind that, in replying, you might need to concede some ground to the objection. Anyway, a qualified or nuanced reply is often a good way to go, especially if the objection is indeed robust.
(e) The most important part of your paper might well come before you write at all. You should read carefully, and reread, especially once you have a topic in mind. And you should think and rethink, trying to come to grips with your topic. Again, once you feel like you are leaning towards a view, try to imagine the toughest objection you can to that view: and then see what replies to that objection might be available.
(f) As for style, please bear in mind that your writing is here in the service of working through the arguments, not the other way round. Given this aim, you should work at writing clearly and simply: try to be clear and precise, but not to bedazzle or otherwise confuse.
(g) Finally, please sign your paper to indicate both that it is your own paper and that you have proofed it. Unsigned or painfully plainly unproofed papers will receive no written comments. NO CHAT GPT

Based on the uploaded Work Requirement, and Susan Brison Reading, selectively cite other uploaded materials as appropriate to answer the questions.