Category: Philosophy homework help

How would Susan Wolf evaluate philosophical hedonism, Sartre, and Socrates with respect to the question of life’s meaning? 
In order to answer this question well, you’ll need to explain each of the views in addition to making a case for how Wolf would evaluate them.
Atleast 350 words.

Define and explain at least two arguments related to God’s existence. 
Select from: ontological argument, first cause argument, cosmological argument, argument from design, problem of evil, or arguments related to agnosticism and the rationality of religious belief. 
For the two that you pick, identify possible objections and how the argument might respond to those objections.
Atleast 350 words
PDF

 
Second: After reviewing the required readings and videos, respond to the prompts below.
1. What is the mind-body problem? How has the story of Phineas Gage been used to help explain how the brain works?
2. Think about the different responses to the problem from the second video (substance dualist, physicalist, epiphenomenalist, & materialist). Which one do you think is the best explanation for what the mind is or how it ‘connects’ to the body? Why do you think that’s the best explanation?
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOkISlxST38&t=36s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SJROTXnmus
watch the videos and answer the questions above 200 words I need it in 24 hours.

Please see the attached document for questions related to each scenario. Please respond to each specific question. 
Thank you!

Please see the attached document for specific instruction and outline of each question sections and related questions that needs to be specifically addressed. 

 
Explore online sources of national news, pick one national news story that relates to American politics or government and is dated during the week that you are writing, read it, and:
Write a one-paragraph summary of what you take to be its main points. The summary must include the name of the author(s), the source of the story, the date of its publication online, and an active link that I can use to follow the story to its source.

Statement A: Dr. Meadows is correct. We need to start with the least invasive approaches, such as awareness campaigns. Abstinence campaigns also present no cost to personal liberties, and should be part of that plan. There is no question that abstinence works; no sex means no sexually transmitted disease. The last thing we want to do is to encourage even more promiscuity than already exists. 
Statement B: I agree with Dr. Meadows. We have to address this problem in terms of tackling the supply chain problem and getting more condoms out to more people. There is a real difficulty in getting people to change long-held beliefs that prevent them from seeing that condom distribution is ethical. HIV education, condom availability, and voluntary testing should lead the charge here. And we should always first consider testing programs that we can implement with the least possible harm to personal freedoms, such as using codes rather than names to identify patients in order to keep their health information private and protected. 
Statement C: The likelihood that our recommendation will alter the Catholic Church’s position is close to nil. We can hope the church will embrace a more liberal policy with regard to condom distribution, but we can’t make “hope” an ethical position. We should start a campaign to support the use of condoms and make it known to the public and to those who donate a charities. People should not donate to charitable groups with religious dictates that serve as public health impediments. 
Statement D: Dr. Williams  is right. Testing is too important to ignore. Keeping testing voluntary will mean that the people who need to be tested the most will avoid being tested out of fear of the stigma associated with the disease. Some things come at a price, and mandatory testing is the price we must pay to ensure a healthier population moving forward. 

Statement A: I agree with Dr. O’Connor. While some countries are beginning to implement better regulations for this growing country, most have not done so adequately. The practical result is that the rich can literally live off the poor through the exploitation of their vital organs. Firmly stating that it is unethical to exploit the poor for body parts will not exhibit medical progress. Exploitation and a lack of regulation are precisely the reasons this is an issue in the first place. 
Statement B: We can, and should, proceed with caution in the international area. Transplant tourism is not necessarily a problem. Room for improvement exists where regulations are concerned, but in most cases this is just an example of the way a world economy functions. Developing countries take advantage of industries with needs that they can address at a lower cost than their competitors. That’s a practically reality, even if it’s an uncomfortable one. As long as the organs come from ethical sources, it isn’t a problem. Even if there is a problem, we don’t want to dip our feet too far into international waters.
Statement C: Our statement should be concise and impossible to misunderstand, unequivocally condemning international organ transplants. All such transplants should be rendered unlawful immediately. That would surely send a message that could not be ignored, and that would likely spur the immediate reforms so desperately needed.
Statement D: Dr. O’Connor is on the right track, but we must keep in mind Dr. Reynold’s perspective as well. Transplant tourism is a serious problem and yes, we do have an obligation to point out unethical actions and offer some potential solutions. However, we should take care not to tread on international toes. Some reforms are already in countries known to have problems with black-market organs. The United States is often accused of forcing our views onto countries that may not agree with us. We have an obligation to speak out, but it will serve us better to do so in a culturally sensitive way. 

 Prepare an in class debate using the theory Care ethics – in a pro agruement for medical tourism/ transplant