Category: Philosophy

3. Reason plays a prominent role in the moral philosophies of both Aristotle and Immanuel Kant; however, the role it plays in each is very different. In this essay, highlight these different roles by doing the following:
a. explain Aritstotle’s function argument;
b. explain Kant’s critique of Aristotelian ethics;
c. explain Kant’s contention that a good will is the only thing that is good without qualification; and
d. subject either Aristotle’s or Kant’s arguments/theories to critical analysis. (Keep in mind that you can either criticize or defend Kant’s arguments/ethics and that you are allowed—but not required—to draw on arguments presented in the course lecture and/or readings. If you are so inclined, you should feel free to present your own argument in the analysis.)

Paper
Paper Topics
Guidelines for writing paper
Tips on Writing a Philosophy Paper
Paper Topic
Explain Descartes’ Evil Demon Argument and the challenge it poses to our knowledge of the external world.  Then briefly explain Descartes’ proposed solution to the Evil Demon Argument, starting with Cogito ergo sum and including one of the arguments (Imprint or Omnipotence) for the existence of God.  Do you find the argument you described (Imprint or Omnipotence) persuasive?  In other words, do you think Descartes has successfully argued for the existence of God?  Give at least one reason why or why not you think Descartes’ argument is successful.
Guidelines for writing paper
Length: 2 – 3 pages; anything shorter than two pages will not leave you enough room to include everything you need.
Due date: Papers are due on Friday, May 3 by 10 p.m.  You must deposit an electronic copy in a drop box on D2L.    
Topic: The topic for your paper will be chosen from the list of topics on D2L.  If you wish to write on a different topic, the topic needs to be cleared by me.
Format: The paper will be written in Times New Roman 12 size font with one-inch margins to both right and left and top and bottom, and double-spaced.  Your name will need to be in the header.
Research: The topic will be focusing on issues raised in the reading and lecture so outside research is not required and I would discourage it for this paper.
Plagiarism/Citations: Plagiarism is defined as reproducing the work of another and claiming it as your own.  Do not do it – the penalties are severe, and you will be found out.  If you do quote directly from another work, clearly mark the quoted part (most likely with quotation marks) and cite the work the quote is taken from in parentheses, a footnote, or an endnote.  For the purposes of this class the exact form of the citation is not important – what is important is putting the information of where the quote comes from.  Citing the work will enable you to make sure to avoid charges of plagiarism.  If you do not know how to cite please ask me for help.
Writing: If you have any problems with writing, please come to me for help (or at least have me read a draft).
Final note: I want you to do well on your paper and will help you in any way I can (short of writing it for you).  If you need help with a particular argument or are having problems with a particular paragraph, send me an email and I will help you.  It is usually very helpful to make an outline to help structure your paper.  If you make an outline and want feedback on it please email it to me and I’ll give you feedback.
What not to do when writing a Philosophy paper
Do not ask a question in the paper unless you immediately answer it.  Asking a question can sound profound – Why would God hold a lottery? – questions don’t impart information and must be used sparingly, if at all. Questions tell the reader nothing except that the writer is musing about something.  A better approach would be to phrase what you want to say in the form of statements rather than questions – It is suspicious that God would hold a lottery since a person with evil intent could have won – since statements impart information.  If you ask a bunch of rhetorical questions, it will negatively impact your grade.
Tips on Writing a Philosophy Paper
One of the most important things in writing philosophy papers is to thoroughly explain the arguments, objections, and responses, with particular attention paid to any key terms.  You need to write the paper by assuming a certain level of ignorance in your audience.  The level of ignorance you need to assume is a little tricky, but a good rule of thumb is to write to an audience that is familiar with philosophy but not familiar with the particular issue you are discussing.  For example, if you were to write a paper on the Problem of Evil, you can assume your audience knows what an argument, objection, and response are, as well as having some idea of what you mean by the term ‘God.’  You need to explain the exact characteristics of God, including omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience, beyond the obvious meaning of all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing.  You would also need to specifically identify evil as suffering and then explain exactly why evil and God may be incompatible.  You would then go on to explain the Free Will Defense, specifically what it is and how it is supposed to show that evil and God can be compatible.  Then you would discuss an objection to the Free Will Defense and a response to that objection.
Remember, in general too much explanation is better than too little explanation.  Probably around the point where you think you have too much explanation is when you will most likely have enough explanation.  Examples can help to flesh out explanations and sometimes it is useful to use personal examples.  In a relatively short paper, though, it is important not to get too carried away with discussing examples so that you leave too little room to explain the needed philosophical terms, arguments, objections, and responses.  Writing a philosophy paper is not easy (if it was easy everyone would be able to do it) but remember that I am here to help you.  If you want me to read over your paper or just get stuck on something don’t hesitate to come to me for help.  This is a learning process and you shouldn’t expect to write fabulous papers right out of the gate.

I already did the essay but I got a B in it. If I fix the essay i have a chance to get an A. On the attached file (essay), there are some notes on what to do and what to fix. Please fix all the mistakes and try to be consistent as much as possible. The required book to write the essay is David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding you can use this book as the main source for the editing, which is also attahced in a file, (The due date is tomorrow evening). The Essay was written based on this question: 
Hume says that we should ground knowledge on what he calls “impressions” rather than on the “clear and distinct” rational principles that Descartes views as foundational.  What does Hume mean by “impressions” and why does he start there?  Is he right?  Defend or criticize Hume’s empiricist starting point. 

The essay should be at least 7-10 pages in its main text,
“exclusive” of:
(1) the “improved and refined” version of Abstract
at the beginning, and
(2) the Bibliography at the end.
——————————————————————-
on the font:
You should use the standard: double-spaced with font of 12
points in normal letter size.
——————————————————————-
on Abstract:
As far as the Abstract at the beginning is concerned, it should
contain the following 3 statements:
1. nature of issue or question you’re addressing
2. your “conclusion” as an answer to the issue
3. your reasons, that is, “premises” for your conclusion
You are “strongly recommended” (though not required) to add to this
beginning page for the Abstract what has been referred to as “R & E”
throughout the course:
Given that the above conclusion and the premises should
constitute a full-blown “argument,” you may certainly try to
lay it out in a linear or hierarchical “Reconstruction” (and
even “Evaluation”), as was studied in R2.04 and throughout
the course. This enriched additional feature of Abstract will
earn you higher points than otherwise.
——————————————————————-
on PDF for file to submit:
You may use word processing program to write the essay; but you
should all convert it to PDF for the sake of OS-independent
compatibility.
——————————————————————-
on format:
You may write in conformity with “any” standard manual or style,
e.g., MLA, Chicago, etc. Surely, I would care contents a lot
more than style.

Goldenberg argues that a lack of trust in science is the appropriate diagnosis for an increase in vaccine hesitancy. In Chapter 5 and the Conclusion, she motivates this thesis from many angles:
By comparing this diagnosis with what she thinks are worse alternative diagnoses such as a lack of scientific literacy, cognitive biases, or anti-expertise attitudes.
By considering the sources of this distrust and in what ways they correlate with the rise in vaccine hesitancy.
By outlining the pathways forward to address distrust and how those pathways might lead to many benefits beyond shifting the attitudes of vaccine skeptics.
Which part of her argument(s) made you think about vaccine hesitancy in a different way? Why? 
Identify one part or quotation from the reading that made you reconsider something you believe about science, about vaccine hesitancy, or about the moral obligations that scientists have to the public.

I need lecture audios to be listened to of a few moduals. I need to start writtng an essay. I am not sure how long it needs to be yet. I need a 1 sentence thesis statment and just the intro paragraph for now. I can send over the files. Should be easy I just dont have the time. The audio can be sped up and still understood

PHIL 113
Assignment #1
Jeff Noonan “The Life-Value of Death”
(10 points)
Directions:
1. Read all of Jeff Noonan’s “The Life-Value of Death” (PDF in Canvas)
2. Answer all the following questions. Questions (-1pt for each question not answered or not answered correctly):
1. Summary:
a. In your own words, summarize the reading as thoroughly as possible. i. Please feel free to quote the author if you would like to do so.
b. In your summary, be sure to answer these questions:
i. What was the author’s conclusion or main point?
ii. What were all of the author’s reasons for believing the conclusion or main point? Explain for each. 2. Response:
a. What did you think of the author’s viewpoint? i. Did you agree or disagree? Explain why as thoroughly as possible. 1. Make sure your response is precisely relevant to the author’s argument and main point and be sure to NOT commit any logical fallacies. Essay Guidelines (-1 pt each if not completed): All essays MUST follow these guidelines:
• Length: 2 full pages in length (minimum, no maximum page limit).
• Font: Times New Roman 12pt font.
• Name: Placed your name on the top left corner of your paper, followed with course name, and the professor’s (my) name. • Spacing: Double spaced lines throughout the entire essay. • Page Numbers: Insert page numbers on the top right of each page. (Your software should have an “Insert Page Number” option. Use the “help” on your software to find out how to do this.)
• Margins: Margins must be no more than 1 inch on all sides.
• Indentions: The first line of each paragraph must be indented. • Spelling: Check the spelling throughout the entire essay.
• Grammar: Make sure you use proper grammar and punctuation. • Essay Structure: make sure you have proper paragraph breaks where needed. • Save File: Save your file as a DOC or DOCX file type. If you do not do this, I will not be able to read it. If I can’t read it, I can’t grade it. If I can’t grade it, you will not get a grade. • Upload: Upload a copy into Canvas for my evaluation and for plagiarism analysis.

Instructions
You are required to complete a creative philosophical project. You will choose a philosophical topic and create a piece exploring that topic.  The topics to choose from are:
Nozick – The Experience Machine.pdf 2.1 Nozick – The Experience Machine.pd
2.2 Salmon – The Scope of Logic (excerpts).pdf 2.2 Salmon – The Scope of Logic (excerpts).pdf – Alternative Formats (2.675 MB) 
3.1 Rezkalla – Moral Relativism and Subjectivism.pdf 3.1 Rezkalla – Moral Relativism and Subjectivism.pdf – Alternative Formats (20.771 MB) 
3.2 Morgan – Divine Command Theory and Natural Law Theory.pdf 3.2 Morgan – Divine Command Theory and Natural Law Theory.pdf – Alternative Formats (22.479 MB) 
4.1 Abumere – Utilitarianism.pdf 4.1 Abumere – Utilitarianism.pdf – Alternative Formats (16.479 MB) 
4.2 Singer – Famine, Affluence, and Morality.pdf 4.2 Singer – Famine, Affluence, and Morality.pdf – Alternative Formats (396.033 KB) 
5.1 Giles – Virtue Ethics.pdf 5.1 Giles – Virtue Ethics.pdf – Alternative Formats (22.148 MB) 
6.2 Mackay – Feminism and Feminist Ethics.pdf 6.2 Mackay – Feminism and Feminist Ethics.pdf – Alternative Formats (24.604 MB) 
7.1 Kranak – Kantian Deontology.pdf 7.1 Kranak – Kantian Deontology.pdf – Alternative Formats (24.1 MB) 
7.2 O’Neill – A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics.pdf 7.2 O’Neill – A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics.pdf – Alternative Formats (158.983 KB) 
8.1 Gettier – Is Justified True Belief Knowledge.pdf 8.1 Gettier – Is Justified True Belief Knowledge.pdf – Alternative Formats (812.331 KB) 
8.2 Descartes – First Meditation.pdf 8.2 Descartes – First Meditation.pdf – Alternative Formats (5.995 MB) 
9.1 Markosian – Do You Know that You are not a Brain in a Vat (excerpts).pdf 9.1 Markosian – Do You Know that You are not a Brain in a Vat (excerpts).pdf – Alternative Formats (1.211 MB) 
9-10. Basu – The Spectre of Normative Conflict.pdf 9-10. Basu – The Spectre of Normative Conflict.pdf – Alternative Formats (849.369 KB) 
11. Sider – Free Will and Determinism.pdf 11. Sider – Free Will and Determinism.pdf – Alternative Formats (253.285 KB) 
12.1 Aquinas – The Five Ways.pdf 12.1 Aquinas – The Five Ways.pdf – Alternative Formats (125.947 KB) 
12.2 Mackie – Evil and Omnipotence.pdf 12.2 Mackie – Evil and Omnipotence.pdf – Alternative Formats (3.853 MB) 
13.1 Jackson – What Mary Didn’t Know.pdf 13.1 Jackson – What Mary Didn’t Know.pdf – Alternative Formats (1.47 MB) 
13.2 The Zhuangzi (excerpts).pdf 13.2 The Zhuangzi (excerpts).pdf – Alternative Formats (4.731 MB) 
15.2 Nagel – Moral Luck.pdf
For example, you might film a movie, write a script, record a song, compose a poem, draw a comic, edit a podcast, paint a picture, take a collection of photographs, or make a sculpture (or something else). If you are unsure whether a particular project would be suitable, please check with me first.
Alongside the creative piece, you will write at least 500 words explaining the philosophical significance of your creation. In this discussion, you must relate your work to the philosophical topic you have chosen. I encourage you to reference the readings, or other texts.
Philosophy is a creative discipline. Coming up with new arguments, ideas, and objections requires patience, an open-mind, and inspiration. This assignment will allow you to practice your philosophical creative expression. It will also exercise your ability to recognise philosophical issues in the world around you. When grading your work, I will be assessing the underlying conceptual content of the work, effort, execution, philosophical understanding, and originality.
If you receive a C+ or lower, I will give you the option to revise and resubmit your work. Please submit your project on time, to ensure that I can reasonably make this provision. Late work (even once revised) will be docked by one partial-letter grade per day late (e.g. B+ to B).
Reflection
In addition to your project and discussion, I would like you to submit a brief reflection about the process of completing this assignment. Please include this reflection in the same file as your discussion. The reflection will not contribute to your discussion’s word-count, nor to your project’s final grade.
Some things you might consider: What worked well in creating this project? What worked poorly? Did I do enough initial research and reading? Did I plan my project thoroughly enough? Did I break the task down into smaller, more manageable tasks
first? Or did I just throw myself into in? Did I leave my project too late, or did I start early? Did I work after lunch when I was sleepy? Or after dinner when I was wide awake? What else was going on in my life at the time, and how might that have affected the result?

We have mostly read epistemologist (theorists of knowledge) each of whom talk about how to acquire knowledge.  The traditional definition of knowledge (which has known problems) is that knowledge is a justified true belief.  A belief that is also knowledge, by definition, must be true (false knowledge is impossible by definition). To say that I believe a statement is just to say that I think that statement describes the way things are.  If I believe that the 2020 election was stolen, and you believe that it was not stolen, then one of us must be wrong.  Truth/reality is not relative to the individual, but beliefs are.  Whether I believe something is something I decide.  Most (if not all) epistemologists would say that we have a moral obligation to make sure that our beliefs are not contrary to the available evidence. 
In light of our readings in epistemology, I want you to write a paper on conspiracy theories in general and in particular I want you to look at:
•    The claim that Biden only won the 2020 election because of fraud.
•    The claim that vaccines cause autism or are a way for the government to control us.
During the course of your paper you must address the following issues:
Do People have a moral obligation to make sure that all of their beliefs are reasonable?
Does an individual’s belief about a vaccine being dangerous endanger other people?
Does an individual’s belief that the 2020 election was stolen potentially harm other people?
Is there good evidence that the outcome of the 2020 election was determined by fraud?  
What evidence can you find about whether the 2020 elections were conducted fairly? (Do some searching for evidence about the reliability of the 2020 results and report on what you found).
Is a person who believes that the 2020 election was determined by fraud being irresponsible?
Is there good evidence for believing that vaccines cause autism?
What would good evidence for vaccines causing autism look like?
For both conspiracy theories (the claim that the 2020 election was stolen and the claim that vaccines cause autism) who has the burden of proof? Does one side have a greater obligation to produce evidence than the other?
Descartes:
How much evidence would Descartes think is required for forming a belief?
What would Descartes say about the belief that the 2020 election was stolen?   
What would he say about people who believe that vaccines cause autism?  
Hume:
David Hume, in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding says that it is impossible to be certain of a ‘matter of fact.’  Does this sort of claim make a belief, such as the 2020 election was stolen or the QAnon claim that our country is run by cannibalistic pedophiles reasonable?
In section 12 Hume talks about dogmatists and skeptics.  Would those believing that vaccines cause autism or that the 2020 election was stolen look more like skeptics or dogmatists?
Looking at Hume’s discussion of miracles, what might he say about whether it is rational to believe the stolen election conspiracy or that vaccines cause autism?
Plato:
Is Socrates right that we ought to live examined lives?  (That an unexamined life is not worthy of a human being?)  Would a person living an examined life believe that the 2020 election was stolen?  Explain.

Option #2 – Educational Policy Analysis – address all five points: A, B, C, D, and E (worth 20pts each)
Include references/quotes from our readings so far this semester
You can analyze an educational issue/policy that interests you, relating it to your own experiences/observations and our
readings/discussions in class thus far. See the list of resources in our Inquiry Assignment in Canvas and use one or more
of the links provided there.
FYI: If you chose Option #2 for your 1st Inquiry Project, you can discuss the SAME issue/policy– BUT do so through the
lens of our readings/videos/discussions since Spring Break. OR you can discuss a NEW issue/policy. It’s up to you.
A) Introduce your topic: i) Briefly state the issue/policy you’re addressing.
ii) List the issue/policy sources you’re using from the list provided on Canvas.
iii) Briefly indicate which of our readings and/or class discussions relate to this issue.
B) Explain the main points of the issue and the conflicts or questions involved (for students, parents, teachers, leaders,
communities, etc.)
C) Summarize the discussion in the policy source(s) you’re relying on. Provide a link to that source.
D) Share how this issue relates to (or contrasts with) your own experiences/observations.
Highlight statements/claims in the policy source that you think are especially important.
Provide references or quotes from our readings/videos that relate to this issue – whether in positive or negative ways.
[Consider approaching this as if you are interviewing a thinker we’ve read and/or reporting on their views.]
E) Conclude by saying how you think the issue should be addressed – and why?
Feel free to refer back to your own experiences/observations and/or our class readings/videos to strengthen your case.