Category: Philosophy

Please answer each question with atleast 200 words, more or less depedning on the questi- on demand. 

1.) (a) In general, what is line-drawing and how can we use it to resolve unclear cases by comparing them with clear-cut cases (paradigms)? (b) Give an apt example.
2.) (Be certain to answer every part of this question and to itemize the parts of your answer (a) – (e) in accordance with the questions asked.)
According to the authors, how do engineers define risk? (b) How can this understanding be explicated in terms of cost-benefit analysis? (c) In contrast, how do the authors describe the layperson’s use of the word “risk” as a result of recurrent confusions and conflations? (d) How does this lay conception of risk tend to express a respect for persons, rather than utilitarian, approach to moral decision-making?
3.)(a) Describe the Milgram experiments. (b) Describe what, if anything, you take these experiments to tell us about the ways in which engineers might become “distanced” from the consequences of their decisions in large organizational contexts? (c) Describe two positive recommendations that Milgram offers on the basis of his research to encourage personal responsibility on the part of employees. (d) Describe the way in which the second of these recommendations might be undermined by the phenomenon of groupthink.
4.) (b) What is Leopold’s “non-anthropocentric” ethcis and (b) the authors’ modified non-anthropocentric ethics (on p. 178)? (c) Which do you find more palatable? Why?
5.)
(Be certain to answer every part of this question and to itemize the parts of your answer (a) – (c) in accordance with the questions asked.)
Referring to the Jonas reading address the following questions: How has (a) the recent vulnerability of nature, (b) the new role of knowledge in morality, and (c) the growing sense of nature as a “human trust” changed or expanded the features that need to be accounted for by an adequate modern ethics? 
https://www.basicincome.com/bp/files/The_Abolition_of_Man-C_S_Lewis.pdf
RESOURCES: http://www.lewisiana.nl/abolquotes/
Part 1 Summary: Video Search Results (yahoo.com)
Links to an external site.
Part 2 Summary: Video Search Results (yahoo.com)
Links to an external site.
Part 3 Summary: Video Search Results (yahoo.com)
Links to an external site.
https://www.lewisiana.nl/abolquotes/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NfE9o45tfNCD_3gIiWe62j1KcGI87exLkr8rNn8QlP8/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16owGsIZZMHX4n-JO2RE_7YqRTvIm7Jg27y5nlbVzThA/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nlCZ-v84orGzAcaOmbQ_HNqLXMmN_39FfxqKH3Zar1A/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1iMutpQEQrftU_eCeod0LFfnhMDGEUET8Intt3L07BMc/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W-RRV7USsd0uHcqTQbJmf7CiJVRmGcznnS8iobSTkS8/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nDbnZJCxqfvjOhbamGM3rgWW2ZK0vbti38cOBi4q83M/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1FnnVMuBQq8vQH5U3kY4ZIHzb_4_cKARd9oldknTVEHo/edit?usp=sharing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWaHOOS86aI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmIr6D79xq8
http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/faculty/files/nussbaum/Beyond%20the%20Social%20Contract.pdf

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1w5c3wAdetq0eMe1-yySm_gk5W04QBRgRRTFZGTZa2_k/edit?usp=sharing

Prompt:
For this essay, use the analytical method to explore two works of science fiction – one film and one short story. Situate your analysis within the context of contemporary philosophical questions about the main issue. Choose an option you did not do for Essay 5,
Option 1 – Becoming Posthuman
Philosophical Reading: George J. Annas, “The Man on the Moon”
Film: Gattaca
Stories (Choose 1): Edmond Hamilton, “The Man Who Evolved”(1931), Clifford D. Simak, “Desertion”(1944), Frank Herbert, “Seed Stock”(1970), Option 2 – Responding to Disaster
Philosophical Reading: Michael Stevenson, “Hope and Despair: Philosophical Considerations for Uncertain Times”Links to an external site.
Film: Children of Men
Stories (Choose 1): H. G. Wells, “The Star” (1897), Ray Bradbury, “There Will Come Soft Rains”(1950), J. G. Ballard, “The Cage of Sand”(1962), Octavia E. Butler, “Speech Sounds”(1983)
Citations
All stories (except for Bradbury, 1952) are from the following source (fill in the template):
AuthorLastName, AuthorFirstName. “Title of Story.” The Wesleyan Anthology of Science Fiction, edited by Arthur B. Evans, Istvan Csicsery-Ronay Jr., Joan Gordon, Veronica Hollinger, Rob Latham, and Carol McGuirk, Wesleyan University Press, 2010, pp. xx–xx.
Resources
The Method for Analysis Slide Presentation
Guidelines
The essay involves two drafts with peer review. The first draft should be a complete draft this time. The essay should be between 1,200-1,500 words (5-6 pages double-spaced).
The essay should use MLA format for in-text citations and Works Cited list.
The essay should include a heading, title, and page numbers.
The essay should be double-spaced with indented paragraphs.
The essay should have a clear introduction, body, and conclusion.
The introduction should (1) build shared context with the reader, (2) pose a problem, and (3) offer a thesis with a clear, arguable claim. Your paragraphs should show evidence of effective paragraph structure (topic sentences, restrictions/restatements, illustrations, explanations), coherence/cohesion, and handling of sources (summary, paraphrase, and quotation with citation).
————————————————————————————————————————–
I already did option 1 for essay 5, so the only option left is responding to disaster (option 2). I have attached my work for Essay 5, please do a similar style for the analysis. The main feedback from essay 5 is to use direct quotes from the movie to prove my points more but everything else was perfect and lived up to their expectations. I also attached here the different stories for the assignment, please only use the attached files because they are extracts from larger texts so if you use a quote, make sure it can be found in the story I attached. There was a presentation the professor presented about methods of analysis which I will also attach. The link for the philosophical reading is this: https://therevealer.org/hope-despair-philosophical-considerations-for-uncertain-times/
Please do no hesitate to contact me for any questions or clarifications

This is a ten page final paper for my Philosophy of science class that literally has no instructions. This being said, it must analyze some specific aspect of Alex Rosenberg’s book titled Philosophy of Science, in the 4th edition. The pdf of the book is attached below, and the topic I would like the paper written on is “The Role of Paradigms in Scientific Progress”.Using the pdf attached below, make a case that Thomas Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts is more effective in explaining scientific progress than a gradual accumulation of knowledge, as suggested by the traditional scientific method . Adress relevant counterarguments in the paper as well, and use Chicago style for citations. Thankyou! 

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