Philosophy

Justice As Fairness Suitably Sensitive To Choices and Insensitive To Circumstances. See these articles as well https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-distributive/#Acal.

Students will complete a major paper detailing his/her views related to the central disciplines of philosophy. The paper will display the student’s ability to articulate the central issues in each discipline of philosophy, and present their own views related to each topic. Every student in this course is a philosopher, and this paper is a chance for the student to detail his/her philosophic worldview. The paper requirements are as follows: The paper must be a minimum of 8 pages (excluding cover page and bibliography), double spaced, written in 12pt Times New Romans font, with standard 1” boarders. The paper must use proper APA formatting. The paper must reference at least 4 academic sources (scholarly books, articles, presentations, etc. Popular sources such as blogs, Wikipedia, and the like are not acceptable) beyond course texts in the paper.  The paper will include sections on the following: Metaphysics  Epistemology Philosophy of Religion or Aesthetics (pick one) Ethics or Political Philosophy (pick one) In each section, students will: Describe the central question(s) of each branch of philosophy. Engage the thought of at least 2 philosophers discussed in class (like aristole, plato, socrates, hume, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. Enumerate their own answers to these questions. Each paper should have a brief introduction and conclusion (1 short paragraph).

This week, we learned about inductive reasoning and its role in helping make decisions when we cannot achieve certainty but still must make effective decisions.  In your own words, describe how understanding inductive reasoning can help you make a choice when certainty is not an option.  Explain how this understanding helped you, or could have helped you, make a better decision either personal or professionally.

The paper is your opportunity to demonstrate close reading and analytical skills and the depth and breadth of your understanding as you engage with key ideas related to your subject, and as you connect those ideas with any impact you identify on your life, your community, or on broader philosophical concerns (ethical dilemmas, political positions, social challenges, etc) You should: Engage the philosopher and philosophical position directly. Use outside sources. A minimum of two are required. Provide concrete examples and illustrations, in addition to direct quotations to show why you say what you do. Personal reactions, and first person consideration of ideas is welcome, but this is not an opinion paper per se. It is analytical, well-supported close reading that includes thoughtful, well-considered response.

1.) Explain what the author thinks an epistemic peer is. (Explaining Feldman’s notion of an epistemic peer may take a bit of interpretive work since Feldman doesn’t spell it out as explicitly as Kelly does.) 2.) Explain the paper’s thesis (what is the author claiming about disagreement) and reconstruct the argument for the thesis. As you do so, explain how the idea of an epistemic peer is supposed to fit into that argument (it may help to think about why this argument needs to draw on the idea of epistemic peerdom). 3.) In the last paragraph or two of the paper, briefly evaluate the both the idea of epistemic peerdom that this author is using and how the author is appealing to it in the argument. (As you do so, it might help to ask yourself one or more of the following questions: Do I agree with this idea of an epistemic peer? Would I add or subtract anything from the author’s criteria for peerdom? Do I agree that this kind of peer is possible? What are the upshots of my evaluation of this idea of epistemic peerdom on the argument this author is trying to make? Of course, you might have your own preferred questions in mind that will help your evaluation along, and that’s fine.)

You have read and studied John Rawls theory of Justice and you read and studied Robert Nozcik’s theory of distributive justice.  I would like you to write a compare and contrast essay on these two political philosophers.  Please conclude with an argument in favor of one of the two theorist.

1. Choose a topic from Schelling’s Philosophical Investigations, something that interests you, which you can write 5-7 pages on. Your topic should be represented by an argument selected from the text. An argument consists of a main claim, or a conclusion, and several reasons supporting that conclusion, which are called premises.  2.  Write an analysis paper that consists of (I) a thesis, (II) an analysis of the chosen argument as it appears in the text, and (III) a set of reasons supporting the main claim made during your analysis.  Your thesis statement should be one sentence, in the first paragraph of your paper, and it should express the main claim you intend to make and support throughout your writing.  The claim you make should tell me about the significance of your analysis. Here is an example: “According to Schelling, evil is not merely a privation of good, but is a positive feature of reality and a fundamental aspect of human freedom; this is significant because it means we are completely responsible for our actions as I will attempt to show throughout the following analysis.” Your analysis should break down all of the important aspects of the argument you have selected from Schelling’s text. Your argument should be organized into the standard format: list the conclusion (i.e. the main claim supported) and the premises or reasons used to support that conclusion Explain the meaning of each reason and how it connects to the other reasons and to the conclusion Key words and technical terms should be identified and explained The overarching importance of the previous information should be clarified; restate your thesis, supported throughout your analysis Provide all of the reasons you can think of that would support the analysis you offered and the claim you have made in a concise and systematic way. Make sure each of your premises is clearly stated and explained Provide any counter evidence that you can think of and explain why you think that counter evidence fails to undermine your thesis  Make sure you conclude your paper with a summarizing paragraph that ties everything together, and provides one last statement of your thesis    3. Your paper should be formatted according to the following standards: 12 pt., Times New Romans font Double Spaced Paragraphs indented Cite your source and all pages referenced Include an original title that introduces your topic

essay topic: Vitalism is a philosophical concept that underpins the naturopathic clinical principle Vis Medicatrix Naturae (VMN). This differs from biomedicines healthcare philosophy of mechanism. How are they different and how are they similar?

Can democracy be sustained when so few people are involved in the political system? Voter turnout in a local election can run less than 10 percent, yet local governments are the ones that affect people more closely on a daily basis. Why do more people not vote in America? Explain.

1500 word (Times New Roman 12pt Font) long paper that is a deep analysis of  “are prison obsolete” (can refer to Angela davids book)  1)    Introduce the Topic:  The introduction should reflect that fact and introduce the reader to what is at stake whether you do or do not accept this.  2)    State your thesis: Explicitly make clear what position you are arguing for or against 3)    Reconstruct the Argument: Put the argument in proper premise and conclusion form. Make sure it accurately captures how the argument works.  4)    Assess the Validity: Do not just say the premises lead to the conclusion. Explicitly say what about the premises make it such that if they are true then the conclusion must follow 5)    Assess the Soundness: Explicitly say why it is the premises are true or false. This is the bulk of the assignment. Give reasons as to why someone should also be convinced that these premises are true or false. It is not enough to say they are true.  Everything that is said must be defended with reason. 6)    Consider an Objection: Imagine what someone who disagrees with you will say. Give this objection and respond to it. Say why the objection raised does not defeat the argument. Do not give an objection that is easily refuted. 7)    Conclusion: Here you will sum up your work. Remind the reader of the conclusions you have drawn and the reasoning you used to get there.