Philosophy

The assignment is to write a response paper in which you outline the event(s) and explain your response to the situation and to the attitude of the persons in power.   . This is not an essay. You do not need foot notes or quotes. You Google it and be careful of the time period. This happened in the 80’s when “W” was governor. Some of the sites say that Alberto Gonzales may some day be on the Supreme Court. Events subsequent to that writing make this highly unlikely. You should discuss the situation to show that you read it and then evaluate the consequences from a standpoint of ethical reasoning.

Name and explain the four levels of Plato’s metaphysics. The work must be set out in the following manner (Including showing the headings and keeping the sections in separate paragraphs): a) Your answer to the question (must be supported by reasons, and must be cogently argued using reason, giving any relevant evidences) b) Your opinion on the issue (also must be supported by reasons and be argued using reason, giving any relevant evidences)

In this five-paragraph response, I want you to consider how you personally define “humanity”? What does it mean to study “being human”? Is it important? Why or why not? What does it mean to be “human”? What separates us from the animals or the gods?

Based on the topic study materials, write a 750-1,000-word paper analyzing Wolterstorff’s reflections in Lament for a Son. In addition, address Kubler-Ross’s five stages of grief, as they are expressed throughout Lament for a Son, and respond to the following questions: Explain the medical and philosophical meaning of death. Explain the five stages of grief and identify them in Wolterstorff’s experiences. How does Wolterstorff find joy after his loss? How does the hope of the resurrection play a role in comforting Wolterstorff? What is the meaning and significance of death in light of the Christian narrative? What is the importance of understanding the grieving process, approaches, and practices in various faith traditions different than one’s own? Remember to support your responses with the topic study material.

Disscuss the case of Terri Shiavo, do you think her husband has the right to let her died, who has the final say about this? What do you think Terri Schiavo D. Read and Watch New York Times Retro Report on the case of Terri Schiavo VD. Read and Watch New York Times Retro Report on the case of Terri Schiavo https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/from-private-ordeal-to-national-fight-the-case-of-terri-schiavo.html?searchResultPosition=9 E. Watch ABC Report on Terri Schiavo’s case

Exploration Paper: Write a four-page research paper on the topic of human dignity as understood in the thought one of the following major Western philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes, Locke, Kant, Hume, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, Martin Buber, Simone de Beauvoir, or W.E.B. Du Bois. One should explore how the philosopher defined dignity, how he or she accounted for the basis or cause of human dignity, and what the philosopher considered to be the implications of human dignity in terms of the ethical, the social, and the political. Concentrate on how the thinker argued. That is, identify the thinker’s premises (assumptions), inferences from the given premises, and conclusions ultimately reached. As such, this is to be an explanatory/analytical paper. This paper is not to be a biographical overview or to be a summary of the philosopher’s work. This is to be a 3rd person, singular, objective paper (Do not use “I” or “me”). Research must be internally documented (within the body of the text), and there must be a works cited or bibliography page. Use either an MLA or a Turabian style in writing. At least five sources are needed; at least one source should be primary (the writing of the thinker under consideration). Wikipedia and internet blogs are unacceptable sources. Sources should be both formal and academic, which is the case with almost all sources found through the library date base. There should be at least four pages of content, along with a properly formatted works cited or bibliography page. DO NOT PLAGIARIZE.

Throughout all your college education, and elsewhere when educated presentations are required, you must always see that your argument is aligned with the content. That is, if you want to prove some fact that we can see with our own eyes, things in the world around us, you must use inductive arguments. You prove a medicine works by testing it rigorously–that is inductive proof. But if you want to prove something that is necessarily true in all possible worlds, something that must be true because of the meanings of the words, the ideas, then you must use deductive arguments. You prove any person always has $4 if they have $2 in each hand, merely by thinking about it (you don’t have to see every case with your own eyes). So when you want to prove something, you must use induction for knowledge of our visible world, and deduction for knowledge of ideas (in all possible worlds). You cannot prove Smith shot Jones just by thinking about them–you have to have visible facts you can look at, touch, etc., from CSI (induction). But to know what murder is, what counts as murder, we must think about the idea, and how the word is properly used (deduction). A jury must decide both (what happened and whether that falls under the law), so both kinds of proof are presented to them. (We decide Smith shot Jones by induction, but call it murder by deduction (what the word means in law).

First, what is virtue ethics, and how does it differ from the ethical theories we’ve already considered (utilitarianism and deontology)?   Second, briefly explain the principles of care ethics. Finally, explain whether you think care ethics should be understood as a kind of virtue ethics, or whether it’s really more like utilitarianism and deontology.

True/False: Each prompt below is either true or false. If part of the prompt is false, then the entire prompt is. Justify each answer provided in least one complete sentence. 1. There are broad and narrow senses of the category of moral rightness (i.e., of the morally obligatory). 2. According to readings, Divine Command Theory does poorly with respect to the internal appeal desideratum for a moral theory. Short-Answer: Answer each of the following prompts in 3-4 well-written, well-organized sentences. Be sure to follow all the instructions noted at the top of the assignment. 3. In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates challenges Euthyphro’s (second overall) definition that piety is being loved by the gods. Socrates’ challenge relies on Euthyphro’s belief that the gods disagree about what they love. Concisely explain how Socrates’ challenge shows that Euthyphro’s theory of piety fails the consistency desideratum for a moral-religious theory. 4. Consider the following adapted Euthyphro Dilemma Question: Is the action right because God commands it, or does God command the action because it is right? How does the traditional (unrestricted) Divine Command Theorist answer this question? Concisely explain one problem with their answer. 5. Some Divine Command Theorists revise their theory in response to the problem discussed in question 6 above. Concisely explain how they revise their theory, and then discuss one problem with the theory, as discussed in the course material.

Questions Morreall disagrees with traditional views on humor that connect it with emotion. Give an example of humor (in your own words, not from the text) that demonstrates disengagement (as Morreall describes it). Identify the theories of humor and ethical considerations in your example. Give an example of a humor situation that fits the definition of the superiority theory and discuss how disengagement might NOT happen in that situation. Discuss why Morreall might disagree with your points? In The Psychology of Humor, Martin discusses “decommitment.” Give an example from your real life (from work or in another real situation) in which somebody has disengaged through humor. Important: Do not give names or other details that would identify the person or exact situation in your example. What was the reaction of the target of the humor? What do you think would have happened had the decommitment statement not been made? Did decommitment deflect any negative fallout from the original comment? Morreall’s text discusses disengagement and Martin discusses decommitment. The two terms sound similar, but refer to different things. Give specific examples of each one and explain the difference. You may use real life situations (without names or identifiers) or examples from popular culture in your response. What would you predict early philosophers might say about ‘decommitment’ in a humor situation? What ethical and social considerations should be considered in today’s society when someone decommits and says, “It was only a joke”?