Philosophy

Pick 2 authors and compare and contrast their views on a contemporary issue. For example, how would Fanon and Newton view the US response to corona virus? How would they agree? How would they disagree? Use your imagination! Requirements: 1000 words or less.

This question has three parts that are all to be answered in a single post. Once you have answered the first two parts (about 100 words for each), the third part asks you to engage in a brief (50 – 100 words) assessment (meaning this time you do not have a choice of what to assess). For the (relatively precise) account of how your answers will be assessed/what’s expected, please refer to the ‘Phil 2080 (Summer 2020) – Forums Grading Rubric’ .pdf posted on the homepage. The Question: a. Describe Dworkin’s distinction between ‘arguments of policy’ and ‘arguments of principle’, then explain why it is he maintains judicial decisions made in hard cases ought to be based on arguments of principle. b. Explain what it means on Dworkin’s account to say that a judicial decision in a hard case must both ‘fit and justify’ previous judicial decisions. c. Offer one reason for thinking that Dworkin’s notion of ‘fit’ is, or is not, problematic.

If everybody has self-interest in their own welfare and safety, then everybody also has self-interest in the welfare and safety of others. Self-interest involves community interest, and we must think about what we are willing to give up in order to get that safety and stability for ourselves, our families, our community, our nation, and even the world. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are just two examples of social contract moralists. Locke’s philosophy helped Thomas Jefferson formulate the United States Declaration of Independence. We are interested in what it means to live together in an orderly way under a social contract. Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, address one of the following sets of questions: What is a time when you or someone you know of experienced a conflict between duty to self and loyalty to the community? What would logical reasoning say should be done in that case? Why that? What would an Ethical Egoist say to do? Why would they say to do that? Note what you feel is the best course of action. What is a time when you or someone you know experienced a clash between professional duties and familial duties? Reference a professional code such as that of the American Nurses Association or American Bar Association in explaining the clash. What moral values should have been used in that case? Why those values? What would social contract ethics have said to have done? Why would social contract ethics say that? Note what you feel is the best course of action. Articulate and evaluate a time when you or someone you know saw personal obligations collide with national obligations. How did that tension involve differing positions on a moral debate? Did those positions rely on any key moral theories? If so, how so? If not, why not? Note what you feel is the best course of action.

Research Paper Instructions In this paper you will discuss various elements of a pre-approved cultural study. Research Paper Content: Begin with an introduction with a thesis statement. Provide a brief history of your culture. Explain how your chosen culture is represented in the United States. Discuss whether your culture individualistic or collectivistic. Provide at least one example. Detail some of the artistic (art, music, architecture, dance) contributions of your culture. Explain some of the values of your culture. Provide at least three examples. Discuss your culture’s religion(s). Include name and basic belief system of at least one of the major faiths. Detail some of the sex and gender role differences in your culture (provide at least three examples) Discuss what we would need to know to acculturate into your culture. (If a past one, what would we need to do for preparing for our time machine to fit in). Provide at least one concrete suggestion. End with the conclusion. Specific Paper Requirements: Length of paper four to six pages in length (Times New Roman; One inch margins; Font 12; Double-spaced) Must contain in-text citations in current APA Style Check your spelling and grammar Include a minimum of three or more credible sources (books, journal articles, magazine/newspaper articles, etc.)

Write a paper in which you compare and contrast the design arguments of Aquinas and Paley. The papers for reading are attached to this. You must read Thomas Aquinas pages 1-8 and Paley pages 46-55. A good paper should address the following points: Compare and contrast the explananda (the features X) of each argument by identifying why each requires an explanation beyond the laws or processes of nature. Discuss the analogies used by Aquinas (the archer) and by Paley (the watchmaker). Do these analogies present different kinds or ways of being a designer? If so, why? If not, why not? Evaluate the reasons given by Paley and Aquinas respectively for why each one’s respective feature X could not happen by chance. Are either susceptible to objections from scientists (like Carroll and Dawkins) that these features do plausibly arise by chance? Instructions Length: Minimum of 500 words. Formatting Requirements: Double spaced, 12 point font, Times New Roman, 1 inch margins Citations: Chicago Manuel of Style. You may use footnotes or parenthetical citations .

Read the essay at the link, and then in one file answer the 20 questions below as your personal final exam: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/7/272/files/2019/06/joint-review.pdf Part I: The First Action of the Mind (Conceptualization) 1. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a definition is given (citing the page number for your quotation). Is your chosen example a real or nominal definition? If it is real, then is it logical, causal, or descriptive? If it is logical, then distinguish both the genus and the essential difference. If it is causal, then distinguish whether there are formal, final, material, or efficient causes involved. If it is descriptive, then state whether it uses a property or an accident. Part II: The Second Action of the Mind (Judgment) 2. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a universal affirmative Type A proposition is given (citing the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. 3. For the Type A proposition in #2 above, state its contrary, its contradictory, and its subalternate (each in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). 4. If the Type A proposition in #2 above is FALSE, then state whether its contrary is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. 5. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a universal negative Type E proposition is given (citing the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. 6. For the Type E proposition in #5 above, state: its contrary; its contradictory; and its subalternate (each in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). 7. If the Type E proposition in #5 above is FALSE, then state: whether its contrary is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. 8. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a particular affirmative Type I proposition is given (citing the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. 9. For the Type I proposition in #8 above, state: its subcontrary; its contradictory; and its subimplicate (each in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). 10. If the Type I proposition in #5 above is TRUE, then state: whether its contrary is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. 11. Quote a sentence from the assigned essay in which a particular negative Type O proposition is given (citing the page number for your quotation). Rewrite the proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. 12. For the Type O proposition in #8 above, state: its subcontrary; its contradictory; and its subimplicate (each in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O). 13. If the Type O proposition in #5 above is TRUE, then state: whether its contrary is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; state whether its contradictory is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED; and state whether its subalternate is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDETERMINED. 14. Write the inverse of the proposition in #2 above. Show all the steps involved in the inference. Write all propositions in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. 15. Write the inverse of the proposition in #5 above. Show all the steps involved in the inference. Write all propositions in standard form, distinguishing the subject term from the predicate term by using single uppercase letters to define your terms. Part III: The Third Action of the Mind (Argument) 16. Quote a passage from the assigned essay in which you find a syllogism, an enthymeme, or an epicheirema (citing the page number for your quotation). Choose only one argument type. Rewrite each proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the conclusion’s subject term from the conclusion’s predicate term, as well as the middle term(s), by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O. Use square brackets to enclose any unspoken premises assumed in enthymematic reasoning, if applicable. 17. Analyze the argument in #16 above by checking it for validity and then stating whether it is VALID or INVALID. Prove your answer by drawing a Venn diagram for the argument, labeling it according to your analysis in #16 above. If the argument is INVALID, state each one of the four rules which the argument violates. If the argument is VALID, state whether or not it is SOUND, and why. 18. Quote another passage from the assigned essay (different from your example in #16) in which you find a syllogism, an enthymeme, or an epicheirema (citing the page number for your quotation). Choose only one. Rewrite each proposition in your chosen example in standard form, distinguishing the conclusion’s subject term from the conclusion’s predicate term, as well as the middle term(s), by using single uppercase letters to define your terms, and labelling each proposition Type as A, E, I, or O. Use square brackets to enclose any unspoken premises assumed in enthymematic reasoning, if applicable. If you wish, instead of citing another passage, you can paraphrase what you discern the main argument of the entire essay to be, by stating your interpretation as a syllogism, enthymeme, or epicheirema, and then formalizing that argument according to the preceding symbolization instructions for #18. 19. Analyze the argument in #18 above by checking it for validity and then stating whether it is VALID or INVALID. Prove your answer by drawing a Venn diagram for the argument, labeling it according to your analysis in #18 above. If the argument is INVALID, state each one of the four rules which the argument violates. If the argument is VALID, state whether or not it is SOUND, and why. 20. Quote a passage from the assigned essay in which you find a modus ponens argument, a modus tollens argument, a denying the antecedent fallacy, an affirming the consequent fallacy, a sorites, a hypothetical syllogism, a conjunctive syllogism, a disjunctive syllogism, a constructive dilemma, a destructive dilemma, or a reductio ad absurdum argument (citing the page number for your quotation). Choose only one argument type. Symbolize your chosen argument by using the techniques you learned in this course. State whether your chosen argument is VALID or INVALID. Is it also SOUND?

Choose three artworks in three different medias (i.e. painting, sculpture, architecture, music, film, photography). Write an essay (in your own words; 500-1000 words) in paragraph form. Explain how each of your chosen artworks reveals human values. Give equal treatment to each of your chosen artworks

Objective: Analyze the concept of worldview. Mindset: Appreciate concept mapping as a way to visualize knowledge and make it more applicable to your personal life. Instructions The use of concept mapping is a valuable and effective way to visualize knowledge, as well as find relevance in your personal life. Worldviews are very personal. Concept mapping will help provide individual relationships and insights with a worldview. Create a concept map that visually represents one of the worldviews presented in Week Two. World views from week 2 follow as below : Analyzing worldviews can be an overwhelming and confusing task, but filtering the worldviews through the “seven questions” is very helpful. Write at least one paragraph for each question below as to why each of these questions is important in understanding a worldview. Do not answer the questions per se; instead, discuss the importance of the questions themselves. What is prime reality: the really real? What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? What is a human being? What happens to a person at death? Why is it possible to know anything at all? How do we know what is right and wrong? What is the meaning of human history?

In his essay ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, J.L. Mackie presents and defends a version of The Problem of Evil. As part of his discussion, Mackie goes through a number of ‘fallacious solutions’. One of these solutions that Mackie discusses is the claim that ‘evil is necessary as a means to good’. Briefly state and critically discuss Mackie’s view regarding this solution, making sure to explain whether or not you agree with him Articles links: http://www.ditext.com/mackie/evil.html

What is a Just State? In a 2–3-page paper, address the following: Explain intersectionality Explain at least one social philosophy from the textbook. For instance, you might discuss utilitarianism, Rawls, Marx, Nozick, Du Bois, King, or Beauvoir. If the theory has a clear correlate, please discuss it as well. Illustrate your understanding of both the intersectional and traditional social justice approaches with examples. Support your account of the theories with citations to the textbook and online lectures in correct APA format. MUST USE THIS REFERENCE FOR CITATIONS: REFERENCE: Mitchell, H.B. (2015). Roots of Wisdom: A Tapestry of Philosophical Traditions: (7th ed.). Boston: Cengage.