Tag: Philosophy

Hide Folder Information
Instructions
Unit 2 Assignment

This assignment will be five pages (1500 words) maximum.

Title: “Ecological Ethics and Economics: Clash of Worldviews”

Describe briefly (no more than a paragraph) an economic issue related to the environment from the Canadian news media and then explain how the critique of the economic topic in terms of a biocentric and an ecocentric ethical view sheds new or different light onto the issue. You should present the biocentric and ecocentric critiques in separate sections of the paper, so that their differences in analysis are easy to identify (this will be the hardest part of the essay for many, but do not be dismayed. If in doubt, I am here to offer help).

Your analysis should show how the theories challenge people to rediscover the moral sense of nature. In other words, do not treat this as only hypothetical and impossible to accomplish, but rather as possible and persuasive—i.e., as a practical activity. In your essay, you must make extensive use of the course readings from Unit One and Unit Two.

Please attach the news article you are using to your essay.
Hide Folder Information
Instructions
This assignment will be seven pages (2000 words) maximum.

Title: “Ethics, Environment, and Social Reform.”

You will compare the “Earth Charter” (EC) with the “Blue River Quorum Declaration” (BRQD) in your essay. As has been the norm in the course, linking previous readings and discussions from Units One and Unit Two, along with the readings of Unit Three is expected as part of your interpretive work. Your paper will explain if you think one of the two declarations (EC and BRQD) is more effective, or if both are necessary, for the application of an ecological ethic? Explain why. In your discussion account for these four concerns:

What are the different contexts that are assumed for each document: that there are different contexts from which to see and enact ethical positions means what for personal preferences as a point of contention in ethical discussions?
What types of ethical discourse and behaviour are used to persuade the reader? Do they tap into the moral sense of nature?
What are the strengths and benefits of each document?
Should ethics be social or merely personal/private? What do these documents teach us about this question?
Hide Folder Information
Instructions
This assignment will be approximately nine pages (2700 words).

Title: “Persuasive Ethics: Learning to Think of the Land and Live Ethically With It.”

This assignment theme will give your essay unity : How does one apply ecological ethical ideas? This theme should be interpreted in terms of the assignment title about persuasion. Your essay should have three parts:

A: In roughly 1400 words, explain why Leopold does not propose an ethical theory but rather a worldview. Define five virtues articulated in Leopold’s moral worldview with reference to specific texts (and supplemented by other course texts). How might these virtues be persuasively communicated today?

B: In about 1000 words, answer these two questions: What is it about Wahkohtowin that makes its ethical worldview morally appealing? What makes Wahkohtowin unlikely to be a motivating ethical worldview today? As part of your answers, use the language of virtues to help you communicate your argument. Be practical in your answer. Make reference to the moral sense of nature.

C: Conclude this assignment with an appendix of 300 words, where you rewrite your ethical stance toward the natural world. How do you justify this stance? What principles guide your actions? Make sure to articulate good, strong, clear arguments.

What is Popper’s problem of demarcation? What does Popper identify as the logical empiricist’s solution to this problem? Briefly recount why Popper rejects the logical empiricist’s solution. What solution does Popper offer?

Answer the questions above. Your answer to this question should be approximately 1 typed page (200 to 250 words). Your goal should be to write a concise, coherent, and original answer that addresses all aspects of the question. An original answer makes only sparing use of quotations

On the following topic, write a 1,000-word essay (3-4 typed pages, double-space) in response. Make sure your answer is focused on the question and give reasons. Don’t just respond to each portion of the question separately. Make sure you’re writing an integrated essay, a discussion. Whatever your opinion on the matter in question, consider how someone who disagrees with you might respond and what you might offer in answer.

Below I have attached the essay prompt document as well as two overview documents on ethical theories. For additional information on ethical theories I have also attached the pdf version of the textbook. Ethical theories are discussed in chapter 2 and can be found on pages 47 – 76.

If you have any questions please reach out to me! Thank you.

Philosophy paper
Book : Classics of Western Philosophy: ONLY CAN CITE FROM THIS BOOK NO OUTSIDE SOURCES
This is a 500-1000 word paper and therefore an exercise in relevance as much as knowledge. Your paper should include a title, which is essential as it tells your reader what to expect. Therefore your title should not be generic or vague. Please use 12 pt Times New Roman font, 1 inch margins on both sides, top and bottom (I will notice); your paper should be double spaced.

A successful paper will be well organized, staying very close to the topic without extraneous detail, and will be expressed in ‘everyday’ language. It will clearly present, define and breakdown all relevant philosophical issues before moving into directed analysis. A strong specific thesis statement, which asserts your position on the topic, will be clearly defined, specific, and interesting. It should indicate, even in some small way, the direction your argumentation is heading. Your analysis will be well grounded with textual support and your evaluations in support of your thesis will be directly derived from the analysis of the text. There will be very few grammar, style or spelling mistakes. Transitions between concepts, ideas and sections of your paper will be seamless.

A word count must be included at the end of your paper.

Citations:

Citations will be clear and a works cited page (not included in your page count) will be found at the back of the paper. Either in-text parenthetical citations or footnotes are acceptable. You can use whatever method of citation (MLA, APA, Chicago etc) is most comfortable, just make sure you USE them. A great formatting/citation/work cited resource can be found here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/

Sources:

You may only use sources from our class (textbook and class notes) for this paper. No outside sources are approved for this paper. I am much more interested in what you have to think and say about the concepts we are dealing with that just repurposing the arguments of others. Class notes should be cited using the appropriate format.

Prompt:

In this 500-1000 word paper, you will choose a position for a relevant philosophical question and develop an argument using textual support from one philosopher we have discussed in class. Remember you are arguing a point of view, not summarizing what the philosopher’s have to say. Your argument needs to be specific enough to formulate a complete answer via your thesis statement within the boundaries of the paper. As such, you must start with a contextual introduction ending with a specific thesis, an argument which explains the components of your thesis and explores their implications, supported by direct textual evidence from at least one philosopher we have read in class, and a conclusion summarizing your position. Remember a good argument weighs compelling evidence more heavily. Tell me the compelling evidence that will convince me your argument is strong.

Possible Pre-Writing Procedure:

What question am I answering?
What is the answer to this question in my own words?
Why is this the ‘best’ answer to this question?
What is the greater application of this answer?
What concepts are involved in this answer? What are my reasons for this answer? How do these concepts connect to one another?
What philosopher(s) can support my thesis and argument?
What context/explanation will this require?

Read pages 4-39. Response to Writing Prompts:
1. What did you learn about Kierkegaard that you found interesting?
2. You can choose one of these, so choose whichever you’re comfortable responding to. Number one is, what do you think of this understanding of the stages of life? Or the second possibility Have you ever had an experience of anxiety as Kierkegaard describes it?
3. Can you think of some things that we would be reluctant to do if we didn’t have faith in other people?
4. Kierkegaard claims that we inescapably live by faith. What do you make of this claim and why?

Everything must be in a question

This is a debate.
The Topic Is – Is eudaimonia an attainable goal according to Aristotle in today’s society?
My Argument is No ,
So I am on the Con Side,
I have to argue why minimum wage is a problem in today’s society , which makes living “happiness” hard with the pay in Texas causing financial institution.

Instructions
Important Preliminaries

This essay assignment is worth 20 points (20% of your overall grade). It’s due September 25th, before midnight. Submit your essay to Brightspace. You must receive a Turnitin score.

Write only seven paragraphs. Use double-spacing and 12-point font. Don’t exceed three pages.

Prompt

Introduce your paper’s topic. Then explain Harry Frankfurt’s theory of personhood. After that, using either the first or second strategy discussed in class, explain how to answer the “Who am I?” question. Next, in light of what you just wrote, describe a representative part of who you are as a person. Once that’s done, explain Eleonore Stump’s theory of personhood. Then explain the ideas of internal unification and fragmentation. Finally, with those ideas in mind, describe a representative aspect of who you are.

When you explain something, keep in mind one of our key learning objectives, noted on the syllabus: “explaining carefully and autonomously involves accurately stating ideas in your own words and illustrating them well with your own examples.”

Essay Outline

Introduction (copy-paste; see today’s announcement)
Frankfurt’s theory of personhood
If Frankfurt is right, how might we answer the “Who am I?” question?
If the foregoing is right, who am I?
Stump’s theory of personhood (copy-paste; see today’s announcement)
Internal unity and fragmentation (copy-paste; see today’s announcement)
If the foregoing is right, who am I?
Point Deductions

Points will be deducted from your grade for (i) external source citations, which includes the assigned readings (so use your own words and your own examples), (ii) factual mistakes, (iii) lack of clarity, (iv) prompt-related omissions, and (v) deviations from the Essay Outline above.

Example and thing you have to copy paste are attached.

this is the link to the reading. Please use pages 1-34 and pick a topic to write about. You can use outside sources that help or relate to your topic.

https://mycourses.utrgv.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-12449933-dt-content-rid-124704721_1/xid-124704721_1

This link is a sample paper.
https://mycourses.utrgv.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-12612377-dt-content-rid-126114918_1/xid-126114918_1

These are guidelines.
https://mycourses.utrgv.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-12449930-dt-content-rid-124704718_1/xid-124704718_1

Week 7 Discussion Forum Discussion Prompt This week we’re exploring causation and correlation. • Why is it a fallacy to confuse causation and correlation? • Provide an example of a statement that confuses causation with correlation. In addition to your inital post, you must also post substantive responses to at least two of your classmates’ posts in this thread. Provide an analysis of your peers’ post. Build on their examples and explanations to extend meaningful discussion. =========================================================== Kickoff Post Welcome to the Week 7 Discussion Forum! A few weeks ago when we were discussing logical fallacies, we encountered the fallacies post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is, “after this, therefore because of this” – i.e. the mistaken belief that simply because phenomenon B follows phenomenon A, that means that A must have caused B, when they might both be due to some other common cause, or the association may be entirely random, such as in the image below: If you’re trying to determine the causation here – for example, “cheese consumption causes uneasy dreams, which causes people to move around a lot in bed, which can lead to people becoming tangled in their bedsheets” – I don’t blame you. The human brain is designed to identify patterns – that’s how we survived and evolved. But that function is often overactive and finds patterns that aren’t really there, such as in this case. There is no causal relationship between these two phenomena – it’s entirely random, and that’s not that big a deal since think of the infinite number of phenomena in the world – there are bound to be random patterns that happen to correspond to each other without any actual connection. Here are some other fun examples. We also encountered earlier the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc (“with this, therefore because of this” – i.e. the mistaken belief that because two things are frequently correlated, one must be the cause of the other, when again the association may be random, or it may instead be that they’re both caused by something else, such as in the example below). That was an early preview to a central insight in the natural and social sciences: correlation does not imply causation. Just because some behavior happens to frequently or always accompany another behavior does not in itself prove that one is the cause of the other. Causation is notoriously hard to prove, and responsible scientists recognize that, once we recognize a correlation between two discrete phenomena, a lot more work has to be done to determine if there’s any sort of causal link. So let’s hear some more good examples of mistakes that people make in confusing causation with correlation. In your responses to classmates, one approach can be to identify what steps would need to be taken in order to determine causation – i.e. not necessarily between the two phenomena named, but to determine what other thing might be causing the two things together, or if we can determine whether there’s any relationship at all (and keep in mind that your responses need to add to the conversation – it’s nice when you say nice things to each other, but don’t stop there, since that alone doesn’t add much substance to the conversation, and the goal here is to keep the conversation moving forward thoughtfully!).

Please see attached for corresponding rubric. This is a list of suggested topics you may choose from: 1. Explain Plato’s theory of goodness, and of justice, as articulated in his Republic. 2. Compare and contrast Plato’s and Aristotle’s ethics. In what ways are they similar? In what ways do they differ? 3. Explain Thomas Hobbes’s nominalist theory of ethics, and show how it supports his theory of psychological egoism and consequent dim view of human nature. What draw us into conflict? Why do we need to limit our liberties to escape from the Hobbesian “state of nature”? 4. Compare Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s contrasting views of human nature, e.g. as depicted in Chapter 13 of Hobbes’s Leviathan and in Rousseau’s The Social Contract. Based on contemporary evidence, such as presented by Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate, whose view appears vindicated, and whose view appears discredited? Why? 5. Explain, with at least one example, “Hume’s guillotine”—the argument that we cannot derive “ought” from “is.” How does Kant attempt to resolve this problem? Again, give at least one example. Does Kant succeed? Why or why not? 6. What is utilitarianism? How does John Stuart Mill’s reformulation of utilitarianism rescue it from the charges of hedonism levied at Jeremy Bentham’s earlier version? Beyond this, utilitarianism attracts other criticisms; for example, that its pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number ignores or disregards individual rights. How does Mill’s essay On Liberty answer this serious allegation? 7. Illustrate comparative strengths and weaknesses of the ethical systems we have studied. Why is there apparently no perfect theory of ethics? Can there be one? 8. Summarize Anselm’s ontological argument. Do you agree with it? Why, or why not? What objections have been raised by other philosophers? Are you persuaded by any of them? 9. Do square circles exist? Why, or why not? Suppose we define a “squircle” as “an existing square circle.” Do squircles exist? Why or why not? What does it mean for something to exist? Or not to exist? Or to be named? 10. Can we reliably tell the difference between appearance and reality? Why or why not? Is this central question from Descartes resolved, or just rehearsed, in The Matrix? 11. Descartes was a rationalist; Berkeley, an empiricist. Explain the differences in their epistemologies (philosophies of knowledge). Is there any potential agreement between them on the nature of “material substance”? On God? Explain. 12. Is there any “stuff” out there? Does anything exist that lies beyond perception? How would Berkeley answer? How would Churchland answer? How would you answer? 13. What is eliminative materialism? What are Churchland’s main arguments in support of it? What objections does he raise against it, and how does he counter them? 14. What is a Turing test? What do you think Turing would say about the AI robot Sophia’s ability to pass such a test? What do you think Searle would say? Sophia has been made an honorary citizen of Saudi Arabia. Does she therefore have personhood? Why or why not? 15. Explain Searle’s allegory of the Chinese room. What is he attempting to demonstrate? Do you think he succeeds? Why or why not? 17. Can “understanding” be reducible to a complex algorithm —e.g. a computer program? Or is understanding irreducible? Contrast the answers given by Churchland’s reductionism, Turing’s functionalism, and Searle’s holism. Which (if any) position(s) do you favor, and why? 18. How does Charles Mill’s racial contract differs from the Hobbesian contract? Why does Mills differentiate his contract from the classical one? Is his theory successful at addressing racial inequality? Why or why not? 19. Should identity traits interfere with knowledge acquisition processes? Why or why not? Do such traits in fact interfere with knowledge acquisition? How relevant are phenomena such as epistemic appropriation, hermeneutical injustice and other forms of epistemic injustice? 20. Do ignorance and identity interact with each other? If so, how? If not, how what is wrong with epistemologies of ignorance? 21. Choose your own topic, find two relevant philosophical references about it, and obtain my approval before writing your essay.