Write a research proposal of not more than 2000 words all the headings and sub- headings of a research proposal
Argue an answer to the following question: do humans have a permanent interest in being happy? In your answer, quote the works by Mill that we have read. Paper 1 should be 500 to 750 words.
(1) Introduction: describe topic, state thesis, and summarize how you will argue for the thesis. Don’t say anything else like “for thousands of years human beings have been…” Length: 1/8 to ¼ of paper. (In a four page paper = half a page.)
(2) Explication: outline what has been argued or said about the issue in the literature in so far as this serves as a backdrop against which you can present your original argument. Length: ¼ to 1/3 of your paper. (In a four page paper = one page.)
(3) Main Argument: provide your philosophical reasons for your thesis. This argument should be different from what you relate in your explication section. Argument should be deductive, valid, and not obviously unsound. Avoid simply stating your opinion, or what you agree with in the literature: such is not an argument. Length: ¼ to 1/3 of your paper. (In a four page paper = one page.)
(4) Response to Objections. Choose one or two objections to respond to. Good objections seize on a misreading of your argument or some common misconception. Your job is to articulate the objection and respond to it so as to strengthen your argument. If the criticism is so good that you do not know how to respond to it, you should probably change your main argument. Keep in mind ways to ruin the objection section: continue on as though the objection section means that you get to object to the view you are criticizing, respond to objections not of your argument but to some philosophical theses opposed to what you are criticizing that is distinct from your argument. Length: ¼ to 1/3 of your paper. (In a four page paper = one page.)
(5). Summarize your case for your thesis and tie up any loose ends. Length: 1/8 to ¼ of paper. (In a four page paper = half a page.)
TOPIC:Is the unexamined life worth living? According to Socrates, it is not. Socrates does not consider any counterarguments to his famous claim in the Apology. In this paper, defend or criticize the claim that the unexamined life is not worth living via philosophical argument.
Discussion Assignment Instructions
References & Citations: All Discussion posts—both initial threads and replies—require an in-text citation and a reference at the bottom. Include at least one reference for each post. You may cite the textbook, academic journal articles, course videos, and relevant books.
To cite does not necessarily mean to quote. Direct quotes should be used sparingly and should make up no more than 10% of your work. It is always preferable to paraphrase, analyze, and synthesize in your own words and to cite the source of ideas being discussed. Ensure all citations are in proper APA format.
General Guidelines: Statements such as “I like what you said,” “That is a good comment,” and “I disagree with your comment” do not count as complete replies in and of themselves. Rather, state why you liked or disliked a peer’s thread with proper rationale to justify your response. Present additional thoughts or ideas and provide alternative viewpoints. Courtesy in any disagreement is expected; see the Student Expectations for more information on proper online etiquette.
Argumentative Essay, choose a side and argue why it is better then the other while still understanding and acknowledging why someone would choose the other point of view.
(1) Introduction: describe topic, state thesis, and summarize how you will argue for the thesis. Don’t say anything else like “for thousands of years human beings have been…” Length: 1/8 to ¼ of paper. (In a four page paper = half a page.)
(2) Explication: outline what has been argued or said about the issue in the literature in so far as this serves as a backdrop against which you can present your original argument. Length: ¼ to 1/3 of your paper. (In a four page paper = one page.)
(3) Main Argument: provide your philosophical reasons for your thesis. This argument should be different from what you relate in your explication section. Argument should be deductive, valid, and not obviously unsound. Avoid simply stating your opinion, or what you agree with in the literature: such is not an argument. Length: ¼ to 1/3 of your paper. (In a four page paper = one page.)
(4) Response to Objections. Choose one or two objections to respond to. Good objections seize on a misreading of your argument or some common misconception. Your job is to articulate the objection and respond to it so as to strengthen your argument. If the criticism is so good that you do not know how to respond to it, you should probably change your main argument. Keep in mind ways to ruin the objection section: continue on as though the objection section means that you get to object to the view you are criticizing, respond to objections not of your argument but to some philosophical theses opposed to what you are criticizing that is distinct from your argument. Length: ¼ to 1/3 of your paper. (In a four page paper = one page.)
(5). Summarize your case for your thesis and tie up any loose ends. Length: 1/8 to ¼ of paper. (In a four page paper = half a page.)
TOPIC:Is the unexamined life worth living? According to Socrates, it is not. Socrates does not consider any counterarguments to his famous claim in the Apology. In this paper, defend or criticize the claim that the unexamined life is not worth living via philosophical argument.
Discuss a fallacy (as described in the text) that you have encountered at home, work, in text, or in the media. This could also be one that you committed. Explain why the reasoning is fallacious in the context it was used.
CONFRONTING ETHICAL DILEMMAS: DOING THE RIGHT THING (PART II)
In the first week of class, you were asked to complete a short essay in which you reflected on some event in your life in which you were confronted with a genuine ethical dilemma—a situation in which you had to choose between two (possibly more) conflicting options for reacting to and handling the situation in a way that you deemed to be morally correct and ethically sound. In other words, either it was difficult to know what the morally right decision was, or, alternatively, you clearly knew, intellectually and rationally what doing the right thing required of you, but for some reason, making that decision or taking that action was very difficult for you to do. In this second essay dealing with the way you confronted your ethical dilemma, move past a simple narrative description of the event that reports how you handled the situation and why you came to the decision and course of action you took to a more analytical and critical assessment of the situation. This will be a longer piece, worth 10 points. Your Part II essay should include a demonstration of your having achieved the following learning outcomes:
In this second essay in which you are reflecting on how you handled a personal ethical dilemma that confronted you, bring in to the discussion at least two different traditional ethical approaches or theories and consider how your actions in dealing with the dilemma may now be analyzed in the light of these different views. You might, for example, consider a consequentialist (e.g., Mill’s Utilitarian Theory) and a nonconsequentialist approach (e.g., Kant’s Deontological/Duty Theory) to ethical questions.
Does your response to the dilemma fall in line with either approach in any important way? Does it go against the prescriptions of either theory? You should make an effort here to clearly articulate your current ethical position and decide whether it is the same as when you confronted your ethical dilemma in the past or whether it is now different. Also reflect on whether anything you have learned or thought about as a result of taking this class has changed or shaped your current ethical position.
Limit this final reflection on a personal ethical dilemma to no more than 2500 words. Word-count minimum for full credit is 1000 words.
Use the following guiding questions to help you develop the remainder of the Argument section and the Counterargument section of your critical essay. First, answer each of the questions below to draft your ideas. Then, complete the Outline for Writing section, using your answers to the questions to help you draft a paragraph response for each of the sections below.
Outline for Writing
The argument that I have selected contains/avoids bias. It does this by (provide examples). I have assessed the credibility of the argument to be credible/not credible because the resources in the article were credible/not credible in that they . The credibility of this article supports/undermines the argument’s claims by .
Explain how your previously identified personal experience with the topic may create emotional influences, values or bias.
1. Identify the moral values, issues, and dilemmas, if any, involved in the following cases, and explain why you consider them moral values and dilemmas.
a. An engineer notified his firm that for a relatively minor cost a flashlight could be made to last several years longer by using a more reliable bulb. The firm decides that it would be in its interests not to use the new bulb, both to keep costs lower and to have the added advantage of “built-in obsolescence” so that consumers would need to purchase new flashlights more often.
b. A linear electron accelerator for therapeutic use was built as a dual-mode system that could either produce X-rays or electron beams. It had been in successful use for some time, but every now and then some patients received high deaths. One patient on a repeat visit experienced great pain, but the remotely located operator was unaware of any problem because of lack of communication between them: The intercom was broken, and the video monitor had been unplugged. There also was no way for the patient to exit the examination chamber without help from the out- side, and hence the hospital was partly at fault. On cursory examination of the machine, the manufacturer insisted that the computerized and automatic control system could not possibly have malfunctioned and that no one should spread unproven and potentially libelous information about the design. It was the painstaking, day-and-night effort of the hospital’s physicist that finally traced the problem to a soft- ware error introduced by the manufacturer’s efforts to make the machine more user-friendly. 8
2. Regarding the following example, comment on why you think simple human contact made such a large difference. What does it say about what motivated the engineers, both before and after the encounter? Is the case too unique to permit generalizations to other engineering products?
A team of engineers are redesigning an artificial lung marketed by their company. They are working in a highly competitive market, with long hours and high stress. The engineers have little or no contact with the firm’s customers, and they are focused on technical problems, not people. It occurs to the project engineer to invite recipients of artificial lungs and their families to the plant to talk about how their lives were affected by the artificial lung. The change is immediate and striking: “When families began to bring in their children who for the first time could breathe freely, relax, learn, and enjoy life because of the firm’s product, it came as a revelation. The workers were energized by concrete evidence that their efforts really did improve people’s lives, and the morale of the workplace was given a great lift.” 9
3. Should SUV problems at the macro level be of concern to engineers as a group and their professional societies? Should individual automotive engineers, in their daily work, be concerned about the general social and environmental impacts of SUVs?
4. It is not easy to define morality in a simple way, but it does not follow that morality is a hopelessly vague notion. For a long time, philosophers thought that an adequate definition of any idea would specify a set of logically necessary and sufficient conditions for applying the idea. For example, each of the following features is logically necessary for a triangle, and together they are sufficient: a plane figure, having three straight lines, closed to form three angles. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951), however, argued that most ordinary (nontechnical) ideas cannot be neatly defined in this way. Instead, there are often only “family resemblances” among the things to which words are applied, analogous to the partly overlapping similarities among members of a family—similar eye color, shape of nose, body build, temperament, and so forth. 10 Thus, a book might be hardback, paperback, or electronic; printed or hand- written; in English or German; and so forth. Can you specify necessary and sufficient conditions for the following ideas: chairs, buildings, energy, safety, engineers, morality?
5. Mention of ethics sometimes evokes groans, rather than engagement, because it brings to mind onerous constraints and unpleasant disagreements. Worse, it evokes images of self-righteousness, hypocrisy, and excessively punitive attitudes of blame and punishment—attitudes that are themselves subject to moral critique. Think of a recent event that led to a public outcry. With regard to the event, discuss the difference between being morally reasonable and being moralistic in a pejorative sense. In doing so, consider such things as breadth of vision, tolerance, sensitivity to context, and commitment.
Our team has experienced writers that follow all the codes used in professionalism when writing academic essays. We focus our services on satisfied clients. Through critical attention to detail, our writers abide by all the instructions given by clients. Additionally, the paper format is done according to the dictates of the client in respect to the set academic style. We are proud of completing outstanding top-quality papers.