What is a Cosmological Argument? And is it enough to prove the existence of God?

/in /by

Cosmological Argument

To be argumentative, and preferably use these sources:

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm

https://scroll.in/article/885802/why-the-existence-of-god-cannot-be-proved-or-disproved-in-a-way-acceptable-to-everyone

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zpxpr82/revision/5

We know that the existence of God has been an ongoing debate for quite some time, many have tried to find the answers to our questions about the world, and its existence. The Cosmological Argument, which was one of the first cause arguments to exist in which argued the existence of God by debating God’s existence, for there must be a God. Everything has purpose and a cause. However with this argument also come questions, and flaws…but the real question is, is the cosmological argument enough to prove the existence of God? We will dive in and find out.

What moral or ethical issues arise based on our reliance on fossil fuels? Can we both respect our selves, our communities, and relations and responsibilities, and work to extract energy from the land?

/in /by

 Whyte, “The Dakota Access Pipeline, Environmental Injustice, and US Settler Colonialism” Comprehension & Reflection:

Use these questions to help assess your understanding and appreciation of the texts under discussion. We want to continue linking together what we’ve been reading—trying to see the connections and tensions between some of these approaches. The story of protests against the DAPL (Dakota Access Pipeline) is complex and can generate a wide field of issues, idea, concepts, tools, practices, hopes, dreams, frustrations, etc. to discuss.

Using Whyte, the Women of Standing Rock, and any one of the documentaries, identify what for you stand out as the main issues, struggles, questions, values (or along any other vector you find interesting) of this struggle. In particular, consider this in relation to our living—or life practices—and how we “heat our homes” and otherwise “energize” our society. If we are articulating a concept of land as community—as the seeking for justice within human communities and in our relations to our more-than-human kin—what moral or ethical issues arise based on our reliance on fossil fuels? Can we both respect our selves, our communities, and relations and responsibilities, and work to extract energy from the land?

According to E. Swanson, what is a common ground path for a discourse and what would it mean for there to be channels for such common ground paths?

/in /by

Your assignment is to answers the following questions as clearly and as accurately as possible. You are not encouraged to use additional material beyond what was covered on the course syllabus, on the lecture slides, or in your discussion sections. However, you must cite all outside material you use in your essay (MLA or Chicago formatting are each acceptable).

 

Short Answers: Answer three or the following four questions in around 300 words (each question)

1. According to Q. Kukla, what is discursive injustice? What is an example of discursive injustice not mentioned by Kukla or in lecture?

2. According to E. Swanson, what is a common ground path for a discourse and what would it mean for there to be channels for such common ground paths?

3. I. Maitra develops an account of what she calls basic positional authority in a social group. According to Maitra, what is required in order for one agent to have basic positional authority over the other members of a group?

4. E. Camp focuses on the philosophical implications of insinuation. What is one of Camp’s examples of insinuation? What does Camp mean when she claims that insinuations can be speaker meant (e.g. communicated by speakers) without being common ground among the members of a conversation?

 

Long Answers: Answer two of the following three questions in around 600 words (each question)

5. H.P. Grice developed a pragmatic account of human language use which centered on what he called the cooperative principle. What, according to Grice, is the cooperative principle? Do cases of discursive injustice, conversational silencing, or insinuation provide a good objection to Grice’s claim about the role of the cooperative principle in human language use? How, if at all, should Grice’s claims about the role of the cooperative principle in human language use be revised?

6. In his paper, “Provincialism in Pragmatics” J. Armstrong argues that dynamic pragmatic models of communication apply to other social animals in addition to humans. In developing this claim, Armstrong focuses on the affiliative vocalizations of baboons. What does Armstrong mean when he claims that the affiliative vocalizations of baboons are context-sensitive devices of communication which both depend on the prior state of the social context and serve to update that social context in specific ways? Do you agree that affiliative vocalizations of baboons are context-sensitive in this way? Why or why not?

7. This class has explored the nature of social communication in general, and linguistic communication in particular, through the lens of dynamic pragmatics. What is pragmatics? What does it mean to provide a dynamic approach to pragmatics? Do dynamic approaches to pragmatics provide an illuminating way to understand the ways that humans communicate through the use of language? Why or why not?

Give philosophically adequate arguments. Give an accurate analysis of the arguments presented and to give well-constructed arguments. Give an accurate account of the theories and terms presented in the reading.

/in /by

Rachels

In the last chapter of Rachels, Elements of Moral Philosophy, they present their own moral theory, Multiple-Strategies Utilitarianism. Explain what it is, what Rachels thinks it achieves that the other theories do not, and whether or not you think it succeeds.

Give philosophically adequate arguments. Give an accurate analysis of the arguments presented and to give well-constructed arguments. Lastly, give an accurate account of the theories and terms presented in the reading.

What is Dworkin’s view about when the state is warranted in creating paternalistic laws, and how does he defend it? Raise at least one objection to Dworkin’s view. Is the objection successful? Why or why not?

/in /by

Rawls – Civil Disobedience

Assignment goals

The goal of the Critical Summary assignment was to improve your ability to read and understand a short passage of writing, summarize a passage accurately, and to offer a critical analysis of another person’s view or argument. This Short Essay assignment will give you the opportunity to build on this foundation by working on the following
philosophical skills:

• reading and understanding longer passages of philosophical writing
• accurately summarizing another person’s argument
• coming up with an objection to another person’s view or argument
• responding to objections to a philosophical argument
• developing a coherent philosophical dialectic

Assignment details

Your short essay should be 1800 words (plus or minus 10%), double–spaced, use standard font and margins, and have no cover page. It is due Friday, December 3 at 11:59pm and is worth 30% of your grade. There is no single conventional form of citation in philosophy, but you should use an accepted citation style (e.g. Chicago, MLA, APA) to cite authors whom you directly quote or whose ideas you paraphrase. Your essay should also include a bibliography or references section on the final page. Please submit your essay as a .doc or PDF file via the course webpage. In your essay, you will respond to one of the following topics:

1. Practitioners of civil disobedience demonstrate fidelity to law, but political rioters do not. Draw on Rawls’s theory of civil disobedience to explain why it can be important for those who break the law as a form of protest to express respect for the authority of the state, and say how, according to Rawls, protesters should go about expressing this respect. In your opinion, should those who break the law as a form of protest always attempt to demonstrate fidelity to law? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. John Stuart Mill argues that the state is never warranted in interfering with a person’s liberty in order to prevent harm to that person. In his essay ‘Paternalism,’ Gerald Dworkin disagrees with this claim. What is Dworkin’s view about when the state is warranted in creating paternalistic laws, and how does he defend it? Raise at least one objection to
Dworkin’s view. Is the objection successful? Why or why not?

Whatever topic you choose, your goal should be to develop a coherent dialectic of the kind we find in most of the readings for the course. The goal is to try to get a philosophical conversation up and running in your paper which places your own voice alongside the voices of some of the authors we’ve read. The prompts are constructed in order to help you

Of the theorists you discuss, which do you think provides the most promising new direction for moral philosophy? Or is it a promising direction at all? Defend your answer.

/in /by

On the final exam for this course, you will be asked to answer the following question in clearly written paragraphs. You do not have to follow a formal essay-writing format in answering this question – no introduction, thesis statement, or conclusion is required. Just imagine that you are diving into the body of an essay in which you are asked to summarize and evaluate philosophical arguments.

The Question
In the last three weeks of the course, we examined moral philosophy through the lens of existentialism and feminist theory in the writings of Sartre, Beauvoir and Baier. Their perspectives put moral theory on a new footing in comparison to how it has been approached in the past. Explain how TWO of these theorists represent a break from past ways of thinking about morality. Of the theorists you discuss, which do you think provides the most promising new direction for moral philosophy? Or is it a promising direction at all? Defend your answer.

Note that this question will make up the totality of your exam. You should devote ¾ of your answer to summary and ¼ to evaluation of philosophical arguments.

 

Either [a] defend Singer from the objection or [b] improve the objection, and explain why the new version, unlike the original version, is a success. Or [c] come make your own objection.

/in /by

Peter Singer On Poverty Ethics

The actual question to focus on….

Topic 1. Singer on Poverty In this paper, you’re going to discuss one published objection that has been raised against Peter Singer’s poverty ethics (e.g. by Amia Srinivasan or Bonnie Steinbock). Either [a] defend Singer from the objection or [b] improve the objection, and explain why the new version, unlike the original version, is a success. Or [c] come make your own objection. [Note: if you choose C, don’t turn it into an economics paper. Focus on the ethical argument.]

(THIS IS NOT THE TOPIC. BUT RATHER HOW THE ESSAY SHOULD BE FORMATTED) The idea here is that there is some conversation going in the Ethics & Value Theory literature. Your job is to get involved, and move that discussion forward with a sustained philosophical argument, after having undertaken some research

Critically evaluate Haslanger’s project of revising the concept of race, and/or her argument that race is something that is socially constructed.

/in /by

Concept of Race

Prompt: Critically evaluate Haslanger’s project of revising the concept of race, and/or her argument that race is something that is socially constructed (yet real).

Base off of flow of ideas reading and make an argument as to whether this account of race falls under traditional ways of thinking about race (constructionists, eliminativists, etc.) or is it entirely new

What strategies are used to answer the research question you’re considering? In detail: How do they understand the issue? What kind of models do they use? What kinds of causal relationships are at issue? What kinds of data are used? Are the models idealized?

/in /by

Voting systems

1. Within your “home discipline,” find a scholarly controversy or debate about some issue. It could be from a previous class you’ve taken, or just something you’re just interested in.

2. Find at least two (2) papers within that debate. Obviously, these papers should represent at least two positions within the debate. They should disagree with one another. Remember, what’s important is that you lay out two positions, and not necessarily just write about two papers.

3. Articulate, in detail, the research question at issue. What are they disagreeing about? Why is it interesting?

4. Lay out, briefly, each position you’ll be considering.

5. What strategies are used to answer the research question you’re considering? In detail: How do they understand the issue? What kind of models do they use? What kinds of causal relationships are at issue? What kinds of data are used? Are the models idealized? How? Do different sides of the controversy take different strategies? Why?

Are people obligated to overcome social conventions in an attempt to create a life that is worth living, or is it possible for humans to find value in preexisting social conventions?

/in /by

Social conventions

Are people obligated to overcome social conventions in an attempt to create a life that is worth living, or is it possible for humans to find value in preexisting social conventions? Utilize at least one of the discussed