Explain the key aspects of the topic by referring to the philosopher’s primary text, and by quoting directly from this and the secondary material.

/in /by

Concept from Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, or Arendt

Philosophy Essay Guidelines

Format:

1. 5-8 pages; Double Spaced; 12-point font.

2. Must be formatted in Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS/CMS).

3. Cover page including title, course name and section, student name, semester (does not count toward overall pages).

4. Bibliography or works cited as separate page (does not count toward overall pages).

5. Three scholarly sources must be used including:

1. At least one primary text from the philosopher under discussion.

2. At least two secondary, scholarly books.

3. Journal articles may not be used as secondary sources—only scholarly books.

4. Online books may be used only if they are PDFs and only if they include original

page numbers.

5. Secondary sources must be written by a scholar affiliated with a university or

College.

6. Photocopies of pages of all referenced quotations must be included with your final essay, stapled together separately. (Only the page containing the specific quotation is required.)

7. Websites may not be used except for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP)–(both are peer-reviewed). These websites do not count toward your three scholarly sources.

7. If websites other that the above mentioned are used (i.e. Wikipedia, etc.) the essay will receive a failing grade.

8. Page numbers must be included.

9. Quotations must be referenced with footnotes. No in-text reference citations are permitted. No endnote reference citations permitted.

10. Essays must be submitted in hard copy format.

Content:

1. Pick one philosopher we have discussed this semester (i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Arendt) and one concept, argument, or theory related to the philosopher you have chosen.

2. Write a short essay explaining the philosopher’s understanding of the concept, argument, or theory as if you were writing a short encyclopedia article.

3. This is not an argumentative essay, it is explanatory, demonstrating knowledge of the topic and of primary and secondary sources.

4. There should be at least two short quotations (no more than two sentences) per page.

There should be at least three direct quotations from the primary text in the overall essay.

These primary quotations should relate directly to the topic at hand.

Additional Information:

1. Essays should be written in the third person.

2. No personal opinion should be given about the topic under discussion.

3. Explain the key aspects of the topic by referring to the philosopher’s primary text, and by quoting directly from this and the secondary material.

4. If you decide to include counter arguments, use other well-known philosophers’
counter arguments, not your own counterarguments. For example, Bertrand Russell has numerous interesting counterarguments directed at many philosophers in his History of Western Philosophy. Counter Arguments should not take up more than one page of the overall essay.

Side note: Let me know as soon as possible what the topic and sources are so I can let the professor know.

What conception of freedom do you find the most persuasive? What does this conception of freedom entail us to do, and in your judgment, why is this a better theory than the alternatives?

/in /by

leave empty

This is a critical essay here is the prompt– Of Kant, Hegel, and Marx, what conception of freedom do you find the most persuasive? What does this conception of freedom entail us to do, and in your judgment, why is this a better theory than the alternatives?
The prompt is at the very bottom of the slides.

Of Kant, Hegel, and Marx, what conception of freedom do you find the most persuasive? What does this conception of freedom entail us to do, and in your judgment, why is this a bet

/in /by

Hegel History of Class struggles Alienation of the working class •

Of Kant, Hegel, and Marx, what conception of freedom do you find the most persuasive? What does this conception of freedom entail us to do, and in your judgment, why is this a bet

Explain how Matheny reaches his conclusion along with how you think the deer hunt should be evaluated on utilitarian grounds. Do you agree with Matheny’s conclusion in light of your evaluation? Defend your answer.

/in /by

GMOR 150 – Contemporary Moral Issues

1) Explain how Kant’s “respect for persons” principle would apply to business practices. Can a business genuinely embody the ideals of a Kantian moral community, or are these ideals too demanding? Defend your answer drawing on the reading by Norman Bowie.

2) In his article, “Utilitarianism and Animals”, Gaverick Matheny concludes that we ought to make changes to our institutions and habits, “most immediately, that we become vegetarian or preferably vegan” (p.24). This viewpoint would be shared by the protestors at the Six Nations’ deer hunt described in the Globe and Mail newspaper article
available in the Blackboard learning materials on this subject. Explain how Matheny reaches his conclusion along with how you think the deer hunt should be evaluated on utilitarian grounds. Do you agree with Matheny’s conclusion in light of your evaluation? Defend your answer.

3) Is medical assistance in dying (voluntary euthanasia) a morally acceptable practice in at least some circumstances? Drawing on our course learning materials and discussion of the debate in the present, Canadian context, along with the readings by James Rachels and Thomas Sullivan, explain what you take to be the most persuasive arguments on both sides of this issue and defend a position of your own with respect to it.

(Hint: ‘most persuasive’ means you shouldn’t be summarizing every point raised in the assigned readings – be selective.)

What are the four possible views about the relationship between religion and morality? What are the most important features, strengths and weaknesses of each view?

/in /by

Third Essay Exam (Chapters Covered: “Virtue Theory,” “Biology and Ethics, “Religion and Ethics,” “The Fact-Value Problem,” “Moral Realism and the Challenge of Skepticism”)

Write a 500 word essay on one of the following questions (50 points). Carefully observe all course guidelines for essay writing.

1. What does the following statement mean? “Principles without virtues are impotent; virtues without principles are blind.”

2. What are the four possible views about the relationship between religion and morality? What are the most important features, strengths and weaknesses of each view?

3. What is Pojman and Feiser’s proposed defense of moral realism?

What is the overall conclusion that he draws regarding measures to stop global warming? What worldview might he be working within the background? What does he recommend to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

/in /by

Climate Change

Paper8 (first half): Read Christy’s article in EE, pp.567-69 (remember that a copy of the book should be available at the KCC library, under textbooks for courses—inquire at the library; I also have a pdf version of the article in Laulima). What is the overall conclusion that he draws regarding measures to stop global warming? What worldview might he be working within the background? What does he recommend to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

Now go to the video in Laulima by James Hansen, one of the most highly respected climate scientists in the climate science community.

Paper8, second half: To complete your paper8, recall that the first half briefly looked at someone in the climate science community who apparently falls in the 3% (thus far your paper should be just a few sentences at most). Now we raise the following questions, moving outside of the science to the intersecting realms of politics, ethics, and so on. For the second half of the paper, address each of the following in separate paragraphs, each of which should also contain just a few sentences (try to keep the whole paper to a page if you can):

1. Revisit the fallacy of “appeal to emotion.” In the Frontline video, what might be the predominant emotion that is being exploited to change public opinion about climate change? In a sentence or two, briefly explain how this works according to the video.

2. Now google the fallacy of “composition.” In the Frontline video, explain how this fallacy fits with the selection of time starting-and-end points to argue for temperature decline (or non-rising levels). How do scientists in the video respond
to this selection? (Again, keep this paragraph to a couple of sentences.)

3. From our lecture on fallacies, what fallacies might Climate-Gate be guilty of? Explain and justify your answer in a few sentences.

4. From the Oreskes video, what does she identify as the main reason for resistance to the findings of the climate science community? Explain in a few sentences.

 

Websites needed for the videos:

–

–

–

–

Does knowledge apply safety sensitivity or neither? Defend your answer

/in /by

Safety and sensitivity

Does knowledge apply safety sensitivity or neither? Defend your answer

Is the Turing Test a reasonable way to test for intelligence? Argue for your conclusion.

/in /by

Philosophy paper

Is the Turing Test a reasonable way to test for intelligence? Argue for your conclusion. Be sure to clearly articulate any background theories that our position depends upon and give plenty of illustrative examples

Since this is a religion paper, there should be mention of deep ecology as a philosophy, but also how it has religious notions, and perhaps mention of sustainability attempts that are more religious/stem from indigenous or traditional groups.

/in /by

Current sustainability attempts

The paper needs to be a review of how current sustainability attempts/projects (about 2 or 3) fit into the category of deep ecology; how they fit the standards of deep ecological thought or do not…It needs to base itself around the deep ecology philosophy, and evaluate different attempts at conservation and environmental projects through this lens. Since this is a religion paper, there should be mention of deep ecology as a philosophy, but also how it has religious notions, and perhaps mention of sustainability attempts that are more religious/stem from indigenous or traditional groups.

How did the book agree with and disagree with the conversations we had in PHI-101? What philosophers did the arguments in the book remind you of? How do your experiences align/contrast to the author’s? What were the strongest/weakest arguments in the book? What did you agree and disagree with?

/in /by

The Subtle Art

Write a 1,800 – 2,200 word philosophical reaction to “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck” by Mark Manson.

In other words, there will be a lot more “I” sentences that “The Author” sentences. Get it?!
I want to know things like:
How did the book agree with and disagree with the conversations we had in PHI-101?
What philosophers did the arguments in the book remind you of?
How do your experiences align/contrast to the author’s?
What were the strongest/weakest arguments in the book?
What did you agree and disagree with?
What stories/advice impacted you the most?
What questions do you have for the author?
What is your overall reaction to the book? The assignment?
And anything else you want to bring in to your reaction.