How has the art from the Cold War continued to shape politics in times of conflict?

/in /by

Propaganda during Soviet times came in poster form

Propaganda during Soviet times came in poster form. Some messages stirred patriotism in the fight against Adolf Hitler’s invading forces, while others slammed illiteracy and laziness. They also bashed the greed associated with capitalism. A painter even introduced one of the Cold War’s most enduring, powerful, and popular metaphors: the Iron Curtain. Winston Churchill – a passionate and prolific amateur painter in addition to his role as British prime minister and international statesman – invoked the term in 1946, in a speech given in Missouri, with American president Harry Truman in attendance: “…an iron curtain has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe […]

All are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow.” Use examples of Cold War era art and compare it to present-day propaganda art and posters. How has the art from the Cold War continued to shape politics in times of conflict?

Discuss how your chosen Jesuit value informs and supports your claim. Do you see any relationship between the Jesuit Value you have chosen and the political theory you’ve been exploring? If so, say how.

/in /by

Social Justice & Jesuit Values Position Paper

Write a position paper in which you do the following:

First, in your opening paragraph provide a brief overview of the social justice issue you chose. In this same paragraph, provide a solution to the issue in the form of a moral claim (this is your thesis statement). When you are making your moral claim, try to refer to one of the ethical theories we read about last week. Your introduction should be concise and dedicated to giving the reader just enough information to convey the issue and indicate the relevance of your moral claim.

In the body of your paper incorporate several political philosophers and/or ethical theories to support your moral claim. Explain how each of these political or ethical theories supports your position. As you move further into the body of your paper, give as many specific details as you can in support of your claim.

Next, present a counterargument in which you anticipate and respond to criticisms of your position. You can choose an opposing ethical theory, if you wish.

Lastly, discuss how your chosen Jesuit value informs and supports your claim. Indicate why this Value sheds unique light on the question at hand. Do you see any relationship between the Jesuit Value you have chosen and the political theory you’ve been exploring? If so, say how.

Now write a brief conclusion in which you recount your social justice issue and the solution you proposed. You’ve already made your case; your conclusion simply closes the circle.

How adequately does the article support the premises of the argument? How strongly do the premises of the argument support the truth of the conclusion? What (if any) missing premises would be needed to complete the argument (make it valid/strong)?

/in /by

How is social media harmful to a relationship?

Explain your topic and state the specific question that you are addressing.
Presentation of an Argument

Describe the scholarly source on one side of the issue.
Present what you see as the main argument from that source (present the argument in standard form, with the premises listed above the conclusion).
Evaluation of the quality of the reasoning in this source (approximately 200 words)
You may address questions such as the following:

How adequately does the article support the premises of the argument?
How strongly do the premises of the argument support the truth of the conclusion?
What (if any) missing premises would be needed to complete the argument (make it valid/strong)? Are these missing premises justified or merely assumptions?
Presentation of an Opposing Argument (approximately 200 words)

Describe the scholarly source on the other side of the issue.
Present what you see as the main argument from that source in standard form, with the premises listed above the conclusion.
Evaluation of the quality of the reasoning in this source (approximately 200 words)
You may address questions such as the following:

How adequately does the article support the premises of the argument?
How strongly do the premises of the argument support the truth of the conclusion?
What (if any) missing premises would be needed to complete the argument (make it valid/strong)? Are these missing premises justified or merely assumptions?

Is it wrong to believe in something without truly knowing about it? It is always wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence?

/in /by

The Ethics of belief

Is it wrong to believe in something without truly knowing about it? W.K. Clifford believed so. It is always wrong to believe anything without sufficient evidence. A belief could hurt people around you. If a shipowner convinces himself that his unsteady ship is safe, he is in the wrong. Even if the ship sinks or not. If a belief without sufficient evidence is wrong, then to believe in a God with no proof is wrong.
William James does not agree with this claim. He argues that a person does not choose but just has beliefs. When a challenging option comes up, it is better to let our passional nature take over. Moral problems are answered from personal experience and proof of what one believes. Not every question or problem can have a sufficient reasoning and may be better to let your own beliefs take over.

Explain Kant’s objections to the Utilitarian theory of punishment. Do you think there are any problems with it?

/in /by

Kant’s objections to the Utilitarian theory of punishment

Explain Kant’s objections to the Utilitarian theory of punishment. Do you think there are any problems with it?

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.

Explain the significance of the quotation for understanding how natural history was done; how naturalists were trained; and how knowledge was produced.

/in /by

Summarizing each readings

1. Make an argument, and support it with evidence.

2. Choose one of three paragraph-length excerpts from Lettsom’s Naturalist’s and Traveller’s Companion to analyze.

3. Explain the significance of the quotation for understanding how natural history was done; how naturalists were trained; and how knowledge was produced.

Do you agree with the ultimate outcome of the case or conclusion to the article? What would you have done differently? Are there any red flags that are raised in your mind? As a Christian, how should you respond to situations or arguments like these?

/in /by

Turabian style is a must

The idea behind each Response Paper is for you to reflect on the case or article and to write a thoughtful, well-reasoned response to the situation or issue presented, incorporating any arguments or conclusions you may make in light of the other readings and presentations in the course. Your evaluation of the case should be based on the following questions: Do you agree with the ultimate outcome of the case or conclusion to the article? What would you have done differently? Are there any red flags that are raised in your mind? As a Christian, how should you respond to situations or arguments like these? The prompt for each Response Paper will present additional, specific questions for you to consider as you read the case. Each prompt will identify which questions you must address and which ones you may consider and optionally address in your response.

 

One thing to avoid is an emotional response. You may passionately disagree with the outcome or the views of the author(s) or judge(s); however, you must not turn your Response Paper into an emotional rant. Each paper must be a reflective, intellectual, academic response to the merits of the case or article. Also, be respectful of those involved. Do not insult them by calling them names or using other derogatory language. This will lose you points. You can disagree and be respectful about it.

 

You must write at least 500 words (about 2 pages) for each Response Paper. Your grade will be reduced if you go below the minimum. Each Response Paper must follow current Turabian format. You must submit each Response Paper as a Microsoft Word document using the submission link in Blackboard. Do not cut and paste your paper. Instead, attach it as a separate file.

 

Response Paper 4: “Buck v. Bell (1927)” by Nathalie Antonios and Christina Raup (Embryo Project Encyclopedia)

 

Read the case summary and address the following questions:

 

  1. What 2 principles are in conflict in this case? Support your answer.
  2. What are some red flags you see in how the trial came about and the persons involved?
  3. Do you think forced sterilization of those deemed genetically inferior is an appropriate way to deal with the disease?

 

Questions to consider:

 

  1. How much do you think the decision to treat Carrie as “feebleminded” was based on a moral evaluation of her unwed pregnancy (and her mother’s moral background)? Do you think this raises questions about the other 60,000 institutionalized patients who were sterilized between 1927 and 1974?
  2. The court argued that forced sterilization as necessary for the public good was similar to forced vaccination. Do you think that argument is successful? In what ways are forced sterilization and forced vaccination analogous and disanalogous?

 

How do these changes in philosophical thought show development over time?

/in /by

St. Francis and Dante

Analyze the changes in the concept of hero and saint in the emergence of Romanticism (St. Francis and Dante), the agony and ecstasy of Michelangelo, Enlightenment patterns of cultural mutation, and Kierkegaard’s portrayal of Abraham. How do these changes in philosophical thought show development over time?

What is the topic or subject of this reading assignment?-What is the author writing about?-What is the author’s thesis statement?

/in /by

On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion

Be sure to refer to specific passages from the relevant texts to defend your attributions of arguments and views to the philosophers you discuss, and to cite your sources using a consistent citation
format.

A. present and explain the main line of argument pursued by Mary Anne Warren in “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion.” Your paper should identify and explain Warren’s main thesis and explain its significance

In the article titled “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion,” Mary Anne Warren argues that abortion is morally permissible at any point of a woman’s pregnancy. Perhaps the strongest argument that Warren gives for this claim.

Warren defends an extremely permissive view on abortion, according to which abortion is morally permissible at any stage of the pregnancy and under any circumstances.

b) present and explain what you take to be the strongest objection to this argument presented by Lee & George in “The Wrong of Abortion.”

I think the strongest objection to this argument is that the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature.

And (c) evaluate Warren’s argument. Does Warren respond to this objection? If so, how?

Warren argues against the claim that fetuses are persons by suggesting that personhood is not something that is automatically a part of being a member of the human species, but has to do with the possession of certain characteristics, all of which, she argues, fetuses lack

Is Lee & George’s objection ultimately effective? Lee and George’s objection ultimately is not effective. Why or why not?
I think Lee and George’s objection is not effective.

This is an assignment I did on the Warren’s stance on abortion

A. What is the topic or subject of this reading assignment? What is the author writing about?
The author is discussing their stance on abortion

B. What is the author’s thesis statement? What is the main claim or point the author is trying to make or defend?
Her main thesis is that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion at any point during her pregnancy and for any reason.

C. What is the author’s argument for this claim? If the author makes more than one main argument, summarize each one. In each case, be brief, but detailed.
I suggest that the traits which are most central to the concept of personhood, or humanity’ in the moral sense, are, very roughly; the following:
1. consciousness (of objects and events external
and/or internal to the being), and in particular the
capacity to feel pain;
2. reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);
3. self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);
4. the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;
5. the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both

Fetuses are not persons because they do not satisfy this criteria

D. Does the author consider any objections or counterarguments to their claim or arguments? What are they? Does the author cite a source for the objections or counterarguments they consider? If so, what are they? Provide a brief but detailed summary of each counterargument or objection the author considers.

Yes, warren considers counter arguments

The counterargument is that fetuses are persons

E. Does the author respond to these objections/counterarguments? If so, how. Provide a brief but detailed summary of each response.

Warren counters the claim that fetuses are persons by claiming that personhood is not inherent in being a member of the human species, but rather requires the possession of certain characteristics, all of which, she claims, fetuses lack.

F. In your view, does the author successfully argue for their thesis? Explain why or why not.

Yes, the author convincingly defends their thesis. This is because even if a potential person has a right to life, that right cannot possibly outweigh a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, because the rights of any actual person invariably outweigh those of any potential person.

This is an assignment I did on Lee and George
A. What is the topic or subject of this reading assignment? What is the author writing about?

The author is writing about their stance on abortion. They think that abortion is wrong.

B. What is the author’s thesis statement? What is the main claim or point the author is trying to make or defend?

The thesis: An intended death of a fetus is morally wrong.

C. What is the author’s argument for this claim? If the author makes more than one main argument, summarize each one. In each case, be brief, but detailed.

Lee and George argue that intentional abortion is unjust and therefore immoral. They say “the burden of carrying the baby, for all its distinctness, is significantly less than the harm the baby would suffer by being killed; the mother and father have a special responsibility to the child; it follows that intentional abortion (even in the few cases where the baby’s death is an unintended but foreseen side effect) is unjust and
therefore objectively immoral.”

D. Does the author consider any objections or counterarguments to their claim or arguments? What are they? Does the author cite a source for the objections or counter arguments they consider? If so, what are they? Provide a brief but detailed summary of each counterargument or objection the author considers.

Yes, they do consider counterarguments to their claim. For instance, they discuss certain defenders of abortion have argued that in order to be a person, an entity must be self-aware (Singer, 1993; Tooley, 1983; Warren, 1984).

Another counter argument is that the being who is you or I came to be at conception, but
contends that you and I became valuable and bearers of rights only much later, when,
for example, we developed the proximate, or·immediately exercisable, capacity for
self-consciousness.

Another counter arguments they consider is that, abortion is not a case of intentionally killing the child, but a choice not to provide the
child with assistance, that is, a choice to expel (or “evict”) the child from the womb, despite the likelihood or certainty that expulsion (or “eviction”) will result in his or her death (Little, 1999; McDonagh, 1996; Thomson, 1971).

E. Does the author respond to these objections/counterarguments? If so, how. Provide a brief but detailed summary of each response.

Their response to the first counter argument
are that the embryo is human: it has the genetic
makeup characteristic of human beings. Third, and most importantly, the embryo is complete or whole organism, though immature.

Their response to the second counter argument was “we are living bodily entities. We can see this by examining the kinds of action that
we perform. If a living thing performs bodily actions, then it is a physical organism.”

Their response to the third counter argument was “we human beings have the special kind of value that makes us subjects of rights in virtue of what we are, not in virtue of some attribute that we acquire some time after we have come to be.”

F. In your view, does the author successfully argue for their thesis? Explain why or why not.

No, the author’s thesis is not successfully argued. I say this because I disagree that carrying the baby to full term would cause less harm than killing the baby. I believe that a woman should be able to decide whether she is emotionally, physically, or financially stable enough to carry out a full-term pregnancy

Do you think that Descartes is right? Do you think that all persons can be reduced to the description Descartes gives?

/in /by

Philosophical essay

Topics for Paper #2:
Below are 4 possible paper topics. Pick just one as the subject of your paper and write a short philosophical essay on it (see the philosophical writing guide in Unit One for helpful writing tips.) Your essay should be argumentative, and your conclusion should be announced somewhere near the beginning of your paper.

1. In Book I of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that the highest human good must be both complete and self-sufficient. Define each condition carefully. What, specifically, do each of these standards mean? How can we be sure that a good that meets both conditions is the highest human good? Is it possible for a good to meet both conditions yet fail to be the highest human good? Explain.

2. Aristotle believes that when things are fulfilling their function well, they are “good” and achieve the “excellence” proper to the sort of thing they are. For example, a knife may be either good or bad. It is good if it has the excellence of cutting well, because cutting is the function of a knife. So, a knife that cuts well is a good knife. This is easy to determine in the case of things (artifacts), but it sounds odd to ask what the function of a human being is. How does Aristotle go about determining and assessing the function of a human being? (Hint: Be sure to consider the kind of being a human is. How are humans different from plants and animals? What are their most basic natural capacities?)

3. In his “Letter to Menoeceus,” Epicurus argues that death is not bad for the one who dies. (It may be bad for other people, but Epicurus is not here concerned with that case.) What is Epicurus’ argument for that conclusion? Give his specific reasons for thinking that death is not bad for the one who dies. Set these out as clearly as you can. Then, when you have done that, try to formulate a criticism of this argument: take up the position of someone who thinks that death can be bad for the one who dies, and try to figure out where (if anywhere) in his argument Epicurus went wrong. (Tip: Try to think of a case where being dead is bad for the one who dies, then explain how that shows Epicurus’ argument to be flawed if indeed it is.)

4. Having established that he exists, Descartes remarks in Meditation II (AT 25), “But I do not yet know sufficiently clearly what I am …” What does he decide he is and how? As carefully as you can, reconstruct Descartes’ arguments for his conclusion. Do you think that Descartes is right? Do you think that all persons can be reduced to the description Descartes gives?