Craig Ewert gives a lot of arguments for why he should use Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). What is one you agree with? What is one reason you disagree with? What is one reason you struggle to understand or accept?

/in /by

1.What is the difference thesis? Who is against it? Who is for it? What do you believe? Why?

  1. Talking about death is hard –discuss end of life planning (in the abstract if you prefer) with someone you’re close to. It need not be serious but try the conversation our and see what happens! Journal briefly about what it felt like to have this discussion.
  2. Craig Ewert gives a lot of arguments for why he should use Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). What is one you agree with? What is one reason you disagree with? What is one reason you struggle to understand or accept?
  3. What are the 3 different kinds of death? Which definition do you think best explains death?
  4. Why is the “playing God” argument a bad argument?

Apply the principle of double-effect to both cases below. Explain the ways in which they do or do not fulfill the four criteria, and therefore either are or are not justified according to Natural Law. According to natural law, may the young woman take the drug?

/in /by

Apply the principle of double-effect to both cases below. Explain the ways in which they do or do not fulfill the four criteria, and therefore either are or are not justified according to Natural Law. This means that you have to analyze the four criteria of Thomas Aquinas double effect theory and apply it to the cases. Make it understandable.

Here are the cases:

1. A young woman who is four months pregnant has recently discovered that she has tuberculosis. The doctor informs her that she must take a drug that will cure her disease, but that the drug will also have the effect of aborting the fetus. There is no other available drug that will cure her disease, and if she does not take the drug immediately she will die. According to natural law, may the young woman take the drug?

2. In the process of attempting to deliver a fetus, a physician discovers that the fetus is hydrocephalic. The fetus’s large cranium makes a normal vaginal delivery impossible; both the woman and fetus would die in the attempt. Neither the mother nor the fetus would survive a cesarean section, so the only way to save the mother’s life is to crush the skull of the fetus (craniotomy), thus rendering a vaginal delivery of the stillborn fetus possible. Would such a procedure be justified by natural law?

Does the author make appropriate and accurate use of course concepts in constructing his or her discussion? (20%) Intangibles: Is the paper on the assigned topic? Is it the author’s own work?

/in /by

Select just one topic.

1. Present one of the following two interactions: Kant and Anselm, or Descartes and Hobbes. This requires you to present both the argument from Anselm or Descartes and the criticism from Kant or Hobbes.

Evaluate the interaction. Is the critic’s objection a good philosophical objection? (You should have a rough idea what that means by now. If you do not, you’re in trouble.)

Given your evaluation, should Kant/Descartes have believed in God’s existence? Justify your answer. What does your answer mean for the rest of us? May anyone be justified in believing in God’s existence?

This is a 4 to 5 page paper, though you may certainly write more than that. Cite the text to support your claims. Write the paper is if it were a college paper. See the rubric for guidance.

2. Suppose someone argues for skepticism like this: People have different beliefs. People disagree about how old the world is; whether there is life on other planets; and even whether Bigfoot exists. So there’s really no truth about how old the world is; whether there’s life on other planets; or even whether Bigfoot exists.

Use the relevant course readings to evaluate the force of this argument. (You should be able to determine which are relevant.) Is this argument for skepticism a good one? What does your judgment with respect to that last question mean? Should we form beliefs based on arguments like this?

This is a 4 to 5 page paper, though you may certainly write more than that. Cite the text to support your claims. Write the paper is if it were a college paper. See the rubric for guidance.

3.Suppose someone tries to show that we should believe God exists like this: Any proposition is either true or false. Thus, there is a 50% chance that any proposition is true. Since “God exists” is a proposition, there is at least a 50% chance that God exists. If there’s a 50% chance that God exists, it makes sense to believe that he does. Thus, we should believe that God exists.

Put this argument in your paper. Then, explain whether it lives up to the standards of philosophy. If you say it does, explain why. If you say it does not, explain why.

This is a 4 to 5 page paper, though you may certainly write more than that. Cite the text to support your claims. Write the paper is if it were a college paper. See the rubric for guidance.

1. Does this paper identify have a clear thesis? (5%)
2. Does this paper contain only relevant information? Are the citations completed properly? (5%)

3. Does the paper attribute the correct view to the philosophers in question? (10%)

4. Is/are the philosopher’s view presented with the appropriate level of detail?
(For example, does the author explain concepts and arguments in a tight manner, or are the arguments and concepts merely sketched?)
(25%)

5. Does the author present a clear argument in his/her discussion? (15%)

6. Does the paper cohere? Or, is the paper a hodgepodge of disparate ideas? (10%)

7. Does the conclusion tie together the different phases of the paper? Or, is the conclusion a non-sequitur? (5%)

8. Are the spelling, grammar and syntax on the college level? (5%)

9. Does the author make appropriate and accurate use of course concepts in constructing his or her discussion? (20%) Intangibles: Is the paper on the assigned topic? Is it the author’s own work?

What is the social contract? The age of reason rises out of the bloody religious wars of the previous century. The belief was that with rational thinking and logic all the ills of society could be resolved. Why are these ideas becoming more prevalent in society?

/in /by

Define the enlightenment and expand on some of the great philosophical ideas of the enlightenment.
What is the social contract? The age of reason rises out of the bloody religious wars of the previous century. The belief was that with rational thinking and logic all the ills of society could be resolved. Why are these ideas becoming more prevalent in society?

 How and why would you define this movement as a reaction to the Enlightenment? Why do you believe the “Romantics” searched for a connection with the natural world? What parallels could you connect to our experience today?

Imagine yourself at a turning point in the history of science in the 17th century. You are a student of Galileo. He suggests that the earth must orbit the sun like these moons orbit Jupiter, but your fellow students argue that the earth could not be moving because if it were, everything on it would fly off into space. What do you decide?

/in /by

Imagine yourself at a turning point in the history of science in the 17th century. You are a student of Galileo and he has just shown you his telescope and asked you to observe four moons circling the planet Jupiter. He suggests that the earth must orbit the sun like these moons orbit Jupiter, but your fellow students argue that the earth could not be moving because if it were, everything on it would fly off into space. What do you decide? Does the earth move or not? What reasons would you give if you lived in the 17th century? Would your choice be rational? Why or why not?

Prepare fifteen (15) six-word sentences to explain the vocabulary of Pro-Voice. What does this vocabulary teach you? How does it cope with incommensurable values? 

/in /by

As abortion debates have turned black-and-white, Aspen Baker advocates being “pro-voice” — listening respectfully and compassionately to all kinds of experiences.

As abortion debates have turned black-and-white, Aspen Baker advocates being “pro-voice” — listening respectfully and compassionately to all kinds of experiences.

Abortion is extremely common. In America, for example, one in three women will have an abortion in their lifetime, yet the strong emotions sparked by the topic — and the highly politicized rhetoric around it — leave little room for thoughtful, open debate. In this personal, thoughtful talk, Aspen Baker makes the case for being neither “pro-life” nor “pro-choice” but rather “pro-voice” — and for the roles that listening and storytelling can play when it comes to discussing difficult topics.

Aspen Baker:

Why does a woman’s choice not fit in a neat category?

Why are Listening and Storytelling crucial?

Pro-Voice Pledge: “I pledge to be pro-voice in my everyday life by listening openly, speaking personally, and connecting respectfully about abortion and other stigmatized experiences.

Please see the link above Aspen Baker’s TED Talk. Prepare fifteen (15) six-word sentences to explain the vocabulary of Pro-Voice. What does this vocabulary teach you? How does it cope with incommensurable values? 

Fifteen (15) six-word sentences (SWS) (that means 15 sentences which has 6 words in each sentence like a poem). Please don’t write a full essay paper. No need sources. Present your response using the four-paragraph format.

  1. Introduction
  2. Body Core Idea 1,
  3. Body Core idea 2,
  4. Conclusion
  • What is the principle?
  • Who supports Pro-Voice?
  • How is Pro-Voice an extension or application of feminist ethics?
  • What is the core strength of Pro-Voice?
  • How does one validate the good with Pro-Voice?
  • What foundation does Pro-Voice depend?

What is the central point of Plato’s dialogue in your opinion?  How does Euthyphro the priest exemplify this point?

/in /by

In the Apology Socrates tries to defend himself against a set of charges, some old and some new. He raises up many issues such as what is corruption, ignorance as the cause of evil, life after death and the general attitude of Athenian society towards knowledge and wisdom. Socrates used the trial as a platform to teach one final lesson to the Athenians. What is the central point of Plato’s dialogue in your opinion?  How does Euthyphro the priest exemplify this point? Your answer should reflect a thorough understanding of the reading material. It should engage and make use of Socrates’ most important lesson.

Explain how our new media technologies can distribute value creation and enable a sustainable economy, instead of simply digitizing industrial extraction and growing even more capital that stays stored in share price.

/in /by

Part 1  on Moral Theory:

A central debate in Classical Chinese philosophy is the debate over human nature. Although this debate crosses a number of traditions, the debate between Mengzi and Xunzi (two early Confucians) is the most well-known. Mengzi argues that human nature is good, by which he means (roughly) that each of us has innate feelings that, if cultivated, can be developed into full-fledged virtues. To argue for this view, he gives an example of someone seeing a child about to fall into a well. Mengzi claims that everyone would have an immediate and unreflective feeling of compassion upon seeing the child about to fall into the well. That the feeling is immediate and unreflective, and not motivated by gain, is evidence that it is a natural feeling, Mengzi thinks. The feeling is not motivated by gain, but it may still be stifled by it. If the bystander stands to profit from the death of the child, for example, they may let the child fall into the well. The feelings are merely “sprouts”:

They need to be cultivated to grow into virtues proper. By contrast, Xunzi claims that human nature is bad, by which he means (roughly) that each of us has innate dispositions which, if not constrained through learning and ritual, would, if acted on, lead to social strife and disorder. Xunzi has some of his own examples to illustrate how these dispositions lead to these bad outcomes, and how ritual and learning can constrain them. But he’s not as explicit as Mengzi in providing an argument that clearly demonstrates that they are innate. Write an essay in which you provide an example that supports Xunzi’s view of human nature, but that has the clear structure of Mengzi’s example of the child about to fall into the well. That is, give your own example, in which someone immediately and unreflectively has one of the ‘bad’ reactions described by Xunzi. Give your own example, but then also consider the common phenomenon of a spectator catching a fly ball at a baseball game. Everyone’s instinctive reaction seems to be to get the ball for themselves. The guy who graciously gives it to a nearby child after catching it seemingly only does so as a result of learning. Apply PDE reasoning, both to this baseball example, and also to your own example; i.e., be sure to identify:

(1) the object of the action (and whether it is good or bad or indifferent);

(2) the purpose of the action (and whether it is good or bad or indifferent);

(3) the intention behind the action (and whether it is good or bad); and

(4) the circumstances of the action (and whether they make the action more or less good, or more or less bad). Be sure to discuss all four components of the moral action involved in both examples (i.e., both in your own example and in the baseball game example). How would you resolve the debate over human nature? Does Mengzi win the debate, or does Xunzi? Should we distinguish between learned responses and innate responses?

Part 2 — ESSAY QUESTION #2 on Applied Ethics:

Read all of Chapter 5 in Rushkoff, Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus (pages 224–239): and also read Rushkoff’s one-page article on the extraction of value:

“Rich Customer, Rich Company” (see the PDF online at: ). Explain how our new media technologies can distribute value creation and enable a sustainable economy, instead of simply digitizing industrial extraction and growing even more capital that stays stored in share price. Contrast Rushkoff’s “digital distributism” with the three other types of economic operating systems (Rushkoff, Chapter 5, pages 225, 233), especially with digital industrialism. Explain how “digital distributism” is not leftism, but rather an emphasis on subsidiarity (Rushkoff, Chapter 5, pages 228-232, especially page 231) that retrieves key aspects of the artisan economy. Use the tetrad of Marshall McLuhan to compare the industrial corporation with a genuinely digital, distributist business (Rushkoff, Chapter 5, pages 237-238). In particular, what do you think of the business model of Bas van Abel’s “Fairphone” as an example for future commerce? View the “Fairphone” documentary before answering: .

Discuss a particular philosophical problem and the different ways it has been attempted to be solved (e.g. the debate between empiricist and rationalists in regard to knowledge)

/in /by

Write a paper on any philosophical topic of your choice. (get your topic approved by me!) The goal of your paper is to explain a particular philosopher’s views on a particular philosophical topic (e.g. Descartes’ view on epistemology), or to discuss a particular philosophical problem and the different ways it has been attempted to be solved (e.g. the debate between empiricist and rationalists in regard to knowledge). The paper is an opportunity for you investigate and explore philosophy in an academic way. What it should NOT be is just a report on the life and ideas of a particular philosopher.

Translate the premises and conclusion into the symbols of propositional logic. Construct a truth table in which you analyze the argument for validity.Is your argument valid or invalid?

/in /by

Translate the premises and conclusion into the symbols of propositional logic. Construct a truth table in which you analyze the argument for validity. You can construct a truth a table by inserting a table into a Microsoft Word document (from the INSERT option in Word, choose “table.” You will then have an opportunity to choose how many rows and columns you would like your table to be.) Is your argument valid or invalid? If valid, say why it is valid; identify the rows in the truth table that make the argument valid. If the argument is invalid, identify a counterexample; point to a row in your truth table that makes the argument invalid.

  1. Humans evolved from lower life forms given that either human life evolved from inanimate matter apart from divine causes or God created human life via evolution. God created life via of evolution. It follows that humans evolved from lower life forms. (H: Human life evolved from lower life forms; M: Human life evolved from inanimate matter apart from divine causes; G: God created human life via evolution)
  2. Augustine achieves heaven if Augustine is virtuous. But Augustine is happy provided that he is not virtuous. Augustine does not achieve heaven only if he is not happy. Therefore, Augustine achieves heaven. (A: Augustine achieves heaven; V: Augustine is virtuous; H: Augustine is happy)
  3. It is morally permissible for extraterrestrials to eat humans on the condition that it is morally permissible for humans to eat animals. But either it is not morally permissible for extraterrestrials to eat humans or human life lacks intrinsic value. Human life has intrinsic value. Therefore it is not morally permissible for humans to eat animals. (E: It is morally permissible for extraterrestrials to eat humans; H: It is morally permissible for humans to eat animals; V: Human life has intrinsic value)
  4. American foreign policy is bankrupt unless it is based on clear moral principles. American foreign policy is not based on clear moral principles just in case it is based primarily on the national interest. Unfortunately American foreign policy is based primarily on the national interest. Therefore, American foreign policy is bankrupt. (B: American foreign policy is bankrupt; M: American foreign policy is based on clear moral principles; N: American foreign policy is based primarily on national interest.)
  5. On the condition that landmines are designed to inflict horrible suffering, they ought to be banned unless inflicting horrible suffering is sometimes justified. It is not true that inflicting horrible suffering is sometimes justified, but it is true that landmines are designed to inflict horrible suffering. Therefore, landmines ought to be banned. (L: Landmines are designed to inflict horrible suffering; B: Landmines ought to be banned; S: Inflicting horrible suffering is sometimes justified)