Apa, Philosophy, University / 05.08.2022
Philosophical Reflection Essay
...
Philosophy
MLA, Philosophy, University / 23.07.2022
Business and Professional Ethics
...
College, MLA, Philosophy / 08.06.2022
ethical system
...
Apa, Philosophy, University / 06.06.2022
Presentation Notes
...
Apa, College, Philosophy / 18.05.2022
This short essay builds on your recent discussion forum work (Aristotle, Kant, and Mill). The questions are written below. Answer the questions in whatever writing program you use (Word, Pages, TextEdit, etc.), save it, and upload it by clicking the “Submit Assignment” button above. If you have any trouble uploading the assignment email me directly using Canvas’s Inbox. Assignment Goals and Objectives This assignment is designed to test your ability to explain AND apply the theories you’ve been learning about over the past 2 weeks. To succeed on this assignment you should be able to: Explain the central arguments for virtue ethics (Aristotle), deontology (Kant), and utilitarianism (Mill). Apply each of the theories to a scenario to “test” the feasibility of their normativity. Formulate objections to (Aristotle), deontology (Kant), and utilitarianism (Mill) and consider possible solutions. Before you begin answering the questions you need to do some honest self-reflection and ask yourself if you understand the material well enough to explain it and apply it. A helpful resource is the Writing Philosophy page.Assignment Instructions There are three questions listed below you must answer ONLY two. Each question is worth 5 points for 10 points total. Each question has a similar format: you’ll be presented with a scenario and you must Explain the relevant aspects of the philosophical theories in question. This is similar to a philosophical exegesis. Click HERE for tips on how to do philosophical exegesis. Apply the philosophical theories to the scenario in question. For example, you should explain what Mill’s theory would require Mrs. Smith’s lawyer to do with her will and, most importantly, why. Then do the same for Kant. Assess which philosophical theory offers the best moral guidance for how one should act in the scenario in question. This should include an argument about why, for example, you maintain that Mill’s theory gives the best guidance to Mrs. Smith’s lawyer AND an argument about why, following the same example, you maintain Kant’s theory is inadequate. You should also include a potential way to strengthen the inadequate theory. Although the assignment is like an essay, you DO NOT need an introduction or conclusion. (Note that this is different than with your final essay answers, which do require introductions, thesis statements, and conclusions.)
...
Apa, College, Philosophy / 15.05.2022
You have now written four (4) case analyses. You will develop ONE for your second, and final, essay in connection with the topic you choose from below. You must answer all parts of the question to receive credit. Your answers need to be written as short essays (1000-1200 words), so you need to include an introduction and conclusion and any quotations or paraphrases must be appropriately cited. In addition, it is important to think of this essay as a development of your previous work — you won’t merely copy over that previous work, and then add an introduction and a conclusion. Instead, you will use the feedback from me, along with your further reflections and review, to revise and expand the case analysis you’ve chosen for this final essay. If you have questions about any of this please email me immediately. You can also check out this material on philosophical essay writing. Topics Welfare In this essay you have 5 tasks: Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand. Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Walzer’s and Murray’s arguments. (Click here for some tips on how to do a successful exegesis.) Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an argumentjustifying who each philosopher would give the welfare to and why. Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand. In no more than one paragraph, explain what solution you would propose for Rebecca and Jimmy. Consider Rebecca, a single mother of 4 who has been a long-term welfare recipient. Rebecca is a weekend meth user who often spends her money on meth. However, without her welfare money, her children would not have any food or medical treatment and would most likely be placed in foster homes where their lives would go worse than they currently are. Rebecca’s yearly welfare application is due. Now consider Jimmy, a veteran of both Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During the battle, Jimmy was wounded and now suffers from some moderate physical disability and post-traumatic stress. Sadly, although Jimmy tried to find a job, there weren’t many systems in place to help him re-integrate or work through his issues. Each day Jimmy begs for money at his local off-ramp. Through no fault of his own, Jimmy has fallen through the proverbial cracks. Jimmy applies for welfare. You are the welfare overseer. At most one person can get welfare. You can make ONE of the following three decisions: Give the welfare only to Rebecca Give the welfare only Jimmy Don’t give any welfare Healthcare this essay you have 5 tasks: Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand. Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Bradley’s and Peikoff’s arguments. (Click here for some tips on how to do a successful exegesis.) Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying in which world each philosopher would place Jim and why. Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand. In no more than one paragraph, explain what solution you would propose for Jim. Consider Jim. Jim has worked in middle management his entire life. He had the option of paying into his company’s managed healthcare system but decided he wanted to keep the money instead and invest it in case he ever needed acute medical treatment. Unfortunately, on his 40th birthday, Jim decided to buy a red Corvette with that money. 6 months later, Jim went to a doctor to see why he was feeling so awful. The doctor diagnosed Jim with emphysema, diabetes, and kidney failure. All three of these conditions are the result of Jim’s lifestyle choices: smoking, poor eating and exercise habits, and excessive drinking. These conditions are chronic and will require treatment for the rest of Jim’s life including cutting-edge lung and kidney treatments and weekly meetings with a nutritionist, endocrinologist, cardiologist, etc. Here are the two possible healthcare “worlds” for Jim (he must be “placed” in one of them): Participate in a universal healthcare system, paid for by income taxes, which doesn’t provide Jim with the latest and greatest medical technology but does meet basic standards of care. Participate in a pay-for-service system, which allows Jim to pay for whatever treatment he wants and/or can afford but will not treat him unless he pays for the service. Capital Punishment
...
Apa, Philosophy, University / 15.05.2022
You are going to discuss one of the case studies in connection with a theorist (Aristotle, Kant, Mill, Rawls, or Nozick). Before embarking on this exercise, review the relevant discussions and previous case studies you’ve written.Explain how the theorist you chose would evaluate one of the following cases we analyzed: Welfare, Healthcare, Capital Punishment, or Affirmative Action?
...
Apa, College, Philosophy / 14.05.2022
You are going to discuss affirmative action in terms of a current event. Your initial post and peer reply should each consist of approximately 150-200 words. Part I (Original Post) Find a current event that deals with affirmative action and discuss it here. Be sure to bring one of this week’s readings to bear on the discussion. Part II (Peer Reply)
...
Apa, College, Philosophy / 14.05.2022
If you have not done so, be sure to read the Case Analysis Structure Overview. Case Consider a new position at the very prestigious Chronus Department of the Federal Government. The Chronus Department examines how issues from the past have an impact on current affairs, and their new position aims at recruiting a new employee to be groomed to eventually because the director of the department. The ideal candidate would be someone who has a degree in some area of the humanities that deals with research, history, and culture, and who has a demonstrated ability to work well with others in a leadership capacity. This position has an incredible benefits package including, healthcare, vacations, and a pension. The Department has narrowed its selection down to two candidates: Molly is an African American woman from a very affluent and politically active Texas family. She attended Yale, where she earned an undergraduate degree in Anthropology with a minor in US Civics. After graduating, she volunteered for two years in the Peace Corps, and then took a year off to tour around Europe. Cameron is a third-generation Irish American from a working-class family in Pennsylvania. After high school, he spent a year working with his father in a steel mill, but then decided he wanted to go to university. He received a scholarship to Princeton, where he graduated with a degree in US History. In his final year of school, Cameron was elected Student Body President and implemented a union for the teaching assistants. In this essay you have 5 tasks: Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand. Give a thorough philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Pojman’s and Mosley’s theories. Present an argument applying the philosophers’ arguments to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying to whom each philosopher would give the job. Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand. In no more than one paragraph explain who you would hire and why.
...
Apa, College, Philosophy / 02.05.2022
Capital Punishment Case Analysis Due Sunday by 11:59pm Points 8.75 Submitting a file upload Available May 2 at 12am – May 22 at 11:59pm 21 days Overview and Instructions If you have not done so, be sure to read the Case Analysis Structure Overview. In this case analysis you have five tasks: Explain your understanding of the case. Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of the ACLU paper, Kant and Van den Haag’s arguments Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an account of what each philosopher would argue should happen to Bob. Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand. In ONE paragraph, explain how you think we should treat Bob. Case Consider Bob. Bob was raised by wolves (literally – don’t ask me how). Although his IQ would probably be normal, there is no way to test it, since Bob doesn’t speak or read any human language. One day, Bob emerged from the wilderness and ended up Downtown — the snazzy part of the city. He was hungry (presumably) so he “found” some food in the normal wolf way: he stalked a mother walking her baby and, deciding it was easiest to prey on the weaker, killed and ate the baby. There’s no question that Bob is “guilty” of the crime. He did it and there were lots of witnesses. What punishment should Bob get?
...