• Home

Philosophy homework help

Link to Video = “Left Behind America” 


https://www.pbs.org/video/left-behind-america-tkmile/

Guide to Writing a Reaction Paper

If you were to ask 10 people, “How do I write a Video Reaction Paper?” you’d probably get 10 different responses. No one seems to know exactly how to do one, yet almost everyone is assigned one at some point in his or her academic career. Here is a guide to what faculty are usually “looking for” in a well-written video reaction paper.

 

I.                    Summary/Synopsis – What are you reacting to? GOAL: Show that you understand the thesis, main ideas, and supporting ideas in the video you’re writing about. Identify all of the “basic information: about the video that you can, including: subject matter, producer, title of the piece, and the year of publication; the topic or subject of the piece—for example, “The Triangle Shirt-Waist Fire” or “Revitalization efforts underway in Roxbury’s Codman Square.” In other words, tell what the video is about in a word or a phrase; the purpose or motive—for example, “to expose the dangerous conditions factory workers in the United States faced prior in the early decades of the twentieth century” or “to show how residents can unite to improve their neighborhood”; the thesis statement (might be similar to the purpose, but not necessarily); the primary supporting ideas.

II.                 Analysis/Evaluation– What are the strengths and weaknesses of the video? Goal: Show that you understand what the video does well and what it does not do so well. Answer the “w” questions, like why, why not, what, what if, what for, where, why there, who, how, when . . . Specific questions you might take up include:

a.       was the videoconvincing? why or why not, specifically? is it well-researched? are the sources reputable? why or why not? 

b.       did the video overlook or leave out anything important? what? 

c.       did the video overemphasize or overprivilege anything? what? 

d.       is the video one-sided (even if he or she takes your side), or does the video present a balanced view? 

III.               Your Reactions– How do you react to the video on a personal level? How does the video relate to your experience? Goal: Share your own impressions and your own experiences with your professor. Here are some questions you might consider answering:

a.       did the video hold your interest? Why or why not? 

b.       did the video bother or annoy you? why or why not? 

c.       what would you ask, or tell, the producer or particular people in the video if you could? 

d.       what did you realize as a result of watching the video? 


e.       
what questions does the video raise for you — about the material, about other things? does the video remind you of other readings or videos you’ve watched for this course or otherwise? compare and contrast the video to these.

Philosophy homework help

Discussion: Ethics 

We’ll follow our usual pattern for 10 point board here. Offer a substantive initial post by the end of Wednesday and two replies by the end of the day Friday for full credit. Of course more engagement in discussion is welcome, and watch for my occasional contributions aimed at clarifying the material in the chapter. Again, 200-300 words is a good length for a post, but I’m more interested in informed engagement with the material. Here are a few review questions from the reading to get us started. 

1. What, according to Utilitarianism, has fundamental value?

2. What is the utility of an action?

3. How does Mill’s Utilitarianism understand happiness?

4. What is it for an action to be right according to Act Utilitarianism?

5. Describe a problem case for Utilitarianism.

6. Explain Rule Utilitarianism and the risk it faces of collapsing back in to act Utilitarianism

7. What has fundamental value according to Kant?

8. What is the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a Categorical Imperative?

9. Explain a version of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

10. What does it mean to refer to Utilitarianism and Kant’s respect-for-persons theory as monist theories?

11. Explain Ethical Pluralism.

Philosophy homework help

Discussion: Political Philosophy 

200-300 words is a good length for a post, but I’m more interested in informed engagement with the material. Here are a few review questions from the reading to get us started.

1. Explain Plato’s conception of justice. How does it differ from contemporary liberal views of justice.

2. Why is Plato no fan of democracy?

3. In what way does Locke see us as having a natural right to liberty?

4. What is the function of government according to Locke an how is it justified?

5. How does Locke justify property rights?

6. Explain the tragedy of the commons an how it present a challenge to a Lockean conception of property rights?

7. How does the creation of wealth and property I our society differ from the idealized individualistic conception Locke offers.

8. Explain Rawls’ two principles of social justice as fairness.

9. How does Rawls’ employ the idea of the original position and the veil of ignorance in supporting his principle of social justice?

Philosophy homework help

Corporate Law

You, your brother, your sister, and your best friend’s Aunt were visiting and came up with the idea that together you could go into business offering mortgages to the public. Your best friends Aunt, Auntie Yoda is already working in the business and has lots of contacts with people and banks that have money to lend. She has wanted to start a business for some time because she knows how to be successful in this business and there is definitely money to be made. Your sister has experience with the local business community, your brother just completed his MBA in finance from Harvard, and you have been working in a bank while attending CC and you are about to graduate with an Associate Degree in Business! You are all convinced this is a workable business idea. You have been discussing how you are going to set up the business.

How would you analyze the organizational options available to you? What are the pro’s and con’s as they apply to these facts? What form of business organization would you prefer and why? Support your conclusions and discussion with legal analysis taking into account the legal attributes of each form and the operational aspects of each form.

Philosophy homework help

Ethics

We’ll follow our usual pattern for 10 point board here. Offer a substantive initial post by the end of Wednesday and two replies by the end of the day Friday for full credit. Of course more engagement in discussion is welcome, and watch for my occasional contributions aimed at clarifying the material in the chapter. Again, 200-300 words is a good length for a post, but I’m more interested in informed engagement with the material. Here are a few review questions from the reading to get us started. 

1. What, according to Utilitarianism, has fundamental value?

2. What is the utility of an action?

3. How does Mill’s Utilitarianism understand happiness?

4. What is it for an action to be right according to Act Utilitarianism?

5. Describe a problem case for Utilitarianism.

6. Explain Rule Utilitarianism and the risk it faces of collapsing back in to act Utilitarianism

7. What has fundamental value according to Kant?

8. What is the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a Categorical Imperative?

9. Explain a version of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

10. What does it mean to refer to Utilitarianism and Kant’s respect-for-persons theory as monist theories?

11. Explain Ethical Pluralism.

Philosophy homework help

2

Human Rights

Student:

Institution:

Instructor:

Course Code:

Date:

Our topic for this project will be Human Rights. For many years now, this has been a broad area of law and aspect of human life that has been in contestation from all aspects of life. Human Rights, in my thinking, is humanity itself. That is to say, in absentia of it, then humanity lacks meaning, and that is why they are called ‘ human’ Rights, not ‘something’ else rights. Human Rights are the core of human rights. This is a very important area of law for me to tackle and deliver my thinking, agreeing and disagreeing with other thinkers in this area, and a crucial part of humanity. (Hamm, 2001).

Why do I claim that Human Rights are important? I will base my arguments on the ideal mind of Aristotle because I happen to lean toward his reasoning, and I will apply that to my topic. The proclamation that there is no theory on human rights policy on Aristotle can be addressed in any other way. One way is to realize that Aristotle did not have a human rights record. Indeed, his important views on political philosophy are surprisingly different because he needs to emphasize ideas such as merit, fairness, constitutional participation, and citizenship. In Aristotle, as in Latin, it shows the equality of purpose of the people with regard to fortune-telling goods and on the way to a few transactions. (Kraut, 2021).

Citizens may humbly have exousia, such as Latin potestas, but this exousia is present and is largely based on the last few declarations of merit. In the end, the Kurios period represents de facto control, or each time the power to legislate, but not the vulnerability of the official ban.

The Importance of Human Rights: They are basic rights that all people have by definition since we are human beings. They exemplify important societal principles such as justice, dignity, equality, and respect. They are a crucial source of protection for all of us, especially those who may be subjected to abuse, neglect, or isolation. Most significantly, these rights provide us power, allowing us to speak up and demand a negative answer from government authorities.

What needs to be solved concerning Human rights? From time to time, human rights should be solved by coming up with a concrete set of laws dealing effectively with abusers. Otherwise, if that is not done, then the idea of humanity lacks meaning.

Which Philosopher comes in with this topic of mine, Human Rights? The best Philosopher for me concerning humans, in my opinion, is Aristotle. Aristotle lays his foundation of argument on idealism. That is to say that Reality and knowledge of things acquire independent of the mind that perceives them. That is to say that Reality is extra mental and not instrumental. This means that Reality exists outside the mind that perceives it and not in mind as ideas.

To apply this realism of my teacher Aristotle, I will do it realistically and systematically. Although I don’t claim expertise on human rights, I believe you will find my argument persuasive.

Human Rights should be perceived using Reality according to the realism school of thinking. We cannot say we have human rights when we can’t make it real rather than just ideas in our heads. Aristotle’s argument that ethical systems should be guided by Reality is acceptable to me in that we should concentrate on what is real. This means that human rights should be practically enforced rather than just ideas in our system like the constitution.

I will end by supporting my argument using Socrates, who happens to be the teacher of Aristotle, that human reason should be applied in society rather than just doctrinal and theological writings or ideas. Human Rights are real, not just ideas!

References

Hamm, B. I. (2001). A human rights approach to development. Hum. Its. Q.23, 1005.

Kraut, R. (2021). Aristotle on the human good. In Aristotle on the Human Good. Princeton

University Press.

Philosophy homework help

WHY THE PAST 10 YEARS OF AMERICAN LIFE HAVE BEEN UNIQUELY STUPID

Reading:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/social-media-democracy-trust-babel/629369/

This week’s think piece is by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Haidt examines some of the dynamics of social media encouraging divisive polarization and offers a few recommendations for taming some of the worst of these. Looking forward to reading your thoughts. (200 words)

THANKS!!

Philosophy homework help

Module 5’s discussion questions will focus primarily upon the content of the assigned textbook readings (from both our RRB and POR texts) for this module. See the Course Schedule, or the Module 5 Assignment list, for the specific RRB chapters and POR selections in question.

Discussion Instructions:

1. Respond to EACH of the three Module 5 discussion questions presented below (questions A, B & C). Do so using separate posts for each question; do NOT respond to multiple questions within the same single post.

2. Continue to participate by submitting additional followup posts in response to each question. Before the module ends, be sure to provide at least TWO substantive responses to EACH of the following discussion questions:

Question A: How plausible is Richard Dawkins’ view that science discredits religion? Does Dembski offer a coherent response?

Question B: What is the problem of religious exclusivism, according to Paul Griffiths? Why does he think that it is necessary to acknowledge the value of religious exclusivism?

Question C: Does MacIntyre’s view that we must have a knowledge of the just independently of our knowledge of God entail that we are making God a finite being? Why or why not?

Philosophy homework help

Write 4–5 sentences each on the following. Be specific in your answers, make sure you hit on the key points.

1. Polycarp example from Nicholas Wolterstorff’s book (The Mighty and the Almighty)

2. The paradox of the two dualities of Christian citizenship

3. Nicholas Wolterstorff’s criticisms of Yoder, Calvin, and the two-kingdom theory

4. Wolterstorff on the legitimacy of government arising from both above and below

5. Wolterstorff’s reading of Romans 13; his criticisms of the traditional reading

6. Wolterstorff on the Shalom concept

7. Wolterstorff on how Christians ought to approach a government that is violating its divine mandate.

Philosophy homework help

Write 4–5 sentences each on the following. Be specific in your answers, make sure you hit on the key points.

1. Robert George’s criticisms of Aristotle and Aquinas

2. Robert George believed that Aristotle and Aquinas contributed to the cultivation of virtue in the citizens

3. George’s reinterpretation of Devlin

4. George’s criticisms of Dworkin

5. George’s account of our free speech rights, free press rights, and free assembly rights

6. George on the ‘right to privacy’

7. Patrick Devlin’s non-perfectionist defense of morals legislation

8. HLA Hart’s criticisms of Devlin

Philosophy homework help

Write 4–5 sentences each on the following. Be specific in your answers, make sure you hit on the key points

1. Ronald Dworkin on equality

2. Dworkin on privacy as derived from equality

3. Rawls on non-perfectionist liberalism

4. Richards on the inherent good of certain vices, as well as their permissibility

5. The pluralistic perfectionism idea

6. Patrick Deneen on the unsustainable trajectories of liberalism

7. The individualism inherent in liberalism

8. Liberalism’s turn toward ever-increasing government solutions

9. Liberalism and the market

10. The relationship between technology and liberalism

11. The humanities in a liberal culture

12. Deneen on the future of liberalism

Philosophy homework help

Beware the Big Five

Here’s this week’s IT read, Beware the Big Five.

Keep our basic methods for evaluating arguments in mind in your comments. If you think an author is arriving at the wrong conclusion, you want to explain why by explaining how their their premises are false or fail to support the conclusion they a drawing. To do this effectively requires first getting clear on just what the argument is. So some useful discussion might focus just on this. Attacking a misinterpretation of an argument amounts to a straw man fallacy. Merely declaring and argument weak is uninformative and ad hominem attacks are mere distractions.

Philosophy homework help

Beware the Big Five

Here’s this week’s IT read, 
Beware the Big Five

Keep our basic methods for evaluating arguments in mind in your comments. If you think an author is arriving at the wrong conclusion, you want to explain why by explaining how their their premises are false or fail to support the conclusion they a drawing. To do this effectively requires first getting clear on just what the argument is. So some useful discussion might focus just on this. Attacking a misinterpretation of an argument amounts to a straw man fallacy. Merely declaring and argument weak is uninformative and ad hominem attacks are mere distractions. 

Philosophy homework help

Question A

Lucy:

Ruse explores both metaphysical naturalism, which supposes that supernatural forces are non-existent, and also methodological naturalism, that empirical evidence can only prove natural events, since supernatural occurrences, regardless if they exist, cannot be confirmed, in contrast to theism. Metaphysical and methodological naturalism both operate according to do not require an alternate supernatural explanation (although methodical naturalism doesn’t dismiss the possibility of one, despite the odds being weighed in naturalism’s favor). He believes that naturalism can explain phenomena without the necessity for divine design. He emphasizes that religion is of human origin, therefore has a natural explanation. He goes as far to say that purely religious/supernatural explanations for an event can’t be trusted, because even if it did in fact occur, it was due to natural causes, and therefore believing it because of the religious explanation is unreasonable because the belief is formed under false pretenses. On the problem of evil, he suggests that the possibility of hell does not balance out the needless torture of children on Earth and does not offer the true harmony that theism promises God will bestow. I agree that this makes metaphysical naturalism obligatory as no alternative explanation will morally justify such atrocities. I find his arguments overall more compelling, especially because he distinguishes that we can only ascertain natural explanations regardless of the validity of supernatural occurrences, and should therefore always seek a natural explanation.

In contrast, I disagree with Peterson’s arguments that both theism and naturalism can be accepted, but overall theism can provide a better explanation for events than naturalism. He explains away that the problem of evil is solved due to the free will of man from God. He does not reject evolution but fails to see how it suffices explaining the current state of world, contesting that religion and naturalism should not be in so competition with each other but that answers from both sides should be valued. He suggests particularly that evolution explains the human biology while religion explains the origin of belief in God and the relationship, we have with him. He claims these two are complementary perspectives, but I don’t see how science cannot also, if not more sufficiently provide an explanation of religion as it is of the same biological human origin as any other characteristics? I found Peterson’s argument that aspects of nature are much better explained by God than naturalism alone to be very reductive. To be fair, he does believe that God and naturalism are not entirely mutually exclusive but does not address any of the contradictions that might arise from two drastically different explanations. I think his understanding of naturalism is flawed as he thinks it is insufficient and ‘strained’ in its attempt to be all encompassing, failing to recognize the inherent complexity that allows such variety to exist. Since it appears that a supernatural explanation alleviates the need for a complex solution, Peterson is mistaken by assuming that the convenience of God offers a better explanation than naturalism and scientific evidence.

Noah:

Question A: What challenges, according to Michael Ruse, does naturalism pose for religion? In what ways does Michael Peterson respond to such challenges in defense of theism? Whose arguments do you find most compelling, and why?

Ruse essentially puts forward the idea that many of the key arguments for religion can be refuted by a naturalist perspective. Natural Selection as a concept gives us an explanation for the existence of and variety therein of the life on our planet, and it gives us an explanation for our sense of morality; both of which are things many people would attribute to God. Ruse specifically mentions Occam’s Razor, which is more or less the idea that the simplest explanation is most likely to be the true explanation. Therefore, if we have natural, observable explanations for these phenomena, then we should assume that a naturalist explanation is the correct one. Ruse also presents metaphysical naturalism as an answer to the Problem of Evil, essentially saying that evil and suffering are best explained by the non-existence of an all-good, all-powerful God.

Petersons first challenge to the naturalist viewpoint is a cosmological one. He asserts that an atheistic, naturalist perspective can not reconcile the simple existence of the universe with itself. The Big Bang in and of itself is not a sufficient enough answer, there must be a supernatural force that the Big Bang is contingent upon. Peterson also seems to generally disagree with the idea that the Problem of Evil supports the metaphysical naturalist worldview, stating that it is his belief that there is an inherent fallacy in the assumption that God would not allow evil to exist in the world. I think it is very important to note that alongside these claims, Peterson makes it very clear that he believes neither or these belief systems, the naturalistic or the theistic, are able to single-handedly create a comprehensive worldview.

Having said that, I would say that Peterson creates the more compelling argument, as I do believe the debate between atheistic and theistic explanations of the world are really quite reductive. I generally agree with most of the naturalistic points of view, however I do agree with the notion that it is just as likely as not that there is a supernatural explanation for the overall existence of the universe, if not for the relatively minute and mundane existence of our small planet. I am more inclined to find overlap and compatibility between the opposed ideologies, as they feel very unsatisfactory to me as individuals.

Question B

Lucy:

As for Price’s Survival Hypothesis, he does go into detail of how a disembodied consciousness could survive death, and while I find some of the concepts he introduces to be important for consideration, but cohesively I don’t agree with this hypothesis. Obviously, he addresses that the biggest objection to this hypothesis is the fact that the brain dies with the body and can no longer function or react to sensory information. He proposes instead that the composite of memories and sensory experiences over a person’s life is disembodied and transcends a bodily death, and so this afterlife is not an extension but a sort of subconscious submersion in memory. He compares it to a dream state, which uses only information know to the person dreaming in a non-linear and often unintelligible fashion. He consistently asserts that he has evidence for this hypothesis but does not exactly make it clear what he is referring to and what this evidence is. It is difficult for me to follow his hypothesis that doesn’t employ scientific exploration for scientific concepts, but instead a purely conceptual basis for this hypothesis that directly goes against brain death. I can’t imagine that there is much basis for a hypothesis of disembodied memories that assumedly create a visual, olfactory, tactile and auditory sensory experience with no functioning brain to remember them. I do believe that consciousness is not well understood, so these hypotheticals are important to considerations of the limitations of consciousness, but we also must accept that we cannot reason our way into a solution for such a complex problem. I also think that Price does not explain telepathic communication enough between these individual disembodied memory worlds, and it would contradict his point of this being a survival of conscious memories, and not a continuation of life; being able to interact with other memories would not make sense in this case, as new information wouldn’t be able to be conceived if there is no processing system intact. I ultimately see this as an argument for memories having their own consciousness independent of the person who has experienced the memories, but I have a difficult time conceiving of this hypothesis of survival occurring without a functioning sensory processing system, although it is very interesting to think about. Obviously, Price does not entirely believe it either, but tries to make it more intelligible, with I believe he partially does, but to me it is not succinct.

Noah:

Question B: Is H. H. Price’s account of the Survival Hypothesis intelligible? Why or why not?

Price’s interpretation of the survival hypothesis is absolutely intelligible. I can certainly conceive of the various possible “afterlives” which he describes, it isn’t something which is incomprehensible, regardless of your personal feelings on religion and so on. Price describes an afterlife in which you have sensory experiences relating to your memories and your desires, not at all unlike the dreams we experience so regularly. With that in mind I think anyone who has the ability to dream has the ability to conceive of an afterlife. As well, I do absolutely agree with the fundamental premise that Price was getting at in this essay, namely that our memories and desires are not reliant on our brain to exist. Logically and scientifically we know that our brain is the source of all of our conscious experience, but I think when the metaphysical comes into play we can accept our ignorance on the matter and make assumptions that we otherwise wouldn’t in the physical world.

Question C

Alana:

I do think John Hicks did successfully defend what he thinks resurrection is to him. When thinking about resurrection I think about people who have died for a few minutes then came back to life or people who died and were reborn as someone else. I feel there could be different ways and meanings when it comes to the resurrection. The soul will be the same but placed into a different body. When it comes to people who died for a couple of minutes they will see and hear things while they are dead. Mostly, it can be dead family and friends, different gods (could depend on what they believe in), angels, or just darkness. When he mentioned the “Replica” theory I believe it is real. As I stated before when someone dies they will be born as someone else, sometimes there might be a chance they look the same or are different but personalities and mindsets are the same. When thinking about that theory I think of birthmarks. Some people say birthmarks are from our past life. There has been some evidence where someone has died then someone else in a different family has the same birthmark as that previous person who passed away. It is very interesting when thinking about it.

Tracie:

Do you think John Hick has successfully defended the possibility of a resurrection? Why or why not?

I think that John Hick does defend his theory on resurrection. For the most part, he talks about the replica theory. In some form, there is going to be another you somewhere else, which must be identical, in another world. Not in the physical world, but more of the spirit realm. I think that he defends his theory well because the three stages that he has about replica makes sense. However, they may be confusion because how can there be a replica of that person that died last week? Well according to Hick, there can be a replica of that person that died last week; it may seem that it might be the same person, but, that person is in another world in the same form of that person that died. A good example would be Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ came back three days after He died. He resurrected in the same form as he died in, but now it is His spirit that carries us along the way. I think that his three stages sternly defend his theory about resurrection.

Sometimes it is hard to understand but the more that you read about resurrection, I can strongly stand by Hick defending the possibility of resurrection. And we go back to God just like we discussed in the last modules, God makes miracles happen, and the resurrection would be one of them. I do think that there is life after death, just now in the form that you died in.

Philosophy homework help

Question A

Noah:

Question A: What challenges, according to Michael Ruse, does naturalism pose for religion? In what ways does Michael Peterson respond to such challenges in defense of theism? Whose arguments do you find most compelling, and why?

Ruse essentially puts forward the idea that many of the key arguments for religion can be refuted by a naturalist perspective. Natural Selection as a concept gives us an explanation for the existence of and variety therein of the life on our planet, and it gives us an explanation for our sense of morality; both of which are things many people would attribute to God. Ruse specifically mentions Occam’s Razor, which is more or less the idea that the simplest explanation is most likely to be the true explanation. Therefore, if we have natural, observable explanations for these phenomena, then we should assume that a naturalist explanation is the correct one. Ruse also presents metaphysical naturalism as an answer to the Problem of Evil, essentially saying that evil and suffering are best explained by the non-existence of an all-good, all-powerful God.

Petersons first challenge to the naturalist viewpoint is a cosmological one. He asserts that an atheistic, naturalist perspective can not reconcile the simple existence of the universe with itself. The Big Bang in and of itself is not a sufficient enough answer, there must be a supernatural force that the Big Bang is contingent upon. Peterson also seems to generally disagree with the idea that the Problem of Evil supports the metaphysical naturalist worldview, stating that it is his belief that there is an inherent fallacy in the assumption that God would not allow evil to exist in the world. I think it is very important to note that alongside these claims, Peterson makes it very clear that he believes neither or these belief systems, the naturalistic or the theistic, are able to single-handedly create a comprehensive worldview.

Having said that, I would say that Peterson creates the more compelling argument, as I do believe the debate between atheistic and theistic explanations of the world are really quite reductive. I generally agree with most of the naturalistic points of view, however I do agree with the notion that it is just as likely as not that there is a supernatural explanation for the overall existence of the universe, if not for the relatively minute and mundane existence of our small planet. I am more inclined to find overlap and compatibility between the opposed ideologies, as they feel very unsatisfactory to me as individuals.

Question B

Noah:

Question B: Is H. H. Price’s account of the Survival Hypothesis intelligible? Why or why not?

Price’s interpretation of the survival hypothesis is absolutely intelligible. I can certainly conceive of the various possible “afterlives” which he describes, it isn’t something which is incomprehensible, regardless of your personal feelings on religion and so on. Price describes an afterlife in which you have sensory experiences relating to your memories and your desires, not at all unlike the dreams we experience so regularly. With that in mind I think anyone who has the ability to dream has the ability to conceive of an afterlife. As well, I do absolutely agree with the fundamental premise that Price was getting at in this essay, namely that our memories and desires are not reliant on our brain to exist. Logically and scientifically we know that our brain is the source of all of our conscious experience, but I think when the metaphysical comes into play we can accept our ignorance on the matter and make assumptions that we otherwise wouldn’t in the physical world.

Question C

Tracie:

Do you think John Hick has successfully defended the possibility of a resurrection? Why or why not?

I think that John Hick does defend his theory on resurrection. For the most part, he talks about the replica theory. In some form, there is going to be another you somewhere else, which must be identical, in another world. Not in the physical world, but more of the spirit realm. I think that he defends his theory well because the three stages that he has about replica makes sense. However, they may be confusion because how can there be a replica of that person that died last week? Well according to Hick, there can be a replica of that person that died last week; it may seem that it might be the same person, but, that person is in another world in the same form of that person that died. A good example would be Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ came back three days after He died. He resurrected in the same form as he died in, but now it is His spirit that carries us along the way. I think that his three stages sternly defend his theory about resurrection.

Sometimes it is hard to understand but the more that you read about resurrection, I can strongly stand by Hick defending the possibility of resurrection. And we go back to God just like we discussed in the last modules, God makes miracles happen, and the resurrection would be one of them. I do think that there is life after death, just now in the form that you died in.

Philosophy homework help

Running head: ECO UTOPIA DISCUSSION

1

ECO UTOPIA DISCUSSION

3

Eco utopia discussion

Because Abu Dhabi2121, which was so captivating to me and whose appearance drew my attention, I decided to pursue further study of the city in question. When it comes to car dependence, Abu Dhabi is on par with any other metropolis in the Western world at the dawn of the twenty-first century; this has resulted in part from the Emiratis’ desire to travel in air-conditioned luxury and in part from the availability of domestic oil.

Many environmental issues are expected to be resolved in the city, and the city has already proven that it is capable of overcoming the current environmental issues. A new urban plan, partly inspired by old-time domestic houses of India’s deserts, is implemented after drastic climate change has wreaked havoc throughout Arabia. The new urban plan consists of interconnected communal dwellings made of local sands and muds mixed with native Arabian palm leaves and treated camel dung, which are then incorporated into a new urban design.

Many environmental issues are expected to be resolved in the city, and the city has already proven that it is capable of overcoming the current environmental issues. A new urban plan, partly inspired by old-time domestic houses of India’s deserts, is implemented after drastic climate change has wreaked havoc throughout Arabia. The new urban plan consists of interconnected communal dwellings made of local sands and muds mixed with native Arabian palm leaves and treated camel dung, which are then incorporated into a new urban design.

References
Abu Dhabi: A Burgeoning Green Utopia? (ecotopia2121.com)

Philosophy homework help

Of course more engagement in discussion is welcome, and watch for my occasional contributions aimed at clarifying the material in the chapter. Again, 200-300 words is a good length for a post, but I’m more interested in informed engagement with the material. Here are a few review questions from the reading to get us started.

1. Explain Plato’s conception of justice. How does it differ from contemporary liberal views of justice.

2. Why is Plato no fan of democracy?

3. In what way does Locke see us as having a natural right to liberty?

4. What is the function of government according to Locke an how is it justified?

5. How does Locke justify property rights?

6. Explain the tragedy of the commons an how it present a challenge to a Lockean conception of property rights?

7. How does the creation of wealth and property I our society differ from the idealized individualistic conception Locke offers.

8. Explain Rawls’ two principles of social justice as fairness.

9. How does Rawls’ employ the idea of the original position and the veil of ignorance in supporting his principle of social justice?

Philosophy homework help

Running head: REFLECTION 1

REFLECTION 4

Reflection

Student

Professor

Course

Date

Personal reflection paper

There are various health/mental behavior that has affected people either directly or indirectly. However, the covid-19 pandemic is the most common health problem that has disrupted people’s lives. The first outbreak of this pandemic was reported in 2019. Since then, many people have died from the disease while others have lost their precious jobs as organizations are looking to implement safety measures to curb the spread of the covid-19 virus. 

However, among all the measures recommended to deal with the spread of covid-19, wearing masks has raised mixed reactions from the public. While the majority of the people chose to put on masks as a form of protection, others are not convinced about the effectiveness of wearing masks in protecting themselves against the virus. Various reasons have made some people in society reject the use of masks in fighting covid-19. First, some people believe that masks have not been effective in dealing with the spread of this pandemic. Despite wearing masks since the onset of the pandemic, covid-19 has been spreading across the globe. Therefore, some people believe that vaccines offer more protection than masks. Due to this reason, some people have been avoiding masks at all.

On the other hand, religious beliefs have also been a contributing factor to this trend. Christians in some countries have an undying belief in divine protection. Thus, the majority of them have been avoiding the use of masks on the basis that GOD is in control and would protect them from this deadly virus. However, such beliefs have been endangering the lives of such believers given the nature of the disease. Covid-19 is highly contagious and most people have died as a result of this ignorance. Furthermore, psychological reactance (PR) is another factor that has made people avoid using masks. Most people usually want freedom and to live their lives as they wish. To some people, masks have been limiting people from talking freely and also interacting with their colleagues. The youths in particular have a PR attitude on wearing masks as they wish to freely interact with their peers without masks.

I believe that people still have the chance to change their health and mental behavior. However, to achieve this goal, both the internal and external environments of the people must be changed. To change the internal behavior of people, motivation and capability can help to influence the behavior change. The majority of the people usually lose morale when they get sick or when a pandemic strikes. The effects of sickness or pandemics usually result in depression, stress, and anxiety. Thereafter, people develop a negative attitude towards medication and hence, stop following the medical advice or guidelines. Therefore, people need to be motivated and given the assurance that their conditions are only for the short term. Health care providers need to motivate their patients to follow all the medical procedures and prescriptions in the hope that they will get better results. Motivation and capability help to alter how people think and perceive medical guidelines and can play a key role in convincing people to wear the covid-19 masks.

On the other hand, the external environment of people also needs to be changed to alter the attitudes and perceptions of people towards diseases and medical guidelines. This can make people change their behavior. Health care providers and governments need to create an opportunity where people can learn and get knowledge on the dangers of diseases and the importance of following the medical guidelines. For example in the covid-19 pandemic, the majority of people are yet to have full information regarding covid-19, how it spreads, and the importance of using the masks. Therefore, most people who have developed a negative attitude towards the masks only act out of ignorance. However, their behavior can be changed if health care facilities and the government at large setup training and education camps in communities. People need to be educated about covid-19 and the importance of following all the medical guidelines. This will create an opportunity where people will learn and change their behaviors.

Various factors can make people change their behavior. Policy changes are among the factors that can influence people to change their behavior. For example, the covid-19 protocols can be adjusted to make it mandatory for people to wear masks in public places. Failure to which they may be arrested or denied public services. Therefore, people with negative attitudes will be forced to adjust their behavior to suit the new policies. On the other hand, health behavior is usually an interchange between the environment and the beliefs of people. The environment that people live in affects how they react to medical advice. Therefore, physicians and health care providers need to use evidence-based techniques to influence the behavior of people. By using the evidence about the effectiveness of various medical procedures, people can change their senses and procedures of how they approach various clinical advice or practices.

An analysis is also crucial in shaping the behavior of people. Analysis helps people to develop a high level of discernment that can help them to change their behavior. Through discernment, clients can understand the dangers of diseases and the importance of following medical procedures or advice. On the other hand, the analysis also enlightens the clients. The majority of people who have negative health behavior often lack critical knowledge or health information. Therefore, all forms of analysis help the clients to identify their mistakes and proper procedures that they use to address their health concerns. On the other hand, cultural and religious beliefs also influence the lives and reactions of people towards health. However, analysis is crucial since it helps people to overcome their cultural fears and use the rights medical processes to address their health concerns. Therefore, analysis is crucial as it helps people to have medical discernment, get medical enlightenment, identify their health gaps, and also overcome cultural fears.

There are hopes that people can still change their health behaviors. One of the key indicators is the establishment of medical institutions that provide people with advice on how to undertake their medication. The majority of countries have counseling institutions attached to their health centers. They are crucial in helping their patients to change their attitudes towards medical advice. Furthermore, advancement in technology is also crucial in helping people to get medical advice. For example, the Electronic Health Record (EHR) has enabled the patients and the medical providers to communicate and share their information. Nowadays, patients do not need to visit health facilities to communicate with health care professionals. Hence, the nurses and doctors still have a chance of communicating with patients and educate them on the importance of changing their health behavior. Therefore, there are still hopes that people can change their health behaviors. The establishment of medical institutions and the advancement in technology are among the key indicators that people will change their health behavior in the future.

In conclusion, health behavior is a key aspect in creating sustainability in society. Negative attitudes towards medical procedures usually undermine the efforts of governments and health institutions to fight diseases or pandemics. However, creating motivation and giving people an opportunity to learn and understand health behavior.

Philosophy homework help

1

Environmental concerns

Introduction

For over a century, environmental issues have been a global pandemic—destructive activities leading to environmental degradation from soil water to air. The best gift to our lives is a well-conservative environment free from any disease with clean air. However, environmental issues such as pollution, global warming, water and waste disposal, acidification, and deforestation hinder the dream of a conservative environment. The main environmental issue is reckless pollution from water, air, and land. Therefore, this calls for a technological solution to solve the issue before complete and uncompensated degradation.

Recycling and treatment technology can be used to solve environmental problems enacted by pollution. Dumping non-biodegradable waste, acidification of water, and emission of untreated gas fumes have primarily contributed to pollution (Alcorn, 2020). Technology such as centrifuges can reduce the number of solids in wastewaters, reducing water pollution (Landrigan et al.,2018). Other technology entails processing, recycling, and installing meters and sensors to detect harmful emissions and dumping.

Underlying issues might be a technological fix left unaddressed.

Pollution is mainly caused by the recklessness of industries and people’s ignorance in specific environments. For instance, a motorist driving an unroadworthy vehicle with high combustion of fuels and emissions causes air pollution and may lead to global warming at large amounts. Other issues include industries releasing untreated waste, such as dumping acidic water into water sources or directly onto land (Gill, Viswanathan& Hassan,2018). From smog over cities to smoke inside houses causes equal chances of pollution. The main underlying issue is the lack of a proper strategy to handle waste without causing environmental damage.

Embracing a technological fix to recycle and treat waste may not address all the issues. The immediate solution is to create awareness among all people about the damage they are causing to the environment through pollution (Landrigan et al.,2018). The first step to addressing corruption is individual responsibility hence technical fixing of the underlying issue.

Alternatives might be ignored in favoring tech fixes in this specific case.

Ozzie Zehner, an environmental enthusiast, focused on embracing clean energy, creates an illusion of the cost of implementing new systems free from pollution. In a study to embrace natural solar energy, he argues the concept of burning carbon dioxide from solar is equal to burning coal for the same amount of power (Khan et al.,2020). Additionally, there is the likelihood to produce more solar arrays from a greenhouse in a mission to reduce air pollution. Thus, an alternative, more minor pollutant energy source might be equal to a different ride instead of a solution.

In cases of gas treatment before emission, the process entails the use of chemicals and combustion processors (Khan et al.,2020). Using solid chemicals to treat chemicals in gas fumes to solve air pollution can be equal to direct air pollution. Thus, some technological fixes are highly recommended in this case.

Can more human control of nature solve problems caused by human attempts to control nature and an Anthropocentric worldview

man, especially in the western culture, feels entitled to global changes mainly in the section where they caused problems. Flemings has a significant impact on anthropocentric, the introduction of bacteria by human attempts in health, and later, he discovers penicillin as an antibiotic (MCKIBBEN, 2020). This is a positive indicator that human beings can fix their messes through human control.

Human beings induce pollution, and their effort is required to solve the environmental issue. Their responsibility is to own the breakdown, evaluate and develop technological fixes to handle pollution and prevent further degradation (MCKIBBEN,2020). Human beings have the control to conserve their habitat, prevent more effects of pollution and provide a strategic way to solve pollution.

Who or what might be left out if your issue is addressed by technology alone?

Vandana Shiva, an environmentalist, states that environmental pollution results from irresponsible actors, mainly in the fossil fuel industry. However, addressing the issue is not complete with technology alone; technology cannot control ignorance (Garrity-Bond,2018). Using technology to fix the problem will have the pollutants left out in the environmental conservation campaign. Thus, it is essential to educate people on ways to conserve the environment, ecological pollution hazards before fixing technology to deal with the main issue (Garrity-Bond,2018). Operators in fossil industries need to be educated, and in case of violation to conserve the environment, they should face the law.

Does the technology you identified rely on an individualized or collective sense of responsibility

Recycling waste is a personal sense of responsibility. For instance, regarding plastics at an individual level, it is their responsibility to reuse the plastics. When depositing, they need to acknowledge it is a non-biodegradable waste; thus, combusting them would ease the pollution (Gill, Viswanathan& Hassan,2018). In gas fumes, from smoking to fuel vehicles combustion, it is individuals’ responsibility to ensure the smoke is controlled and minimized in the possible way to reduce gas pollutants in the air. The most common pollution is water pollution, where individuals or companies deposit waste products and untreated sewage, conservation of water resources is also an individual urge. It is the individual responsibility to utilize technology fixes to solve environmental problems, and in the long run, pollution will be eliminated.

How might we need to consider what ‘the problem’ is in the first place?

Pollution is both a social problem and a technological one. The impact of technology on pollution is evident. Emission of harmful gases in fuel combustion, manufacture of cheap plastics, less natural resources has a detrimental effect on the ozone layer. Contrary, pollution is a social problem in that billions of people suffer from pollution, health effects, water security, and extreme global warming due to the destruction of the ozone layer.

The effects of pollution cause social problems resulting from technological advancement. Thus the issue serves as both social and technology.

Conclusion

Environmental issues are contributed mainly by reckless and ignorant people. Before initiating any technological measure to fix the problems, it is essential to create awareness of the pollution and ensure it is an individual responsibility to protect the environment. However, the technology of recycling and processing waste to harmless waste before deposition will effectively help eradicate environmental pollution.

References

Alcorn, Z. (2020). Planet of the Humans: A cocktail of valid criticisms, disinformation, and defeatism. Green Left Weekly, (1264), 18-19.

Garrity-Bond, C. (2018). Ecofeminist Epistemology in Vandana Shiva’s The Feminine Principle of Prakriti and Ivone Gebara’s Trinitarian Cosmology. Feminist Theology26(2), 185-194.

Gill, A. R., Viswanathan, K. K., & Hassan, S. (2018). The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and the environmental problem of the day. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews81, 1636-1642.

Khan, N. A., Khan, S. U., Ahmed, S., Farooqi, I. H., Yousefi, M., Mohammadi, A. A., & Changani, F. (2020). Recent trends in disposal and treatment technologies of emerging-pollutants-A critical review. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry122, 115744.

Landrigan, Philip J., Richard Fuller, Nereus JR Acosta, Olusoji Adeyi, Robert Arnold, Abdoulaye Bibi Baldé, Roberto Bertollini et al. “The Lancet Commission on pollution and health.” The lancet 391, no. 10119 (2018): 462-512.

MCKIBBEN, B. (2020). A-Bomb in the Center of the Climate Movement: Michael Moore’s Damage. Rolling Stone.

Philosophy homework help

Read/review the following resources for this activity:

· Textbook: Chapter 13

· Lesson

·
Narrated PowerPoint Tutorial (Links to an external site.)
 (Make sure to review this tutorial before you begin recording.)

Introduction
In this session, you have been considering moral-ethical dilemmas you yourself faced or that you know of that you either resolved or failed to resolve, but hopefully learned from. You may never have given much thought to ethical theory nor what ethical premises/paradigms you have unconsciously held.

You will be focusing on this case for this assignment:

Jane Doe is a nursing student at University X. Jane is in week eight of a course entitled: “Introduction to Ethics”.

For the week one discussion, Jane copied work done by her friend John Doe in the same class two months ago (with a different professor). John told Jane it was okay to use his work as John’s professor never checked any work in the class using Turnitin.com. John claimed to have earned an A on the work also.

In week two, Jane went to StudentPapering.com and paid ten dollars for a week two essay done by a student (not John Doe) who took the same course four months ago. StudentPapering promises that all its archived work is of excellent quality and cannot be detected as copied. Jane then uploaded an exact copy of the work for the week two assignment.

In week three, Jane paid a worker at PaperingStudent.com ten dollars to write for Jane a brand new essay after Jane shared with the worker the essay assignment instructions.

In week four, Jane relied on her knowledge of Esperanto. She felt pressed for time and found an article by a professor from Esperanto on the week four topic. She translated Esperanto into English using Moogle Translate, and the translated text served as her week four paper.

In week five, Jane was running late again. Jane purposely uploaded a blank paper hoping that she would later claim it was an innocent mistake and not be assessed a late penalty. In a previous course on History, she had done the same (with an earlier paper from the History class rather than simply a blank) and had not seen any late penalty assessed.

In week six, Jane took work she did in a nursing course from a year ago and submitted that for her discussion posting in her current class. She simply copied and pasted the work she had labored intensively on a year ago (even though University X forbids this practice as ‘self-plagiarism’). Jane was confident her Nursing instructor never checked that work using Turnitin.com or another method.

In week seven, Jane copied and pasted work found on website.com for the paper. Jane did not use any quotation marks or other documentation to show the text was not by Jane.

Since Jane’s Ethics professor did not check papers and posting for any issues by using Turnitin.com or another method, the professor graded all of Jane’s work unaware of Jane’s actions throughout the weeks of the class. Jane feels her actions are morally justified both because her economic situation requires her to work too much to devote time to school (although other students are well-off enough to have such time) and her religion forbids cheating, but Jane ignores her religion’s teachings.

Instructions
Now that you have had an opportunity to explore ethics formally, create a reflective assessment of your learning experience and the collaborations you engaged in throughout this session. You will submit both of the following:

· A written reflection

· An oral presentation using a PowerPoint narrated slide show.

For the written reflection, address Jane Doe’s and respond to the following:

· Articulate again your moral theory from week eight discussion (You can revise it if you wish). What two ethical theories best apply to it? Why those two?

· Apply to Jane Doe’s case your personal moral philosophy as developed in week eight discussion and now. Use it to determine if what Jane Doe did was ethical or unethical per your own moral philosophy.

· Consider if some of these examples are more grave instances of ethical transgressions than others. Explain.

· Propose a course of social action and a solution by using the ethics of egoism, utilitarianism, the “veil of ignorance” method, deontological principles, and/or a theory of justice to deal with students like  Jane. Consider social values such as those concerning ways of life while appraising the interests of diverse populations (for instance, those of differing religions and economic status).

For the oral presentation, briefly summarize your feelings about taking a course in Ethics and explore your process of transformation in this course.

· Discuss your experiences of the course, your beginnings, and where you are now. Consider your interaction in discussions.

· Should health care workers be required to take a course in Ethics? Why or why not

Writing Requirements (APA format)

· Length: 3-4 pages (not including title page or references page)

· 1-inch margins

· Double spaced

· 12-point Times New Roman font

· Title page

· References page (minimum of 2 scholarly sources)

Presentation Requirements

· Length: 2-3 minutes

Philosophy homework help

Reading: Normative Ethics

Right Action

Our focus in this chapter will be normative ethics. Normative ethical principles aren’t intended to describe how things are, how people think or how they behave. Normative ethics is concerned how we should be motivated and how we should act. Our project here is to think critically about what normative ethical principles do the best job of explaining our assorted moral intuitions about the broadest range of possible cases. We will start with utilitarianism, a view of right action based on the idea that happiness has fundamental value. We’ll then examine Kant’s ethics of respect for persons. On this view persons have intrinsic moral worth and ethics is concerned with what respecting the value of persons requires of us.

Both Utilitarianism and Kant’s ethics of respect for persons can be understood as aiming to formulate action-guiding normative ethical principles. Later in the chapter we will consider approaches to normative ethics that are not so concerned with identifying exceptionless “laws” of right action. Our understanding of right action doesn’t have to be expressible in terms of strict rules. Feminist ethics finds value in caring relationships. But taking relationships to be good doesn’t directly lead to specific rules for action as utilitarianism might. Environmental ethicists have advanced various proposals for expanding the realm of morally relevance to include other species or systems of life as a whole. This is not to deny that people matter morally, but many environmental ethicists would deny that people are all that matter.  Accounting for the value of non-persons in addition to persons is likely to frustrate attempts to characterize right action in terms of simple formulas or “moral laws.”

At the end of this chapter we will consider a pluralistic approach to understanding ethical motivation and action. The suggestion here will be that a substantive realist approach to normative ethics doesn’t require reducing all ethical value to one fundamental kind. Such a pluralistic account of ethical value undermines the quest for simple exceptionless or absolute moral principles. But it also suggests that substantive realist normative ethics doesn’t require these either.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is based on the idea that happiness is good. Utilitarian thinkers have traditionally understood happiness in terms of pleasure and the absence of pain. Utilitarianism’s best known advocate, John Stuart Mill, characterizes utilitarianism as the view that “an action is right in-so-far as it tends to produce pleasure and the absence of pain.” If happiness, conceived of as pleasure and the absence of pain, is the one thing that has value, then this criterion of right action should seem to follow straightforwardly.

In any given scenario, every possible course of action will have a utility. The utility of an action is the net total of pleasure caused by the action minus any pain caused by that action. In calculating the utility of an action we are to consider all of the effects of the action, both long run and short run. Given the utilities of all available courses of action, utilitarianism says that the correct course of action is the one that has the greatest utility. So an action is right if it produces the greatest net total of pleasure over pain of any available alternative action. Note that sometimes no possible course of action will produce more pleasure than pain. This is not a problem for utilitarianism as we’ve formulated it. Utilitarianism will simply require us to pursue the lesser evil. The action with the highest utility can still have negative utility.

Utilitarianism places no privileged status on the happiness of the actor. It’s happiness that matters, not just your happiness. So utilitarianism can call for great personal sacrifice. The happiness of my child over the course of his lifetime might require great personal sacrifice on my part over the course of his first few decades. Utilitarianism says the sacrifice should be made given that the utility at stake for my child is greater than the utility at stake in my child rearing sacrifices.

Likewise, Utilitarianism places no privileged status on the immediate, as opposed to the long term, effects of the action. An action’s utility is the net amount of pleasure or pain that is experienced as a result of the action over the long run. So, while it might maximize a small child’s pleasure in the short run to be given ice cream whenever he wants it, the long run utility of this might not be so good given the habits formed and the health consequences of an over-indulged sweet tooth.

There is an obvious concern to address at this point. We often don’t know what the long run consequences of our actions will be, and even in the short run we are often uncertain about just how much pleasure and pain will be caused for the various parties affected. So we might not be able to calculate the utilities of alternative actions to figure out just which action will have the highest utility. These are practical problems for applying utilitarian theory. But while it might be difficult to tell on a case by case basis just which course of action will maximize utility, this is not a problem for the utilitarianism as a normative ethical theory. As a normative ethical theory, utilitarianism is aimed at identifying the standard for right action, not telling when a particular action meets that standard. Setting the standard for right action and figuring out how to meet that standard are two different projects.

When we speak of utility as pleasure and the absence of pain, we need to take “pleasure” and “pain” in the broadest sense possible. There are social, intellectual and aesthetic pleasures to consider as well as sensual pleasures. Recognizing this is important to answering what Mill calls the “doctrine of swine” objection to Utilitarianism. This objection takes the utilitarianism to be unfit for humans because it recognizes no higher purpose to life than the mere pursuit of pleasure. The objector takes people to have more noble ends to pursue than mere pleasure. According to this objection, Utilitarianism is a view of the good that is fit only for swine. Mill responds that it is the person who raises this objection that portrays human nature in a degrading light, not the utilitarian theory of right action. People are capable of pleasures beyond mere sensual indulgences and the utilitarian theory concerns these as well. Mill then argues that social and intellectual pleasures are of an intrinsically higher quality than sensual pleasure.

We find a more significant objection to Utilitarian moral theory in the following sort of case: Consider Bob, who goes to the doctor for a check up. His doctor finds that Bob is in perfect health. And his doctor also finds that Bob is biologically compatible with six other patients she has who are all dieing of various sorts of organ failure. Let’s assume that if Bob lives out his days he will live a typically good life, one that is pleasant to Bob and also brings happiness to his friends and family. But we will assume that Bob will not discover a cure for AIDs or bring about world peace. And let us make similar assumptions about the six people suffering from organ failure. According to simple act utilitarianism, it looks like the right thing for Bob’s doctor to do is to kill Bob and harvest his organs for the benefit of the six patients who will otherwise die. But intuitively, this would be quite wrong. Act utilitarianism gets the wrong result in this sort of case. This case seems to provide a clear counterexample to simple act utilitarianism. This looks like a bit of evidence that calls for a change in theory. But perhaps that change can be a modification of utilitarian thinking rather than a complete rejection of it.

One move open to the utilitarian is to evaluate rules for acting rather than individual actions. A version of rule utilitarianism might say that the right action is the action that follows the rule which, in general, will produce the highest utility. A rule that tells doctors to kill their patients when others require their organs would not have very high utility in general. People would avoid their doctors and illness would go untreated were such a rule in effect. Rather, the rule that doctors should do no harm to their patients would have much higher utility in general. So the move to rule utilitarianism seems to avoid the difficulty we found with act utilitarianism. Or at least it seems to when we consider just these two rules.

But here is a rule that would have even higher utility than the rule that doctors should never harm their patients: doctors should never harm their patients except when doing so would maximize utility. Now suppose that doctors ordinarily refrain from harming their patients and as a result people trust their doctors. But in Bob’s case, his doctor realizes that she can maximize utility by killing Bob and distributing his organs. She can do this in a way that no one will ever discover, so her harming Bob in this special case will not undermine people’s faith in the medical system. The possibility of rules with “except when utility is maximized” clauses renders rule utilitarianism vulnerable to the same kinds of counterexamples we found for act utilitarianism. In effect, rule utilitarianism collapses back into act utilitarianism.

In order to deal with the original problem of Bob and his vital organs, the rule utilitarian must find a principled way to exclude certain sorts of utility maximizing rules. I won’t pursue this matter on behalf of the utilitarian. Rather, I want to consider further just how simple act utilitarianism goes wrong in Bob’s case. Utilitarianism evaluates the goodness of actions in terms of their consequences. For this reason, utilitarianism is often referred to as a consequentialist theory. Utilitarian considerations of good consequences seem to leave out something that is ethically important. Specifically, in this case, it leaves out a proper regard for Bob as person with a will of his own. What makes Bob’s case a problem case is something other than consequences, namely, his status as a person and the sort of regard this merits. This problem case for utilitarian moral theory seems to point towards the need for a theory based on the value of things other than an action’s consequences. Such non-consequentialist ethical theory is called deontological ethical theory. The best known deontological theory is the ethics of respect for persons. And this will be our next topic.

Here is a link to John Stuart Mill’s essay Utilitarianism: 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm (Links to an external site.)

Respect for Persons: Kant’s Moral Theory

Like Utilitarianism, Imannual Kant’s moral theory is grounded in a theory of intrinsic value. But where the utilitarian takes happiness, conceived of as pleasure and the absence of pain to be what has intrinsic value, Kant takes the only thing to have moral worth for its own sake to be the capacity for good will we find in persons. Persons, conceived of as autonomous rational moral agents, are beings that have intrinsic moral worth and hence beings that deserve moral respect.

The opening passage of Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork for a Metaphysic of Morals proclaims that “it is impossible to conceive of anything in the world, or indeed beyond it, that can be understood as good without qualification except for a good will.” This is a clear and elegant statement of the theory of value that serves as the basis for Kant’s ethical theory of respect for persons. The one thing that has intrinsic value, for Kant, is the autonomous good will of a person. That said, Kant does not understand the expression “good will” in the everyday sense. In everyday discourse we might speak of someone being a person of good will if they want to do good things. We take the philanthropist’s desire to give to the less fortunate to be an example of good will in this everyday sense. On Kant’s view, the person of good will wills good things, but out of a sense of moral duty, not just inclination. The naturally generous philanthropist doesn’t demonstrate their good will through their giving according to Kant, but the selfish greedy person does show their good will when they give to the poor out of a recognition of their moral duty to do so even though they’d really rather not. So it is our ability to recognize a moral duty and will to act in accordance with it that makes persons beings that have dignity and are therefore worthy of moral regard. On Kant’s view, our free will, our moral autonomy, is our capacity to act according to duty as opposed to being a slave to our desires or inclinations. So free will, in the sense that is associated with moral responsibility, doesn’t mean being free to do as you please without consequence. Rather, freedom comes with moral responsibility for the intentions we act on.

So, understanding the good will as the capacity to will and act out of duty or respect for moral law, we can see having this capacity as part of having a rational autonomous will. As persons, we have a free or autonomous will in our capacity to weigh our desires against each other and against the rational constraints of morality and reach our own determination of the will. We are the originators and authors of the principles we act on. On Kant’s view, our free will, our moral autonomy, is our capacity to act according to duty as opposed to being a slave to our desires or inclinations. So free will, in the sense that is associated with moral responsibility, doesn’t mean being free to do as you please without consequence. Rather, freedom comes with moral responsibility for the intentions we act on. Having an autonomous good will with the capacity to act from moral duty is central to being a person in the moral sense and it is the basis, the metaphysical grounding, for an ethics of respect for persons. Now what it is to respect a person merits some further analysis.

Kant calls his fundamental moral principle the Categorical Imperative. An imperative is a command. The notion of a categorical imperative can be understood in contrast to that of a hypothetical imperative. A hypothetical imperative tells you what to do in order to achieve some goal. For instance, “if you want to get a good grade in calculus, work the assignments regularly.” This claim tells you what to do in order to get a good grade in calculus. But it doesn’t tell you what to do if you don’t care about getting a good grade. What is distinctive about a categorical imperative is that it tells you how to act regardless of what end or goal you might desire. Kant holds that if there is a fundamental law of morality, it is a categorical imperative. Taking the fundamental principle of morality to be a categorical imperative implies that moral reasons override other sorts of reasons. You might, for instance, think you have a self-interested reason to cheat on exam. But if morality is grounded in a categorical imperative, then your moral reason against cheating overrides your self-interested reason for cheating. If we think considerations of moral obligation trump self-interested considerations, Kant’s idea that the fundamental law of morality is a categorical imperative accounts for this nicely.

Here are two formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative:

CIa: Always treat persons (including yourself) and ends in themselves, never merely as a means to your own ends.

CIb: Act only on that maxim that you can consistently will to be a universal law.

Kant takes these formulations to be different ways of expressing the same underlying principle of respect for persons. They certainly don’t appear to be synonymous. But we might take them to express the same thing in that each formulation would guide one to act in the same way.

The formulation (CIa), tells us to treat individuals as ends in themselves. That is just to say that persons should be treated as beings that have intrinsic value. To say that persons have intrinsic value is to say that they have value independent of their usefulness for this or that purpose. (CIa) does not say that you can never use a person for your own purposes. But it tells us we should never use a person merely as a means to your own ends. What is the difference? We treat people as a means to our own ends in ways that are not morally problematic quite often. When I go to the post office, I treat the clerk as a means to my end of sending a letter. But I do not treat that person merely as a means to my own end. I pursue my end of sending a letter through my interaction with the clerk only with the understanding that the clerk is acting autonomously in serving me. My interaction with the clerk is morally acceptable so long as the clerk is serving me voluntarily, or acting autonomously for his own reasons. By contrast, we use someone merely as a means to our own ends if we force them to do our will, or if we deceive them into doing our will. Coercion and deception are paradigm violations of the categorical imperative. In coercing or deceiving another person, we disrupt their autonomy and violate their will. This is what the categorical imperative forbids. Respecting persons requires refraining from violating their autonomy.

Now let’s consider the second formulation CIb. This version, known as the formula of the universal law, tells us to “act only on that maxim that you could consistently will to be a universal law.” The maxim of our action is the subjective principle that determines our will. We act for our own reasons. Different intentions might lead to similar actions. When I want to make myself a bit more presentable, I shave and shower. My son might perform the same action for a different reason (to get his mom off his back, for instance). We can identify different maxims in terms of these different reasons or intentions. For Kant, intentions matter. He evaluates the moral status of actions not according to the action itself or according to its consequences, but according to the maxim of the action. The moral status of an action is determined by the actor’s intentions or reasons for acting.

According to the formula of the universal law, what makes an action morally acceptable is that its maxim is universalizable. That is, morally permissible action is action that is motivated by an intention that we can rationally will that others act on similarly. A morally prohibited action is just one where we can’t rationally will that our maxim is universally followed. Deception and coercion are both paradigm cases of acting wrongly according to Kant. In both cases, our maxim involves violating the autonomy of another rational being and this is something which we, as rationally autonomous beings ourselves, could not consistently will to be a universal law. According to Kant, there is a contradiction involved in a rational autonomous being to willing that autonomy be universally coercively or deceptively violated. This would involve a rational autonomous being willing the violation of its own rational autonomy. Acting out of moral duty is a matter of acting only on maxims that we can rationally will other act on as well. The person of good will recognizes the humanity of others by not making any special exception for herself even when her interests or inclination would be served by doing so.

There is no higher moral authority than the rational autonomous person according to Kant. Morality is not a matter of following rules laid down by some higher authority. It is rather a matter of writing rules for ourselves that are compatible with the rational autonomous nature we share with other persons. We show respect for others through restraining our own will in ways that demonstrate our recognition of them as moral equals.

 

Primary Source Reading:

Kant’s Groundwork for a Metaphysic of Morals can be found here: 
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/kgw.html (Links to an external site.)

Ethical Pluralism

In Ethical theory, we can understand pluralism as the view that there is a plurality of fundamentally good things. Traditionally, ethicists have tried to analyze right and wrong action in terms of a single fundamental underlying kind of value. We can call this kind of approach ethical monism. For utilitarians that single value is happiness, for Kantian respect for persons theorists, it is the value of the person. Ethical Pluralism allows that there may be multiple kinds of fundamental and irreducible value in the world. Happiness and respect for persons might be among these, but there may be others yet. Here I’ll explain how pluralism so understood differs from moral relativism and how it is better suited than relativism and monist ethical theories to the goals of social justice sought by pluralism in a broader sense of valuing diversity.

Recall that according to moral relativism, what makes something right relative to a group is just that it is deemed to be right by that group. This is a pretty loose characterization of the view. We could get a bit more specific by asking just what the relevant groups are. We would also want to ask who gets to decide for that group because according to moral relativism and other conventionalist views of morality (like Divine Command Theory) right and wrong, good and bad, are ultimately questions of authority.

Views that take morality to be matter of authority – whether its God’s, the culture’s collectively, the king’s or the chess club’s authority – all suffer the same basic defect. They render right and wrong entirely arbitrary. If someone or some group gets to decide what’s right and wrong then anything can be right or wrong. According to cultural moral relativism, whatever a culture deems to be morally right is right relative to it. So, if our culture says that homophobia, sexism and racism are fine, then they are fine relative to our culture and that’s what is right relative to our culture and that’s the end of it. If some people don’t like it, that’s just too bad. Moral relativism denies them any objective standpoint from which to complain or any possibility of providing reasons for changing things. Complaints about the oppressiveness of the dominant group amount to nothing more than the whininess of losers. The group that dominates is perfectly well within its rights to do so. This hardly sounds like a plausible account of social justice. But it is straightforwardly entailed by moral relativism and that’s exactly why moral relativism is an awful ethical theory. This much is just a bit of review from the last chapter. But bear this in mind for the purpose of recognizing how ethical pluralism avoids this defect. For according to ethical pluralism the fundamental ethical values are real. The importance of happiness comes with the existence of pleasure. The value of respect for persons comes with the existence of persons. This doesn’t depend on the whim or say so of any authority.

Suppose morality doesn’t depend on the say so of cultures, God or any other individual or group. On this view goodness is “out there” in the realm of things to be discovered. It needn’t be “way out there,” like goodness in some cosmic sense or goodness for the universe at large. We’re just interested in goodness for human beings and this might have lots to do with our nature as persons. So let us set aside the relativist’s claim that goodness is decided by us and ask what else goodness for humans might be. In doing so, we take goodness to be an appropriate object for inquiry, not merely a matter of custom, something somebody gets to decide or a tool for tyranny. We have some evidence to guide us in this inquiry and it includes all of our varying perspectives on what is good (the more the better). But just as in the sciences, our evidence is fallible and needs to be tested, both against other evidence and the explanatory power of theory.

From the 17th through the 19th centuries, the Holy Grail in ethical theorizing was to find a single, rationally defensible criterion of right action. This quest was dominated by utilitarians like Bentham and Mill, and respect for persons theorists like Kant. Both theoretical approaches are value monist, that is, they take there to be just one thing that has value fundamentally. For the utilitarian it is happiness that matters and the goal is to formulate a single law of morally right action that aims at maximizing happiness. For Kant it is the good will, or the dignity of the person that matters and goal is to establish a single moral law that properly captures what it means to respect the value of the person.

The utilitarian might start with the idea that an action is right if it produces the greatest amount of happiness of any available action. But this clearly conflicts with respect for persons as we saw above in the case of Bob and his vital organs. There are various moves a utilitarian might make to try to address this case, but there are more subtle cases yet where utilitarianism seems to conflict with respect for persons. So, it looks like we can’t coherently sign on to both a utilitarian and a Kantian criterion of right action since they will conflict in interesting ways. Utilitarian standards of right action tend to be logically incompatible with standards like Kant’s Categorical Imperative. If what we are looking for is a single criterion of right action that is based on a single kind of ultimate ethical value, it looks like we have to pick a single winner among competing monist ethical theories. But perhaps this sets the wrong kind of goal for ethical theory.

The idea that there might be a single universal and absolute criterion of morally right action strikes many who value cultural diversity as highly problematic. But lest we abandon monist approaches to ethical theory too quickly, we should note that the standards of right action offered by both the utilitarian and the Kantian are highly abstract and for this reason they are quite compatible with a rich range of diversity in more specific derivative guidelines for action. In fact, lots of cultural diversity can be explained in terms of more broadly shared underlying moral values. Eating the dead may be seen as a way of honoring them in one culture but be considered a sacrilege in another culture. Both of these diverse practices can be seen as diverse ways of expressing respect for persons. The difference between cultures in this case is not really a difference of fundamental moral values, but a difference in how these are to be expressed. Similarly we consider infanticide morally wrong while other cultures facing more difficult environmental pressures may practice it routinely. What may seem like conflicting moral standards at this more specific derivative level might instead be understood as differing ways of maximizing happiness that are appropriate for the starkly different circumstances that the respective cultures must deal with. So absolutist, universalizing monist ethical theories turn out to be considerably more accommodating of cultural diversity than we might have thought at first. Still, they may not be flexible enough.

It might be that some cultures value respect for persons over happiness while others value happiness at the expense of respect for persons and others yet value community or kinship relations more than happiness or respect for individual persons. That is, we might find conflicts in the most basic or fundamental moral values upheld by diverse cultures. How can ethical theory account for this without begging questions against one set of cultural values or another?

Recall that the ethical monist is out to discover a single rationally defensible moral truth that is grounded in a single kind of moral value. In discussing monist ethical theories I insisted that you can’t be both a utilitarian and a Kantian respect for persons theorist. This is because these theories offer logically incompatible principles of morally right action. There will be actions (like harvesting the healthy patient’s organs in the simple versions) that one theory will deem to be right and the other will deem to be wrong. So, you can’t coherently hold both a utilitarian principle of right action and a Kantain principle of right action to be true. If the principles disagree on even a few cases, they can’t both be true. But let’s set principles aside for a moment. I’m not suggesting we be unprincipled, I just want us to focus on the underlying moral values without worrying about truths that might be based on them. There is nothing logically incoherent about taking happiness and respect for persons to both be good in fundamental ways. And there may be other plausible candidates for fundamental goodness. Happiness and respect were just the ones that got most of the attention in the 18th and 19th century. Since then, feminist philosophers have argued that we should recognize a fundamental kind of value in caring relationships. Environmental ethicists have argued that we should recognize a fundamental kind of value in the natural world. Hindus and Buddhists have long suggested that there is a kind of fundamental value in consciousness.

Perhaps this short list is long enough. Or perhaps it is already too long. A moral value is only fundamental if it can’t be explained and supported in terms of some other fundamental value. So if caring relationships matter just because they bring happiness to human lives, then we already have this kind of value covered when we recognize happiness as a kind of fundamental value. But it is not at all clear that happiness fully explains the value of caring relationships. There are issues to explore here and feminist philosophers are just starting to map out this terrain. In any case, kinds of fundamental value might be rare, but still plural.

So what should ethical theory say about cultures that differ in the fundamental values that shape their customs and codes. Monist approaches to ethical theory would insist that we pick winners in this kind of situation. But should we? Certainly, in some cases we should. The fundamental values of Nazi culture were racist through and through. Good ethical theory should not be accommodating this kind of cultural diversity at all. Recall that our most compelling argument against moral relativism was that it is committed to accepting that racism is right relative to racist societies and our condemnation of racism has no more moral force than their endorsement of it.

But what about cases like Confucian cultures that give kinship relationships a higher priority than respect for persons. The more individualistic cultures of the west would favor respect for persons. Must we pick a winner here? Monist ethical theories would insist. But pluralism about ethical value offers us a few other options. The ethical pluralist can say that both cultures are structured around worthy fundamental values and neither unjustly favors one kind of fundamental value at the expense of another. Or a pluralist might allow that some ways of prioritizing worthy fundamental ethical values really are better than others but that there is no strict rational formula for working out which is best. Because we have a plurality of worthy fundamental ethical values and these are not reducible to each other or anything more basic, rigorous rational methods might not be up to settling the matter and the best we can hope for is good judgment. But however we settle these issues, pluralism about fundamental ethical value opens some new avenues for counting a broader range of cultural diversity as ethically sound.

There are many issues to address yet in exploring ethical pluralism and I won’t get to them all here. But a few loom too large to ignore. In particular, you might be worried that over the past few paragraphs I merely assumed that the fundamental values of Confucian cultures are worthy ethical values but

Philosophy homework help

Reading: Social Justice

 

Social Justice

Social justice is just the idea of goodness as applied to social groups. When asked what it means for a society to be just, most of us will think of things like freedom and equality. But things haven’t always been thus. Valuing liberty and freedom is a pretty recent innovation. We have already noted John Locke as an early advocate of liberal political thinking in the 17th century. Older conceptions of justice were neither egalitarian nor freedom loving. Here we’ll consider Plato’s.

Plato develops his conception of justice in the 

Republic (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

. Here Plato develops a view of the ideal state as modeled on that of the ideal person. The state is understood as the person writ large. The idea of justice, for Plato, was as much a virtue of the individual person as of the state. Justice was seen as a kind of meta-virtue. The just person is the person who has all the other virtues and has them in the appropriate integrated balance. People have various capacities and abilities and we have various virtues that correspond to those abilities. We can be courageous in facing threats, temperate in managing our appetites, diligent in carrying out our projects, and wise in deliberating about what to do and how. To be a just person is for the various abilities relevant to the various virtues to be playing their proper role. When we turn to the justice of communities, we find different individuals playing the various roles. We want the virtue of wisdom in the ruling class, the virtue of courage in the military class, and the virtues of temperance and diligence in the business class. The just community, in Plato’s view, is the community where the various elements stick to their proper roles and cultivate the virtues appropriate to those roles.

Though Athens was a democracy, Plato was no fan of democracy. In his dialogues he has Socrates repeatedly lampooning democracy as rule by the least qualified. This is because the leaders in a democracy are not chosen by the wise, but by the majority, and the majority is often easily manipulated by bad actors. As a result, Plato endorsed a kind of elitism, the rule by experts or “philosopher kings.” His idea of justice is one where the various functions of society are carried out by those who have the wisdom, expertise and excellence appropriate to the specific role. While Plato places no particular value on equality or freedom for individuals, his ideal state is a meritocracy where everyone has equal opportunity to find his or her appropriate place through a vigorous system of public education. The point of equal opportunity in this meritocratic system was not to be fair to individuals, though. The goal was to identify and cultivate talent wherever it is to be found.

However we might feel about the inegalitarian view of justice Plato develops in the Republic, he raises an important problem that every political system faces. Specifically, how do we reliably fill positions of power with people who are competent and will conduct themselves in the interest of the public. Plato’s answer to the competence issue was to select leaders through a rigorous meritocratic education system. To discourage leaders from abusing their power to serve personal ends rather than the good of the state, Plato also would have his philosopher kings be wards of the state for life, owning no personal property and even severing all family ties to avoid the corrupting tendencies of self-interest. We should not here that the inegalitarian aspects of Plato’s system don’t address the problems of incompetence and corruption, though. The inegalitarian aspects of Plato’s political thought helped to legitimize a long tradition of top-down governance by kings, religious authority, and military might in the Europe and this history includes ample and often colorful stories of incompetence and corruption. It’s only in the last few centuries that ideals of equal individual rights and freedoms begin to gain traction. We’ll turn to these now.

Freedom and Equality

We should note at the outset that freedom and equality are both highly ambiguous notions. We can be equal or unequal in a wide variety of different ways. Socialism, traditionally understood as public ownership of the means of production, emphasizes equality of wealth and resources in ways that are liable to frustrate some kinds of freedom. In more liberal traditions, those that emphasize liberty, equality is incorporated in terms of equal liberties, equal treatment before the law, equal opportunity, equal access to public goods, and so forth. Talk of freedom can also refer to assorted different things. Freedom can be thought of in negative terms as in being free from the dominance of others or in positive terms as in being free to do what we like with things that are ours. And there are many kinds of freedom. Economic freedom is one thing, freedom of conscience is another. Then there is freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and so forth. So clarifying our political philosophy in liberal traditions requires being fairly specific about what we mean by talk of freedom and equality. Not everyone who claims to love freedom and equality loves the same thing.

Here we will focus on two giants of liberal political philosophy, John Locke and John Rawls. What makes a political philosophy a liberal political philosophy is just that it takes individual liberty, in one form or another, to be a fundamental virtue of the just state or society. So liberal political thought stands in contrast to both communism on the left and fascism or nationalism on the right. Liberalism rejects aristocracy, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, oligarchy, and plutocracy (I’ll leave those fancy words for you to look up). Liberal political philosophy, understood literally as political philosophy that places a high priority on liberty, is a broad tradition that includes both mainstream “liberal” and “conservative” political thinking according to more familiar labels in American politics. You will find John Locke’s thinking to be more in line with contemporary conservativism and John Rawls thought to be more reflective of contemporary political liberals. We’ll begin with John Locke

John Locke

John Locke’s First Treatise on Government was an extended argument against the European system of aristocracy and the alleged divine birth right of rulers. Of course, in a society that had only known government by the rule of kings, this raises an obvious question. If human society is not legitimately organized by the authority of a ruling class, then how is it to be organized? Locke addresses this issue in his Second Treatise on Government which can be found here: 
http://jim.com/2ndtreat.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Locke’s positive political theory starts with thinking about what morality demands in the absence of government. According to Locke, in the state of nature (or in the absence of government) people exist in a state of perfect freedom. This partly means that people are free to pursue their own happiness and well being. But this perfect freedom is not a license to do whatever one likes or to treat others as one likes. Rather, Locke would understand the liberty we have a natural right to as freedom from domination and coercion.

The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life (The Second Treatise of Government, Chpt. 2 Sect. 6)

By the moral law of nature, one is not justified in assaulting others except as retribution for an injustice. Likewise, one is not justified in taking another’s property except as redress for that person taking or destroying one’s own property. But this state of nature inevitably leads to a state of chaos because people are not very good arbiters of justice in their own case. They are prone to inflate the wrongs committed against themselves and seek too much in the way of redress or retribution.

Government is justified as the most effective way of securing the natural rights of individuals. In joining civil society, we voluntarily turn our right to protect and enforce our individual rights over to the state. The legitimate function of the state is to secure the equality liberty that people have a natural right to. This view places rather strict limits on the legitimate functions of government. The point of government is just to secure our liberty and its function should therefore be limited to that. Where a government goes beyond this liberty securing role, Locke says people are justified in rebelling against the government.

Just what are the rights and liberties government serves to protect? Self ownership is central to the natural rights equally enjoyed by all. In fact, the idea of self-ownership captures much of how Locke understand individual liberty. This clearly speaks against slavery and other forms of domination or oppression. If a person own’s herself by natural law, then clearly she can’t also be owned by another. Property rights are then justified as an extension of self ownership. Locke sees all of nature as initially held in common. When a person “mixes her labor with the stuff of the earth,” say, by planting a tree or fashioning a tool from a branch, she acquires a right to the fruits of her labor as an extension of her right of self ownership. Here Locke offers a compelling philosophical justification for property rights.

Locke also recognizes limits to the extent of property rights. Specifically, A person does not have a right to more property than they can make use of. So, if the apple trees I plant produce more apples than I can harvest and preserve, I have no grounds for complaint when a passerby picks a few for himself. Above and beyond what one can make use of, the fruits of one’s labor return to the commons and are to be freely available to others. This limitation on property rights is harder to understand once we introduce a money economy where there are no limits to how much wealth I can set aside for future use and many more ways in which I might put that wealth to use. All the same, it would be hard to argue that anyone can make practical use of say, more than 50 million dollars.

The notion that there is an injustice in funding a social safety net for the less well off with taxes on the more affluent has its roots in a Lockean conception of property rights as natural rights that are closely tied to human liberty. On Locke’s view, when we mix our labor with the stuff of the earth, the fruit of our labor is ours by natural right. It is an extension of our natural right to our own selves. Thus, property rights, on Locke’s view, are closely tied to human liberty. The contemporary philosopher Robert Nozick extends Locke’s line of thought concerning property rights in his entitlement conception of social justice. On Nozick’s view, any distribution of property and wealth, no matter how unequal, is socially just so long as it was arrived at by just means. Acquiring wealth by one’s labor and then building on that through fair trades (those not involving coercion or deception) will be fair. Taxation beyond what is necessary to keep property rights (and hence human liberty) secure will be an injustice. In fact, it will be a variety of theft. Something along the lines of the views of Locke and Nozick has inspired a good deal of the anti-tax, small government sentiment that has been so influential in U.S. politics for the past 30 years or so. Liberty is seen as closely tied to property rights. To the degree that the government taxes citizens, it takes their property and thereby limits their freedom. It is worth noting that Nozick’s view goes well beyond Locke in stripping limits from property rights. Nozick is most closely associated with libertarian political thought. While libertarian thought offers principled grounds for accepting extreme inequality, it offers very little in the way of addressing the social instability that can result from this.

A further limitation on property rights according to Locke holds that the accumulation of private property constitutes no injustice to others “at least where there is enough and as good, left in the commons for others.” Locke takes the natural world and all the resources in it to be a commonwealth. That is, the earth, the waters, skies, and the various systems they contain are taken to be commonly owned by all. I draw from the resources of nature for raw materials when I create something I can then claim as property. As long as there is “as enough and as good” left for others, my accumulation of private property doesn’t limit the liberty of anyone else.

Locke lived in a time when natural resources appeared to be endlessly bountiful and any motivated person who wasn’t happy with the available distribution of property could hop a ship to the new world and homestead a piece of land (albeit one that was likely formerly occupied by Native Americans). Where natural resources can be regarded as practically unlimited, my neighbor’s great wealth doesn’t place any restriction on me investing my energy in creating wealth of my own. But if natural resources are limited and my neighbor has claimed much of what is available in the creation of his private property, then my opportunities are limited to that degree. We can no longer sustain the illusion that natural resources are unlimited. And as we bump up against those limits, Locke’s “enough and as good” proviso becomes much more significant and a problem known as the tragedy of the commons deserves some careful attention.

The Tragedy of the Commons

Garritt Hardin is well known for his clear articulation of the Tragedy of the Commons in the late sixties. Hardin was mainly concerned about human population, but this is just one instance of a much broader kind of problem. A tragedy of the commons is any case where some commonly held resource gets exhausted to the point where it has little value left to offer. Such a tragedy is bound to occur eventually whenever a commonly held resource is finite and freely utilized by self-interested agents.

Hardin introduces the notion of the tragedy of the commons with a tale about the fate of shepherd who share a pasture in common. Each shepherd notes that if he runs one more animal on the commonly held pasture, he will get the full benefit of that animal’s value when he takes it to market, but since the pasture is held in common, he will bear only a fraction of the cost of raising the animal. As a result, each shepherd finds it in his or her self-interest to run an additional animal on the pasture, and then another and another until the commonly held pasture is depleted to the point where it of no use to anyone. This dynamic is at work in a broad range of issues including fisheries, fresh water supplies, air pollution, and climate change. 

Once we have a clear understanding of the logic of the commons, it is equally clear that there are only a limited number of ways to avoid a tragedy of the commons. Again, a tragedy of the commons is the inevitable result whenever we have a finite commons that is freely utilized by self-interested agents. The only way to avoid a tragedy of the commons is to prevent one or another of the three conditions that give rise to one. Perhaps we cannot expect individuals to consistently refrain from acting on their own interests. But there remain the possibilities of regulating access to the commons or expanding the commons in some way. In the case of climate change, some mitigation strategies like carbon sequestration can be seen as ways of expanding the commons. The commons in this case is the atmosphere which we use as a sink for carbon when we burn fossil fuels. The CO2 released by even quite a few cars and furnaces poses no serious problem. But beyond a certain point, carbon emissions become a serious problem. The atmosphere can’t soak up more without disrupting systems we all rely on in many ways. Attempts to capture carbon and sequester it reduce the load on the atmosphere as a carbon sink. One way to think of this is as a strategy for expanding our overall carbon sink by supplementing the atmosphere with underground carbon storage facilities (or, perhaps more realistically, trees and soil that sequester carbon, too). Another example of expanding the commons would be state-run fish hatcheries to rebuild fish populations depleted through fishing.

But in many cases, notably including climate change, strategies for expanding the commons aren’t sufficient for avoiding a tragedy of the commons. Given this, only one possible means of avoiding a tragedy of the commons remains, and that is regulating the use of the commons. We routinely accept of restrictions on our liberty as a means of avoiding a tragedy of the commons. In the early 70s the air in Southern California was barely breathable do the pollution from cars. So, California imposed stiff regulations on vehicle emissions. Southern California is still often smoggy, generally not as bad as it once was. Since it did not significantly impact people’s freedom to drive, requiring pollution controls on cars was a pretty unobtrusive kind of regulation. Sometimes we regulate the use of a commonly held resource by charging people to use it and this can take many forms from campground fees to special taxes based on use like car tabs that fund public transportation (the roadways are a commons that become much less valuable when too many people drive and too few use transit). Sometimes we do this with added limits on the use of a commonly held resource as in the case of fishing licenses with catch limits. Proposals to put a price on carbon in the form of energy taxes or cap and trade systems for carbon emissions are relatively unobtrusive attempts to regulate the use of the atmosphere as a carbon sink. Energy taxes would regulate use of the atmosphere by charging a fee. Cap and trade systems are a bit more complex and involve limits on emissions together with a market mechanism for rewarding innovative ways of cutting emissions. It’s worth noting that climate change is a much more difficult problem than your typical tragedy of the commons due to some challenging asymmetries. For instance, since climate change is a global and international problem, those who must regulate their use of the atmosphere to avoid a tragedy of the commons are a different group of people from those who will suffer the consequences. We might hope that the current generation will care enough about its descendants to take action. But after failing to act for a couple of decades, we are already entering the stage of lasting consequences and so far, a generation (mine) has passed the mounting problem on to the next generation (likely yours).

Once we have a clear understanding of the logic of the commons, it seems pretty obvious that regulating the use of commonly held resources is often called for. We are very prone to think of government regulation as an imposition on our liberty. But the destruction of commonly held resources poses a much greater imposition on our liberty. So, regulation to avoid a tragedy of the commons is quite in line with Locke’s view that the legitimate role of government is to secure out liberty. This should help us understand why conservatives as well as liberals were proponents of environmental regulation through the 60s and the 70s.

Here is a link to Garritt Hardin’s article, “The Tragedy of the Commons” 
http://dieoff.org/page95.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

The System

Now we will consider an objection to Locke’s political philosophy, one that will set the stage for our discussion of John Rawls. The political thought of Locke is highly individualist. One aspect of this is that Locke takes the rights and liberties of individuals to be the only thing that matters in political philosophy. Beyond this, Locke would limit the legitimate role of government to securing those individual rights and liberties. Is this enough to secure justice?

Even when our rights and liberties are secured, our lives are significantly affected for better or worse by what I’ll refer as “the system.” So, what is this system? The system we have in a society is constituted by various subsystems like the market economy, our tax system, our education, health care and environmental management systems. As Rawls sees it, government has important work to do in establishing and upholding systems that are fair. Here Rawls goes beyond Locke. Rawls political philosophy still prioritizes individual rights and liberties. But Rawls sees something more at play. Justice in a society also depends on having a fair system. Now what is it for a system to be fair? This is the question Rawls sets out to answer. But before we get to that, let’s explore the system some and consider a few of the ways we rely on government to sustain the system.

We don’t create wealth from our own labor and ingenuity in a social vacuum. With the possible exception of the vegetables I grow in my garden, none of my wealth is entirely the product of mixing my labor with the stuff of the earth. Rather, nearly all of our productive activity is carried out in the context of a complex fabric of social structures and interrelations buoyed by a substantial technological infrastructure. Enjoying the fruits of my labor nearly always requires doing business with someone else and what I get out of this depends as much on the favorable social environment and technological infrastructure that makes doing business possible as it does on the efforts I bring to the deal. In light of this, the view of property rights offered by Locke is unrealistically individualistic in that falsely assumes property and wealth is the product of individual effort alone.

Having a functioning well-ordered community is a necessary condition for succeeding in every line of business (even gangsters depend on the system they exploit). The businessman who has profited from a fair exchange with his customers depends on the underlying system that makes it possible for him to do his business in the first place. His success may require a healthy and well-educated workforce, stability in the economic system, a citizenry that is well informed enough to politically sustain just social institutions, a citizenry that respects the law, a customer base that is doing well enough themselves to afford his product and so forth. It will also depend on physical infrastructure we rely on the government to provide or at least regulate. Roads and bridges to sewer systems are a few examples. Utility companies are often private businesses, but these require government oversight and regulation since they constitute natural monopolies. All of these things and others are hidden ingredients in the wealth created through the businessman’s activities. Given this insight into the kind of sophisticated market economy we have, taxation for the maintenance and upkeep of our various social and infrastructure systems is not theft, but fair compensation for the benefits we derive from participating in the system we are productive members of. Limiting the role of government to the protection of rights and liberties turns a blind eye to need for government involvement in the upkeep of the various systems we all depend on.

The Locke/Nozick approach to social justice where the legitimate activity of government is limited to securing our natural rights and liberties is roughly analogous to field biologists aiming to secure the well-being of squirrels without giving any regard to the health of the ecosystem that sustains them.

Given some sense of the importance of the various systems we rely on government to uphold and maintain we can turn our attention to Rawls and the concept of fairness.

Justice as Fairness

Where all other things are equal, we are liable to think of fairness in terms of equal treatment. The fair way to divide a cookie between three equally hungry boys is into three equal sized parts. Now what if one of the boys had a piece of chocolate cake an hour ago. What is fair isn’t completely obvious in this case. And in the real world, things are seldom equal.

Now consider the case of Jones and his three sons. Jone’s has done well in life and build up a modest fortune of 1.5 million dollars. But now his life is coming to and end as he enters the late stages of terminal cancer. So, he now faces with the question of how to divide his modest fortune among his three sons. Again, all other things being equal, the fair thing to do would be to give each a half million. But things aren’t equal. Jones’ eldest son, John, is a brilliant young man. He is near the end of a PhD. In computer science at Stanford and he is being aggressively recruited for a high paying Silicon Valley job with Google. Jones second son, James, is a star athlete on a full scholarship at UCLA where he is majoring in business. In addition to being talented on the basketball court, James is highly popular, well regarded for his forthright and easygoing manner, trusted and liked by peers and superiors alike. The third son, Joe, well, he’s a nice guy. He has no particular talents. He has tried hard in school, but hasn’t done especially well. He’s a bit awkward socially, the sort of guy that just isn’t going to find a date for the prom. In addition, he has a fairly expensive lifetime medical condition, he’s type 1 diabetic. What would be the fair way to divvy up his modest fortune among his three sons?

Jones can’t just pull a clear answer out of thin air, but he is clever and has a friend who does research in neuroscience that can help. His friend has developed a drug for highly selective memory loss that temporarily mutes a person’s sense of personal identity. Jones administers the drug to one of his sons (it doesn’t really matter which one) and instructs that son to decide how his fortune is to be divided among the three. He offers the following instructions: “you are one of my three sons and you are fully informed about the life circumstances of all three. Now, with just your own self interest in mind, you are to decide how my estate is to be divided between you and your brothers.” The son who decides how the fortune is divided must do so without knowing which of the brothers he is. The effects of the drug render the son who decide incapable of favoring the interests of one son over another, and this gives us some grounds for thinking his decision will be reasonably fair. Let me know how you think the drugged son will decide.

What we’ve described here is similar to the method Rawls recommends for selecting fair principles of social justice. Rawls is aiming at a conception of justice as fairness in the sense that social systems won’t advantage any particular kind of person at the expense of others. Rawls’ proposes that we can get onto the ideal of justice as fairness in this sense by means of a thought experiment that involves reasoning from what he calls “the original position.” In the original position, we imagine that we are perfectly rational agents with full information about the consequences of the various possible social arrangements. We are then given the task of designing the principles of justice that will structure our society and we are expected to do so with an eye to what will be in our own best interest. But then there’s a catch. In reasoning from the original, we operate behind a veil of ignorance about our own personal circumstances and characteristics. So in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance, I must think about what set of social institutions will work out best for me without knowing whether I will be weak or strong, healthy or diseased, clever or dull, beautiful or ugly, black or white, born to a wealthy family or a poor one and so forth. If I am rational and self interested, I will want to set things up so that I can substantially enjoy the benefits if I have characteristics that are highly valued in my society and I put them to good use. But at the same time, I will want to hedge my bets to assure that I still have a decent life in case I am not so lucky or my best efforts fail.

Of course, the original position thought experiment is just that, a thought experiment. No one could actually place themselves behind the veil of ignorance, nor reason perfectly rationally about all the possible social arrangements that might result from her choice of principles. Still Rawls has devised a way to think about what is fair when things all other things aren’t equal, and we can apply this to approximate relatively impartial judgments about what a fair society would look like.

On the basis of the original position thought experiment, Rawls argues for two principles of justice as fairness:

The Equal Liberty Principle: Each person is to be granted the greatest degree of liberty consistent with similar liberty for everyone.

The Difference Principle: Social practices that produce inequalities among individuals are just only if they work out to everyone’s advantage and the positions that come with greater reward are open to all.

The Equal Liberty Principle has a longer history. The idea that everyone should be granted the greatest degree of liberty consistent with similar liberty for others is defended at length in John Stuart Mill’s essay 

On Liberty (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

. In fact we could take some variation on this principle as the core tenet of Liberalism as a political theory. This principle doesn’t tell us that people should be free to do as they please no matter what. At some points, my being free to do something is liable to interfere with your being free to do something. For instance, my being free to host parties with live bands into the early hours of the morning might interfere with my neighbor’s being free to get a decent night’s sleep. In the interest of maximizing equal liberty for all, we would be justified in restricting people from activities that would interfere with the liberty of others. This has many familiar applications. Neighborhood zoning regulations are one example. A good deal environmental regulation illustrates this idea. Maximizing liberty for all equally requires that we restrict businesses from being free to pollute where doing so would adversely affect the health of others.

Rawls thinks the equal liberty principle will be selected by rational agents reasoning from the original position because no rational agent in this position would choose to be less free than necessary nor grant some (possibly someone else) greater liberty than others (possibly herself).

The Equal Liberty Principle is only concerned with equality of liberty. But we can be equal or unequal in many other ways. In fact, being equally free is liable to lead to other sorts of inequalities. If we are all free to plant apple trees as we see fit, we will probably wind up with an unequal distribution of apples simply because some of us will plant more trees and do a better job of tending them. So long as this is merely the result of people exercising their equal liberties, there is nothing unfair about this. If I’d wanted more apples, I could have spent more time growing apple trees and less time playing chess.

Given equality of opportunity, the Difference Principle holds that a system that produce inequalities is fair so long as it works out to the benefit of all. This will strike some as puzzling. How could we have inequalities that benefit all? It might seem that liberty and the fact that we want different things can account for some of this. I can’t claim unfairness when

Philosophy homework help

Essay Overview:

Each module will require that you write and submit a thoughtful essay, of 1500 to 2000 words, in response to ANY ONE of the several essay question choices provided within that module.

The assigned essay question is drawn directly from its module’s assigned textbook readings. Your essay should provide a relevant, thorough, and detailed response to the essay question assigned. Draw directly upon our assigned reading in order to carefully craft your response.

Essay Instructions:

1. Write and submit a thoughtful, thorough, substantial essay, of at least 1500 words, in direct response to ONE (your choice) of the Module 4 essay questions below.

2. Draw directly upon our assigned textbook readings for this module in carefully crafting your detailed response.

3. Please double-space your essay, include your name at the top of its first page, and be sure to cite all sources quoted or paraphrased from (even if it’s only our textbooks).

4. Don’t forget to include a bibliography or “works cited” page at the end!

5. This essay is DUE by the end of Module 4. Submit it to the Module 4 Essay Assignment dropbox no later than the last day of this module.

Module 4 Essay Questions:

(Choose just ONE to answer — either 1, 2, or 3):

1. In what specific ways does Michael Martin argue that certain divine properties attributed to God logically conflict with one another? Is he correct that such conflicts or inconsistencies render God’s existence logically impossible? Why or why not?

2. What is H. H. Price’s argument in favor of the intelligibility of the survival hypothesis? How would a materialist respond? Are materialist responses to Price’s account of its intelligibility justified?

3. According to Linda Badham, what are the most difficult philosophical problems faced by the traditional teaching of theism that there is such a thing as life after death? How plausible are those problems? (You may also wish to draw upon John Hick’s article in support of your position.)


Notes

· See the Grading Rubric attached to this assignment for grading information.

· Each essay must be written and submitted to its Assignment Dropbox before the end of its module. (See the Course Schedule for module start/end dates and due dates.)

· For additional guidance and helpful pointers to further assist you in successfully completing your essays, see Writing Philosophy Essays, Writing Thesis Statements, and Sample Essay  in the Start Here module.

Philosophy homework help

4

Section I: Scientific Reasoning Using Experiments (34 points total)

BACKGROUND: Soylent* is a liquid meal product (like a smoothie or an energy drink) that is available in the United States. This product meets all nutritional requirements for an average adult, thereby allowing it to be the only source of food/drink that one needs. Upon creating the product, inventor Rob Rhinehart consumed nothing but Soylent for 30 days. During this time, he assessed his overall health. After measuring the results, Rhinehart reported that his energy levels skyrocketed, his skin improved, he had prolonged mental concentration, he was less fatigued, and he was able to run farther than he ever had.

* Yes, this is a real product. It is named after a drink from the 1966 science fiction novel Make Room! Make Room!. The novel was the basis for the 1973 sci-fi film Soylent Green.

Suppose you are a researcher who wants to investigate whether one of Rhinehart’s claims about the effects of Soylent is indeed true. The questions in this section will guide you in designing an experimental study. All short answer questions in this section should be answered with no more than 3 sentences.

 

Flag question: Question 1

Question 12 pts

What is your hypothesis?

Flag question: Question 2

Question 24 pts

What would you expect to see if your hypothesis is true? What would you expect to see if your hypothesis is false?

Flag question: Question 3

Question 32 pts

An independent variable is:

Group of answer choices

A variable whose value varies as a result of a change to another variable

A variable whose value varies as a result of purposeful intervention

A variable that is not manipulated by researchers but affects the values of other variables nonetheless

A variable that counteracts the influence of other variables

 

Flag question: Question 4

Question 42 pts

What is the independent variable in your experiment?

Flag question: Question 5

Question 52 pts

A dependent variable is:

Group of answer choices

A variable whose value varies as a result of a change to another variable

A variable whose value varies as a result of purposeful intervention

A variable that is not manipulated by researchers but affects the values of other variables nonetheless

A variable that counteracts the influence of other variables

 

Flag question: Question 6

Question 62 pts

What is the dependent variable in your experiment?

Flag question: Question 7

Question 72 pts

Why is identifying background conditions/extraneous variables important?

 

Flag question: Question 8

Question 82 pts

Briefly state what you will be doing in your experiment. Make sure to identify who your subjects are and what will they be doing.

 

Flag question: Question 9

Question 92 pts

What observations will you make in your experiment? In other words, what data will you collect?

 

Flag question: Question 10

Question 103 pts

What is one legitimate value that you bring to this experiment?

Flag question: Question 11

Question 113 pts

What is one illegitimate value or bias that you need to protect against?

Flag question: Question 12

Question 124 pts

No experiment is perfect. What is one trade-off or choice this experiment makes that renders it less than perfect? (Think about the variables, sample size, or group assignment). Explain why this is important.

Flag question: Question 13

Question 134 pts

Sometimes there are sources of uncertainty that can make it challenging to draw conclusions from experiments. What is one source of uncertainty that you may want to flag when drawing a conclusion? Explain why this is important.

 

Flag question: Question 14

Question 140 pts

What is Soylent Green made from?*

*Note: This question is a joke about the movie. It is worth zero points.

 

Flag question: Spacer

Section II: Scientific Reasoning Using Models (44 points total)

This section consists of three parts. Each part begins with a description of a scientific experiment. Read each description and answer the questions that follow it. All questions should be answered with no more than 3 sentences unless specified otherwise.

 

Flag question: Spacer

Section II: Part 1

BACKGROUND: A galaxy is a system of stars, gas, and dust that is held together by gravitational attraction. Most galaxies have spiral or elliptical shapes, but not all of them do. Galaxies that are neither spiral nor elliptical are often referred to as peculiar galaxies. One kind of peculiar galaxy is a ring galaxy. Galaxies of this shape are rather rare, and astronomers want to figure out how they got their shape. One possibility is that a ring galaxy was at one point a spiral galaxy that collided with another galaxy–its companion galaxy–and as a result of this collision, the spiral galaxy somehow transformed into a ring galaxy.

  

 

Flag question: Question 15

Question 151 pts

What is the astronomers’ research question? 

 

Flag question: Question 16

Question 161 pts

What is the hypothesis under investigation? 

Flag question: Spacer

Section II: Part 2

BACKGROUND: The astronomers decide to investigate these ring galaxies by building computer simulations. In order to build their computer simulations, the astronomers must first observe a handful of ring galaxies. Through their observations, the astronomers notice that some ring galaxies have a high concentration of stars in their rings while other ring galaxies have a low concentration of stars in their rings. By observing a galaxy and its companion, astronomers can determine the radial velocity (rotation speed) of each galaxy, the speed at which each galaxy is currently moving, and the current mass of each galaxy. In their computer simulations, the astronomers let point particles stand in for the stars, gas, and dust that make up the mass of a galaxy. As they run the simulations, the astronomers systematically vary the concentration of stars, the masses of the two galaxies, and the angle at which the companion strikes the galaxy.

 

Flag question: Question 17

Question 172 pts

Identify the astronomers’ target system.

 

Flag question: Question 18

Question 184 pts

Identify two things about the target system that the astronomers idealized or made an approximation about when constructing their simulations, and explain why the astronomers needed to make those idealizations or approximations.

 

Flag question: Question 19

Question 194 pts

How does the astronomers’ computer simulation represent the target system?

 

Flag question: Question 20

Question 206 pts

Do you think the astronomers developed a good model? Why or why not? (Hint: Explain your reasoning by appealing to considerations of accuracy, generality, precision, tractability, and robustness).

Note: This question should be answered in at least 4 but no more than 6 sentences.

Flag question: Spacer

Section II: Part 3

By running the simulations thousands of times and varying the parameters, the astronomers discover that the only way for these ring galaxies to get this shape is through a collision with another galaxy. However, the ring galaxy only occurs under very specific conditions: when the collision is slightly off centered, and when the galaxies are very small (~1.3×10 10 M⊙). They also learned about the timescales over which these ring galaxies “live” (which is not very long! They dissipate after only 100 million years).

 

Flag question: Question 21

Question 214 pts

You now have enough information to provide a scientific argument for a scientific conclusion about ring galaxies. Write the argument in standard form.

 

Flag question: Question 22

Question 221 pts

What kind of inference is made in this argument?

 

Flag question: Question 23

Question 234 pts

Are the astronomers confirming their hypothesis, refuting their hypothesis, or neither? Explain your answer.

 

Flag question: Question 24

Question 244 pts

What kind of explanation have the astronomers offered for these ring galaxies shapes, and why is it that kind of explanation?

 

Flag question: Question 25

Question 254 pts

If the astronomers wanted to develop a better model with the aim of improving the support for, and confidence in their conclusion, what do you think they could improve upon? Why would this be useful?

 

Flag question: Question 26

Question 263 pts

Our book has focused on three important steps (or ingredients) present in a scientific investigation that allows for the production of scientific knowledge. Explain how the following ingredient is present in this ring galaxy case study:

 

Ingredient 1: Hypotheses are used to generate expectations

 

Flag question: Question 27

Question 273 pts

Our book has focused on three important steps (or ingredients) present in a scientific investigation that allows for the production of scientific knowledge. Explain how the following ingredient is present in this ring galaxy case study:

 

Ingredient 2: Expectations are compared to observations

 

Flag question: Question 28

Question 283 pts

Our book has focused on three important steps (or ingredients) present in a scientific investigation that allows for the production of scientific knowledge. Explain how the following ingredient is present in this ring galaxy case study:

 

Ingredient 3: Post-comparison is used to develop, confirm, reject, or refine a hypothesis

 

Flag question: Spacer

Section III: Quantitative (Probabilistic and Statistical) Reasoning in Everyday Science (24 points total)

All your hard work in How Science Works has paid off! You landed yourself an undergraduate clinic research assistant job in the UC Health System. During your first day, you shadow 3 different teams to decide which you would like to work with.

 

Flag question: Question 29

Question 292 pts

You first shadow a nurse practitioner (NP) talking to a couple about their recent genetics screening. The NP tells a couple that their genetic makeup means that they have a one in four chances of having a child with an inherited illness.

 

Does this mean that if their first child has the illness, the next three will not?

Group of answer choices

Yes

No

 

Flag question: Question 30

Question 302 pts

You first shadow a nurse practitioner (NP) talking to a couple about their recent genetics screening. The NP tells a couple that their genetic makeup means that they have a one in four chances of having a child with an inherited illness.

 

Does this mean that each of the couple’s children will have the same risk of suffering from the illness? 

Group of answer choices

Yes

No

 

Flag question: Question 31

Question 312 pts

During the consultant with a second couple, the NP discusses the likelihood their children might be carriers of Gene W or Gene Q (which are mutually exclusive). Suppose the probabilities of having a child with these Gene W or Gene Q are the same—both are 50%.

 

What is the probability that the couple has two children with Gene W?

 

Flag question: Question 32

Question 322 pts

During the consultant with a second couple, the NP discusses the likelihood their children might be carriers of Gene W or Gene Q (which are mutually exclusive). Suppose the probabilities of having a child with these Gene W or Gene Q are the same—both are 50%.

 

At least one of the children has Gene W. What is the probability that the couple has two children with Gene W?

 

Flag question: Question 33

Question 332 pts

During the consultant with a second couple, the NP discusses the likelihood their children might be carriers of Gene W or Gene Q (which are mutually exclusive). Suppose the probabilities of having a child with these Gene W or Gene Q are the same—both are 50%.

 

The eldest of the two children has Gene Q. Given this, what is the probability that the couple has two children with Gene Q?

 

Flag question: Question 34

Question 344 pts

After shadowing the NP, your next shadow activity is to attend your a research lab meeting.

Your lab has two research interns present and discuss the best way to test whether a certain drug is effective against high blood pressure. The first research intern wants to give the drug to 1,000 people with high blood pressure and see how many of them experience lower blood pressure levels. The second research intern wants to give the drug to 500 people with high blood pressure and not give the drug to another 500 people with high blood pressure, and see how many in both groups experience lower blood pressure levels. One of the interns has designed a better study than the other.

 

Which intern has the better way to test this drug, and why?

 

Flag question: Question 35

Question 352 pts

One of the lab’s recent studies examined 323 healthy women who wore a AppleWatch that tracked their sleep each night. The women with sleep problems (difficultly falling asleep and waking up throughout the night) were significantly more likely to have high blood pressure than women without those sleep problems.

 

Which of the following is correct?

Group of answer choices

Higher blood pressure caused the women to have sleep problems.

Any woman in this study with sleep problems also had high blood pressure.

For any two women in this study, the one who has more sleep problems has higher blood pressure.

There was an association between sleep problems and high blood pressure, but it’s not necessarily a causal relationship.

 

Flag question: Question 36

Question 362 pts

Your research team conducted two different runs of the same experiment. When comparing the two data sets A and B, you notice that they both have the same mean, but data set A has a higher standard deviation.

 

What can you conclude about the difference between the two data sets?

 

Flag question: Question 37

Question 374 pts

Your last shadow experience involves assisting in the cancer wing. This research group did a study asking 2,000 patents to submit responses to a questionnaire by mail. They received 450 responses. They found that the mean survival rate for respondents was 10 years after diagnosis. The researchers concludes that with this diagnosis the average survival rate is 10 years.

 

Is this a reasonable inference?  Why or why not? 

 

Flag question: Question 38

Question 382 pts

The patient you are assisting has a lump in her breast and must have a mammogram. Of 100 women like her, 10 of them actually have a malignant (cancerous) tumor, and 90 of them do not. Of the 10 women who actually have a tumor, the mammogram indicates correctly that 9 of them have a tumor and indicates incorrectly that 1 of them does not have a tumor. Of the 90 women who do not have a tumor, the mammogram indicates correctly that 80 of them do not have a tumor and indicates incorrectly that 10 of them do have a tumor. The table below summarizes all of this information:

Tested Positive

Tested Negative

Totals

Actually has a cancerous tumor.

9 persons

1 person

10 people

Does not have a cancerous tumor.

10 persons

80 persons

90 people

Totals:

19 persons

81 persons

100 people

 

Imagine that your patient tests positive (as if she had a tumor), what is the likelihood that she actually has a tumor?   out of 

 

Flag question: Spacer

Section IV: Theories, Values, and Society (10 points total)

 

 

Flag question: Question 39

Question 395 pts

What is the value-free ideal of science? Why is the value-free ideal of science problematic? 

Flag question: Question 40

Question 405 pts

What is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?

Philosophy homework help

Reply A chris G

This week I chose the Dalai Lama because he promotes peace and care. I like how he said that there were great differences in our ways of thinking and how this would be an inevitable difference in both our religion and our faith. I also liked how he said that we should all live on the basis of mutual respect and mutual admiration. I think he believed that we were all basically the same. That we were all human beings. I love that he wanted to promote his own religion of Buddhism of compassion. I think it is amazing for people to look outside themselves and their own personal beliefs to support human kind and of their religions.

My family was non-denominational so I can see why I liked this Philosopher. We went to a non-denominational church when we went. My family has always been for peace and for people to make their own choices on religion. They did not discriminate against any kind of religion or culture. I was raised to believe that every person is different and every person has a different background and how it was important to let people be themselves.

I have pretty much been in the U.S. my whole life and have really been in a different culture situation other than everyday life here. I do not understand why other people at times discriminate against other religions and cultures. In my opinion we have no right to treat anyone differently just because of their religion or their personal beliefs. I believe we should tolerate others beliefs. I think it is wrong not to let people live their lives how they want to and to choose which religion they choose. Every person has a different background and different story. We should be more like Dalai Lama and promote peace and care instead of hate and unkindness.

Reply B Ojany Mc

The philosopher I have chosen for this week is Dalai Lama. I was drawn to the Dalai Lama for the reason my friend’s dad was telling me about him years ago. I ended up purchasing a book written by him called “An Appeal to the World”. The Dalai Lama covers various topics in the book and his viewpoint on them. I am always interested in people’s thoughts on religion and Dalai Lama believed that religion creates violence and separation among each other. This is a theory that I personally agree with and the book is a short read so it makes everything easy to read and straight to the point. 

I am actually mixed race and grew up in schools that were PWI’s, I am African American mixed with Panamanian and Colombian so I grew up learning lots about my Latino roots and culture. My father has traveled all over the world since he was in the Military so he has a great appreciation for cultures, races, and religions. Growing up in PWI’s it felt hard to connect with certain people since I grew up different culturally, I used to dislike my roots but as I got older I began to love them. There is a lot of Latinos in Oklahoma but mostly of Mexican descent, Panamanian slang, and culture are different also I am Black passing so many kids did not know I was Latino Heritage so it was hard to really fit in. As I grew up I gradually got a solid friend group we are all from different cultures and backgrounds and I think we became so close since we all felt a bit like outcasts. 

I do believe respecting everyone’s cultural values is important but there are things that we should be tolerant of. Some cultures are very LGTBQ+ friendly and they use the excuse as that is how they grew which is wrong. Oklahoma is in the “Bible Belt” and with the new law in an act that bans a woman’s right to her own body and people who voted for it say that it’s against the bible. Morality and how a person is treated should not vary on your race, religion or culture. 

Philosophy homework help



Might you be dreaming or is 100% certainty possible?

Contains unread posts

Taylor OShea posted Apr 27, 2022 8:27 PM

Subscribe

I agree that the dream argument is convincing and this is my reasoning to why. When we are in a dream sometimes it can feel so real that when we wake up we are startled at the fact that it was a dream so how could we possibly know if what we are doing right now could be a dream or not we can’t 100% prove that we are not in a dream because most of the time we have the same abilities that we normally have in a dream too. 



Descarte’s Dream Argument

Contains unread posts

Lucas Anderson posted Apr 25, 2022 6:05 PM

Subscribe

Descartes gives a convincing argument as to why dreaming gives cause to doubt essentially everything. Descartes establishes why “de omnibus dubitandum” (everything is to be doubted). He explains that because our perceptions have deceived us before, we cannot trust them at all. In the same way, trusting a known liar lacks prudence, so is assuming that the senses are reliable. Man’s inability to distinguish between dreaming and wakefulness proves that virtually everything is uncertain. We can be certain that we are “thinking things” because we have an intellect that thinks it’s being deceived. Because we perceive dreams as a wakeful reality, it’s impossible to know the difference. On the other hand, I get the impression that Descartes’ argument assumes that wakeful reality is ‘more real’ than a dreaming reality. Dreaming is viewed as an illusion rather than part of reality. Both are absolutely compartmentalized, posing them against each other rather than having them exist in the same plane of reality. Despite those integral assumptions, I still think the argument is valid because we really can’t tell if we’re dreaming or not.



Might You be Dreaming, Week 7

Contains unread posts

David Anderson posted Apr 27, 2022 9:48 AM

Subscribe

Week 7

Might you be dreaming

     I completely agree with Descartes’, I daydream constantly. My train of thought will frequently leave a conversation involuntarily. The awake dream state interferes with my cognitive process constantly. While I am at work or at home emotions will surface out of now where and affect me in various ways. I am walking in two worlds at the same time, and this keeps me from truly living in either one. I am more focused on my nighttime dream state than on my daydreams. My sleeping dreams are more lucid and uninterrupted. I wake up feeling like I haven’t slept at all sometimes. Many occurrences are not pleasant, so I end up starting the day unnerved because of the experience. It may be that my thought process is like a subway train. My mind will slow down and stop and this gives me a brief moment of true reality. Then the train is off to the next stop and my mind goes with it. Never truly being able to savor reality for more than a few moments.” I think therefore I am,” from Descartes’s Meditations is the only thing for certain, though it is the thing that cannot be separated from him for sure. Unfortunately, it is the one thing that keeps us on the crazy train.

     I don’t believe this is an issue for everyone, but for many of us, it is a way of life. I truly believe I can not experience life fully, because of this dual reality I live. My awake dreams turn into misinformed judgments of everything, making my pursuit of wisdom an elusive foe. In conclusion, I don’t believe the dream state is as crippling as Descartes states, but it is a reality many of us never realize. ” I think therefore I am,” from Descartes’s Meditations is the only thing for certain. Unfortunately, it is the one thing that also keeps us on the crazy train.

Philosophy homework help

Beware the Big Five

Tamsin Shaw

APRIL 5, 2018 ISSUE
The Darkening Web: The War for Cyberspace

by Alexander Klimburg

Penguin, 420 pp., $30.00

Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg pictured on an iPhone, August 2017

The big Silicon Valley technology companies have long been viewed by much of

the American public as astonishingly successful capitalist enterprises operated by

maverick geniuses. The largest among them—Microsoft, Apple, Facebook,

Amazon, and Google (the so-called Big Five)—were founded by youthful and

charismatic male visionaries with signature casual wardrobes: the open-necked

blue shirt, the black polo-neck, the marled gray T-shirt and hoodie. These founders

have won immense public trust in their emergent technologies, from home

computing to social media to the new frontier, artificial intelligence. Their

companies have seemed to grow organically within the flourishing ecology of the

open Internet.

Within the US government, the same Silicon Valley companies have been

considered an essential national security asset. Government investment and policy

over the last few decades have reflected an unequivocal confidence in them. In

return, they have at times cooperated with intelligence agencies and the military.

During these years there has been a constant, quiet hum of public debate about the

need to maintain a balance between security and privacy in this alliance, but even

after the Snowden leaks it didn’t become a great commotion.

The Big Five have at their disposal immense troves of personal data on their users,

the most sophisticated tools of persuasion humans have ever devised, and few

mechanisms for establishing the credibility of the information they distribute. The

domestic use of their resources for political influence has received much attention

from journalists but raised few concerns among policymakers and campaign

officials. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have, in the last few election

cycles, employed increasingly intricate data analytics to target voters.

Private organizations, too, have exploited these online resources to influence

campaigns: the Koch brothers’ data firm, i360, whose funding rivals that of both

parties, has spent years developing detailed portraits of 250 million Americans and

refining its capacities for influence operations through “message testing” to

determine what kinds of advertisements will have traction with a given audience. It

employs “mobile IDmatching,” which can link users to all of their devices—unlike

cookies, which are restricted to one device—and it has conducted extensive

demographic research over social media. Google’s DoubleClick and Facebook are

listed as i360’s featured partners for digital marketing. The firm aims to have

developed a comprehensive strategy for influencing voters by the time of the 2018

elections.

Only in recent months, with the news of the Russian hacks and trolls, have

Americans begun to wonder whether the platforms they previously assumed to

have facilitated free inquiry and communication are being used to manipulate

them. The fact that Google, Facebook, and Twitter were successfully hijacked by

Russian trolls and bots (fake accounts disguised as genuine users) to distribute

disinformation intended to affect the US presidential election has finally raised

questions in the public mind about whether these companies might compromise

national security.

Cyberwarfare can be waged in many different ways. There are DDoS (distributed

denial of service) attacks, by which a system is flooded with superfluous traffic to

disrupt its intended function. The largest DDoS attack to date was the work of the

Mirai botnet (a botnet is created by hacking a system of interconnected devices so

they can be controlled by a third party), which in October 2016 attacked a

company called Dyn that manages a significant part of the Internet’s infrastructure.

It temporarily brought down much of the Internet in the US. There are also hacks

designed to steal and leak sensitive materials, such as the Sony hack attributed to

North Korea or the hacking of the DNC’s e-mail servers during the 2016 election.

And there are attacks that damage essential devices linked to the Internet, including

computing systems for transportation, telecommunications, and power plants. This

type of attack is increasingly being viewed as a grave threat to a country’s

infrastructure.

The military once used the term “information warfare” to refer to any cyberattack

or military operation that targeted a country’s information or telecommunications

systems. But the phrase has come to have a more specific meaning: the

exploitation of information technology for the purposes of propaganda,

disinformation, and psychological operations. The US is just now beginning to

confront its vulnerability to this potentially devastating kind of cyberattack.

This is the subject of Alexander Klimburg’s prescient and important book, The

Darkening Web: The War for Cyberspace, written largely before the revelation of

Russian interference in the 2016 election. With its unparalleled reach and targeting,

Klimburg argues, the Internet has exacerbated the risks of information warfare.

Algorithms employed by a few large companies determine the results of our web

searches, the posts and news stories that are featured in our social media feeds, and

the advertisements to which we are exposed with a frequency greater than in any

previous form of media. When disinformation or misleading information is fed into

this machinery, it may have vast intended and unintended effects.

Facebook estimated that 11.4 million Americans saw advertisements that had been

bought by Russians in an attempt to sway the 2016 election in favor of Donald

Trump. Google found similar ads on its own platforms, including YouTube and

Gmail. A further 126 million people, Facebook disclosed, were exposed to free

posts by Russia-backed Facebook groups. Approximately 1.4 million Twitter users

received notifications that they might have been exposed to Russian propaganda.

But this probably understates the reach of the propaganda spread on its platform.

Just one of the flagged Russian accounts, using the name @Jenn_Abrams (a

supposed American girl), was quoted in almost every mainstream news outlet. All

these developments—along with the continued rapid dissemination of false news

stories online after the 2016 election, reports by Gallup that many Americans no

longer trust the mainstream news media, and a president who regularly Tweets

unfounded allegations of “fake news”—have vindicated Klimburg’s fears.*

Klimburg argues that liberal democracies, whose citizens must have faith in their

governments and in one another, are particularly vulnerable to damage by

information warfare of this kind. And the United States, he observes, is currently

working with an extremely shallow reservoir of faith. He cites Gallup polls

conducted prior to the election of Donald Trump in which 36 percent of

respondents said they had confidence in the office of the presidency and only 6

percent in Congress. We have no reason to believe that these numbers have

subsequently increased. The civic trust that shores up America’s republican

political institutions is fragile.

Klimburg gives a fascinating diagnosis of how this situation has been inflamed. He

describes a growing tension in the US over the last twenty years, coming to a head

under Obama, between the perception of the Internet and its reality. The Silicon

Valley corporations have attained their global reach and public trust by promoting

the Internet as a medium for the free exchange of information and ideas,

independent of any single state’s authority. Since almost all trade in and out of the

US now relies on the information transfers that these Silicon Valley companies

facilitate, this perception of independence is economically essential. The country’s

largest trading relationship, with the European Union, is governed by the Privacy

Shield agreement, which assures EU companies that data transfers will be secured

against interference and surveillance.

In Obama’s International Strategy for Cyberspace, released on May 16, 2011, he

described the Internet as a democratic, self-organizing community, where “the

norms of responsible, just and peaceful conduct among states and people have

begun to take hold.” When Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA surveillance

and the collection of metadata threatened to compromise this agreement, Obama

issued Presidential Policy Directive 28, which set out principles for “signals

intelligence activities” compatible with a “commitment to an open, interoperable,

and secure global Internet.”

Martin Libicki, a researcher at the RAND corporation, the global policy think tank,

has had an important part in restraining offensive initiatives at the Department of

Defense. His aim is to restrict America’s capabilities to what is required for

defense against cyberattacks. Klimburg himself adheres closely to Libicki’s

general view, expressed in several RAND reports, that the US needs to maintain a

perception of itself as one of the “free Internet advocates”—in contrast to “cyber-

sovereignty adherents” such as Russia and China, which aim above all to control

cyberspace and its influence over their citizens.

But Klimburg’s book warns us that the facts too frequently contradict this view. In

his account, America’s military and intelligence agencies have always considered

cyberspace a site of potential conflict and sought global dominance over it.

Throughout the 1990s, the US military had intensive discussions about the various

ways in which these new technologies might be applied to traditional forms of

warfare. They were particularly concerned with psychological warfare, which

might be used, for example, to weaken an enemy army’s resolve to fight or to bring

down national leaders by eroding their popular support.

Only a year before the release of Obama’s International Strategy for Cyberspace,

Russia’s Kaspersky Lab had discovered the Stuxnet virus, a malicious worm

originally built as a cyber-weapon by the US and Israel. It was intended to disrupt

Iran’s nuclear program (by infecting the control systems used to operate its

centrifuges, causing them to malfunction and explode), but subsequently spread

across the globe. This attack, along with Obama’s establishment of US Cyber

Command alongside the National Security Agency in 2009, signaled to other states

that the US intended to use the Internet for offensive purposes.

What concerns Klimburg most, though, is the extent to which US government

agencies are prepared and willing to mislead the American people about its own

cyber initiatives. Such disinformation creates exactly the kind of confusion that

liberal states vulnerable to psychological and information warfare urgently need to

avoid. This sort of deceit is now a crucial aspect of US policy and defense strategy.

Klimburg suggests, for example, that the details about America’s extraordinary

intelligence-gathering programs, which Bob Woodward disclosed in his

book Obama’s Wars (2010), had been deliberately leaked to him as a warning to

adversaries—an attempt on the government’s part to impress the extent of US

cyber power upon the rest of the world.

At the same time, other government agencies have sought to maintain a view, both

domestically and internationally, of the Internet as a domain of cooperation, not

conflict. The language employed in official cyber strategy documents, Klimburg

tells us, is deliberately obfuscatory. The 2015 Defense Department statement of its

cyber-strategy used terminology such as “Offensive Cyber Effects Operations” but

gave no indication of what that term included or excluded. Fred Kaplan, in his

book Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War (2016), has also claimed

that even in the early days of cyber-operations at the NSA, under Michael

Hayden’s command, the already tenuous distinction between defensive and

offensive operations was deliberately elided.

Klimburg suggests that a healthy democracy needs much greater transparency

about its cyber-policy. The government could provide its citizens with clear,

unambiguous principles concerning the collection of signals intelligence, the

development of offensive and defensive cyber-capabilities, their relation to

traditional military strategy, and the evolving relationship between the intelligence

community and the military. The American public might come to have more trust

in the government, for example, if it only used psychological cyber-operations to

win over “hearts and minds” in military zones—such as the locally informed and

culturally specific influence campaigns used as counterinsurgency measures in

Afghanistan—rather than manipulating popular beliefs more broadly and in less

controlled ways.

Klimburg is not greatly concerned by the burgeoning power of the private

corporations, like those in Silicon Valley, that run the online platforms on which

the government’s influence operations take place. In his view they are independent

and have purely commercial interests. But if we want to understand the growing

imbalance of power in online persuasion, we might ask more questions than he

does about the carefully guarded lack of transparency with which the titanic

Silicon Valley companies operate. The interests that now guide what technologies

they produce are not entirely commercial ones. The national security community

has exploited the private sector to help develop America’s immense cyber-

capabilities. In doing so it has placed an extraordinary array of potential cyber-

weapons in the hands of unaccountable private companies.

US House Intelligence Committee

A Facebook advertisement paid for by a Russian account with ties to the Kremlin

in an attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election

The Internet, as is well known, owes its origins to DARPA (the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency), the agency responsible for establishing and cultivating

new military technologies. According to the “free Internet” narrative encouraged

by Obama, Silicon Valley, and the Defense Department, the Internet technologies

we use, from software to social media platforms, are controlled by the private

sector. However, when DARPA boasts online about the technologies whose

research and development it has sponsored, it lists, along with the Internet, the

graphical user interfaces that allow us to interact with our devices, artificial

intelligence and speech recognition technologies, and high-performance polymers

for advanced liquid crystal display technology. These technologies encompass

every aspect of the smartphone. Our online lives wouldn’t be possible without the

commercialization of military innovations.

DARPA offers early funding, often to academics and researchers rather than

private corporations, to develop new technologies for national security purposes,

but the economic relationship between Silicon Valley and the national security

community extends much further than that. One aspect of that relationship is

detailed in Linda Weiss’s America Inc.?: Innovation and Enterprise in the

National Security State (2014). Weiss describes the development in Silicon Valley

of a hybrid public/private economy in which the government assists in the creation

of new technologies it needs for national security operations by investing in

companies that can also commercialize these technologies.

Government agencies have mitigated risk and even helped to create markets for

companies whose products, while ostensibly strictly civilian and commercial,

satisfy their own needs. The driverless car industry will incorporate, test, and

improve technologies devised for missile guidance systems and unmanned drones.

Facial recognition software developed by intelligence agencies and the military for

surveillance and identity verification (in drone strikes, for example) is now

assuming a friendly guise on our iPhones and being tested by millions of users.

The government has used various mechanisms to fund these projects. The Small

Business Innovation Research program (SBIR), Weiss tells us, “has emerged as the

largest source of seed and early-stage funding for high-technology firms in the

United States,” investing, at the time of writing, $2.5 billion annually. This

investment—the national security agencies supply 97 percent of funding for

the SBIR program—not only serves as a form of government “certification” for

private venture capitalists, it also provides an incentive for invention,

since SBIR asks for no equity in return for its investment.

Silicon Valley has also been profoundly shaped by venture capital funds created by

government agencies. The CIA, Defense Department, Army, Navy, National

Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGIA), NASA, and Homeland Security

Department all have venture capital at their disposal to invest in private companies.

Weiss quotes a Defense Department report to Congress in 2002 explaining the aim

of its initiatives:

The ultimate goal is to achieve technically superior, affordable Defense Systems

technology while ensuring that technology developed for national security

purposes is integrated into the private sector to enhance the national technology

and industrial base.

The direction of technological development in the commercial sector, in other

words, is influenced by the agenda of government agencies in ways largely

unknown to the public.

It’s not difficult to trace, for example, the profound influence of In-Q-Tel,

the CIA’s wildly successful venture capital fund, which has sometimes been the

sole investor in start-ups but now often invests in partnerships with the Big Five.

In-Q-Tel was the initial sole investor in Palantir Technologies, Peter Thiel’s

software company specializing in big data analysis. A branch of the company

called Palantir Gotham, which specializes in analysis for counterterrorism

purposes, has won important national security contracts with

the DHS, FBI, NSA, CDC, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and Special

Operations command, among other agencies.

But In-Q-Tel’s achievements are also familiar to us in more mundane forms:

Google Earth originated in an In-Q-Tel sponsored company called Keyhole Inc., a

3-D mapping startup also partially owned by the NGIA. The cloud technology on

which we all increasingly rely is being developed by companies like Frame, which

is jointly funded by In-Q-Tel, Microsoft, and Bain Capital Ventures. Soon we will

be able to use our computers to interact with 3-D holographic images, thanks to

another In-Q-Tel–sponsored company, Infinite Z. Another of their companies,

Aquifi, is producing scanners that can create a color 3-D model of any scanned

object.

Since many of the startups in which government agencies invest end up being

absorbed by the Big Five, these companies all now have close relationships with

the defense and intelligence agencies and advise them on technological innovation.

Eric Schmidt, the former executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc., chairs the

Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board (Jeff Bezos formerly served on it too),

which in a January 2018 report recommended encouraging tech entrepreneurship

within the military. The goal would be to create “incubators” like those used in the

business and tech worlds that would help develop startups targeted to new defense

needs, such as big data analysis.

The US government has supported the monopolies of the Big Five companies

partly for the sake of the “soft power” they can generate globally. Libicki, in a

2007 RAND publication, Conquest in Cyberspace: National Security and

Information Warfare, suggested that the government could achieve “friendly

conquest” of other countries by making them depend on US technologies. The

“bigger and richer the system, the greater the draw,” he tells us. Huge global

corporations (his primary example is Microsoft), whose technologies are deeply

linked with the domestic technologies of other nation-states, give America greater

soft power across the globe.

It is clearly time to ask whether this hybrid Silicon Valley economy has been a

good national security investment. Weiss points out that after the government

funds research, it gives away the patents to private companies for their own

enrichment. We can find on the websites of organizations like In-Q-Tel and DIUx

the kinds of contracts they offer. The licenses that they acquire are generally

nonexclusive. The technologies that power America’s national security innovations

can be sold to anyone, anywhere. The profits go to companies that may or may not

be concerned about the national interest; Intel recently alerted the Chinese

government to a vulnerability in their chips, one that could be exploited for

national security purposes, before alerting the American government.

Mariana Mazzucato, in The Entrepreneurial State (2013), examined the case of

Apple, which has the lowest research-and-development spending of the Big Five.

The company has succeeded commercially by integrating technologies funded by

the military and by intelligence agencies (such as touch screens and facial

recognition) into stylish and appealing commercial products. The government has

shouldered nearly all the risk involved in these products, while Apple has reaped

the rewards. In other words, taxpayer’s money has helped enrich companies like

Apple, and as we now know from the recently released Paradise Papers

(documents concerning offshore tax havens leaked from a Bermudan law firm), the

companies have not responded with a corresponding willingness to increase the

government’s tax revenues. Apple managed to keep a great deal of its $128 billion

in profits free from taxation by using Irish subsidiaries and only pledged to

repatriate its sheltered funds once the Trump administration dramatically slashed

the corporate tax rate.

Silicon Valley companies do not simply have vast amounts of money, though; they

also own vast amounts of data. To be sure, much older corporations like Bank of

America and Unilever, which have been gathering our data for decades, own much

more (approximately 80 percent, compared to Silicon Valley’s 20 percent,

according to a recent study by IBM and Oxford Economics) but the Big Five,

Uber, and others have extremely sophisticated data analytics, and their platforms

are designed for the efficient exploitation of their data for advertising and

influence.

This is where Klimburg’s concerns about the development of offensive cyber-

powers by the military and intelligence agencies intersect most worryingly with the

problem of privatizing our cyber-assets. The US has, since the start of the war on

terror, increasingly outsourced intelligence and military operations to private

companies, particularly those engaged in data analytics and targeting. Government

agencies have offered lucrative contracts to older companies such as Booz Allen

Hamilton and Boeing AnalytX, as well as to new players, such as

Palantir, SCL group, and SCL’s now infamous partner, Cambridge Analytica,

whose roles in the Leave EU campaign in Britain and in Trump’s presidential

campaign have both drawn legal scrutiny. In doing so the government has

encouraged these companies to develop the most sophisticated methods for

influencing the public. These kinds of military-grade information operations may

then be applied to their client base.

Government partnerships with such companies make the data owned by the Big

Five exploitable in ways that many of us are only just beginning to understand. But

these immense powers may also be freely employed for ends that threaten national

security. The way in which the Koch brothers have already exploited their

resources to promote skepticism about climate change should serve as a warning.

The problem is compounded by the exceptional form of corporate governance that

the Big Five have been allowed to maintain. Even though Facebook and Google

are publicly traded companies, their founders, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and

Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google, have a more than 50 percent vote on their

respective boards—that is, effectively total control.

In Klimburg’s view, the national security community has irresponsibly

overdeveloped its offensive powers in cyberspace. As far as its pursuit of

dominance in military and intelligence capacities goes, this may be true. But by

giving Silicon Valley irresistible commercial incentives to develop military

technologies, the government has, at the same time, surrendered unparalleled

power to private corporations. Extensive control of information has been handed

over to unaccountable global corporations that don’t profit from the truth. It’s

currently laughably easy, as Vladimir Putin has brazenly shown us, to spread

foreign propaganda through the platforms they operate. But even if they can

develop mechanisms to prevent the spread of foreign propaganda, we will still be

heavily reliant on the goodwill of a handful of billionaires. They are, and will

continue to be, responsible for maintaining the public’s confidence in information,

preserving forms of credibility that are necessary for the health and success of our

liberal democratic institutions.

Zuckerberg, in a well-known incident he now surely regrets, was asked in the early

days of Facebook why people would hand over their personal information to him.

He responded, “They trust me—dumb fucks.” We’re finally starting to appreciate

the depth of the insult to us all. Now we need to figure out how to keep the

corporations we have supported with our taxes, data, and undivided attention from

treating us like dumb fucks in the future.

Philosophy homework help

How to Write a Thesis Statement

Almost all of us, even if we don’t do it consciously, look early in an essay for a one- or two-sentence condensation of the argument or analysis that is to follow. We refer to that condensation as a thesis statement.

Why Should Your Essay Contain a Thesis Statement?

· to test your ideas by distilling them into a sentence or two

· to better organize and develop your argument

· to provide your reader with a “guide” to your argument

In general, your thesis statement will accomplish these goals if you think of the thesis as the answer to the question your paper explores.

How to Generate a Thesis Statement If the Topic Is Assigned

Almost all assignments, no matter how complicated, can be reduced to a single question. Your first step, then, is to distill the assignment into that specific question. For example, if your assignment is “Write a report to the local school board explaining the potential benefits of using computers in a fourth-grade class,” turn that request into a question like “What are the potential benefits of using computers in a fourth-grade class?” After you’ve chosen the one question your essay will answer, compose one or two complete sentences answering that question.

Q: What are the potential benefits of using computers in a fourth-grade class?

A: The potential benefits of using computers in a fourth-grade class are . . .

or

A: Using computers in a fourth-grade class promises to improve . . .

How to Develop a Thesis Statement If the Topic Is Not Assigned

If your assignment doesn’t ask a specific question, or if there is no specific assignment, your thesis statement still needs to answer a question about the issue you’d like to explore. In this situation, your job is to figure out what question you’d like to write about. A good thesis statement will usually include the following attributes:

· it deals with a subject that can be adequately treated given the nature of the assignment

· it expresses one main idea

· it takes on a subject upon which reasonable people could disagree

· it asserts your conclusions about a subject.

Here’s how to generate a thesis statement for a social policy paper. Let’s say that your class focuses on the problems posed by drug addiction. You find that you are interested in the problems of crack babies, babies born to mothers addicted to crack cocaine. You start out with a thesis statement like this:

Crack babies.

This fragment isn’t a thesis statement. Instead, it simply indicates a general subject. Furthermore, your reader doesn’t know what you want to say about crack kids. Your readings on the topic, however, have led you to the conclusion that not only do these babies have a difficult time surviving premature births and withdrawal symptoms, but their lives will be even harder as they grow up because they are likely to be raised in an environment of poverty and neglect. You think that there should be programs to help these children. You change your thesis statement to look like this:

Programs for crack kids.

This fragment not only announces your subject, but it focuses on one main idea: programs. Furthermore, it raises a subject upon which reasonable people could disagree, because while most people might agree that something needs to be done for these children, not everyone would agree on what should be done or who should do it. Still, the fragment is not a thesis statement because your reader doesn’t know your conclusions on the topic.

After reflecting on the topic a little while longer, you decide that what you really want to say about this topic is that in addition to programs for crack babies, the government should develop programs to help crack children cope and compete. You revise your thesis statement to look like this:

More attention should be paid to the environment crack kids grow up in.

This statement asserts your position, but the terms more attention and the environment are vague. You decide to explain what you mean about the environment, so you write:

Experts estimate that half of crack babies will grow up in home environments lacking rich cognitive and emotional stimulation.

This statement is specific, but it isn’t a thesis. It merely reports a statistic instead of making an assertion. You revise your thesis statement again to look like this:

Because half of all crack babies are likely to grow up in homes lacking good cognitive and emotional stimulation, the federal government should finance programs to supplement parental care for crack kids.

Notice that this thesis answers the question, “What should be done for crack kids, and why?” When you started thinking about the paper, you may not have had a specific question in mind, but as you became more involved in the topic, your ideas became more specific.

Your thesis also became more specific to reflect your new insights. Your ideas about a topic may change over the process of writing a paper. Keep in mind that your thesis statement may need to be revised as you write and revise your paper, to reflect your changing ideas on a subject.

How to Tell a Strong Thesis Statement From a Weak One

A strong thesis statement takes some sort of stand.

Remember that your thesis needs to show your conclusions about a subject. For example, if you are writing a paper for a class on fitness, you might be asked to choose a popular weight-loss product to evaluate. Here are two thesis statements for such a paper:

There are many positive and negative aspects to the Banana Herb Tea Supplement.

This is a weak thesis, because it fails to take a stand. In addition, the phrase negative and positive aspects is vague.

Because the Banana Herb Tea Supplement promotes rapid weight loss that results in the loss of muscle and lean body mass, it poses a potential danger to consumers.

This is a strong thesis statement because it takes a stand, and because it’s specific.

A strong thesis justifies discussion.

It should be possible for reasonable people to disagree on the subject you’re exploring in your paper. Because a good thesis indicates your point of view on this subject, it should justify discussion of the topic. If your own family as an example, you might come up with either of these two thesis statements:

My family is an extended family.

This is a weak thesis statement because it merely states an observation. It doesn’t justify any discussion on the topic, so your reader is likely to stop reading your essay after encountering it.

While most American families would view consanguineal marriage as a threat to the nuclear family structure, many Iranian families, like my own, believe that these marriages help reinforce kinship ties in an extended family.

This is a strong thesis because it shows how your experience contradicts a widely-accepted view; thus, it justifies discussion of this topic. A good strategy for creating a strong thesis is to show how a topic is controversial. Readers will be interested in reading the rest of your essay to see how you support your point.

A strong thesis expresses one main idea.

Readers need to be able to see that your paper has one main point. If your thesis expresses more than one idea, then you might confuse your readers about the subject of your paper. For example:

Companies need to exploit the marketing potential of the Internet, and web pages can provide both advertising and customer support.

This is a weak thesis statement because the reader can’t decide whether the paper is about marketing on the Internet or web pages. To revise the thesis, the relationship between the two ideas needs to be made clearer. One way to revise the thesis statement would be to write:

Because the Internet is filled with tremendous marketing potential, companies should exploit this potential by using web pages that offer both advertising and customer support.

This is a strong thesis statement because it shows the relationship between two ideas. Hint: a great many clear and engaging thesis statements contain words like because, since, so, although, unless, and however.

A strong thesis statement is specific.

A strong thesis statement shows your reader exactly what your paper will be about. Making your thesis statement specific will also help you restrict your paper to a manageable subject. For example, if you’re writing a 7 to 10 page paper on hunger, you might say:

World hunger has many causes and effects.

This is a weak thesis statement for two major reasons.

First, world hunger can’t be discussed thoroughly in 7 to 10 pages. Second, many causes and effects is vague; you need to identify specific causes and effects. A revised thesis might look like this:

Hunger persists in Appalachia because jobs are scarce and farming in the infertile soil is rarely profitable.

This is a strong thesis because it narrows the subject to a more specific and manageable topic, and it also identifies some specific causes for the existence of hunger.

Philosophy homework help


Question:


Branches of philosophy


Which of the various branches and/or subdisciplines of philosophy do you find most appealing? Why?

Document Format:

   · 3 page minimum – 5 page maximum

   · File Type:  word doc or pdf

   · Must be typed, 12pt font, 1 inch margins, double-spaced

General and Structural Instructions:

Students are to provide a more detailed argument for a specific answer to one of the weekly discussion questions (Weeks 2 – 12).

I) Introductory Paragraph (3 to 7 sentences)

Student’s answer to one of the weekly discussion questions and a brief summary of the reasons that will be offered in support of that answer. For example, “I will argue that Descartes’ ‘dream argument’ is not convincing.  Briefly stated, the ‘dream argument’ is not convincing because reason i), reason ii), reason iii), etc.” 

II) Body paragraphs (2 to 4 pages)

Discussion of reason i) and any examples that help to clarify, support, etc., reason i).

Discussion of reason ii) and any examples that help to clarify, support, etc., reason ii).

Discussion of reason iii) and any examples that help to clarify, support, etc., reason iii).

Etc. 

III) Concluding Paragraph (3 to 7 sentences)

A past-tense restatement of the Introductory paragraph.  For example, “I have argued that Descartes’ ‘dream argument’ is not convincing.  We have seen that it was not convincing because reason i), reason ii), reason iii), etc.”

Philosophy homework help

Final Paper

Due May 10th at 11:59 p.m.

Write your final paper on one of the following prompts:

1) In Plato’s dialogue “Euthyphro,” Socrates asks Euthyphro what piety is. What is Euthyphro’s strongest response? Why does it fail to satisfy Socrates? Attempt to alter Euthyphro’s response or propose your own – can you give a definition of piety that satisfies Socrates’ requirements?

                Or

2) In “Phaedo,” Socrates does not seem to fear death- why is this the case? Why does Socrates claim that good Philosophers are more prepared for death? Do you think the pursuit of knowledge prepares one for death in the way he suggests? Is being prepared to die part of leading a worthwhile life?

                Or

3) In “Phaedo,” Socrates makes several arguments for the immortality of the soul. Pick one of these arguments and explain the argument and a strong objection to it. Is this argument convincing? Can it be defended against the objection? Why or why not?

                Or

4) You may also choose your own topic related to one of the Plato readings, provided that I approve of your chosen topic. Email me or see me during a writing workshop. 

You may use direct quotes from the text provided that they are short and cited. Please do not saturate your paper with quotations. If a quotation is more than 3 lines, summarize and cite. 

· Outside sources are allowed, provided they are cited. 

 

How it should be written:

· Make your stance/ argument clear in your introduction. This means your introduction should include a thesis statement. 

· This paper should be about 2-5 pages in double spaced 12pt Times New Roman font. Length is not as important as content.

· You must cite your source(s). Quotations should be short and cited. Again, please do not saturate your paper with quotations.

·  You may cite Chicago Style

 

Additional Info:

An “A” paper should fulfill the assignment requirements and be without any significant errors. Be as clear and concise as possible. Imagine your audience is a 10-year-old kid with a great vocabulary, explain any arguments and how they work fully in a way that would make sense to them.

Lower Grades will be earned if: the paper fails to fulfill the assignment, the paper is unclear or vague in places, the paper is saturated with quotations, the paper is formatted incorrectly, or if the paper contains significant (grammar/spelling) errors.

If the paper is late. Your grade will be lowered by one letter grade (or 10% of the highest possible score) for each day it is late. I stop counting off for lateness after 5 days.

Plagiarizing any part of the paper will earn the plagiarist an “F” on this assignment.

Philosophy homework help

COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS AT
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

John F. KENNEDY

President Kennedy spoke at American University’s Spring Commencement on June 10, 1963. In this speech Ken-
nedy called on the Soviet Union to work with the United States to achieve a nuclear test ban treaty and help
reduce the considerable international tensions and the specter of nuclear war at that time.

President Anderson, members of the faculty,
Board of Trustees, distinguished guests, my old
colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his
degree through many years of attending night law
school, while I am earning mine in the next 30
minutes, ladies and gentlemen.
It is with great pride that I participate in
this ceremony of the American University, spon-
sored by the Methodist Church, founded by
Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by
President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a
young and growing university, but it has already
fulfilled Bishop Hurst’s enlightened hope for the
study of history and public affairs in a city devoted
to the making of history and to the conduct of the
public’s business. By sponsoring this institution of
higher learning for all who wish to learn whatever
their color or their creed, the Methodists of this
area and the nation deserve the nation’s thanks,
and I commend all those who are today gradu-
ating.
Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that
every man sent out from a university should be a
man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and
I am confident that the men and women who carry
the honor of graduating from this institution will
continue to give from their lives, from their tal-
ents, a high measure of public service and public
support.
“There are few earthly things more beau-
tiful than a University,” wrote John Masefield, in
his tribute to the English Universities—and his
words are equally true here. He did not refer to
spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied
walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the Uni-
versity, he said, because it was “a place where
those who hate ignorance may strive to know,

where those who perceive truth may strive to
make others see.”
I have, therefore, chose this time and this
place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too
often abounds and the truth is to rarely per-
ceived—yet it is the most important topic on
earth: world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind
of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana en-
forced on the world by American weapons of war.
Not the peace of the grave or the security of the
slave. I am talking about genuine peace—the kind
of peace that makes life on earth worth living—the
kind that enables man and nations to grow and to
hope and to build a better life for their children—
not merely peace for Americans but peace for all
men and women—not merely peace in our time
but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face
of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when
great powers can maintain large and relatively in-
vulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender
without resort to those forces. It makes no sense
in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains
almost ten times the explosive force delivered by
all of the allied air forces in the Second World
War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly
poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be
carried by the wind and water and soil and seed to
the far corners of the globe and to generations un-
born.
Today the expenditure of billions of dol-
lars every year on weapons acquired for the pur-
pose of making sure we never need to use them is
essential to keeping the peace. But surely the ac-
quisition of such idle stockpiles—which can only
destroy and never create—is not the only, much
less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.

Commencement Address at American University

2

I speak of peace, therefore, as the neces-
sary rational end of rational men. I realize that the
pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit
of war—and frequently the words of the pursuer
fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace
or world law or world disarmament— and that it
will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union
adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do.
I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe
that we must re-examine our own attitude—as
individuals and as a Nation—for our attitude is as
essential as theirs. And every graduate of this
school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of
war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by
looking inward—by examining his own attitude
toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet
Union, toward the course of the Cold War and
toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward
peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible.
Too many of us think it is unreal. But that is a dan-
gerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion
that war is inevitable—that mankind is doomed—
that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our prob-
lems are manmade—therefore, they can be solved
by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No
problem of human destiny is beyond human be-
ings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the
seemingly unsolvable—and we believe they can do
it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite
concept of universal peace and good will of which
some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny
the values of hopes and dreams, but we merely in-
vite discouragement and incredulity by making
that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical,
more attainable peace—based not on a sudden
revolution in human nature but on a gradual evo-
lution in human institutions—on a series of con-
crete actions and effective agreements which are
in the interest of all concerned. There is no single,
simple key to this peace—no grand or magic for-
mula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine
peace must be the product of many nations, the

sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static,
changing to meet the challenge of each new gen-
eration. For peace is a process—a way of solving
problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quar-
rels and conflicting interests, as there are within
families and nations. World peace, like com-
munity peace, does not require that each man love
his neighbor—it requires only that they live to-
gether in mutual tolerance, submitting their dis-
putes to a just and peaceful settlement. And his-
tory teaches us that enmities between nations, as
between individuals, do not last forever. However
fixed our likes and dislikes may seem the tide of
time and events will often bring surprising
changes in the relations between nations and
neighbors.
So let us persevere. Peace need not be im-
practicable—and war need not be inevitable. By
defining our goal more clearly—by making it seem
more manageable and less remote—we can help
all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to
move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us re-examine our attitude to-
ward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think
that their leaders may actually believe what their
propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a re-
cent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy
and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and
incredible claims—such as the allegation that
“American imperialist circles are preparing to un-
leash different types of wars…that there is a very
real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by
American imperialists against the Soviet Un-
ion…(and that) the political aims of the American
imperialists are to enslave economically and polit-
ically the European and other capitalist coun-
tries…(and) to achieve world domination.”
Truly, as it was written long ago: “The
wicked flee when no man pursueth.” Yet it is sad
to read these Soviet statements—to realize the ex-
tent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warn-
ing—a warning to the American people not to fall
into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a
distorted and desperate view of the other side, not
to see conflict as inevitable, accommodations as

Commencement Address at American University

3

impossible and communication as nothing more
than an exchange of threats.
No government or social system is so evil
that its people must be considered as lacking in
virtue. As Americans, we find communism pro-
foundly repugnant as a negation of personal free-
dom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian
people for their many achievements—in science
and space, in economic and industrial growth, in
culture and in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our
two countries have in common, none is stronger
than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost
unique, among the major world powers, we have
never been at war with each other. And no nation
in the history of battle ever suffered more than the
Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second
World War. At least 20 million lost their lives.
Countless millions of homes and farms were
burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory,
including nearly two thirds of its industrial base,
was turned into a wasteland—a loss equivalent to
the devastation of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out
again—no matter how—our two countries would
become the primary targets. It is an ironical but
accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the
two in the most danger of devastation. All we have
built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed
in the first 24 hours. And even in the Cold War,
which brings burdens and dangers to so many
countries, including this Nation’s closest allies—
our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For
we are both devoting massive sums of money to
weapons that could be better devoted to com-
bating ignorance, poverty and disease. We are
both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in
which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on
the other, and new weapons beget counterweap-
ons.
In short, both the United States and its al-
lies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a
mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace
and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this
end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well
as ours—and even the most hostile nations can be
relied upon to accept and keep those treaty

obligations, and only those treaty obligations,
which are in their own interest.
So, let us not be blind to our differences—
but let us also direct attention to our common in-
terests and to means by which those differences
can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our dif-
ferences, at least we can help make the world safe
for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most
basic common link is that we all inhabit this
planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish
our children’s future. And we are all mortal.
Third: Let us re-examine our attitude to-
ward the Cold War, remembering that we are not
engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating
points. We are not here distributing blame or
pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal
with the world as it is, and not as it might have
been had history of the last eighteen years been
different.
We must, therefore, persevere in the
search for peace in the hope that constructive
changes within the Communist bloc might bring
within reach solutions which now seem beyond
us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that
it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree
on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our
vital interest, nuclear powers must avert those
confrontations which bring an adversary to a
choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear
war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear
age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of
our policy—or of a collective death-wish for the
world.
To secure these ends, America’s weapons
are non-provocative, carefully controlled, de-
signed to deter and capable of selective use. Our
military forces are committed to peace and disci-
plines in self-restraint. Our diplomats are in-
structed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely
rhetorical hostility.
For we can seek a relaxation of tensions
without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we
do not need to use threats to prove that we are res-
olute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts
out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwill-
ing to impose our system on any unwilling peo-

Commencement Address at American University

4

ple—but we are willing and able to engage in
peaceful competition with any people on earth.
Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the
United Nations, to help solve its financial prob-
lems, to make it a more effective instrument of
peace, to develop it into a genuine world security
system—a system capable of resolving disputes on
the basis of law, of insuring the security of the
large and the small, and of creating conditions un-
der which arms can finally be abolished.
At the same time, we seek to keep peace
inside the non-communist world, where many
nations, all of them our friends, are divided over
issues which weaken western unity, which invite
communist intervention or which threaten to
erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea,
in the Congo, in the Middle East and in the Indian
subcontinent, have been persistent and patient
despite criticism from both sides. We have also
tried to set an example for others—by seeking to
adjust small but significant differences with our
own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make
one point clear. We are bound to many nations by
alliances. These alliances exist because our con-
cern and theirs substantially overlap. Our com-
mitment to defend Western Europe and West Ber-
lin, for example, stands undiminished because of
the identity of our vital interests. The United
States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at
the expense of other nations and other peoples,
not merely because they are our partners, but also
because their interests and ours converge. Our
interests converge, however, not only in de-
fending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing
the paths of peace. It is our hope—and the pur-
pose of Allied policies—to convince the Soviet Un-
ion that she, too, should let each nation choose its
own future, so long as that choice does not inter-
fere with the choices of others. The communist
drive to impose their political and economic sys-
tem on others is the primary cause of world ten-
sion today. For there can be no doubt that if all
nations could refrain from interfering in the self-
determination of others, then peace would be
much more assured.

This will require a new effort to achieve
world law—a new context for world discussions. It
will require increased understanding between the
Soviets and ourselves. And increased understand-
ing will require increased contact and communi-
cations. One step in this direction is the proposed
arrangement for a direct line between Moscow
and Washington, to avoid on each side the dan-
gerous delays, misunderstandings, and misread-
ings of the other’s actions which might occur at a
time of crisis.
We have also been talking in Geneva
about other first-step measures of arms control,
designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and
to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary
long-range interest in Geneva, however, is general
and complete disarmament—designed to take
place by stages, permitting parallel political devel-
opments to build the new institutions of peace
which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of
disarmament has been an effort of this Govern-
ment since the 1920’s. It has been urgently sought
by the past three Administrations. And however
dim the prospects may be today, we intend to con-
tinue this effort—to continue it in order that all
countries, including our own, can better grasp
what the problems and possibilities of disarma-
ment are.
The one major area of these negotiations
where the end is in sight—yet where a fresh start
is badly needed—is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear
tests. The conclusion of such a treaty—so near and
yet so far—would check the spiraling arms race in
one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the
nuclear powers in a position to deal more effec-
tively with one of the greatest hazards which man
faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It
would increase our security—it would decrease
the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently
important to require our steady pursuit, yielding
neither to the temptation to give up the whole ef-
fort nor the temptation to give up our insistence
on vital and responsible safeguards.
I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to
announce two important decisions in this regard.
First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister
Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level

Commencement Address at American University

5

discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking
toward early agreement on a comprehensive test
ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the
caution of history—but with our hopes go the
hopes of all mankind.
Second: To make clear our good faith and
solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare
that the United States does not propose to con-
duct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as
other states do not do so. We will not be the first
to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for
a formal binding treaty—but I hope it will help us
achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substi-
tute for disarmament—but I hope it will help us
achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us exam-
ine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at
home. The quality and spirit of our own society
must justify and support our efforts abroad. We
must show it in the dedication of our own lives—
as many of you who are graduating today will have
a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay
in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed Na-
tional Service Corps here at home.
But wherever we are, we must all, in our
daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace
and freedom walk together. In too many of our du-
ties today, peace is not secure because freedom is
incomplete.
It is the responsibility of the Executive
Branch at all levels of government—local, state
and national—to provide and protect that free-
dom for all of our citizens by all means within their
authority. It is the responsibility of the Legislative
Branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not
now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the
responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this
country to respect the rights of all others and to
respect the law of the land.
All this is not unrelated to world peace.
“When a man’s ways please the Lord,” the
Scriptures tell us, “he maketh even his enemies to
be at peace with him.” And is not peace, in the last
analysis, basically a matter of human rights—the
right to live out our lives without fear of
devastation—the right to breathe air as nature

provided it—the right of future generations to a
healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our na-
tional interests, let us also safeguard human
interests. And the elimination of war and arms is
clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however
much it may be to the advantage of all, however
tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute
security against the risks of deception and evasion.
But it can—if it is sufficiently effective in its
enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests
of its signers—offer far more security and far fewer
risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpre-
dictable arms race.
The United States, as the world knows,
will never start a war. We do not want a war. We
do not now expect a war. This generation of Amer-
icans has already had enough—more than
enough—of war and hate and oppression. We
shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert
to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to
build a world of peace where the weak are safe and
the strong are just. We are not helpless before that
task or hopeless of its success. Confident and un-
afraid, we labor on—not toward a strategy of an-
nihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

Philosophy homework help

Abortion (part II): some philosophical arguments against abortion (review).  

Three possible stances on abortion in the philosophical literature:

(1) The extreme conservative view (anti-abortionists, pro-life activists): Human personhood begins right at conception.  Abortion is, by definition, homicide.

(2) The extreme liberal view:

Human personhood begins immediately after birth or a bit later (Singer).  Abortions are permissible up until the point when personhood begins.    
Singer: 28 days after birth
Singer states, “‘the location of a being — inside or outside the 
Womb — should not make that much difference to the wrongness of killing it.’”

(3) The moderate view:

There is a morally relevant break in the biological process of development – between conception and birth.  A line can be drawn where life begins, and this line is after conception and before birth.  Abortion is o.k. if it occurs before this line.  

Arguments against abortion:

Last time we looked at various philosophical arguments in favor of abortion. This time we will look at arguments against.

The main argument against abortion in the philosophical literature is,

The “Standard Argument”

1.  The killing of a human being is prohibited.
2.  A fetus is a human being.
3.  The killing of a fetus is prohibited.

There are some possible problems with the argument. For example, there might be cases in which it is not prohibited to kill someone…self-defense? But one could just alter the argument to the following to overcome that objection:

1.  The killing of an innocent human being is prohibited.
2.  A fetus is an innocent human being.
3.  The killing of a fetus is prohibited.

I have some more to say about the argument in a minute, but first, what do you think of this argument?

A problem with this argument is that it might be fallacious. A common fallacy is called “begging the question.” The phrase “begging the question” is sometimes used to mean something like, “raises the question.” But it does not mean that in logic. It means: to assume the very thing you are trying to prove. If you are trying to prove x, but your argument assumes that x is true, your argument will not be persuasive.

The standard argument might “beg the question.”

Many pro-abortion people deny that a fetus is a human being.  They deny premise (2).  Whether or not a fetus is a human being is precisely what’s at issue. Most agree that if a fetus is a human being, abortion would be wrong. So abortion defenders will not be convinced by this argument, and it assumes exactly what is it issue in the debate.

We are basically back where we started.  

A lot people think we need to figure out where human personhood begins to resolve this issue.  At what point in the development of a fetus can you say, “Aha, there’s a person there now?”

Some (e.g., the Catholic church at one time) have pointed to the first movement of the fetus as the point where the “breathing of life” into the human body occurs.  

But this is problematic.  

The real first movement of the fetus is somewhere between the 6th and 9th week. 
At this point, the fetus is still very different from a human being some will argue.  
Plus, some people cannot move?  Does this mean they aren’t people?  
It doesn’t seem like movement is all that relevant in deciding if something is a person.  

So again, where do you draw the line?
Of course, the extreme conservative view draws it at conception.  

And sometimes the difficulty of figuring out where the line should be drawn is used to formulate an argument against abortion.  

Argument Two:

1. The biological development of the fetus to become a human being is an incremental process that leaves no room for a morally significant break.  Any break would be arbitrary, because you could always pick a different place to draw the line.

1. So, to be safe, we should draw the line at conception.  That way, we don’t have to make an arbitrary choice.

1. But then, abortion should not be allowed.  

What do you think of this argument?

This argument can be challenged: e.g., red to orange.
Acorn to oak.  

Here’s a third argument against abortion.  


Some say that the fetus will potentially develop to become a human being, so a fetus has the same rights as a human being. 


(1) A fetus is a potential human being.
(2) Human beings have the right to life.
(3) So a fetus has the potential to the right to life.
(4) So a fetus has the right to life.  

What do we think of this argument?

This is problematic though.  
Joel Feinberg: “Potentiality, Development, and Rights”

Actual rights cannot be derived from potential rights.  

If person X is President of the USA and thus is Commander in Chief of the army, then person X had the potential ability to become the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of the army in the years before his election. 

But, it does not follow that: The person X has the authority to command the army as potential President of the USA.


The moral here: just because something has the potential to have rights, it might not have them yet.  Just because a fetus has the potential to have the right to live, it might not have it at a given stage of development.
  

Here is a fourth argument I’ve heard thrown around before:

(1) You never know when someone will be extraordinary (the person who will cure cancer etc).
(2) These sorts of people are too valuable to lose to abortion.
(3) So we should stop abortion.

What do we think of this?

Argument Five:

John Noonan. “An Almost Absolute Value in History” (1970).

“The commandment could be put in humanistic as well as theological terms: do not injure your fellow man without reasons. In these terms, once the humanity of the fetus is perceived, abortion is never right except in self-defense” (Noonan)

1. It is morally wrong to injure another person unless it is done to save a life.
2. A fetus is a person.
3. Therefore, it is morally wrong to injure a fetus unless it is done to save a life.
4. If it is morally wrong to injure a fetus unless it is done to save a life, then abortion is morally wrong unless it is required to save the life of the mother.
5. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong unless it is required to save the life of the mother.

What about this argument?

Philosophy homework help

1

Jenny Student

CCCOnline, PHI 214

Spring, 2010: Essay Unit 1

According to Chapter 1, what is the difference between reflective and unreflective
engagement on the matter of religious questions? How does this question help to further

distinguish between religious “believers” and “non-believers”? Is the distinction useful?
Why or why not?

Genuine philosophical discussion requires a willingness to consider and engage

perspectives that may be different from our own. When the topic of God arises in conversation, it

can become challenging to keep this goal in mind, since theists and non-theists alike can become

dogmatic in their positions, and unwilling to engage the matter philosophically. However, it is

necessary to make a distinction between reflective and unreflective engagement. The difference

between reflective and unreflective engagement on religious questions is one of a willingness to

participate in philosophical inquiry, of taking the beliefs that one has and holding them up for

critical examination. The usefulness of the distinction is this: Two individuals may have radically

different views about whether or not God exists, but if they share in a willingness to practice

reflective engagement, then the potential also exists for genuine philosophical discussion and

mutually respectful participation in matters that are of “absolute concern.”

Reflective reason is absolutely essential when we wish to engage in the study of the

philosophy of religion, since reflective reason is central to the study of philosophy.

There is not much of a distinction between reflective believers and reflective non-believers

because they are both are open to scrutinizing their belief systems, and are willing to hold those

beliefs up to scrutiny by others. In order to engage in philosophy of religion or on any other

topic in philosophy, we must be able to systematically and thoroughly examine our arguments

and be able to give rational accounts for their ideas and/or beliefs. As Peterson, et al. point out:

Comment [EMH1]: You are encouraged to put
your name, course, term, and assignment at the top

of your work so that if I need to print it out, I can
quickly and correctly identify you as the author.

Comment [EMH2]: Be sure to always print the
question you are answering at the top of your essay
so that I know which question you are attempting to

answer and whether or not you have answered it

completely.

Notice that this question has two components: a) a

factual element, in which you are meant to explain
content that you have read, and b) an open-ended

evaluative component, in which you are invited to

argue for your own view.

Comment [EMH3]: This first paragraph as a
whole does two things: 1) It provides a concise
answer to part a) of the question (the content of the

reading), and 2) It provides a thesis statement. Note

that Jenny only summarizes her answer to the
question, doing so in such a way as to provide a brief

summary of how she is going to answer the question
in the essay that follows.

Comment [EMH4]: This final sentence
effectively provides the “thesis statement” that are

required for all your essays. A thesis statement
should be evaluative (i.e., it should express your

judgment), and critical (in the sense that make a

claim that needs to be defended).

2

Philosophy is preeminently an enterprise of reflective reason, which seeks to get

beyond superficial approaches to important issues. It seeks to look responsibly at

all relevant arguments, clarify key ideas, and carefully trace out implications of

beliefs. Accordingly, we are interested here in how things look “upon reflection”

(Peterson, et al., Reason and Religious Belief, p. 11)

This does not mean agreement can be reached, but it does mean that the reflective believers and

reflective non-believers can engage in a discussion wherein they seek consistency for their

beliefs. Reflective believers and reflective non-believers are able to set aside their prejudices and

engage in meaningful discussion with those of opposing beliefs.

Non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers are not interested in having a

philosophical thought process regarding their belief system. They believe what they believe

because of a myriad of reasons, whether they grew up in a culture of belief or non-belief, and

believe what they have been told; or whether they are happy not to reflect upon their belief, are

secure and happy in their belief, and need no additional thinking upon the subject, therefore no

thought process has entered into their decision. They believe and that is that! Again, as Peterson,

et al. observe:

Clearly, many people have not seriously pondered the important questions related

to the coherence, plausibility, and truth of theism, and yet they have decided

either to accept or reject a theistic orientation. Some say that they just believe in

an all-powerful and all-good God, or that prayer is valid, or that miracles happen.

Comment [EMH5]: Take note of how Jenny
makes sure to indent her block quotes, which are
quotations that are longer that four lines on a page,

and require no quotation marks. Furthermore, note

also Jenny‟s method for citing the source, we call it
„in-line” citation, (author(s), title, and page number),

which makes it unnecessary to use footnotes. You

may use any style of formatting you wish, so long as
it remains consistent throughout your paper.

3

. . . Others claims that they do not believe in God or that prayer is pointless, or

that the idea of miracles seems silly (ibid).

What both non-reflective believers and unreflective non-believers is that any contrarian view,

whether it is the claims of theism or atheism, “is the end of the matter for them” (ibid) Non-

reflective believers and non-believers are of no use to any involved in a healthy discussion or

debate on belief and non-belief. They are not of any use because of the nature itself of non-

reflection. Non-reflection implies, and in fact, is, a state of mind in which there is no critical

analysis of any idea pertaining to their belief or non-belief, which leaves little room for

philosophical engagement.

There are many reflective believers who look for and seek to give rational reasons for

their belief in God. For example, may reflective believers understand that proof of their belief in

God‟s existence is not obvious; and they cannot point to anything physical in the real world and

say with certainty that this thing is God. Language is also problematic in terms of describing

mystical “God” experiences. If the experience is “other-worldly” (as is often claimed in mystical

experiences), and because God is an all-knowing being that we cannot comprehend within our

limited human mind, it naturally falls to reason that our language is insufficient to describe God

or the experience of God. The experiences of St Teresa of Avila, for her, simply cannot be

mediated through spoken language—they are “ineffable” (Peterson, et al., Reason, p. 19). God

is unequivocally something that is “other” than our reality, so by its nature, proof of God is an

oxymoron. In addition, because language is a difficulty in describing God the inability to

adequately describe experiences is a hindrance in and of itself to use as a proof of God/belief.

Reflective non-believers, however, will take the fact that proof of God is non-existent, and

Comment [EMH6]: Here, Jenny is clearly
referring to the same page she had already quoted

above.

Comment [EMH7]: Note that this is the same
text that was already cited, but the title has been
abbreviated to distinguish it from the anthology

which she will use later in her essay.

4

therefore conclude that there is no God. They are using what Michael Martin has termed the

“Negative Principle of Credulity” which states that if it seems that there is no proof, then

probably there is no proof; ergo, no God (Michael Martin, “Critique of Religious Experience,” in

Peterson, et al. eds., Philosophy of Religion, 4/e p. 75f).

Before entering into another person about religious claims, it is useful to know whether

they are non-reflective believers or non-reflective non-believers. This can be accomplished

through asking a few questions, and seeing how dogmatically they hold to their opinions, and are

open to rational discussion about alternatives. Once this knowledge is established, it will be

known that they are not willing or able to have their beliefs scrutinized, whether their beliefs are

one of non-belief in a God or belief in a God is secondary to the main point of reflection. This

entails a willingness to set aside pre-conceived dogma and/or notions we have of the believer or

non-believer. However, it also entails the ability to set aside our own preconceptions in order to

engage healthily in our reflection—that is, to have a meaningful conversation. As Peterson, et

al., point out:

The instant a believer makes some sort of claim of faith, some statement about her

relation to the God she worships, she has automatically entered the arena of

rational discussion and dialogue. Likewise, anytime someone denies some

particular religious belief or rejects all religious beliefs generally, that stance is

also open to rational evaluation and discussion. Wittingly or unwittingly, the

believer as well as the non-believer has stated some intellectual beliefs, has

uttered truth-claims that are subject to being criticized as well as defended

(Peterson, et al, Reason, p. 10).

Comment [EMH8]: Note, that this is the second
text that she has cited; also, note that she has
included the author name, title of the chapter/article,

and then the editors names, title, page number.

Comment [EMH9]: Note that now that Jenny has
discussed and developed her answer to the “content”
part of her essay, she is making a transition to the

evaluative part of her essay, which (for this essay), is

about the usefulness of the distinction between
“reflective” and “unreflective” engagement.

Note also that this paragraph is the first of two
reasons she gives to justify her thesis statement.

5

Meaningful discussion about religious truth claims and whether or not they are “candidates for

acceptance” can only be accomplished with reflective believers and reflective non-believers.

The harmfulness of the perspectives of the non-reflective believer and non-reflective non-

believer becomes apparent when they are unwilling or unable to engage in meaningful discourse

for understanding. When people are of the non-reflective mind-set, a “hardness” sets in, and

people become set in their way of thinking. This way of thinking often leads to a development

of the idea of an “other.” Once people develop an idea of the “other,” it is very easy to demonize

the “other.” If the non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers are unwilling to

open their ideas to reflection and thought processes, there is a tendency of unwillingness to

accept the fact that there is even another way of believing.

The usefulness of the distinction between reflective and non-reflective individuals can be

seen in a second way, namely that it provides an opportunity for reflective believers or non-

believers to show the value of reflective engagement. They provide us an example of why we

must be vigilant, and prevent non-reflective individuals from creating “mayhem,” in their

unwillingness to engage in addition, understand other viewpoints (and „mayhem‟ for our

purposes will be defined as “policies, actions and words to demonize others”). Therefore, both

non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers provide us useful examples of how to

not engage in philosophical discussion about religious belief. On the other hand, they also

provide us opportunities to demonstrate the value of having meaningful discussions and

philosophical debate between other “like-minds” (like-mindedness in regard to reflectivity, not

necessarily in regard to belief or non-belief).

Comment [EMH10]: In all probability, Jenny
would have been fine if she had provided only her
first reason for considering the distinction mention in

the question as “useful,” but she provides a second

reason for its usefulness, demonstrating to me that
she has indeed thought heavily and critically about

this distinction.

6

In conclusion, the differences between reflective and non-reflective are greater than the

differences between belief and non-belief, whether reflective or non-reflective. The usefulness of

reflective believers and reflective non-believers are of importance to us regarding meaningful

discourse and philosophical debate. There is also a paradoxical usefulness to non-reflective

believers and non-reflective non-believers, in the fact that they are both non-useful to us in

discussion and philosophical debate, and at the same time useful to us in order that we can try to

engage with the non-reflective among us.

Comment [EMH11]: Jenny does not have to use
the term, “in conclusion,” it is already apparent by
the content of this paragraph, and its place at the end

of the essay that she takes it to be the conclusion.

7

Bibliography

Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Reason &

Religious Belief, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, 4/e, New York: Oxford

University Press, 2003.

Peterson, Michael, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger, Philosophy of

Religion: Selected Readings, 4/e, New York: Oxford University Press 2010.

Word Count: 1,595

Comment [EMH12]: Notice the method that
Jenny has used in providing the (requisite)
bibliography. She has included the full names of the

editors to the texts that she has used, but listing last

name first, for only the first name. She only includes
the textual information, and not the page numbers.

Philosophy homework help


University of South Carolina COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORK Traditional (TRAD) Course

SOWK 777: Advanced Theory for Social Work Practice

Health & Mental Health (3 Credits)

Instructor: Katherine H. Leith, Ph.D., LMSW

E-MAIL:

leith@sc.edu

Office Location: Discovery I

915 Greene Street, Room 510 (visitors must be swiped in, so you’ll have to call in advance or make an appointment :o)

Phone: 803.777.6013

Class Session Day and Time: Saturdays, 11:40 AM – 2:30 PM, Section 0P1: TRAD (face to face) delivery

Office hours for Spring 2022: virtual or in-person, by appointment

E-mail is the best way to contact me. I generally respond within 48 hours. Please state your name and the course number in the subject line of your message, so that I can respond quickly and accurately.

BULLETIN DESCRIPTION

A theoretical background for specialized advanced social work practice incorporating social and behavioral science as a framework for analyzing evidence-based approaches for social work interventions.

COURSE DESCRIPTION

This is the required theory course for social work students concentrating in health and mental health. This 3-hour course provides the context for health and mental health practice, focusing on the theories of practice and human and organizational behavior, as applied to this advanced area of practice. This course presents fundamentals of social and behavioral science as a framework for using evidence-based approaches in addressing issues relevant to health and mental health. Students will learn the determinants of challenges and problems in health and mental health, and theoretical approaches to guide the design and evaluation of interventions in health and mental health. The impact of differences in ability, age, class, color, culture, ethnicity, family structure, gender (including gender identity and gender expression) marital status, national origin, race, religion or spirituality, sex, and sexual orientation will be examined, as these relate to various health and mental health practices, policies and services.

PREREQUISITES

Full-time and Part-time Programs: SOWK 712, SOWK 714, SOWK 716, SOWK 781, SOWK 791

Advanced Standing Program: None

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Students who successfully complete this course will be able to:

1. Identify selected principles and concepts of health and mental health behavior theories and models that are used in social work research and practice. (2.1.3; 2.1.6; 2.1.7)

2. Understand, evaluate and apply major theories relevant to health and mental health that explain how and why groups, institutions, communities and societies function as they do. (2.1.3; 2.1.7; 2.1.9)

3. Demonstrate advanced knowledge of social and behavioral theories across social systems relevant to health and mental health. (2.1.7)

4. Apply theory and knowledge about social systems and social problems to inform thinking about social work community practice, and the programs and policies aimed at ameliorating social problems. (2.1.2; 2.1.3, 2.1.7, 2.1.9)

5. Differentially apply social and behavioral theories to social work practice across social systems relevant to health and mental health. (2.1.1; 2.1.3; 2.1.7; 2.1.9)

All learning outcomes in this Distributed Learning course are equivalent to face-to-face (F2F) version of this course.

EPAS COMPETENCIES

Social Work Core Competencies

Practice Behaviors

Assignments

2.1.1

Identify as a professional social worker and conduct oneself accordingly

Demonstrate professional identity as a reflective and reflexive advanced practitioner.

1, 3

Actively seek supervision to improve as a social worker and continual learner.

1

Acknowledge areas in need of growth and strive to improve all areas of professional development through consultation and supervision.

1, 2, 3

2.1.2

Apply social work ethical principles to guide professional practice.

Demonstrate the ability to independently assess and resolve ethical dilemmas consistent with the NASW Code of Ethics.

2, 3

Make value-based professional judgments that address and resolve personal and professional conflicts and ambiguities.

2, 3

2.1.3

Apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments.

Differentially select and implement strategies for assessment and intervention across client systems.

1

Produce practice-ready presentations and documents.

2

Demonstrate critical thinking skills.

1, 2, 3

2.1.6

Engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.

Critically apply research evidence to inform and improve practice.

2, 3

2.1.7

Apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment (HBSE).

Demonstrate advanced knowledge of social and behavioral theories across social systems.

2, 3

Differentially apply social and behavioral theories to social work practice across social systems.

2, 3

2.1.9

Respond to contexts that shape practice.

Understand organizational climate and culture across client systems in a specialized advanced practice area.

2, 3

REQUIRED TEXTBOOKS

Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. &Viswanath, K. (Eds.) (2015). Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. (5th Edition). Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-1-118-62898-0

Sommers-Flanagan, J. & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2018). Counseling and psychotherapy theories in context and practice: Skills, strategies, and techniques. (3rd Edition). Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-119-47331-2

Both textbooks are available to read online for free through the University Libraries. Reading online is free and unlimited, and you also have the option to download up to 60 pages in PDF format. There is a video in the “About this Course” Blackboard folder explaining how to access these books in the university library. If you prefer, you can purchase both texts in the University Bookstore.

OTHER REQUIRED READINGS

In addition to the required textbooks, classes have assigned readings (see module schedule). These will be made available to you in blackboard in the relevant course module.

STUDENT SUPPORT

You and your loved ones’ safety and wellbeing are more important than anything going on in class. This is true more than ever with COVID-19. Please feel free to reach out to me if you need to talk or need course accommodations. Any student who faces challenges securing their food or housing is urged to contact the Assistant Dean for Students for support. Furthermore, please notify me if you are comfortable in doing so. The Gamecock Pantry also provides access to food and toiletries in a free and confidential way to members of the Carolina community. In addition, the University of South Carolina has student resources for Mental Health and Emotional Well-being.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

Course Format


This course is delivered face to face in a traditional classroom setting
. Students are expected to be prepared to discuss all assigned readings and to be active discussants in class. Various methods of instruction will be

used including mini-lectures, seminar discussion, small group discussions, in-class exercises, class

presentations, video and internet content, and possible guest speakers.

It may be necessary at times, and because of unforeseen circumstances to change a face-to-face class session to a live stream or prerecorded session. The instructor will notify students at least 48 hours in advance and in case of a prerecorded session, make the recording available on the day/time of the regularly scheduled session. In such cases, or if students are absent from a live streamed session, they are expected to provide a

2-page summary of the recording within 72 hours.

Course Communication

I will be communicating with you regarding grades and assignments. If you need to get in touch with me, the best method is via email. Generally, I will reply to emails within 24 hours and will provide feedback on

assignments within 48 hours. You may also post questions pertaining to the course on the Blackboard

Discussion Board. These questions will be answered within 24 hours.

If you are having trouble with this course or its material, you should contact me via email to discuss the issues.

Announcements will be posted to this course whenever necessary. If there is any other information that I think is important, I will send it to your email address you have in Blackboard. If you primarily use another email account, you should make sure that the Blackboard account is linked to that address. It is your responsibility to ensure that your email accounts work properly in order to receive mail.

Please be sure that the email you check regularly is set in Blackboard:

 Click on the My USC tab along the top of the page in Blackboard.

 In the Tools module, click on “Personal Information.”

 Click on “Edit Personal Information.”

 Scroll down to the listing for Email.

 In the box will be listed what Blackboard has as your email address. If you wish to change it, delete the email address in the box and type in the email address you want to use.

 Click on the Submit button at the top or bottom of the page.

Technology Requirements

If you are attending this class online, you will view the class through Blackboard Collaborate Ultra. Therefore, you must have access to the Internet to view/hear lectures. No special software is required.

SOWK 777 H/MH

Spring 2022

Last Edit: 02/09/2022

28

The PowerPoint slides, links to articles, assignments, and rubrics are located on the Blackboard site for the course. To participate in learning activities and complete assignments, you will need:

 Access to a working computer that has a current operating system with updates installed, plus speakers or headphones to hear lecture presentations;

 Reliable Internet access and a USC email account;

 A current Internet browser that is compatible with Blackboard (
Google Chrome is the recommended browser for Blackboard
);

 Microsoft Word as your word processing program; and

Reliable data storage for your work, such as a USB drive or Office365 OneDrive cloud storage

If your computer does not have Microsoft Word, Office 365 ProPlus package is available to you free of charge and allows you to install Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, OneNote, Publisher, and Access on up to 5 PCs or Macs and Office apps on other mobile devices including tablets. Office 365 also includes unlimited cloud storage on OneDrive. To download Office 365 ProPlus, log into your student (University) email through a web browser, choose Settings (top right corner), and select software. If you have further questions or need help with the software, please contact the Service Desk.

Minimal Technical Skills Needed

Minimal technical skills are needed in this course. All work in this course must be completed and submitted online through Blackboard. Therefore, you must have consistent and reliable access to a computer and the Internet. The minimal technical skills you have include the ability to:

 Organize and save electronic files;

 Use USC email and attached files;

 Check email and Blackboard daily;

 Download and upload documents;

 Locate information with a browser; and

 Use Blackboard.

Technical Support

DoIT is providing 24/7 support for Blackboard users across the UofSC system. Technicians will be able to assist with a wide range of Blackboard-related issues, including basic use, how to post and complete

assignments, and how to use academic integrity tools such as Safe Assign.

Anyone, from any campus, in need of Blackboard support should call the Division of Information Technology Service Desk at 803-777-1800 and follow the prompts. Assistance with Blackboard is available anytime throughout the day, night, or weekend. The Service Desk can assist with other support issues Monday to Friday from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

COURSE ASSIGNMENTS


Assignment 1: Personal reflection paper on client capacity to change behavior (30 points)

In this paper, students will evaluate their own values and beliefs related to individuals’ ability to change. It is important for social workers to be aware of the assumptions, biases, beliefs about the causes of the difficulties people experience in life that bring them to the care of social workers, as well as what their motivations and capacities are for change.

In order to begin to identify these assumptions, biases, and beliefs, consider the following circumstances (these are simply examples that you may consider to jumpstart your thinking about the topic):

A. People who refuse to wear a mask during COVID-19 when they are near other people.

B. Clients with mental illnesses not taking their psychotropic medications as prescribed.

C. Clients not showing up for scheduled appointments.

D. Older adults not getting flu shots as recommended.

E. Diabetic patients not following recommended diet recommendations.

Think about situations in your own personal/professional life that may be similar to those above. Discuss the questions below in your paper:

1. Describe a health/mental health behavior of your choice (it can be one of the examples above or a different one you choose).

2. What do you think contributes to people’s decisions behind this behavior?

3. In general, what are your beliefs about people’s ability to change their health and mental health behaviors?

4. Under what conditions do you think people change? What activates or motivates the process from your perspective?

5. What motivates people to take action on behalf of their own health and mental health?

6. What role do different levels of analyses (intrapersonal, interpersonal, familial, social, and environmental) play in client/patient change?

7. How hopeful are you that people can change the health/mental health behavior you chose?

This Assignment is due on Saturday, 02/05 by 11:59 PM in Blackboard, should be 3-5 double-spaced pages, and is worth 30% of your final grade. Late submission incurs a 10% penalty (3 points off for each week it is late).

You do not need to include outside references for this paper. All papers are expected to be written in proper APA essay format (i.e. introduction with thesis statement, body, APA citations if appropriate [not required], and conclusion).

Students will be assessed using the following criteria for Assignment 1:

Assignment # 1 Criteria

(point value)

F to D

C to C+

B to B+

A

Identifies and evaluates personal assumptions, values, beliefs and biases related to individuals’ ability to change

(7 points)

No effort

Some effort

Good effort

Excellent effort

Discusses thoughts about what motivates people to change

(7 points)

No effort

Some effort

Good effort

Excellent effort

Discusses how various levels of analysis (intrapersonal, interpersonal, familial, social, and environmental) play a part in client / patient change

(5 points)

No effort

Some effort

Good effort

Excellent effort

Discusses thoughts on hope for recovery for clients / patients

(8 points)

No effort

Some effort

Good effort

Excellent effort

Style of writing is clear, follows APA format (intro / body / conclusion) and demonstrates critical thinking and analysis

(3 points)

No effort

Some effort

Good effort

Excellent effort

Late submission incurs a 10% penalty (3 points off for each week it is late).


Assignment 2 Parts 1 & 2: Reviewing the Literature: Connecting Theory to Practice and Ethics (40 points)

In this assignment, pick a health or mental health behavior or issue of your choice (you can use the same one from Assignment 1) and explore the literature related to theories that have been used/could be used to understand the behavior/issue as well as guide practice interventions related to it. Also consider how theory fits with social work ethics. In this assignment, you must examine at least
4 scholarly sources
(peer-reviewed journal articles, you can use recommended readings from this course if you choose) to address the following:

1. A brief overview of the chosen behavior/issue

a. Discuss why you chose this particular behavior/issue

b. How does theory help you conceptualize/understand this behavior? Pick a theory and explain how this theory is relevant/can be used to explain this behavior/issue. You can use a theory we discuss in this class.

2. An analysis of the literature you searched [scholarly sources] related to your chosen health or mental health behavior/issue. NOTE: do not simply summarize or report on the articles, instead, analyze the literature

a. What did the authors conclude? Where did they agree (find similar findings/make similar arguments) or disagree (find different results/make different arguments)?

3. Link to social work practice and ethical considerations, including:

a. Is the theory you identified in 1b above a good fit for social work?

b. What are the limitations of this theory for understanding how to effectively intervene with clients? What are the strengths of it?

i. How is the theory relevant as it relates to individuals, families, groups, organizations, communities and societies? (Different theories may be better suited to either micro or macro work.)

ii. Consider social work ethical implications (cite specific “Ethical Standards” of the NASW Code of Ethics, 2017
https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
) related to working with your chosen population or issue:

1. Think about issues of vulnerability, diversity and privilege when you answer this, particularly related to: differences in ability, age, class, color, culture, ethnicity, family structure, gender (including gender identity and gender expression) marital status, national origin, race, religion or spirituality, sex, and sexual orientation.

PART 1

Part 1 of this assignment is an outline that contains the following information in bulleted form:

· Stated health or mental-health issue to be addressed (.5 point)

· Identified theory to be used in Part 2 (.5 point)

· List of ethical standards from the Code of Ethics that seem relevant to the issue (1 point)

· Reference list of 4 scholarly articles, in APA format (8 points)

This one-page outline is due by Friday March 19 at 11:59 PM in Blackboard and is worth 10% of your final grade. Late submission incurs a 10% penalty (1 point off for each day it is late).

PART 2

Part 2 of this assignment is your choice of format- a paper, recorded presentation, or any creative format such as a YouTube video, podcast, Wikipedia article, or other format. The format is up to you- as long as you cover all of the content in all of the sections 1-3 of this assignment. This assignment must be uploaded in Blackboard in the relevant assignment section.

· Regardless of the format, this assignment is due April 9 by 11:59 PM in Blackboard and is worth 30 points of your final grade.

· If you decide to write a paper, it should be no shorter than 7 and no longer than 10 pages double-spaced.

· If you decide to do a recorded presentation, it should be no longer than seven minutes long. You can do a recorded Power Point presentation (upload the recorded Power Point in Blackboard- it has to have you talking over it, not just the Power Point), upload a presentation to YouTube (just put the link to the YouTube presentation in Blackboard- it can be you narrating a Power Point or you presenting with no Power Point) or do a recorded presentation in Prezi (just put the link to the Prezi presentation in Blackboard). Many students find Prezi an easy to use to do this.

· If you decide to cover the assignment items through a podcast, Wikipedia article, or other creative format, please link the final product in Blackboard.

Students will be assessed using the following rubric:

Assignment # 2 Criteria

(point value)

F to D

C to C+

B to B+

A

Literature Review and Critical Thinking (15 points)

No appropriate outside peer-reviewed sources used.

2 or fewer outside peer-reviewed sources used and the assignment demonstrates little critical thinking about the sources.

3 or fewer outside peer-reviewed sources used. The assignment demonstrates a beginning level of critical thinking about the sources.

4 peer-reviewed sources used. The assignment demonstrates an advanced level of organization and critical thinking about the sources.

Link to Specific Theory and its Strengths and Limitations and Application to Practice

(10 points)

No application of theory to social work practice.

The application of theory to social work practice is not clearly explained.

The application of theory to social work practice is explained well but does not make adequate connection to the literature.

The application of theory to social work practice is clearly explained and builds upon the literature.

Ethical Standards are cited and relevant to working with chosen population / issue

(5 points)

No ethical considerations are offered.

Ethical considerations offered but are not connected to the analysis.

Ethical considerations are offered and are moderately connected to the analysis.

Ethical considerations are cited and linked to the specific client / population system, and flow clearly from the analysis.

Late submission incurs a 10% penalty (3 points off for each day it is late).


Assignment 3: Discussion Board posts (30 points)

This course uses discussion board posts to engage students in critical thinking about course content. For 10 course modules of the student’s choosing, students will post in Blackboard discussion boards a reflection post of that module’s readings and content. Students are encouraged to reflect on what they have learned from the content. Each module will have a weekly reflection prompt for students to discuss in their Blackboard discussion group (also noted in the module schedule). For each module, you must do two activities in the discussion board:

1. Each Wednesday prior to a class session, by 11:59 PM: Post Blackboard discussion board module reflection. These posts do not have to be long. Students are expected to write about a paragraph for each module discussion board (3-4 sentences) of genuine reflection. Students are encouraged to simply pause and think about the course material and then briefly document their thoughts on Blackboard. You are required to demonstrate to the instructors and your fellow classmates that you have read the assigned readings and engaged in the modules meaningfully and have reflected on how the information presented in the class applies to your practice as a social worker.

2. Each Friday prior to a class session, by 11:59 PM: Post Blackboard discussion board responses to at least two (2) of your peers’ reflection posts. These responses should also demonstrate genuine reflection and be about 3-4 sentences long.

Students are encouraged to frequently check the discussion boards and continue conversations with other students’ posts. Students only need to post in discussion boards for TEN modules (not all 14)- this accommodates Spring Break and other times during which we may not be able to post. Students can choose which ten modules they do wish to post on (can be any ten modules of the student choice, except the very first).

Students will be assessed for participation using the following criteria:

A (93-100%)

30 points

B+ or B (83-92%)

25 points

C+ or C (70-82%)

20 points

D or F (0-69%)

15 points

excellent engagement and effort demonstrated in online discussions, integrating readings, furthering discussions on discussion boards on a consistent basis. student actively makes a contribution to peer learning.

student helps shape what occurs in class

good engagement and effort demonstrated in online discussions, integrating readings, furthering discussions on discussion boards. student attends online class and is seen to make efforts to actively participate.

student responds to what occurs in class

minimal engagement and effort demonstrated in online discussions, integrating readings, furthering discussions on discussion boards. student essentially attends but does not work to actively participate or participates minimally.

student observes what occurs in class

demonstration of any of the following: student chooses to not participate. student does not attend prepared; no evidence that readings have been completed; no engagement in online discussions on a consistent basis. inappropriate use of technology.

student does not significantly contribute to what occurs in class

ASSIGNMENTS

Maximum Points

Assignment 1: Personal reflection paper on client capacity to change behavior

30

Assignment 2: Reviewing the Literature: Connecting Theory to Practice and Ethics

Part 1: Outline

Part 2: Paper, presentation, or other format

10

30

Assignment 3: Discussion Board posts

30

TOTAL

100

Grades will be awarded according to the following scale:

90-100 A 70-76 C

87-89 B+ 67-69 D+

80-86 B 60-66 D

77-79 C+ Below 60 F

RECYCLING COURSE MATERIALS

The use of previous semester course materials is allowed in this course.

APA STYLE & ASSIGNMENT SUBMISSION

All written assignments will be evaluated for accomplishment of the objectives of the assignment, organization, and clarity of discussion, demonstration of the ability to integrate and critically apply course content, and correct spelling, grammar, and accurate use of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Seventh Edition (https://apastyle.apa.org/products/publication-manual-7th-edition). All assignments are to be typed and formatted to adhere to APA requirements. All papers and assignments may be examined by plagiarism software to determine they are original works, and not purchased or copied from the internet or other sources. It is your responsibility to read UofSC and College of Social Work policies related to academic honesty, and the APA guide related to proper citation. Copying and pasting from any source, without proper citation, is considered academic dishonesty.

Assignments are due on the dates designated. All assignments must be submitted by the due date and time set forth in the course calendar unless prior arrangements have been made with the instructor. Late assignments will result in a 10% deduction per week the assignment is late. As a general policy, the instructor will not review early drafts or allow rewrites (instructor’s discretion).

EXPECTATIONS FOR BEHAVIOR

Please be considerate of your colleagues. The discussion in social work courses is often comple

Philosophy homework help

Abortion (Part One): 

Today: Some philosophical arguments in favor of abortion.

Next time: some philosophical arguments against abortion.  

Three possible stances on abortion in the philosophical literature:

(1) The extreme conservative view (anti-abortionists, pro-life activists): Human personhood begins right at conception.  Abortion is, by definition, homicide.

(2) The extreme liberal view:

Human personhood begins immediately after birth or a bit later (Singer).  Abortions are permissible up until the point when personhood begins.    
Singer: 28 days after birth
Singer states, “‘the location of a being — inside or outside the 
Womb — should not make that much difference to the wrongness of killing it.’”

(3) The moderate view:

There is a morally relevant break in the biological process of development – between conception and birth.  A line can be drawn where life begins, and this line is after conception and before birth.  Abortion is o.k. if it occurs before this line.  

Of course, our abortion laws are an instance of (3).  
The line is drawn often after the second trimester, when a fetus becomes “viable,” i.e., can survive outside of the womb.

What view do you think is best?

Let’s start with a couple of extreme positions, just to get a sense of the terrain.

PETER SINGER’S UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT ON DISABLED INFANTS AND ABORTION

“When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”  P. Singer. Practical Ethics

(1) It is morally right to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. (Utilitarianism)  

(2) Some disabled infants suffer (and will suffer) more than non-disabled infants.  

(3) Therefore, it is morally right to “abort” a disabled infant to make way for a non-disabled infant.  

What do we make of this argument? By the way, in a 1994 book, Singer advocated aborting children with Down syndrome. I suspect many of us will reject the idea that these infants should be put to death. But what, specifically, is the mistake that Singer is making? What makes him wrong here?

Mary Ann Warren: also argues for the liberal position.  

She grants that if a fetus is a person, abortion would be wrong.  
But she does not think that a fetus is a person.  

Why?

Because there are certain necessary conditions that something must meet to be a person, and a fetus does not meet these conditions.

Not just anything is a person…a table is not a person. There must be certain characteristics that a person has that, e.g., a table lacks.

O.K.  What are the characteristics that something must have to be a person, according to Marry Ann Warren?

They are:
1) Consciousness of objects and events external and internal to the being, and in particular the capacity to feel pain;
2) Reasoning — the capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems;
3) Self-motivated activity;
4) A capacity to communicate;
5) The presence of self-concept and self-awareness.
You need these things to be a person, but a fetus doesn’t have them, so a fetus is not a person.  

Do you need all of these to be a person (it doesn’t seem like it)?
How many do you need?
When do they arise?

If these are not the criteria for personhood, then what are?

These criteria don’t seem correct to some. They seem to eliminate some people from counting as people. They also seem to allow some non-people to count as people. They just seem very problematic to some.

Judith Jarvis Thomson (pro-abortion), in the reading, also argues in favor of abortion, but she is much more of a moderate than Singer or Warren.

A little surprisingly (for a pro-abortion person), she thinks that a fetus becomes a human person fairly early on.  

She says: “I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable.”

She doesn’t think a new fertilized egg is a person though, “no more than an acorn is an oak tree.”

But her main point in the article is this: even if we grant that a fetus is a person, abortion can still be o.k. in some cases.  

Anti-abortion people often argue that a fetus is a person, therefore, it has a right to life.  She doesn’t buy this argument – it’s too quick she thinks. It is often thought that the main issue in the abortion debate is: when does a fetus become a person? She denies this, holding that it might be permissible to abort a fetus even if it is a person.  

A famous example: a violinist has failing kidneys.

You are kidnapped and hooked up to the violinist so that you can share kidney function.
If we disconnect you before 9 months the violinist will die.  
We have no moral obligation to stay connected to the violinist. When we wake up, we are morally permitted to leave.

Pregnancy is similar.  
The fetus would die if disconnected too etc.
So we have no moral obligation to preserve the life of the fetus, even if we grant the conservative view and say that the fetus is life.

Is it the same? This is an argument from analogy. These are only as strong as the analogy itself. So, is it a good analogy?

She points out that her case works quite well in the case of rape.  And many who are against abortion do not make an exception for cases of rape.  So if her argument works for rape, the anti-abortion folks should admit it works for all pregnancies.  

She also thinks that in some cases abortion would be wrong (even though there are cases where it would be the right thing to do too).
  
“And it [i.e., her view] also allows for and supports our sense that in other cases resort to abortion is even positively indecent. It would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if she is in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad.”

Would you be in favor of someone getting an abortion to go on a trip to Europe?   

What are some other considerations in favor of abortion?

Some abortion supporters point to cases in which they think abortion seems clearly justified:

Rape.
Incest.
Dangerous pregnancies.  Potential life should not be valued more than actual life? 

Assuming you are against abortion, would you make exceptions for these cases?

In everyday life, moderates about abortion often give different arguments in favor of abortion than the ones given above. They appeal to a woman’s right to chose what happens with her body, etc.

Roe v Wade (1973): Texas law at the time banned all abortions except in cases of rape, incest and medical necessity. “Jane Roe” (her real name was Norma McCorvey) challenged these laws by claiming that they infringed upon her right to decide when or if to have a child, and to choose the direction of her life in general.

The case made its way to the US Supreme Court, who ruled in McCorvey’s favor. There were two key Constitutional Amendments the justices relied on.

The ninth amendment says that simply because a right is not explicitly granted in the Constitution, this does not mean that people do not have that right. (Direct quote of the amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”). This opens the door for the Supreme Court to grant new rights not given in the Constitution.

The fourteenth amendment was also an important part of the decision. In concert with some previous court cases (Griswold v Connecticut), the fourteenth amendment was interpreted to imply that there are certain personal matters that the government doesn’t have a right to infringe upon. Ultimately, the decision to allow abortion was justified on the grounds that people have a right to privacy.

Does this reasoning seem correct?

Philosophy homework help

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd i 05/10/17 05:03 PM

Ethical Choices
An Introduction to Moral Philosophy

with Cases

��

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd ii 05/10/17 05:03 PM

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd iii 05/10/17 05:03 PM

Ethical Choices
An Introduction to Moral Philosophy

with Cases

��
RICHARD BURNOR

Felician University

YVONNE RALEY

New York Oxford

O X F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S

S E C O N D E D I T I O N

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd iv 05/22/17 09:05 PM

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s
objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a
registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© 2018 by Oxford University Press
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
http://www.oup.com

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford
University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the
appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope
of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Burnor, Richard, author. | Raley, Yvonne, author.
Title: Ethical choices : an introduction to moral philosophy with cases /
   Richard Burnor, Felician College, Yvonne Raley, Felician College.
Description: Second [edition]. | New York : Oxford University Press, 2017.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016049781| ISBN 9780190464509 (student edition) | ISBN
   9780190464516 (instructor’s edition) | ISBN 9780190464530 (course website)
   | ISBN 9780190464547 (instructor’s manual (arc))
Subjects: LCSH: Ethics—Textbooks. | Ethical problems—Textbooks.
Classification: LCC BJ1012 .B755 2017 | DDC 170—dc23
   LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016049781

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by LSC Communications Inc.

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd v 05/10/17 05:03 PM

To the reader, whose intrinsic moral worth has been and
continues to be our most important reason for writing this book.

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd vi 05/10/17 05:03 PM

vii

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd vii 05/10/17 05:03 PM

B R I E F C O N T E N T S

preface xv
guidelines xxiii

part i INTRODUCTION: THEORY
AND PRACTICE 1

Chapter One Ethics and Values 5
Chapter Two Moral Relativism 25
Chapter Three Personal Autonomy and Moral Agency 46
Chapter Four Making Moral Judgments 70
Chapter Five Moral Psychology and Egoism 87

part ii ETHICAL THEORIES AND
PERSPECTIVES 107

Chapter Six Consequentialist Ethics: Act Utilitarianism 111
Chapter Seven Consequentialist Ethics: Rule Utilitarianism 134
Chapter Eight Deontological Ethics 150
Chapter Nine Natural Law Theory 178
Chapter Ten Social Contracts and Rights 198
Chapter Eleven Virtue Ethics 223
Chapter Twelve Feminism and Care Ethics 249
Chapter Thirteen Ethics and Religion 276

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd viii 05/10/17 05:03 PM

part iii INTRODUCTION:
ETHICAL PLURALISM 297

Chapter Fourteen Pluralism in Theoretical and Applied Ethics 301

glossary 337

index 348

viii B R I E F C O N T E N T S

ix

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd ix 05/10/17 05:03 PM

C O N T E N T S

preface xv

guidelines xxiii

part i INTRODUCTION: THEORY AND
PRACTICE 1

Chapter One Ethics and Values 5
I. Extraordinary and Ordinary Morals 5
II. The Nature of Values 8
III. Moral vs. Non-Moral Values 10
IV. Foundational and Instrumental Values 14
V. Explanation and Foundational Values 15

Chapter Assignment Questions 18
Case 1: Breastfeeding in Public 19
Case 2: The Real Price of Coffee 20
Case 3: Jurassic Kitty: Should I Clone My Cat? 22
Case 4: Sex Selection 23

Chapter Two Moral Relativism 25
I. Introduction 25
II. Three Views of Ethics 26
III. Evaluating Subjectivism 28
IV. Supporting Popular Relativism 30
V. Against Relativism 33
VI. A Matter of Tolerance 36

**

x C O N T E N T S

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd x 05/10/17 05:03 PM

VII. Can Relativism Supply What Objectivism Cannot? 38
Chapter Assignment Questions 39

Case 1: Arranged Marriage 40
Case 2: Female Genital Mutilation 40
Case 3: Religious Exemption and the

Death of Matthew Swan 42
Case 4: Women in the Middle East 43

Chapter Three Personal Autonomy and
Moral Agency 46

I. Introduction 46
II. Personal Autonomy 47
III. Implications of Autonomy 51
IV. Moral Agents 52
V. Other Conceptions of Autonomy 56
VI. Relational Autonomy 59

Chapter Assignment Questions 61
Case 1: The Drunk Driver 62
Case 2: Elizabeth Bouvia 62
Case 3: Should the Drinking Age Be Eighteen? 64
Case 4: The Living Will 66
Case 5: Buy Now, Pay Later:

Student Credit Card Debt 68

Chapter Four Making Moral Judgments 70
I. Introduction 70
II. Conflicts 71
III. Characterizing Moral Claims 73
IV. Moral Reasoning 74
V. Moral Reflection 78

Chapter Assignment Questions 80
Case 1: Mr. Research 81
Case 2: Who’s Not Coming to Dinner? 82
Case 3: Who’s Responsible for Obesity? 84

Chapter Five Moral Psychology and Egoism 87
I. Introduction 87
II. Moral Character 89
III. Social and Cultural Influences 93
IV. Ethical and Psychological Egoism 96
V. Egoism and Moral Psychology 99

Chapter Assignment Questions 102
Case 1: Declaring Wages 103

**

**

Contents xi

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xi 05/10/17 05:03 PM

Case 2: The Scratched Bumper 104
Case 3: Job Competition 104
Case 4: Human Trafficking 105

part ii ETHICAL THEORIES AND
PERSPECTIVES 107

Chapter Six Consequentialist Ethics:
Act Utilitarianism 111

I. Introduction 111
II. Utility and Consequentialism 112
III. Utility and Mill’s Account 114
IV. Act Utilitarianism 116
V. Attractions and Problems 119
VI. Beyond Classical Utilitarianism 124

Chapter Assignment Questions 126
Case 1: Charity vs. iPad 127
Case 2: Sponsoring a Child 128
Case 3: Should Your Next Car Be a Hybrid? 129
Case 4: Factory Farming and Animal Suffering 130
Case 5: Torture Lite 132

Chapter Seven Consequentialist Ethics:
Rule Utilitarianism 134

I. Introduction 134
II. Rule Utilitarianism 135
III. Rule vs. Act Utilitarianism 137
IV. Problems with Rule Utilitarianism 139
V. Justice and Rights Again 143

Chapter Assignment Questions 144
Case 1: Transgender Students at College 145
Case 2: Curbing Grade Inflation 146
Case 3: Universal Healthcare 148

Chapter Eight Deontological Ethics 150
I. Introduction 150
II. Ross’s Ethics 152
III. Kant’s Good Will 155
IV. Kant’s Principle of Ends 157
V. Kant’s Principle of Universal Law 160
VI. The Principle of Autonomy 164
VII. Attractions and Problems 166

**

**

**

**

**

xii C O N T E N T S

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xii 05/10/17 05:03 PM

Chapter Assignment Questions 169
Case 1: A Demanding Honor Code 169
Case 2: The Ayala Case 171
Case 3: Internet Bride—Straight from Asia 172
Case 4: A Personal Decision 174
Case 5: Beefy Burgers and a Lean Future 175
Case 6: Suicide 177

Chapter Nine Natural Law Theory 178
I. Introduction 178
II. Natural Law Theory 179
III. Forfeiture 181
IV. Double Effect 183
V. Problems For Natural Law Theory 186

Chapter Assignment Questions 189
Case 1: Relieving Pain in a Dying Patient 190
Case 2: Birth Control 191
Case 3: Just War Theory and the

Killing of Noncombatants 193
Case 4: Permanent Vegetative State:

The Case of Terri Schiavo 195

Chapter Ten Social Contracts and Rights 198
I. Introduction 198
II. Locke 200
III. Hobbes 202
IV. Rawls 205
V. Assessing Social Contract Theory 208
VI. Assessing Rights 212
VII. Kinds of Rights 215

Chapter Assignment Questions 217
Case 1: Socrates’s Imprisonment 218
Case 2: Lord of the Flies 219
Case 3: Locke and Load: Lockean

Rights and Gun Control 220

Chapter Eleven Virtue Ethics 223
I. Introduction 223
II. The Heart of Virtue Ethics 224
III. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics 226
IV. Critiquing Principle-Based Ethics 230
V. Classifying the Virtues 233
VI. Problems With Virtue Ethics 235

**

**

Contents xiii

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xiii 05/10/17 05:03 PM

Chapter Assignment Questions 239
Case 1: The Unlikely Rescue 240
Case 2: Video Games 241
Case 3: Compulsive Gambling and the Internet 243
Case 4: Moral Luck 245
Case 5: Democracy in Switzerland 247

Chapter Twelve Feminism and Care Ethics 249
I. Introduction 249
II. Feminist Ethics 251
III. The Care Perspective 253
IV. Foundations of an Ethics of Care 257
V. Care and Virtue 261
VI. A Blueprint for Reform 263
VII. Problems 264
VIII. A Concluding Reflection 269

Chapter Assignment Questions 269
Case 1: The International Gemstone Trade 270
Case 2: Parent Responsibility Toward

Their In Utero Child 271
Case 3: The Nestlé Boycott 273
Case 4: Absolute Poverty 274

Chapter Thirteen Ethics and Religion 276
I. Introduction 276
II. Kant on Autonomy and Religion 278
III. Divine Command Theory 281
IV. An Alternate Dependency Account 282
V. Objections and Elaborations 285
VI. Completeness 289

Chapter Assignment Questions 290
Case 1: By Divine Command? 291
Case 2: Religious Symbols and Public Schools 292
Case 3: A Question of Authority 294

part iii ETHICAL PLURALISM 297

Chapter Fourteen Pluralism in Theoretical and
Applied Ethics 301

I. Kinds of Ethical Pluralism 301
II. Medical Ethics: Futility 303
III. Environmental Ethics: Anthropocentrism

and Ecocentrism 310

**

**

**

**

xiv C O N T E N T S

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xiv 05/10/17 05:03 PM

IV. Business Ethics: Whistle-Blowing 317
V. The Personal Dimension: How Can I

Make Morally Right Choices? 323
Chapter Assignment Questions 326

Case 1: Infant Medical Futility 328
Case 2: Climate Change and Oil 328
Case 3: National Parks 331
Case 4: Surfer, Sailor, Whistle-Blower 332
Case 5: The Diesel Dupe 334
Case 6: The Snowden Leak 334

Glossary 337

Index 348

xv

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xv 05/10/17 05:03 PM

P R E FA C E

TO THE READER

We are pleased to be able to offer the second edition of Ethical Choices to both
students and the general reader. In preparing this new edition, we have worked to
preserve and improve upon what many reviewers have considered to be the special
strengths of the book.

Many parts of ethics are not exactly easy to understand, but we haven’t wanted
to add to your difficulties by poor writing. By adopting a deliberately informal
style and conversational tone, we have sought to make this book clear, readable,
and accessible regardless of whether or not you’ve previously studied ethics or phi-
losophy. Since we don’t want you to feel that ethics is tedious, we have shortened
unduly long sentences, removed jargon, and reduced the number of technical
terms. Ideally, our hope is that when you read this book, your experience will be
something like having a pleasant conversation with an especially intriguing friend.

This book differs from most ethics introductions in several useful and ap-
pealing ways. Most of all, we intend this book to make ethics engaging for you.
Not surprisingly, we find ethics captivating; we’d very much like you to find it so
as well. Achieving this, it seems to us, requires that we relate ethical topics to your
own life, experiences, and interests. For instance, each chapter includes at least one
opening narrative or scenario meant to grab your attention, boost your interest
in what follows, and illustrate what the chapter is about. Some of these stories are
true; others are at least true to life; they often portray quite ordinary and everyday
experiences. To further engage you in your ethics reading, each chapter is also
followed by a number of practical cases. Again, many of these portray actual situ-
ations; all of them invite you to discover how ethical theory can apply directly to
moral problems. Most of these cases are not about global or national policy issues;
instead, they describe problems and issues that you can probably relate to in your
own life. It’s gratifying to us that, after examining a particular case, students have
sometimes told us that they’ve just gone through a similar experience themselves.

xvi P R E FA C E

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xvi 05/10/17 05:03 PM

To aid you further in your study of ethics, we have included a number of
helps:

• Immediately following this Preface are the Guidelines for a Case Study Anal-
ysis. These propose a set of steps to follow as you analyze a case or even
work through a personal moral problem. These are also discussed more
informally in the last section of the book.

• Important terms appear throughout the book in boldface where they are
first presented and explained. These “technical” terms will often be used
again. Master these, as they are essential to your “internalizing” concepts
and ideas you need to fully understand ethics.

• Each section of each chapter is usually followed by a set of questions For
Discussion. Whether instructors select any of these as class discussion
topics, you can consider how you would answer them for yourself. This will
help you think more deeply about that section’s material; it may also reveal
how that material relates to other issues that interest you.

• Each section is also followed by a brief Summary; whenever the section
introduces important terms, there is a list of Key Terms together with their
definitions as well. Both can help you reinforce your understanding of what
you’ve just read; they can also be very useful for doing a quick review of that
section and of essential terms and concepts.

• At the end of each chapter, you will find another set of questions labeled
Chapter Assignment Questions. These are more comprehensive than the
questions For Discussion but can serve several of the same purposes.

• Every chapter includes a collection of Additional Resources. Some of these
are links to short YouTube-type presentations on parts of that chapter.
Others take you to an interesting video clip or trailer relating to that
chapter’s topics. A number are links to original works referred to in the
chapter.

• Be sure to refer often to the book’s detailed Table of Contents and its Index;
both can help you find material you need to look at or want to review.

• There is a glossary near the end of the book. This can serve as your first
resource for reviewing and further clarifying the meanings of important
terms.

• A website has been set up specifically for this book. The site provides sev-
eral additional tools: (a) outlines of each chapter, (b) flashcards for learning
key terms, (c) practice quiz questions, (d) PowerPoint presentations of each
chapter’s material, and so on.

Do check out these helps for yourself. Also, thumb through the book to see
how it’s laid out, where you can find help, and how you can best use everything
it makes available to you. We think that many of these things can benefit you
greatly.

Our best wishes are with you as you start your discovery of what the ancient,
fascinating, urgent, and dynamic field of ethics is about!

Preface xvii

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xvii 05/10/17 05:03 PM

TO THE INSTRUCTOR

This book is primarily intended to serve as an introduction to ethics for college
students who don’t have much familiarity with ethics or philosophy. (It can also
serve as a handy review text for more advanced students and even for graduate stu-
dents.) It provides a survey of major ethical theories and perspectives that we think
is highly accessible even as it remains philosophically accurate and also attempts to
stay up to date. The book’s underlying theme is that of choices. It invites readers to
rationally evaluate a wide range of ethical perspectives, theories, and insights and
to decide which they find to be the most compelling. It also encourages readers to
apply what ethics has to offer to a variety of moral problems as well as to their own
moral predicaments. What particularly sets this book apart from other ethics texts
is its large number of student-relevant “real-life” cases, which can be used to help
students make the transition from theory to application. In addition, each chapter
includes at least one illustrative story or scenario (usually in its opening section) to
pique the reader’s interest and set the stage for what follows.

This book takes the approach that has worked best with our students. We
particularly aim at presenting ethics so that it will resonate with the experiences,
beliefs, and thinking of today’s post-modern-minded students. For instance, it has
become increasingly clear that teaching can be more effective when supplemented
or even largely replaced by relevant stories and narratives that have affective as
well as cognitive force.1 To use the text to best promote the reader’s engagement
and understanding, therefore, we urge you to make systematic use of the book’s
case studies. We also suggest that you draw upon the many narratives appear-
ing in most chapters—along with the accompanying For Discussion questions—to
jump-start class discussions. These will not only engage your students but also
provide valuable opportunities for you to interject comments and even “mini-
lectures” about the material. If you feel even bolder, you might try teaching pri-
marily through class discussions that afford you plenty of opportunities to correct,
reinforce, and extend what students have previously read in the text. We have pro-
vided the For Discussion questions as suggestive starting points for leading such
discussions.

There are several things to mention about the book’s cases. First, a few case
discussions introduce material not presented in the main text (e.g., “Just War
Theory,” “Locke and Load”). These allow you to take your students to a deeper
level in thinking about issues raised by those particular cases. Second, cases have
been deliberately matched to particular theories, chapter by chapter. Nevertheless,
this does not preclude using one chapter’s cases with another chapter’s material.

1Joanna Szurmak and Mindy Thuna, “Tell Me a Story: The Use of Narrative as a Tool for Instruc-
tion,” paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries
in Indianapolis, Indiana, April 10, 2013, accessed October 2, 2016, http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.
org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/SzurmakThuna_TellMe.pdf. Philo-
sophical pioneers in the instructional use of stories include Kieran Egan and Gareth Matthews, among
many others. Several other relevant resources are available online.

xviii P R E FA C E

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xviii 05/10/17 05:03 PM

In fact, many cases may be effectively used with several different theories. The
book’s online website (see more in the following discussion) offers additional sug-
gestions for pairing cases to chapters and theories. Third, the cases following each
chapter proceed (more or less) from shorter and simpler cases to more challeng-
ing and multi-faceted ones. Next, each case is followed by a collection of Thought
Questions. Many of these provide opportunities for applying the concepts and
theory introduced in the chapter to that case. Others extend or even challenge
the theories. To encourage the comparison of different accounts, some allude to
previous theories as well. All of these questions are designed to inspire students
to think beyond their initial or “gut” reactions and to develop more carefully con-
sidered and defensible viewpoints of their own. We have made no attempt to limit
case problems to the easy or uncontroversial. As in real life, many of the prob-
lems raised by the cases pose challenging moral dilemmas that admit to having no
straightforward moral answer.

The Guidelines for a Case Study Analysis immediately follows this preface;
you may want your students to follow these guidelines in doing their case analy-
ses. If you’d rather they not take such a formal approach, you might assign just
selected parts of the guidelines to ensure some structure to student analyses,
or you might use them simply as a source of ideas when you create your own
assignments. We have found the guidelines to be helpful to our students; never-
theless, they may also be completely ignored. None of the book’s cases explicitly
requires their use.

If you have used the first edition of this book, you will find that we have
preserved and even added to its pedagogical tools. Many of these have just been
mentioned or are discussed in the part of this preface directed to the reader. In
addition, note that you can refer to each section’s Summary and Key Terms to de-
termine or remind yourself what that section covers. Further, you should know
that each section’s For Discussion questions tend to be informal and personal; the
more substantive Chapter Assignment Questions, meanwhile, can be used for as-
signments or to suggest assignment ideas. Further, you may find that some of the
Additional Resources include videos and other types of presentations that might
usefully supplement your classes.

Depending on the chapter, these might include videos or movie trailers re-
lated to the chapter’s material, short presentations of portions of that chapter’s ma-
terial, other texts that also cover the chapter’s material particularly well, or, when
available, links to relevant online primary sources in ethics (e.g., Plato’s Republic
or Hobbes’s Leviathan). You might want to use some of the primary source links
to have students do readings in the original works (without having them buy a
supplementary text). All of these resources enable readers to pursue many topics
more fully as they wish.

As many reviewers approved of the text’s organization, we have largely pre-
served that while adding some additional flexibility. On the most local level, each
chapter still divides into clearly delineated sections. You may thus assign readings

Preface xix

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xix 05/10/17 05:03 PM

by section, or you might assign students to read only certain sections rather than
an entire chapter. Sections that go beyond essential material or that are more spe-
cialized or advanced are also still marked (by ** in their headings). These may be
excluded from a course without jeopardizing student understanding of later sec-
tions or chapters.

On a more global level, the book discusses more theories and cases than most
courses can accommodate. It thus allows considerable leeway in what topics you
want to include in a course. Most chapters are fairly self-contained, though some
unavoidably must refer to preceding material. When such references are made, the
relevant chapter and section is identified. This not only helps in reviewing earlier
material but also allows you to entirely skip an earlier chapter and then assign one
of that chapter’s sections as background for a topic introduced in a later chapter.
Several chapters may simply be skipped entirely. Chapters that seem more dis-
cretionary include Chapter Five: Moral Psychology and Egoism; Chapter Seven:
Consequentialist Ethics: Rule Utilitarianism; Chapter Nine: Natural Law Theory;
Ten: Social Contracts and Rights; Twelve: Feminism and Care Ethics; and Chapter
Thirteen: Ethics and Religion. Another chapter you might elect to skip is Chapter
Three: Personal Autonomy and Moral Agency, although some of this must be cov-
ered if you wish to include Chapter Fourteen’s §II: Medical Ethics: Futility, since
the latter relies heavily on concepts of autonomy and agency. A knowledgeable
instructor can also present many of the chapters in different orders with relatively
little inconvenience.

CHANGES IN THE SEC OND EDITION

The book has been completely overhauled stylistically in an effort to simplify and
streamline the presentation, to reduce the number of “key terms” and other tech-
nical jargon, to standardize terminology, and to achieve a friendlier conversational
tone. Occasional corrections have also been made (e.g., the discussion of Kant and
absolutism has been corrected and further elaborated). Besides these, a number of
other quite substantial changes have been made:

• Changes in organization:
º Material from the previous Chapters One, Two, and Five has been re-

arranged, simplified, and consolidated into Chapters One and Four.
Chapter One now begins with values, which we think provides a more
intuitive route to understanding morality and ethics; our characteriza-
tion of moral claims and an expanded discussion of moral thinking then
appears in Chapter Four.

º The chapter on Moral Relativism (Chapter Two) now precedes the chap-
ter on Personal Autonomy and Moral Agency (Chapter Three).

º The previous Chapter Six on egoism has been removed, though some
material from that chapter has been incorporated in the new Chapters

xx P R E FA C E

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xx 05/10/17 05:03 PM

Five and Six. This change connects egoism to related topics in moral psy-
chology rather than to consequentialist theories in general.

º The previous edition’s chapter on natural law and natural rights has been
divided into separate chapters. The new Chapter Nine is devoted exclu-
sively to natural law theory; the new Chapter Ten treats rights more com-
prehensively as part of its exposition of social contract theory.

• Additional content:
º Added to the generalist, principle-based pattern of “moral reasoning” of

the previous edition is a contrasting particularist pattern of “moral re-
flection.” See the new Chapter Four, which now presents both patterns
of moral thinking.

º A largely new Chapter Five explores major themes in moral psychology,
some of which is related to ethical and psychological egoism.

º The largely new Chapter Ten, Social Contracts and Rights, presents the
social contract theories of Locke, Hobbes, and Rawls while also expand-
ing the previous edition’s presentation of rights.

º A synopsis of feminist ethics and its development has been added to
Chapter Twelve, Feminism and Care Ethics.

º A largely new final Chapter Fourteen, Pluralism in Theoretical and Ap-
plied Ethics, has been added. This chapter revises the previous edition’s
presentation of ethical pluralism and adds three major new sections in
applied ethics: §II Medical Ethics: Futility, §III Environmental Ethics:
Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism, §IV Business Ethics: Whistle-
Blowing. The chapter closes with a revised section that discusses the ap-
plication of ethics to one’s personal life.

• Added pedagogical tools:
º Sixteen new cases have been written for this edition, making for fifty-

seven cases total. Most of the previous cases have also been updated to re-
flect more recent developments; a few have been dropped, and a few have
been altered significantly (e.g., “Guess Who’s Not Coming for Dinner,”
“Climate Change and Oil”).

º Each chapter section is now accompanied by a set of For Discussion
questions.

º A glossary of terms is now included at the end of the book.

A Companion Website at www.oup.com/us/burnor is available. This provides
several resources for both students and instructors. Besides what is previously
mentioned in “To the Reader”, instructors will also find sets of quiz questions,
suggestions for alternate uses of the cases, and an additional applied ethics chap-
ter on moral responsibilities toward future generations. More cases may be added
from time to time.

Preface xxi

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xxi 05/10/17 05:03 PM

ACKNOWLED GMENT S

Our special thanks go to Robert Miller, Donald Casey, Irfan Khawaja, George
Abaunza, and Vicky Burnor as well as to the many students, colleagues, and review-
ers who provided suggestions, corrections, and criticisms of the many drafts that
have ultimately culminated in this book. For their invaluable reviews, we would es-
pecially like to thank Mark Alfano, Australian Catholic University; Luke Amentas,
Kingsborough Community College, CUNY; Christopher Baker, Armstrong State
University; Kate Bednar, University of Kansas; Jason Borenstein, Georgia Institute
of Technology; Julien M. Farland, Anna Maria College; Bob Fischer, Texas State
University; Dana R. Flint, The Lincoln University; Lisa Jorgensen, Vanier College;
Shawn McKinney, Hillsborough Community College; Christian Perring, St. John’s
University; Peter Simpson, The Graduate Center, CUNY; Daniel Star, Boston Uni-
versity; Peter B. Trumbull, Madison College; Bas van der Vossen, University of
North Carolina, Greensboro; Andrea Veltman, James Madison University; and
Julius L. Wynn, St. Petersburg College. Finally, we thank Felician University for its
funding and support of this project over many years and in many ways.

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xxii 05/10/17 05:03 PM

xxiii

bur64509_fm_i-xxiv.indd xxiii 05/10/17 05:03 PM

G U I D E L I N E S F O R A C A S E S T U D Y A NA LY S I S

A case study analysis provides a powerful tool for sorting through and resolv-ing an ethical problem, regardless of its specific subject. A complete case
analysis consists of the following five steps:

1. Summarize the main problem and its setting.
What are the essential elements of the situation, and what is the ethical problem
at issue? Summarize the case in your own words, writing as though you were ex-
plaining it to someone who is not familiar with it. Some helpful questions: Who
are the key players? Who is affected by the outcome? Are there other important
facts that are

Philosophy homework help

There are 6 (specific) requirements which must be fulfilled. However, you are ultimately responsible for
choosing the topic and direction of your essay. There are obviously general requirements of any
argumentative paper but I will add a rubric outline for argumentative papers below.

If you muck up one of these, then expects big points off of your paper:

1. Find a movie, short story, documentary, or complex news item (not a one-page article but only
investigative or in-depth pieces) to base your analysis around and focus your thesis.

I have given you a few suggestions: the movie “Her” for philo of mind and “Minority Report” for free
will.

2. You must present a philosophy of mind, personal identity, philosophy of religion, or free will topic.
The purpose is to argue/explain, for example, a theory in the philosophy of mind in terms of the movie
“Her”. Examples: Functionalism, Substance Dualism, Property Dualism, etc… In this case, you would be
arguing that the character Sam is a mind as a way to make the case that the theory you are
advancing/arguing for is the best answer to the mind-body problem.

3. Include an objection to your view. Some possibilities (if using “her” for POM):

Could there be another theory that best explains our intuitions about thought experiments in the
movie/show?

Use objections found in the book and speak about it using scenes from the movie (or one of the
readings, videos, other content found on canvas).

Does your theory lead to some absurd consequences whether in real life or via the movie’s world?

Is there a possible way to develop a contrasting view of the OSes from the behavior of one of the
characters?

4. Include discussions of the thought experiments, ideas, philosophers found in the textbook and links
given to you by the prof.

5. You must cite all sources.

6. Word Minimum: Roughly 1500 -1800 words (MINIMUM). It is permissible to go over the 1800 words if
needed (no excuses about not knowing you could write more to fulfill the tasks).

Philosophy homework help

ENCYCLICAL LETTER

LAUDATO SI’

OF THE HOLY FATHER

FRANCIS
ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME

1. “LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore”—“Praise be

to you, my Lord”. In the words of this beautiful can-
ticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our
common home is like a sister with whom we share
our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms
to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through
our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs
us, and who produces various fruit with coloured
flowers and herbs”.[1]

2. This sister now cries out to us because of the
harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible
use and abuse of the goods with which God has en-
dowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her
lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The
violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also
reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the
soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life.
This is why the earth herself, burdened and laid
waste, is among the most abandoned and maltreated
of our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22). We
have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the earth
(cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her ele-
ments, we breathe her air and we receive life and
refreshment from her waters.

Nothing in this world is indifferent to us

3. More than fifty years ago, with the world tee-

tering on the brink of nuclear crisis, Pope Saint John
XXIII wrote an Encyclical which not only rejected
war but offered a proposal for peace. He addressed
his message Pacem in terris to the entire “Catholic
world” and indeed “to all men and women of good
will”. Now, faced as we are with global environmen-
tal deterioration, I wish to address every person living

on this planet. In my Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii
gaudium, I wrote to all the members of the Church
with the aim of encouraging ongoing missionary re-
newal. In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into
dialogue with all people about our common home.

4. In 1971, eight years after Pacem in terris,
Blessed Pope Paul VI referred to the ecological con-
cern as “a tragic consequence” of unchecked human
activity: “Due to an ill-considered exploitation of na-
ture, humanity runs the risk of destroying it and be-
coming in turn a victim of this degradation”.[2] He
spoke in similar terms to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations about the poten-
tial for an “ecological catastrophe under the effective
explosion of industrial civilization”, and stressed “the
urgent need for a radical change in the conduct of
humanity”, inasmuch as “the most extraordinary
scientific advances, the most amazing technical abili-
ties, the most astonishing economic growth, unless
they are accompanied by authentic social and moral
progress, will definitively turn against man”.[3]

5. Saint John Paul II became increasingly con-
cerned about this issue. In his first Encyclical he
warned that human beings frequently seem “to see no
other meaning in their natural environment than
what serves for immediate use and consumption”.[4]
Subsequently, he would call for a global ecological
conversion.[5] At the same time, he noted that little
effort had been made to “safeguard the moral condi-
tions for an authentic human ecology”.[6] The destruc-
tion of the human environment is extremely serious,
not only because God has entrusted the world to us
men and women, but because human life is itself a
gift which must be defended from various forms of
debasement. Every effort to protect and improve our

Laudato si’

 2

world entails profound changes in “lifestyles, models
of production and consumption, and the established
structures of power which today govern societies”.[7]
Authentic human development has a moral charac-
ter. It presumes full respect for the human person, but
it must also be concerned for the world around us
and “take into account the nature of each being and
of its mutual connection in an ordered system”.[8]
Accordingly, our human ability to transform reality
must proceed in line with God’s original gift of all
that is.[9]

6. My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise pro-
posed “eliminating the structural causes of the dys-
functions of the world economy and correcting mod-
els of growth which have proved incapable of ensur-
ing respect for the environment”.[10] He observed
that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only
one of its aspects, since “the book of nature is one and
indivisible”, and includes the environment, life, sexu-
ality, the family, social relations, and so forth. It fol-
lows that “the deterioration of nature is closely con-
nected to the culture which shapes human coexist-
ence”.[11] Pope Benedict asked us to recognize that
the natural environment has been gravely damaged
by our irresponsible behaviour. The social environ-
ment has also suffered damage. Both are ultimately
due to the same evil: the notion that there are no in-
disputable truths to guide our lives, and hence human
freedom is limitless. We have forgotten that “man is
not only a freedom which he creates for himself. Man
does not create himself. He is spirit and will, but also
nature”.[12] With paternal concern, Benedict urged
us to realize that creation is harmed “where we our-
selves have the final word, where everything is simply
our property and we use it for ourselves alone. The
misuse of creation begins when we no longer recog-
nize any higher instance than ourselves, when we see
nothing else but ourselves”.[13]

United by the same concern

7. These statements of the Popes echo the reflec-
tions of numerous scientists, philosophers, theologians
and civic groups, all of which have enriched the
Church’s thinking on these questions. Outside the
Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian
communities—and other religions as well—have ex-
pressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections
on issues which all of us find disturbing. To give just
one striking example, I would mention the statements
made by the beloved Ecumenical Patriarch Barthol-
omew, with whom we share the hope of full ecclesial
communion.

8. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in par-

ticular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways
we have harmed the planet, for “inasmuch as we all
generate small ecological damage”, we are called to
acknowledge “our contribution, smaller or greater, to
the disfigurement and destruction of creation”.[14]
He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively,
challenging us to acknowledge our sins against crea-
tion: “For human beings… to destroy the biological
diversity of God’s creation; for human beings to de-
grade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in
its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests
or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to con-
taminate the earth’s waters, its land, its air, and its
life—these are sins”.[15] For “to commit a crime
against the natural world is a sin against ourselves
and a sin against God”.[16]

9. At the same time, Bartholomew has drawn
attention to the ethical and spiritual roots of envi-
ronmental problems, which require that we look for
solutions not only in technology but in a change of
humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely
with symptoms. He asks us to replace consumption
with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness
with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which “entails
learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way
of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want
to what God’s world needs. It is liberation from fear,
greed and compulsion”.[17] As Christians, we are
also called “to accept the world as a sacrament of
communion, as a way of sharing with God and our
neighbours on a global scale. It is our humble convic-
tion that the divine and the human meet in the slight-
est detail in the seamless garment of God’s creation,
in the last speck of dust of our planet”.[18]

Saint Francis of Assisi

10. I do not want to write this Encyclical with-
out turning to that attractive and compelling figure,
whose name I took as my guide and inspiration when
I was elected Bishop of Rome. I believe that Saint
Francis is the example par excellence of care for the
vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyful-
ly and authentically. He is the patron saint of all who
study and work in the area of ecology, and he is also
much loved by non-Christians. He was particularly
concerned for God’s creation and for the poor and
outcast. He loved, and was deeply loved for his joy,
his generous self-giving, his openheartedness. He was
a mystic and a pilgrim who lived in simplicity and in
wonderful harmony with God, with others, with na-
ture and with himself. He shows us just how insepa-
rable the bond is between concern for nature, justice
for the poor, commitment to society, and interior

Laudato si’

 3

peace.
11. Francis helps us to see that an integral ecol-

ogy calls for openness to categories which transcend
the language of mathematics and biology, and take us
to the heart of what it is to be human. Just as happens
when we fall in love with someone, whenever he
would gaze at the sun, the moon or the smallest of
animals, he burst into song, drawing all other crea-
tures into his praise. He communed with all creation,
even preaching to the flowers, inviting them “to
praise the Lord, just as if they were endowed with
reason”.[19] His response to the world around him
was so much more than intellectual appreciation or
economic calculus, for to him each and every crea-
ture was a sister united to him by bonds of affection.
That is why he felt called to care for all that exists.
His disciple Saint Bonaventure tells us that, “from a
reflection on the primary source of all things, filled
with even more abundant piety, he would call crea-
tures, no matter how small, by the name of ‘brother’
or ‘sister’”.[20] Such a conviction cannot be written
off as naive romanticism, for it affects the choices
which determine our behaviour. If we approach na-
ture and the environment without this openness to
awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language
of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the
world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers,
ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their im-
mediate needs. By contrast, if we feel intimately unit-
ed with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well
up spontaneously. The poverty and austerity of Saint
Francis were no mere veneer of asceticism, but some-
thing much more radical: a refusal to turn reality into
an object simply to be used and controlled.

12. What is more, Saint Francis, faithful to
Scripture, invites us to see nature as a magnificent
book in which God speaks to us and grants us a
glimpse of his infinite beauty and goodness.
“Through the greatness and the beauty of creatures
one comes to know by analogy their maker” (Wis
13:5); indeed, “his eternal power and divinity have
been made known through his works since the crea-
tion of the world” (Rom 1:20). For this reason, Francis
asked that part of the friary garden always be left un-
touched, so that wild flowers and herbs could grow
there, and those who saw them could raise their
minds to God, the Creator of such beauty.[21] Ra-
ther than a problem to be solved, the world is a joyful
mystery to be contemplated with gladness and praise.

My appeal

13. The urgent challenge to protect our com-

mon home includes a concern to bring the whole

human family together to seek a sustainable and inte-
gral development, for we know that things can
change. The Creator does not abandon us; he never
forsakes his loving plan or repents of having created
us. Humanity still has the ability to work together in
building our common home. Here I want to recog-
nize, encourage and thank all those striving in count-
less ways to guarantee the protection of the home
which we share. Particular appreciation is owed to
those who tirelessly seek to resolve the tragic effects of
environmental degradation on the lives of the world’s
poorest. Young people demand change. They won-
der how anyone can claim to be building a better
future without thinking of the environmental crisis
and the sufferings of the excluded.

14. I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue
about how we are shaping the future of our planet.
We need a conversation which includes everyone,
since the environmental challenge we are undergoing,
and its human roots, concern and affect us all. The
worldwide ecological movement has already made
considerable progress and led to the establishment of
numerous organizations committed to raising aware-
ness of these challenges. Regrettably, many efforts to
seek concrete solutions to the environmental crisis
have proved ineffective, not only because of powerful
opposition but also because of a more general lack of
interest. Obstructionist attitudes, even on the part of
believers, can range from denial of the problem to
indifference, nonchalant resignation or blind confi-
dence in technical solutions. We require a new and
universal solidarity. As the bishops of Southern Africa
have stated: “Everyone’s talents and involvement are
needed to redress the damage caused by human
abuse of God’s creation”.[22] All of us can cooperate
as instruments of God for the care of creation, each
according to his or her own culture, experience, in-
volvements and talents.

15. It is my hope that this Encyclical Letter,
which is now added to the body of the Church’s so-
cial teaching, can help us to acknowledge the appeal,
immensity and urgency of the challenge we face. I
will begin by briefly reviewing several aspects of the
present ecological crisis, with the aim of drawing on
the results of the best scientific research available to-
day, letting them touch us deeply and provide a con-
crete foundation for the ethical and spiritual itinerary
that follows. I will then consider some principles
drawn from the Judaeo-Christian tradition which can
render our commitment to the environment more
coherent. I will then attempt to get to the roots of the
present situation, so as to consider not only its symp-
toms but also its deepest causes. This will help to pro-
vide an approach to ecology which respects our

Laudato si’

 4

unique place as human beings in this world and our
relationship to our surroundings. In light of this re-
flection, I will advance some broader proposals for
dialogue and action which would involve each of us
as individuals, and also affect international policy.
Finally, convinced as I am that change is impossible
without motivation and a process of education, I will
offer some inspired guidelines for human develop-
ment to be found in the treasure of Christian spiritual
experience.

16. Although each chapter will have its own
subject and specific approach, it will also take up and
re-examine important questions previously dealt with.
This is particularly the case with a number of themes
which will reappear as the Encyclical unfolds. As ex-
amples, I will point to the intimate relationship be-
tween the poor and the fragility of the planet, the
conviction that everything in the world is connected,
the critique of new paradigms and forms of power
derived from technology, the call to seek other ways
of understanding the economy and progress, the val-
ue proper to each creature, the human meaning of
ecology, the need for forthright and honest debate,
the serious responsibility of international and local
policy, the throwaway culture and the proposal of a
new lifestyle. These questions will not be dealt with
once and for all, but reframed and enriched again
and again.

CHAPTER ONE:
WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR
COMMON HOME

17. Theological and philosophical reflections on
the situation of humanity and the world can sound
tiresome and abstract, unless they are grounded in a
fresh analysis of our present situation, which is in
many ways unprecedented in the history of humanity.
So, before considering how faith brings new incen-
tives and requirements with regard to the world of
which we are a part, I will briefly turn to what is hap-
pening to our common home.

18. The continued acceleration of changes af-
fecting humanity and the planet is coupled today with
a more intensified pace of life and work which might
be called “rapidification”. Although change is part of
the working of complex systems, the speed with
which human activity has developed contrasts with
the naturally slow pace of biological evolution. More-
over, the goals of this rapid and constant change are
not necessarily geared to the common good or to
integral and sustainable human development.

Change is something desirable, yet it becomes a
source of anxiety when it causes harm to the world
and to the quality of life of much of humanity.

19. Following a period of irrational confidence
in progress and human abilities, some sectors of socie-
ty are now adopting a more critical approach. We see
increasing sensitivity to the environment and the need
to protect nature, along with a growing concern, both
genuine and distressing, for what is happening to our
planet. Let us review, however cursorily, those ques-
tions which are troubling us today and which we can
no longer sweep under the carpet. Our goal is not to
amass information or to satisfy curiosity, but rather to
become painfully aware, to dare to turn what is hap-
pening to the world into our own personal suffering
and thus to discover what each of us can do about it.

I. POLLUTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Pollution, waste and the throwaway culture

20. Some forms of pollution are part of people’s

daily experience. Exposure to atmospheric pollutants
produces a broad spectrum of health hazards, espe-
cially for the poor, and causes millions of premature
deaths. People take sick, for example, from breathing
high levels of smoke from fuels used in cooking or
heating. There is also pollution that affects everyone,
caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances
which contribute to the acidification of soil and wa-
ter, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and
agrotoxins in general. Technology, which, linked to
business interests, is presented as the only way of solv-
ing these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing
the mysterious network of relations between things
and so sometimes solves one problem only to create
others.

21. Account must also be taken of the pollution
produced by residue, including dangerous waste pre-
sent in different areas. Each year hundreds of millions
of tons of waste are generated, much of it non-
biodegradable, highly toxic and radioactive, from
homes and businesses, from construction and demoli-
tion sites, from clinical, electronic and industrial
sources. The earth, our home, is beginning to look
more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many
parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beau-
tiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish. Indus-
trial waste and chemical products utilized in cities
and agricultural areas can lead to bioaccumulation in
the organisms of the local population, even when
levels of toxins in those places are low. Frequently no
measures are taken until after people’s health has
been irreversibly affected.

Laudato si’

 5

22. These problems are closely linked to a
throwaway culture which affects the excluded just as
it quickly reduces things to rubbish. To cite one ex-
ample, most of the paper we produce is thrown away
and not recycled. It is hard for us to accept that the
way natural ecosystems work is exemplary: plants
synthesize nutrients which feed herbivores; these in
turn become food for carnivores, which produce sig-
nificant quantities of organic waste which give rise to
new generations of plants. But our industrial system,
at the end of its cycle of production and consumption,
has not developed the capacity to absorb and reuse
waste and by-products. We have not yet managed to
adopt a circular model of production capable of pre-
serving resources for present and future generations,
while limiting as much as possible the use of non-
renewable resources, moderating their consumption,
maximizing their efficient use, reusing and recycling
them. A serious consideration of this issue would be
one way of counteracting the throwaway culture
which affects the entire planet, but it must be said
that only limited progress has been made in this re-
gard.

Climate as a common good

23. The climate is a common good, belonging to

all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a com-
plex system linked to many of the essential conditions
for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indi-
cates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing
warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this
warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in
the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of
extreme weather events, even if a scientifically deter-
minable cause cannot be assigned to each particular
phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the
need for changes of lifestyle, production and con-
sumption, in order to combat this warming or at least
the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is
true that there are other factors (such as volcanic ac-
tivity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar
cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that
most global warming in recent decades is due to the
great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon diox-
ide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released
mainly as a result of human activity. Concentrated in
the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth
of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed
in space. The problem is aggravated by a model of
development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels,
which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system.
Another determining factor has been an increase in
changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for

agricultural purposes.
24. Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It

creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation
even more, affecting the availability of essential re-
sources like drinking water, energy and agricultural
production in warmer regions, and leading to the
extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity. The
melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude
plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane
gas, while the decomposition of frozen organic mate-
rial can further increase the emission of carbon diox-
ide. Things are made worse by the loss of tropical
forests which would otherwise help to mitigate cli-
mate change. Carbon dioxide pollution increases the
acidification of the oceans and compromises the ma-
rine food chain. If present trends continue, this centu-
ry may well witness extraordinary climate change and
an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with
serious consequences for all of us. A rise in the sea
level, for example, can create extremely serious situa-
tions, if we consider that a quarter of the world’s
population lives on the coast or nearby, and that the
majority of our megacities are situated in coastal are-
as.

25. Climate change is a global problem with
grave implications: environmental, social, economic,
political and for the distribution of goods. It repre-
sents one of the principal challenges facing humanity
in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by
developing countries in coming decades. Many of the
poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena
related to warming, and their means of subsistence
are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosys-
temic services such as agriculture, fishing and forest-
ry. They have no other financial activities or re-
sources which can enable them to adapt to climate
change or to face natural disasters, and their access to
social services and protection is very limited. For ex-
ample, changes in climate, to which animals and
plants cannot adapt, lead them to migrate; this in
turn affects the livelihood of the poor, who are then
forced to leave their homes, with great uncertainty for
their future and that of their children. There has been
a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee
from the growing poverty caused by environmental
degradation. They are not recognized by internation-
al conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the
lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal
protection whatsoever. Sadly, there is widespread
indifference to such suffering, which is even now tak-
ing place throughout our world. Our lack of response
to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters
points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our
fellow men and women upon which all civil society is

Laudato si’

 6

founded.
26. Many of those who possess more resources

and economic or political power seem mostly to be
concerned with masking the problems or concealing
their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some
of the negative impacts of climate change. However,
many of these symptoms indicate that such effects will
continue to worsen if we continue with current mod-
els of production and consumption. There is an ur-
gent need to develop policies so that, in the next few
years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other high-
ly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for ex-
ample, substituting for fossil fuels and developing
sources of renewable energy. Worldwide there is min-
imal access to clean and renewable energy. There is
still a need to develop adequate storage technologies.
Some countries have made considerable progress,
although it is far from constituting a significant pro-
portion. Investments have also been made in means
of production and transportation which consume less
energy and require fewer raw materials, as well as in
methods of construction and renovating buildings
which improve their energy efficiency. But these good
practices are still far from widespread.

II. THE ISSUE OF WATER

27. Other indicators of the present situation
have to do with the depletion of natural resources.
We all know that it is not possible to sustain the pre-
sent level of consumption in developed countries and
wealthier sectors of society, where the habit of wast-
ing and discarding has reached unprecedented levels.
The exploitation of the planet has already exceeded
acceptable limits and we still have not solved the
problem of poverty.

28. Fresh drinking water is an issue of primary
importance, since it is indispensable for human life
and for supporting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Sources of fresh water are necessary for health care,
agriculture and industry. Water supplies used to be
relatively constant, but now in many places demand
exceeds the sustainable supply, with dramatic conse-
quences in the short and long term. Large cities de-
pendent on significant supplies of water have experi-
enced periods of shortage, and at critical moments
these have not always been administered with suffi-
cient oversight and impartiality. Water poverty espe-
cially affects Africa where large sectors of the popula-
tion have no access to safe drinking water or experi-
ence droughts which impede agricultural production.
Some countries have areas rich in water while others
endure drastic scarcity.

29. One particularly serious problem is the

quality of water available to the poor. Every day, un-
safe water results in many deaths and the spread of
water-related diseases, including those caused by mi-
croorganisms and chemical substances. Dysentery
and cholera, linked to inadequate hygiene and water
supplies, are a significant cause of suffering and of
infant mortality. Underground water sources in many
places are threatened by the pollution produced in
certain mining, farming and industrial activities, es-
pecially in countries lacking adequate regulation or
controls. It is not only a question of industrial waste.
Detergents and chemical products, commonly used in
many places of the world, continue to pour into our
rivers, lakes and seas.

30. Even as the quality of available water is con-
stantly diminishing, in some places there is a growing
tendency, despite its scarcity, to privatize this re-
source, turning it into a commodity subject to the
laws of the market. Yet access to safe drinkable water is a
basic and universal human right, since it is essential to human
survival and, as such, is a condition for the exercise of other
human rights. Our world has a grave social debt to-
wards the poor who lack access to drinking water,
because they are denied the right to a life consistent with their
inalienable dignity. This debt can be paid partly by an
increase in funding to provide clean water and sani-
tary services among the poor. But water continues to
be wasted, not only in the developed world but also in
developing countries which possess it in abundance.
This shows that the problem of water is partly an
educational and cultural issue, since there is little
awareness of the seriousness of such behaviour within
a context of great inequality.

31. Greater scarcity of water will lead to an in-
crease in the cost of food and the various products
which depend on its use. Some studies warn that an
acute water shortage may occur within a few decades
unless urgent action is taken. The environmental re-
percussions could affect billions of people; it is also
conceivable that the control of water by large multi-
national businesses may become a major source of
conflict in this century.[23]

III. LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY

32. The earth’s resources are also being plun-
dered because of short-sighted approaches to the
economy, commerce and production. The loss of
forests and woodlands entails the loss of species which
may constitute extremely important resources in the
future, not only for food but also for curing disease
and other uses. Different species contain genes which
could be key resources in years ahead for meeting
human needs and regulating environmental prob-

Laudato si’

 7

lems.
33. It is not enough, however, to think of differ-

ent species merely as potential “resources” to be ex-
ploited, while overlooking the fact that they have val-
ue in themselves. Each year sees the disappearance of
thousands of plant and animal species which we will
never know, which our children will never see, be-
cause they have been lost for ever. The great majority
become extinct for reasons related to human activity.
Because of us, thousands of species will no longer give
glory to God by their very existence, nor convey their
message to us. We have no such right.

34. It may well disturb us to learn of the extinc-
tion of mammals or birds, since they are more visible.
But the good functioning of ecosystems also requires
fungi, algae, worms, insects, reptiles and an innumer-
able variety of microorganisms. Some less numerous
species, although generally unseen, nonetheless play a
critical role in maintaining the equilibrium of a par-
ticular place. Human beings must intervene when a
geosystem reaches a critical state. But nowadays, such
intervention in nature has become more and more
frequent. As a consequence, serious problems arise,
leading to further interventions; human activity be-
comes ubiquitous, with all the risks which this entails.
Often a vicious circle results, as human intervention
to resolve a problem further aggravates the situation.
For example, many birds and insects which disappear
due to synthetic agrotoxins are helpful for agriculture:
their disappearance will have to

Philosophy homework help

Summarize Chapter 9: Mariology at Vatican II, of The Marian Mystery (pp. 223-241)
(100-150 words).

Summarize Chapter 10: The Marian Mystery: Road to a Synthesis, of The Marian Mystery
(pp. 243-306) (100-150 words).

Philosophy homework help

Final Paper Prompt

Write a 1,000-1,250 word essay response that creatively describes a sustainable future where we have solved the environmental issue you wrote about for your research paper. You may focus on one city, as in the Eco-Utopia examples or write more broadly. Either way, be sure to give specific details about a) the contemporary environmental problem; b) your own vision for what moving past it could look like and c) the key factors in actually making that change happen. Remember, environmental problems are always connected to social and political ones so be sure to consider their interrelationships and consider conceptions of justice, as we have been doing throughout the semester. 

Your paper should begin with an introduction that clearly states the problem and how you believe we will have moved past it. This should be followed by a well-organized and supported discussion and a conclusion. At a minimum, your paper must reference and cite the Alaimo and Orekses & Conway readings, but should also include at least two other relevant course readings. You must use in-text citations where appropriate in a consistent style (like APA or MLA), and include a list of references at the end.

Eco-Utopias

Prompt

Browse the 
list of cities (Links to an external site.)
 that constitute the
 Ecotopia 2121 Project (Links to an external site.)
, a collection of research-based stories imagining greener futures for real-world cities and their current challenges. Be sure to click on and read the narrative descriptions for at least three cities. Then write a post addressing the following questions: Which future-city do you find most compelling and why? What real-world contemporary environmental problem(s) has the city overcome? What vision does the project outline for the city’s future? How is change imagined to have happened? (ie. technology alone or something else?). 

References

Alaimo, Stacy. 2012. “Sustainable This, Sustainable That: New Materialisms, Posthumanisms and Unknown Futures.” PMLA 127(3): 558-564.

Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway. 2013. “The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future.” Daedalus 142(1): 40-58.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Philosophy homework help

T H E E A R T H C H A R T E R

P R E A M B L E

We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world
becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move
forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human
family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global
society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards
this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater
community of life, and to future generations.

Earth, Our Home
Humanity is part of a vast evolving universe. Earth, our home, is alive with a unique community of life. The
forces of nature make existence a demanding and uncertain adventure, but Earth has provided the conditions
essential to life’s evolution. The resilience of the community of life and the well-being of humanity depend
upon preserving a healthy biosphere with all its ecological systems, a rich variety of plants and animals, fertile
soils, pure waters, and clean air. The global environment with its finite resources is a common concern of all
peoples. The protection of Earth’s vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust.

The Global Situation
The dominant patterns of production and consumption are causing environmental devastation, the depletion
of resources, and a massive extinction of species. Communities are being undermined. The benefits of
development are not shared equitably and the gap between rich and poor is widening. Injustice, poverty,
ignorance, and violent conflict are widespread and the cause of great suffering. An unprecedented rise in
human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are
threatened. These trends are perilous—but not inevitable.

The Challenges Ahead
The choice is ours: form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of
ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of
living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being
more, not having more. We have the knowledge and technology to provide for all and to reduce our impacts
on the environment. The emergence of a global civil society is creating new opportunities to build a
democratic and humane world. Our environmental, economic, political, social, and spiritual challenges are
interconnected, and together we can forge inclusive solutions.

Universal Responsibility
To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying
ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of
different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for
the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human
solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being,
gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.

We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world
community. Therefore, together in hope we affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of
life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and
transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed.

T H E E A R T H C H A R T E R

– -2

P R I N C I P L E S

I . R E S P E C T A N D C A R E F O R T H E C O M M U N I T Y O F L I F E

1. Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.
a. Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value regardless of its worth to human
beings.
b. Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings and in the intellectual, artistic, ethical, and spiritual
potential of humanity.

2. Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love.
a. Accept that with the right to own, manage, and use natural resources comes the duty to prevent environmental
harm and to protect the rights of people.
b. Affirm that with increased freedom, knowledge, and power comes increased responsibility to promote the
common good.

3. Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.
a. Ensure that communities at all levels guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms and provide everyone
an opportunity to realize his or her full potential.
b. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is
ecologically responsible.

4. Secure Earth’s bounty and beauty for present and future generations.
a. Recognize that the freedom of action of each generation is qualified by the needs of future generations.
b. Transmit to future generations values, traditions, and institutions that support the long-term flourishing of
Earth’s human and ecological communities. In order to fulfill these four broad commitments, it is necessary to:

I I . E C O L O G I C A L I N T E G R I T Y

5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, with special concern for
biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.
a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and
rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.
b. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves, including wild lands and marine areas, to protect
Earth’s life support systems, maintain biodiversity, and preserve our natural heritage.
c. Promote the recovery of endangered species and ecosystems.
d. Control and eradicate non-native or genetically modified organisms harmful to native species and the
environment, and prevent introduction of such harmful organisms.
e. Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life in ways that do not
exceed rates of regeneration and that protect the health of ecosystems.
f. Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels in ways that
minimize depletion and cause no serious environmental damage.

6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited,
apply a precautionary approach.
a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge
is incomplete or inconclusive.
b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make
the responsible parties liable for environmental harm.
c. Ensure that decision making addresses the cumulative, long-term, indirect, long distance, and global
consequences of human activities.
d. Prevent pollution of any part of the environment and allow no build-up of radioactive, toxic, or other hazardous
substances.
e. Avoid military activities damaging to the environment.

7. Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s
regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.
a. Reduce, reuse, and recycle the materials used in production and consumption systems, and ensure that residual
waste can be assimilated by ecological systems.
b. Act with restraint and efficiency when using energy, and rely increasingly on renewable energy sources such as
solar and wind.
c. Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.

T H E E A R T H C H A R T E R

– -3

d. Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable
consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards.
e. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.
f. Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

8. Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide
application of the knowledge acquired.
a. Support international scientific and technical cooperation on sustainability, with special attention to the needs of
developing nations.
b. Recognize and preserve the traditional knowledge and spiritual wisdom in all cultures that contribute to
environmental protection and human well-being.
c. Ensure that information of vital importance to human health and environmental protection, including genetic
information, remains available in the public domain.

I I I . S O C I A L A N D E C O N O M I C J U S T I C E

9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
a. Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation,
allocating the national and international resources required.
b. Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide
social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.
c. Recognize the ignored, protect the vulnerable, serve those who suffer, and enable them to develop their
capacities and to pursue their aspirations.

10. Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in
an equitable and sustainable manner.
a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.
b. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of
onerous international debt.
c. Ensure that all trade supports sustainable resource use, environmental protection, and progressive labor
standards.
d. Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public
good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

11. Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure
universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.
a. Secure the human rights of women and girls and end all violence against them.
b. Promote the active participation of women in all aspects of economic, political, civil, social, and cultural life as
full and equal partners, decision makers, leaders, and beneficiaries.
c. Strengthen families and ensure the safety and loving nurture of all family members.

12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment
supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the
rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.
a. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion,
language, and national, ethnic or social origin.
b. Affirm the right of indigenous peoples to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related
practice of sustainable livelihoods.
c. Honor and support the young people of our communities, enabling them to fulfill their essential role in creating
sustainable societies.
d. Protect and restore outstanding places of cultural and spiritual significance.

I V . D E M O C R A C Y , N O N V I O L E N C E , A N D P E A C E

13. Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability
in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.
a. Uphold the right of everyone to receive clear and timely information on environmental matters and all
development plans and activities which are likely to affect them or in which they have an interest.
b. Support local, regional and global civil society, and promote the meaningful participation of all interested
individuals and organizations in decision making.
c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, and dissent.
d. Institute effective and efficient access to administrative and independent judicial procedures, including remedies

T H E E A R T H C H A R T E R

– -4

and redress for environmental harm and the threat of such harm.
e. Eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions.
f. Strengthen local communities, enabling them to care for their environments, and assign environmental
responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills
needed for a sustainable way of life.
a. Provide all, especially children and youth, with educational opportunities that empower them to contribute
actively to sustainable development.
b. Promote the contribution of the arts and humanities as well as the sciences in sustainability education.
c. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges.
d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.

15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.
a. Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from suffering.
b. Protect wild animals from methods of hunting, trapping, and fishing that cause extreme, prolonged, or avoidable
suffering.
c. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species.

16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.
a. Encourage and support mutual understanding, solidarity, and cooperation among all peoples and within and
among nations.
b. Implement comprehensive strategies to prevent violent conflict and use collaborative problem solving to manage
and resolve environmental conflicts and other disputes.
c. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military
resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.
d. Eliminate nuclear, biological, and toxic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
e. Ensure that the use of orbital and outer space supports environmental protection and peace.
f. Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures,
other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part.

T H E W A Y F O R W A R D

As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of
these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values
and objectives of the Charter.

This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal
responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally,
regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own
distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth
Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.

Life often involves tensions between important values. This can mean difficult choices. However, we must find
ways to harmonize diversity with unity, the exercise of freedom with the common good, short-term objectives with
long-term goals. Every individual, family, organization, and community has a vital role to play. The arts, sciences,
religions, educational institutions, media, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and governments are all
called to offer creative leadership. The partnership of government, civil society, and business is essential for
effective governance.

In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the
United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of
Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve
sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.

O R I G I N O F T H E E A R T H C H A R T E R

The Earth Charter was created by the independent Earth Charter Commission, which was convened as a follow-up to the 1992 Earth Summit in order
to produce a global consensus statement of values and principles for a sustainable future. The document was developed over nearly a decade through an
extensive process of international consultation, to which over five thousand people contributed. The Charter has been formally endorsed by thousands of
organizations, including UNESCO and the IUCN (World Conservation Union). For more information, please visit www.EarthCharter.org.

Philosophy homework help

The Argument from Evil

This is by far the most prominent argument for atheism. Epicurus, an Ancient Greek philosopher, might have been the first to discuss it.

In the philosophical/theological tradition, God is defined as a being that has 3 main properties: 
(1) Omnipotence: God can do anything.
(2) Omniscience: God knows everything.
(3) Omnibenevolence: God is all good.  
The argument from evil tries to show that no such being exists, because if we assume that it does, we get a contradiction.
The argument is a “reductio ad absurdum” proof: 
In such a proof, you assume that some claim C is true, and then show that a contradiction results.  Since contradictions are impossible, we can then infer that C is not true.  Such proofs are used throughout logic and mathematics.    
The argument:
(1) Assume that God exists.
(2) God is all powerful, all knowing and all good (this is true by definition).
(3) Given (2), God knows that evil exists, God should want to prevent it, and God can prevent it.
(4) Given (3), evil should not exist.
(5) But evil does exist.
(6) This a contradiction, so our assumption, i.e. (1), is false.
(7) That is, God does not exist.  

Step (1) cannot be denied.
Step (5) is probably safe (a religious person cannot deny that evil exists, can they?).
Steps (6) and (7) follow from other steps.  
Steps (2), (3) and (4) are the potential weak spots. 

The problem is basically this: if an all good, all powerful being created the universe, then why do bad things happen all the time?  Why were there Nazis?  Why do children die of cancer?  Why are there earthquakes etc?  It is a bit of a puzzle.  
What do you think about this argument?

How might a religious person respond?

Responses:

There are many responses.

1. You could deny one of the divine attributes.  Perhaps God is not all good, or not all powerful etc.?  
The atheist response to this is that if you deny that God is all powerful, for example, then why should we worship God?

(2) The Free Will defense: The reason that a lot of evil exists is us.  God gave us free will to make our own choices.  Without free will, we would just be machines and life would be meaningless etc.  But sometimes people abuse that freedom and do terrible things.  Nazis existed because sometimes people choose to be evil.  It’s not God’s fault.  
This is a promising response.  But there are two types of evil: moral evil, which is the evil we create, and natural evil, which are things like earthquakes and so on.  It seems that we are responsible for moral evil, but natural evil is not our fault.  So, while the free will defense can explain away a lot of evil, it cannot explain away all evil.

(3) Things that look evil to us might be good in the long run.  They might lead to a greater good.  Maybe we don’t understand God’s plan?
This is called “skeptical theism.”  The ways of God are beyond human comprehension.  Fair enough.  But the atheist will say that it’s tough to see how some kid dying of cancer leads to enough good to outweigh the evil.  
  (4) Suffering developes our souls.  It makes us better people.  It prepares us for heaven etc.  This life isn’t supposed to be prefect.  That’s what heaven is for etc.  
This is called “Soul Making Theodicy.”  Perhaps it can help with the problem of evil?
(5) You need bad to understand/appreciate/have the good?
Here’s an example: forgiveness is thought to be a good thing.  But to have forgiveness, someone has to do something bad; otherwise there would be nothing to forgive etc.  So to have the good of forgiveness we must have some

THE PROBLEM OF HELL
A pretty interesting puzzle.
In many versions of Christianity, hell is thought to be a place of eternal torment; whatever the nature of this torment is (burning in fire, or simply being separated from God etc.).
Hell lasts forever, whatever it might be like.    
But some have argued that such a punishment would be unjust.  
Here’s the basic idea:
(1) Hell is a place of infinite punishment.  
(2) Human beings only live a finite amount of time, and so can only produce a finite amount of evil.  No matter how much evil someone creates, even if it is a lot, it will be a finite amount.  
(3) It would be unjust (or unfair) to punish someone an infinite amount for producing only a finite amount of evil.
(4) So, either God is unjust (but that cannot be right because God is perfectly just) or Hell is not eternal.  

Universalism: the idea that hell is only temporary.  
Eventually, everyone is saved.

What do you make of this problem of hell?  Would an all loving God send someone to Hell forever?  Would an all loving God send someone to Hell for even a little while?  Is there anything to this “universalism” idea?

PROBLEMS WITH HEAVEN 
There are various puzzles with heaven too.

One concerns free will and the question about whether or not we can have it in heaven.
(1) Heaven is perfect.  For example, in heaven, no one murders anyone else or punches someone in the face or does other evil things.  
(2) But if no one can do evil things, it doesn’t appear that we have free will in heaven.
(3) But an existence without free will is meaningless.  
(4) So, heaven is not perfect, or doesn’t exist etc?

Another problem some have raised:
Would heaven be extremely boring?  Just a bunch of do-gooders sitting around singing happy songs forever etc?

W.K. Clifford

Wrote a very famous and controversial paper called “The Ethics of Belief.”  (1877)
The main thesis: it is immoral to believe anything without sufficient evidence.  

The argument:
A shipowner thinks that his ship might need an overhaul.  It might be unsafe.
But he convinces himself that it is safe.  
He trusts fate, or the ship builders, for example.
But he has no good evidence that it is safe.
The ship sinks and people die.  
Clifford: the shipowner is immoral and is morally responsible for the deaths.    

Even if the shipowner would have gotten lucky, and the ship didn’t sink, the shipowner is still immoral.  

Clifford thinks that what the shipowner did wrong was believe something without having evidence for it. And doing that is immoral.

Clifford’s main target is religious belief though. He thinks that religious people are morally bad because they lack evidence for their religious belief, but believe it anyway. (note that often Clifford is taken as an argument for agnosticism.)

What do we think of this claim?

William James
“The Will to Believe”
A Response to Clifford.

The main thesis: when we have evidence, we should base our beliefs on it.  

But if we lack evidence one way or the other, we can be justified and rational in simply choosing what to believe based on what we want to believe.

The argument:
There are three possible positions one can adopt with respect to God:

1.  Theism.  The theist risks making a mistake (i.e., falsely believing in God) to have a chance at knowing the truth and obtaining an important good. 

2.  Agnosticism: The agnostic risks losing out on a truth (that God exists) and an important good for the certainty of avoiding error.

3. Atheist: The atheist risks error (falsely believing there is no God) and the loss of an important good for a chance at truth.
But all three views are undecidable.
There is no reason to prefer one over the other based on the evidence we have.  
They are all equally good from an evidence standpoint.
Plus this is an important (“momentus”) decision, so we should pick one.
Plus these are all “live” options; none are obviously false.  
So, we are justified in simply choosing to believe whichever one we want.  We must choose a view, but the evidence cannot help us choose, so we might as well pick the one that makes us happy.  And it is rational to do so.  
Clifford’s mistake was to think that the agnostic’s policy is the only rational option but we’ve just seen that each option is on a par with the others.
So, although there is no duty to choose to believe, one is in one’s rights in doing so, if one so chooses.  

What do we think about James’ argument?

Philosophy homework help

4/28/22, 7:43 PM Rubric Assessment – PHI214C40 Philosophy of Religion: AH3 (Erik Hanson) SP22 – CCCOnline

https://ccco.desire2learn.com/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=3335690&evalObjectId=2540883&evalObjectType=5&userId=113068… 1/2

Discussion Rubric
Course: PHI214C40 Philosophy of Religion: AH3 (Erik Hanson) SP22

Criteria
Excellent
5 points

Very Good
4 points

Satisfactory
3 points

Needs
Improvemen
t
2 points

Unsatisfacto
ry
0 points

Criterion
Score

Comprehen

sion

/ 5

Evaluation
/ 5

Responsive

ness

/ 5

Demonstrates

excellent

comprehensio

n of material

referenced in

the question.

Demonstrates

good

comprehensio

n of the

material

referenced in

the question.

Demonstrates

basic

comprehensio

n of the

material

referenced in

the question.

Demonstrates

minimal

comprehensio

n of the

material

referenced in

the question.

Demonstrates

little to no

comprehensio

n of the

material

referenced in

the question.

Provides a

clear

evaluation of

the material

referenced in

the question.

Provides a

good

evaluation of

the material

referenced in

the question.

Provides a

vague

evaluation of

the material

in the

question.

Provides

minimal

evaluation of

the material

referenced in

the question.

Provides

little to no

evaluation of

the material

referenced in

the question.

Contributes

at least six

substantive &

detailed

responses,

over the

course of at

least four

separate

days.

Contributes

at least five

substantive &

detailed

responses,

over the

course of at

least three

separate

days.

Contributes

at least four

substantive &

detailed

responses,

over the

course of at

least two

separate

days.

Contributes

at least

three

substantive &

detailed

responses, on

at least one

day.

Contributes

only two or

fewer

substantive &

detailed

responses, or

no responses

on any day.

4/28/22, 7:43 PM Rubric Assessment – PHI214C40 Philosophy of Religion: AH3 (Erik Hanson) SP22 – CCCOnline

https://ccco.desire2learn.com/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=3335690&evalObjectId=2540883&evalObjectType=5&userId=113068… 2/2

Total / 20

Overall Score

Criteria
Excellent
5 points

Very Good
4 points

Satisfactory
3 points

Needs
Improvemen
t
2 points

Unsatisfacto
ry
0 points

Criterion
Score

Thoroughn

ess &

Timeliness

/ 5
Responds to

all three of

the module’s

three

discussion

questions

within the

first half of

the module.

Responds to

all three of

the module’s

three

discussion

questions

before the

end of the

module.

Responds to

any two of

the module’s

three

discussion

questions

within the

first half of

the module.

Responds to

any two of

the module’s

three

discussion

questions

before the

end of the

module.

Responds to

only one or

none of the

module’s

three

discussion

questions

before the

end of the

module.

Excellent
20 points

minimum

Very Good
16 points

minimum

Satisfactory
12 points

minimum

Needs
Improvement
8 points minimum

Unsatisfactor
y
0 points minimum

Philosophy homework help

Reading: Social Justice

Social Justice

Social justice is just the idea of goodness as applied to social groups. When asked what it means for a society to be just, most of us will think of things like freedom and equality. But things haven’t always been thus. Valuing liberty and freedom is a pretty recent innovation. We have already noted John Locke as an early advocate of liberal political thinking in the 17th century. Older conceptions of justice were neither egalitarian nor freedom loving. Here we’ll consider Plato’s.

Plato develops his conception of justice in the Republic (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Here Plato develops a view of the ideal state as modeled on that of the ideal person. The state is understood as the person writ large. The idea of justice, for Plato, was as much a virtue of the individual person as of the state. Justice was seen as a kind of meta-virtue. The just person is the person who has all the other virtues and has them in the appropriate integrated balance. People have various capacities and abilities and we have various virtues that correspond to those abilities. We can be courageous in facing threats, temperate in managing our appetites, diligent in carrying out our projects, and wise in deliberating about what to do and how. To be a just person is for the various abilities relevant to the various virtues to be playing their proper role. When we turn to the justice of communities, we find different individuals playing the various roles. We want the virtue of wisdom in the ruling class, the virtue of courage in the military class, and the virtues of temperance and diligence in the business class. The just community, in Plato’s view, is the community where the various elements stick to their proper roles and cultivate the virtues appropriate to those roles.

Though Athens was a democracy, Plato was no fan of democracy. In his dialogues he has Socrates repeatedly lampooning democracy as rule by the least qualified. This is because the leaders in a democracy are not chosen by the wise, but by the majority, and the majority is often easily manipulated by bad actors. As a result, Plato endorsed a kind of elitism, the rule by experts or “philosopher kings.” His idea of justice is one where the various functions of society are carried out by those who have the wisdom, expertise and excellence appropriate to the specific role. While Plato places no particular value on equality or freedom for individuals, his ideal state is a meritocracy where everyone has equal opportunity to find his or her appropriate place through a vigorous system of public education. The point of equal opportunity in this meritocratic system was not to be fair to individuals, though. The goal was to identify and cultivate talent wherever it is to be found.

However we might feel about the inegalitarian view of justice Plato develops in the Republic, he raises an important problem that every political system faces. Specifically, how do we reliably fill positions of power with people who are competent and will conduct themselves in the interest of the public. Plato’s answer to the competence issue was to select leaders through a rigorous meritocratic education system. To discourage leaders from abusing their power to serve personal ends rather than the good of the state, Plato also would have his philosopher kings be wards of the state for life, owning no personal property and even severing all family ties to avoid the corrupting tendencies of self-interest. We should not here that the inegalitarian aspects of Plato’s system don’t address the problems of incompetence and corruption, though. The inegalitarian aspects of Plato’s political thought helped to legitimize a long tradition of top-down governance by kings, religious authority, and military might in the Europe and this history includes ample and often colorful stories of incompetence and corruption. It’s only in the last few centuries that ideals of equal individual rights and freedoms begin to gain traction. We’ll turn to these now.

Freedom and Equality

We should note at the outset that freedom and equality are both highly ambiguous notions. We can be equal or unequal in a wide variety of different ways. Socialism, traditionally understood as public ownership of the means of production, emphasizes equality of wealth and resources in ways that are liable to frustrate some kinds of freedom. In more liberal traditions, those that emphasize liberty, equality is incorporated in terms of equal liberties, equal treatment before the law, equal opportunity, equal access to public goods, and so forth. Talk of freedom can also refer to assorted different things. Freedom can be thought of in negative terms as in being free from the dominance of others or in positive terms as in being free to do what we like with things that are ours. And there are many kinds of freedom. Economic freedom is one thing, freedom of conscience is another. Then there is freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of movement, and so forth. So clarifying our political philosophy in liberal traditions requires being fairly specific about what we mean by talk of freedom and equality. Not everyone who claims to love freedom and equality loves the same thing.

Here we will focus on two giants of liberal political philosophy, John Locke and John Rawls. What makes a political philosophy a liberal political philosophy is just that it takes individual liberty, in one form or another, to be a fundamental virtue of the just state or society. So liberal political thought stands in contrast to both communism on the left and fascism or nationalism on the right. Liberalism rejects aristocracy, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, oligarchy, and plutocracy (I’ll leave those fancy words for you to look up). Liberal political philosophy, understood literally as political philosophy that places a high priority on liberty, is a broad tradition that includes both mainstream “liberal” and “conservative” political thinking according to more familiar labels in American politics. You will find John Locke’s thinking to be more in line with contemporary conservativism and John Rawls thought to be more reflective of contemporary political liberals. We’ll begin with John Locke

John Locke

John Locke’s First Treatise on Government was an extended argument against the European system of aristocracy and the alleged divine birth right of rulers. Of course, in a society that had only known government by the rule of kings, this raises an obvious question. If human society is not legitimately organized by the authority of a ruling class, then how is it to be organized? Locke addresses this issue in his Second Treatise on Government which can be found here: http://jim.com/2ndtreat.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Locke’s positive political theory starts with thinking about what morality demands in the absence of government. According to Locke, in the state of nature (or in the absence of government) people exist in a state of perfect freedom. This partly means that people are free to pursue their own happiness and well being. But this perfect freedom is not a license to do whatever one likes or to treat others as one likes. Rather, Locke would understand the liberty we have a natural right to as freedom from domination and coercion.

The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life (The Second Treatise of Government, Chpt. 2 Sect. 6)

By the moral law of nature, one is not justified in assaulting others except as retribution for an injustice. Likewise, one is not justified in taking another’s property except as redress for that person taking or destroying one’s own property. But this state of nature inevitably leads to a state of chaos because people are not very good arbiters of justice in their own case. They are prone to inflate the wrongs committed against themselves and seek too much in the way of redress or retribution.

Government is justified as the most effective way of securing the natural rights of individuals. In joining civil society, we voluntarily turn our right to protect and enforce our individual rights over to the state. The legitimate function of the state is to secure the equality liberty that people have a natural right to. This view places rather strict limits on the legitimate functions of government. The point of government is just to secure our liberty and its function should therefore be limited to that. Where a government goes beyond this liberty securing role, Locke says people are justified in rebelling against the government.

Just what are the rights and liberties government serves to protect? Self ownership is central to the natural rights equally enjoyed by all. In fact, the idea of self-ownership captures much of how Locke understand individual liberty. This clearly speaks against slavery and other forms of domination or oppression. If a person own’s herself by natural law, then clearly she can’t also be owned by another. Property rights are then justified as an extension of self ownership. Locke sees all of nature as initially held in common. When a person “mixes her labor with the stuff of the earth,” say, by planting a tree or fashioning a tool from a branch, she acquires a right to the fruits of her labor as an extension of her right of self ownership. Here Locke offers a compelling philosophical justification for property rights.

Locke also recognizes limits to the extent of property rights. Specifically, A person does not have a right to more property than they can make use of. So, if the apple trees I plant produce more apples than I can harvest and preserve, I have no grounds for complaint when a passerby picks a few for himself. Above and beyond what one can make use of, the fruits of one’s labor return to the commons and are to be freely available to others. This limitation on property rights is harder to understand once we introduce a money economy where there are no limits to how much wealth I can set aside for future use and many more ways in which I might put that wealth to use. All the same, it would be hard to argue that anyone can make practical use of say, more than 50 million dollars.

The notion that there is an injustice in funding a social safety net for the less well off with taxes on the more affluent has its roots in a Lockean conception of property rights as natural rights that are closely tied to human liberty. On Locke’s view, when we mix our labor with the stuff of the earth, the fruit of our labor is ours by natural right. It is an extension of our natural right to our own selves. Thus, property rights, on Locke’s view, are closely tied to human liberty. The contemporary philosopher Robert Nozick extends Locke’s line of thought concerning property rights in his entitlement conception of social justice. On Nozick’s view, any distribution of property and wealth, no matter how unequal, is socially just so long as it was arrived at by just means. Acquiring wealth by one’s labor and then building on that through fair trades (those not involving coercion or deception) will be fair. Taxation beyond what is necessary to keep property rights (and hence human liberty) secure will be an injustice. In fact, it will be a variety of theft. Something along the lines of the views of Locke and Nozick has inspired a good deal of the anti-tax, small government sentiment that has been so influential in U.S. politics for the past 30 years or so. Liberty is seen as closely tied to property rights. To the degree that the government taxes citizens, it takes their property and thereby limits their freedom. It is worth noting that Nozick’s view goes well beyond Locke in stripping limits from property rights. Nozick is most closely associated with libertarian political thought. While libertarian thought offers principled grounds for accepting extreme inequality, it offers very little in the way of addressing the social instability that can result from this.

A further limitation on property rights according to Locke holds that the accumulation of private property constitutes no injustice to others “at least where there is enough and as good, left in the commons for others.” Locke takes the natural world and all the resources in it to be a commonwealth. That is, the earth, the waters, skies, and the various systems they contain are taken to be commonly owned by all. I draw from the resources of nature for raw materials when I create something I can then claim as property. As long as there is “as enough and as good” left for others, my accumulation of private property doesn’t limit the liberty of anyone else.

Locke lived in a time when natural resources appeared to be endlessly bountiful and any motivated person who wasn’t happy with the available distribution of property could hop a ship to the new world and homestead a piece of land (albeit one that was likely formerly occupied by Native Americans). Where natural resources can be regarded as practically unlimited, my neighbor’s great wealth doesn’t place any restriction on me investing my energy in creating wealth of my own. But if natural resources are limited and my neighbor has claimed much of what is available in the creation of his private property, then my opportunities are limited to that degree. We can no longer sustain the illusion that natural resources are unlimited. And as we bump up against those limits, Locke’s “enough and as good” proviso becomes much more significant and a problem known as the tragedy of the commons deserves some careful attention.

The Tragedy of the Commons

Garritt Hardin is well known for his clear articulation of the Tragedy of the Commons in the late sixties. Hardin was mainly concerned about human population, but this is just one instance of a much broader kind of problem. A tragedy of the commons is any case where some commonly held resource gets exhausted to the point where it has little value left to offer. Such a tragedy is bound to occur eventually whenever a commonly held resource is finite and freely utilized by self-interested agents.

Hardin introduces the notion of the tragedy of the commons with a tale about the fate of shepherd who share a pasture in common. Each shepherd notes that if he runs one more animal on the commonly held pasture, he will get the full benefit of that animal’s value when he takes it to market, but since the pasture is held in common, he will bear only a fraction of the cost of raising the animal. As a result, each shepherd finds it in his or her self-interest to run an additional animal on the pasture, and then another and another until the commonly held pasture is depleted to the point where it of no use to anyone. This dynamic is at work in a broad range of issues including fisheries, fresh water supplies, air pollution, and climate change.

Once we have a clear understanding of the logic of the commons, it is equally clear that there are only a limited number of ways to avoid a tragedy of the commons. Again, a tragedy of the commons is the inevitable result whenever we have a finite commons that is freely utilized by self-interested agents. The only way to avoid a tragedy of the commons is to prevent one or another of the three conditions that give rise to one. Perhaps we cannot expect individuals to consistently refrain from acting on their own interests. But there remain the possibilities of regulating access to the commons or expanding the commons in some way. In the case of climate change, some mitigation strategies like carbon sequestration can be seen as ways of expanding the commons. The commons in this case is the atmosphere which we use as a sink for carbon when we burn fossil fuels. The CO2 released by even quite a few cars and furnaces poses no serious problem. But beyond a certain point, carbon emissions become a serious problem. The atmosphere can’t soak up more without disrupting systems we all rely on in many ways. Attempts to capture carbon and sequester it reduce the load on the atmosphere as a carbon sink. One way to think of this is as a strategy for expanding our overall carbon sink by supplementing the atmosphere with underground carbon storage facilities (or, perhaps more realistically, trees and soil that sequester carbon, too). Another example of expanding the commons would be state-run fish hatcheries to rebuild fish populations depleted through fishing.

But in many cases, notably including climate change, strategies for expanding the commons aren’t sufficient for avoiding a tragedy of the commons. Given this, only one possible means of avoiding a tragedy of the commons remains, and that is regulating the use of the commons. We routinely accept of restrictions on our liberty as a means of avoiding a tragedy of the commons. In the early 70s the air in Southern California was barely breathable do the pollution from cars. So, California imposed stiff regulations on vehicle emissions. Southern California is still often smoggy, generally not as bad as it once was. Since it did not significantly impact people’s freedom to drive, requiring pollution controls on cars was a pretty unobtrusive kind of regulation. Sometimes we regulate the use of a commonly held resource by charging people to use it and this can take many forms from campground fees to special taxes based on use like car tabs that fund public transportation (the roadways are a commons that become much less valuable when too many people drive and too few use transit). Sometimes we do this with added limits on the use of a commonly held resource as in the case of fishing licenses with catch limits. Proposals to put a price on carbon in the form of energy taxes or cap and trade systems for carbon emissions are relatively unobtrusive attempts to regulate the use of the atmosphere as a carbon sink. Energy taxes would regulate use of the atmosphere by charging a fee. Cap and trade systems are a bit more complex and involve limits on emissions together with a market mechanism for rewarding innovative ways of cutting emissions. It’s worth noting that climate change is a much more difficult problem than your typical tragedy of the commons due to some challenging asymmetries. For instance, since climate change is a global and international problem, those who must regulate their use of the atmosphere to avoid a tragedy of the commons are a different group of people from those who will suffer the consequences. We might hope that the current generation will care enough about its descendants to take action. But after failing to act for a couple of decades, we are already entering the stage of lasting consequences and so far, a generation (mine) has passed the mounting problem on to the next generation (likely yours).

Once we have a clear understanding of the logic of the commons, it seems pretty obvious that regulating the use of commonly held resources is often called for. We are very prone to think of government regulation as an imposition on our liberty. But the destruction of commonly held resources poses a much greater imposition on our liberty. So, regulation to avoid a tragedy of the commons is quite in line with Locke’s view that the legitimate role of government is to secure out liberty. This should help us understand why conservatives as well as liberals were proponents of environmental regulation through the 60s and the 70s.

Here is a link to Garritt Hardin’s article, “The Tragedy of the Commons” http://dieoff.org/page95.htm (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

The System

Now we will consider an objection to Locke’s political philosophy, one that will set the stage for our discussion of John Rawls. The political thought of Locke is highly individualist. One aspect of this is that Locke takes the rights and liberties of individuals to be the only thing that matters in political philosophy. Beyond this, Locke would limit the legitimate role of government to securing those individual rights and liberties. Is this enough to secure justice?

Even when our rights and liberties are secured, our lives are significantly affected for better or worse by what I’ll refer as “the system.” So, what is this system? The system we have in a society is constituted by various subsystems like the market economy, our tax system, our education, health care and environmental management systems. As Rawls sees it, government has important work to do in establishing and upholding systems that are fair. Here Rawls goes beyond Locke. Rawls political philosophy still prioritizes individual rights and liberties. But Rawls sees something more at play. Justice in a society also depends on having a fair system. Now what is it for a system to be fair? This is the question Rawls sets out to answer. But before we get to that, let’s explore the system some and consider a few of the ways we rely on government to sustain the system.

We don’t create wealth from our own labor and ingenuity in a social vacuum. With the possible exception of the vegetables I grow in my garden, none of my wealth is entirely the product of mixing my labor with the stuff of the earth. Rather, nearly all of our productive activity is carried out in the context of a complex fabric of social structures and interrelations buoyed by a substantial technological infrastructure. Enjoying the fruits of my labor nearly always requires doing business with someone else and what I get out of this depends as much on the favorable social environment and technological infrastructure that makes doing business possible as it does on the efforts I bring to the deal. In light of this, the view of property rights offered by Locke is unrealistically individualistic in that falsely assumes property and wealth is the product of individual effort alone.

Having a functioning well-ordered community is a necessary condition for succeeding in every line of business (even gangsters depend on the system they exploit). The businessman who has profited from a fair exchange with his customers depends on the underlying system that makes it possible for him to do his business in the first place. His success may require a healthy and well-educated workforce, stability in the economic system, a citizenry that is well informed enough to politically sustain just social institutions, a citizenry that respects the law, a customer base that is doing well enough themselves to afford his product and so forth. It will also depend on physical infrastructure we rely on the government to provide or at least regulate. Roads and bridges to sewer systems are a few examples. Utility companies are often private businesses, but these require government oversight and regulation since they constitute natural monopolies. All of these things and others are hidden ingredients in the wealth created through the businessman’s activities. Given this insight into the kind of sophisticated market economy we have, taxation for the maintenance and upkeep of our various social and infrastructure systems is not theft, but fair compensation for the benefits we derive from participating in the system we are productive members of. Limiting the role of government to the protection of rights and liberties turns a blind eye to need for government involvement in the upkeep of the various systems we all depend on.

The Locke/Nozick approach to social justice where the legitimate activity of government is limited to securing our natural rights and liberties is roughly analogous to field biologists aiming to secure the well-being of squirrels without giving any regard to the health of the ecosystem that sustains them.

Given some sense of the importance of the various systems we rely on government to uphold and maintain we can turn our attention to Rawls and the concept of fairness.

Justice as Fairness

Where all other things are equal, we are liable to think of fairness in terms of equal treatment. The fair way to divide a cookie between three equally hungry boys is into three equal sized parts. Now what if one of the boys had a piece of chocolate cake an hour ago. What is fair isn’t completely obvious in this case. And in the real world, things are seldom equal.

Now consider the case of Jones and his three sons. Jone’s has done well in life and build up a modest fortune of 1.5 million dollars. But now his life is coming to and end as he enters the late stages of terminal cancer. So, he now faces with the question of how to divide his modest fortune among his three sons. Again, all other things being equal, the fair thing to do would be to give each a half million. But things aren’t equal. Jones’ eldest son, John, is a brilliant young man. He is near the end of a PhD. In computer science at Stanford and he is being aggressively recruited for a high paying Silicon Valley job with Google. Jones second son, James, is a star athlete on a full scholarship at UCLA where he is majoring in business. In addition to being talented on the basketball court, James is highly popular, well regarded for his forthright and easygoing manner, trusted and liked by peers and superiors alike. The third son, Joe, well, he’s a nice guy. He has no particular talents. He has tried hard in school, but hasn’t done especially well. He’s a bit awkward socially, the sort of guy that just isn’t going to find a date for the prom. In addition, he has a fairly expensive lifetime medical condition, he’s type 1 diabetic. What would be the fair way to divvy up his modest fortune among his three sons?

Jones can’t just pull a clear answer out of thin air, but he is clever and has a friend who does research in neuroscience that can help. His friend has developed a drug for highly selective memory loss that temporarily mutes a person’s sense of personal identity. Jones administers the drug to one of his sons (it doesn’t really matter which one) and instructs that son to decide how his fortune is to be divided among the three. He offers the following instructions: “you are one of my three sons and you are fully informed about the life circumstances of all three. Now, with just your own self interest in mind, you are to decide how my estate is to be divided between you and your brothers.” The son who decides how the fortune is divided must do so without knowing which of the brothers he is. The effects of the drug render the son who decide incapable of favoring the interests of one son over another, and this gives us some grounds for thinking his decision will be reasonably fair. Let me know how you think the drugged son will decide.

What we’ve described here is similar to the method Rawls recommends for selecting fair principles of social justice. Rawls is aiming at a conception of justice as fairness in the sense that social systems won’t advantage any particular kind of person at the expense of others. Rawls’ proposes that we can get onto the ideal of justice as fairness in this sense by means of a thought experiment that involves reasoning from what he calls “the original position.” In the original position, we imagine that we are perfectly rational agents with full information about the consequences of the various possible social arrangements. We are then given the task of designing the principles of justice that will structure our society and we are expected to do so with an eye to what will be in our own best interest. But then there’s a catch. In reasoning from the original, we operate behind a veil of ignorance about our own personal circumstances and characteristics. So in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance, I must think about what set of social institutions will work out best for me without knowing whether I will be weak or strong, healthy or diseased, clever or dull, beautiful or ugly, black or white, born to a wealthy family or a poor one and so forth. If I am rational and self interested, I will want to set things up so that I can substantially enjoy the benefits if I have characteristics that are highly valued in my society and I put them to good use. But at the same time, I will want to hedge my bets to assure that I still have a decent life in case I am not so lucky or my best efforts fail.

Of course, the original position thought experiment is just that, a thought experiment. No one could actually place themselves behind the veil of ignorance, nor reason perfectly rationally about all the possible social arrangements that might result from her choice of principles. Still Rawls has devised a way to think about what is fair when things all other things aren’t equal, and we can apply this to approximate relatively impartial judgments about what a fair society would look like.

On the basis of the original position thought experiment, Rawls argues for two principles of justice as fairness:

The Equal Liberty Principle: Each person is to be granted the greatest degree of liberty consistent with similar liberty for everyone.

The Difference Principle: Social practices that produce inequalities among individuals are just only if they work out to everyone’s advantage and the positions that come with greater reward are open to all.

The Equal Liberty Principle has a longer history. The idea that everyone should be granted the greatest degree of liberty consistent with similar liberty for others is defended at length in John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. In fact we could take some variation on this principle as the core tenet of Liberalism as a political theory. This principle doesn’t tell us that people should be free to do as they please no matter what. At some points, my being free to do something is liable to interfere with your being free to do something. For instance, my being free to host parties with live bands into the early hours of the morning might interfere with my neighbor’s being free to get a decent night’s sleep. In the interest of maximizing equal liberty for all, we would be justified in restricting people from activities that would interfere with the liberty of others. This has many familiar applications. Neighborhood zoning regulations are one example. A good deal environmental regulation illustrates this idea. Maximizing liberty for all equally requires that we restrict businesses from being free to pollute where doing so would adversely affect the health of others.

Rawls thinks the equal liberty principle will be selected by rational agents reasoning from the original position because no rational agent in this position would choose to be less free than necessary nor grant some (possibly someone else) greater liberty than others (possibly herself).

The Equal Liberty Principle is only concerned with equality of liberty. But we can be equal or unequal in many other ways. In fact, being equally free is liable to lead to other sorts of inequalities. If we are all free to plant apple trees as we see fit, we will probably wind up with an unequal distribution of apples simply because some of us will plant more trees and do a better job of tending them. So long as this is merely the result of people exercising their equal liberties, there is nothing unfair about this. If I’d wanted more apples, I could have spent more time growing apple trees and less time playing chess.

Given equality of opportunity, the Difference Principle holds that a system that produce inequalities is fair so long as it works out to the benefit of all. This will strike some as puzzling. How could we have inequalities that benefit all? It might seem that liberty and the fact that we want different things can account for some of this. I can’t claim unfairness when my neighbor has more apples because I’d rather play chess than harvest apples. The inequality here is one that serves the interests of both of us, my neighbor’s interest in

Philosophy homework help

Trust

ANNETTE C. BAIER

THE TANNER LECTURES O N HUMAN VALUES

Delivered at

Princeton University

March 6-8, 1991

ANNETTE C. BAIER is Professor of Philosophy at the Uni-
versity of Pittsburgh. She was born and educated in New
Zealand and studied philosophy at Otago University. Post-
graduate study at Oxford was followed by teaching positions
at the Universities of Aberdeen, Auckland, and Sydney
and the Carnegie-Mellon University. She has published a
volume of essays, Postures of the Mind (1985), and A
Progress of Sentiments: Reflections on Hume’s Treatise
(1991). She sees her recent work on trust as growing not
only out of her philosophical reading but also out of her
experience of living in a variety of cultural settings and
climates of trust.

1. TR?UST AND ITS VULNERABILITIES*

They fle from me that sometyme did me seek
With naked fote stalking in my chambre
I have seen them gentill tame and meke
That nowe are wyld and do not remembre
That sometyme they put theimself in daunger
T o take bred at my hand . . .

Sir Thomas Wyatt

Most of us are tame enough to take bread at someone’s hand.
And we do thereby put ourselves in danger. So why do we do i t ?
W h a t bread is good enough to tempt us into the hands of possibly
dangerous people tamers? Or do we simply prefer being gentle,
tame, and meek? Trust in trustworthy people to do their more or
less willing and more or less competent bit in some worthwhile
cooperative enterprise whose benefits are fairly shared among all
the cooperators is to most of us an obviously good thing, and not
just because we get better bread that way. The only ones who
might dissent from the value of trust are those “wild” loners who
value their independence more than anything else, who prefer to

* The original titles of these two Tanner lectures were “The Pathologies of
Trust” and “Appropriate Trust.” I was greatly helped in revising the lectures by
the prepared comments of Francine du Plessix Gray, Geoffrey Hawthorn, Thomas
M. Scanlon, Jr., and David Shipler when I gave the lectures; by suggestions from
the audience; by later discussion with Princeton University faculty and students; and
by subsequent correspondence with Sarah Buss, Pamela Foa, Richard Moran, and
Thomas Scanlon. The revisions were made at the Rockefeller Study Center, Bellagio,
Italy, and I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to enjoy the beauty, peace,
and good company to be found there. T h e peace was also instructive for my study
of trust, since our idyllic headland was protected, during most of my stay there, by
an armed guard. Italian soldiers with machine guns patrolled the grounds and
guarded the entrances against perceived terrorist threats. So our easy mutual trust,
within our sanctuary, had as its exterior face an apparent distrust for all outsiders.
I am pleased to report that by the time I left, the perceived danger, and with i t the
guard, had gone.

[ 109 ]

110 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values

get their bread baked by solo efforts, rather than to join with
others in any sort of joint scheme. To such extreme individualists
my lectures will have nothing persuasive to say. Most of us are
fairly tame, and what John Locke said is true of us: “ W e live upon
trust.” But we do not always live well, upon trust. Sometimes,
like Elizabeth I of England, we have to report “In trust I found
treason,” or, less regally, betrayal, or, even less pompously, let-
down.2 Trust is a notoriously vulnerable good, easily wounded
and not at all easily healed.

Trust is not always a good, to be preserved. There must be
some worthwhile enterprise in which the trusting and trusted par-
ties are involved, some good bread being kneaded, for trust to be
a good thing. If the enterprise is evil, a producer of poisons, then
the trust that improves its workings will also be evil, and decent
people will want to destroy, not to protect, that form of trust. A
death squad may consist of wholly trustworthy and, for a while at
least, sensibly trusting coworkers. So the first thing to be checked,
if our trust is to become self-conscious, is the nature of the enter-
prise whose workings are smoothed by merited trust.

Even when the enterprise is a benign one, it is frequently one
that does not fairly distribute the jobs and benefits that are at its
disposal. A reminder of the sorry sexist history of marriage as an
institution aiming at providing children with proper parental care
should be enough to convince us that mutual trust and mutual
trustworthiness in a good cause can coexist with the oppression
and exploitation of at least half the trusting and trusted partners.
Business firms whose exploitation of workers is sugarcoated by a
paternalistic show of concern for them and the maintenance of a
cozy familial atmosphere of mutual trust are an equally good

1 T h e Correspondence of John Locke, ed. E. S. de Beer, vol. 1 (Oxford: Claren-
don Press, 1976), p. 1 2 2 .

2
Geoffrey Hawthorn quotes these words of Elizabeth to Parliament in 1596 i n

his essay “Three Ironies of Trust,” in Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative
Relations, ed. Diego Gambetta ( N e w York: Basil Blackwell, 1988), p . 115.

example. Trust can coexist, and has long coexisted, with contrived
and perpetuated inequality. That may well explain and to some
extent justify the distrust that many decent vigilant people display
toward any attempt to reinstate a climate of trust as a social and
moral good. Like most goods, a climate of trust is a risky thing to
set one’s sights on.3 What we risk are not just mutually lethal
betrayals and breakdowns of trust, but exploitation that may be
unnoticed for long periods because it is bland and friendly. T h e
friendly atmosphere — the feeling of trust — is of course a pleas-
ant thing, and itself a good, as long as it is not masking an evil.

Trust and distrust are feelings, but like many feelings they are
what Hume called “impressions of reflexion,” feeling responses to
how we take our situation to be. T h e relevant “situation” is our
position as regards what matters to us, how well or badly things
are going for us. T h e pleasant feeling that others are with us in
our endeavors, that they will help, not hinder, us, and the unpleas-
antly anxious feeling that others may be plotting our downfall or
simply that their intentions are inscrutable, so that we do not know
what to expect, are the surface phenomena of trust and distrust.
This surface is part of the real good of genuine trust, the real evil
of suspicion and distrust. But beneath the surface is what that sur-
face purports to show us: namely, others’ attitudes and intentions
toward us, their good (or their ill) will. The belief that their will
is good is itself a good, not merely instrumentally but in itself, and
the pleasure we take in that belief is no mere pleasure but part of
an important good. Trust is one of those mental phenomena atten-
tion to which shows us the inadequacy of attempting to classify
mental phenomena into the “cognitive,” the “affective,” and the
“conative.” Trust, if it is any of these, is all three. It has its special
“feel,” most easily acknowledged when it is missed, say, when one
moves from a friendly, “safe” neighborhood to a tense, insecure

3
According to Niklas Luhmann, trust always involves some assessment and

acceptance of risk, so that to call trust risky becomes pleonastic. See his essay “Fa-
miliarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives,” in Gambetta, Trust, p . 100.

[BAIER] Trust 1 1 1

112 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values

one. I t has its (usually implicit) belief component, belief in the
trusted ones’ goodwill and competence, which then grounds the
willingness to be or remain within their power in a way the dis-
trustful are not, and to give them discretionary powers in matters
of concern to us. When we trust we accept vulnerability to others.4

A third obvious way in which trust can go wrong is when the
belief-cum-feeling-cum-intention of trust is faked — when a per-
son is only apparently trusting. False pretenses can infect a trust
relationship, and it may continue apparently healthy for long
periods while all the time harboring such low-grade infection. A
wife may not really trust her husband farther than she can see him,
but she might pretend she does, perhaps pretend to herself that
she does, and close her ears to any unwelcome messengers. Alter-
natively, she may indeed really count on his marital fidelity, but
not because she trusts him. She may rely instead on her unuttered
threat advantage (when, say, she controls the money and is known
to have her reliable spies, so that the husband does not dare stray).
Real trustworthiness, like real trust, involves feelings, beliefs, and
intentions, which sometimes can be faked. T h e trustworthy per-
son will feel some concern for the trusting, and this feeling will
be especially noticeable if things go wrong. She will believe that
she is responsible for what she is trusted for and will intend to
discharge that responsibility competently and with a good grace.
A “good grace” excludes not merely resentment of the responsi-
bility but also a too calculative weighing of the costs of untrust-
worthiness and the benefits of trustworthiness. Should one do
what one is trusted to do only because one fears that the response
to discovered untrustworthiness would be very costly to one, then
that very attitude, if known, would be a good enough reason for
those who had trusted one to cease trusting. They might not cease
relying on one, but their reliance would no longer be on one’s

4 Here and in what follows I develop the analysis of trust given in my “Trust
and Antitrust,” Ethics 96 (January 1986) : 231-60; repr. in Feminism and Political
Theory, ed. Cass Sunstein (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

[ B A I E R ] Trust 1 1 3

goodwill. Trust is an alternative to vigilance and reliance on the
threat of sanctions; trustworthiness is an alternative to constant
watching to see what one can and cannot get away with, to recur-
rent recalculations of costs and benefits. Trust is accepted vul-
nerability to another’s power to harm one, a power inseparable
from the power to look after some aspect of one’s good.

Trusting the untrustworthy who parade as trustworthy (“You
know you can trust me!”), or living up to what another presents
as her trust in one, when that is not really trust but reliance on her
evident power to punish those who fail her (“I am trusting you
and don’t you forget i t ! ” ) , are among the most common sorts of
disease in a trust relationship. Healthy trust rarely needs to declare
itself, and the mere occurrence of the injunction “Trust me!” or
of the reminder “I am trusting you” are danger signals. Even
when such pronouncements are not insincere, they may still be
false, and will be, if trust has been confused with reliance on
threats.

A “Trust me!” speech act (I suppose J. L. Austin would have
called it a “commissive” illocutionary act) or its gestural equiva-
lent, will be false in a more straightforward way when the implied
prediction that the truster will not be “let down” proves false, not
because of any deceit but because of the trusted’s false estimate
of his competence to “hold up” the truster. If, during one of those
exercises which I believe some psychotherapists get their patients
to play, I am encouraged to let myself fall back into the arms of
the fellow patient behind me, whose job is to say “Trust me!” and
then to catch me, I do my bit, go limp and fall, but my weight
proves too much for the appointed catcher, so that I am literally
let down, then I will naturally feel angry both toward the false
supporter and toward the psychotherapist who choreographed my
downfall. Some of those we trust let us down through their false
estimate of their willingness to support us. If my upbringing has

5 See J. L. Austin, H o w to Do Things with W o r d s , William James Lectures
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), pp. 156–58.

,5

114 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values

encouraged me to rely on male escorts for defense against attack,
but, when we are attacked by angry Australian magpies, my gentle-
man escort instinctively ducks behind me, using me as a “living
shield,” then I will blame both my escort and, more, my own silly
acceptance of the myth of male protectiveness.

Thomas Scanlon has helpfully separated out the different but
related moral principles that he believes should govern the con-
duct of anyone who says “Trust me!” to others, or who somehow
communicates encouragement to trust.6 T h e first principle (Prin-
ciple M ) forbids manipulation of others by deliberately raising
false expectations in them about how one will respond to some-
thing one wants them to do. T h e second (Principle D) , requires
one to take due care not to lead others to form reasonable but false
expectations about what one will do, where they would face sig-
nificant loss if they relied on such false expectations. T h e third
(Principle L ) , requires one to take steps to prevent any loss that
others would face through reliance on expectations about one’s
future behavior, expectations that one has either intentionally or
negligently (that is by infringing Principles M or D) led them
to form. Principle L could demand a very great deal of us, if we
really tried to live by it; it would require us to notice what others
are coming to rely on in us, and to protect them against loss from
such reliance by whatever steps were needed. The fourth principle,
the fidelity principle (F) , does not require us to do more than we
have assured another we will do; it requires us to do precisely
what we assured them we would do. (I have given Scanlon’s prin-
ciples in a somewhat oversimplified form. His main aim is to
show that the fidelity principle is what makes a promise binding,
whether or not there is a “social practice” of promising, or a
special recognized force to the words I promise, and his careful
wording of the fidelity principle has that end in view.)7

6 Thomas Scanlon, “Promises and Practices,” Philosophy and Public A f f a i r s 1 9
(Summer 1990) : 199-226.

7 “Principle F: If ( 1 ) A voluntarily and intentionally leads B to expect that
A will do x (unless B consents to As not doing x) ; (2) A knows that B wants to

T h e psychotherapist who instructs me to “Trust him!” that is,
tells me to trust the weakling behind me to catch me, is manipula-
tive, negligent, and fails to prevent the loss I incur through his
manipulation, but since he himself need not have said “Trust me!”
he need not have offended against the fidelity principle. T h e one
who offends against that is the fellow patient who, as per instruc-
tions, says “Trust me!” even if he rightly fears that he cannot
catch and support me. H e offends against Scanlon’s principles D,
L, and F, but not against M , since he really has no wish that I
should fall into his arms — we are both merely following instruc-
tions. But do we on reflection accept Scanlon’s principles? Do we
not regularly and without guilt try to manipulate each other (in
advertising, for example), take little care what expectations we
may be arousing (in the wild birds and squirrels that we feed, and
in the charities we give t o ) , impose losses upon one another by
giving misleading indicators of our intentions (in poker, in clever
bargaining, and in our military strategies), let others down, often
being forgiven for so doing and even sometimes invited to repeat
the performance?

John Updike has a marvelous variant of the common tragi-
comedy of the letdown and its typical effects. In his story “Trust
Me,” a three-year-old boy, Harold, is lovingly bullied by his father
into leaping into the deep end of a public swimming pool, where
the father waits to catch him. “It’ll be all right, just jump into my
hands” encourages the father. The child trustingly jumps, the
father misses the catch, the child goes briefly under, the father
fishes him out and lands him, coughing and spluttering, on the
pool side. H e picks the child up, to comfort him, and is quickly

be assured of this; ( 3 ) A acts with the aim of providing this assurance, and has
good reason to believe that he or she has done so; ( 4 ) B knows that A has the
beliefs and intentions just described; ( 5 ) A intends for B to know this, and knows
that B does know i t ; and ( 6 ) B knows that A has this knowledge and intent; then,
in the absence of some special justification, A must do x unless B consents to x’s
not being done” (ibid., p. 208).

[ B A I E R ] Trust 1 1 5

116 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values

joined by his alarmed wife, Harold’s mother. Let Updike go on
with his story:

His mother swiftly came up to the two of them, and, with a
deftness remarkable in one so angry, slapped his father on the
face, loudly, next to Harold’s ear. . . . His mother’s anger
seemed directed at him as much as his father. . . . Standing
wrapped in a towel near his mother’s knees while the last
burning fragments of water were coughed from his lungs,
Harold felt eternally disgraced. . . . H e never knew what had
happened . . . by the time he asked, so many years had passed
that his father had forgotten. “Wasn’t that a crying shame,”
the old man said, with his mixture of mournfulness and
comedy. “Sink or swim, and you sank!” Perhaps Harold had
leaped a moment before it was expected, or had proved un-
expectedly heavy, and thus had slipped through his father’s
grasp. Unaccountably, all through his growing up he con-
tinued to trust his father; it was his mother he distrusted, her
swift sure-handed anger . 8

It is not really so unaccountable that distrust should be directed
not so much at those who once or twice let one down in the most
obvious way, who manipulated one or gave one what turn out to
be false assurances, but rather at those who prove angrily unfor-
giving of the letters-down, who do not forgive those who forgive
others, who show themselves to be completely reliable punishers
of the ones who violate the fidelity principle and even of their
forgiving victims. Harold could continue to trust his father (who
after all did competently save him after first endangering him),
for he had shown the child affection, and manipulated him out of
a will to share the fun, flawed only by a faulty estimate of what
frolicsome feats were feasible for the pair of them. Incompetence
is more easily remedied than ill will, and Harold doubtless learned
a little from his sorry experience. ( H e learned what and what not
to expect from his father. Harold keeps on trusting and if need

8
John Updike, Trust M e (New York: Fawcett Crest, 1988), p . 3 .

[BAIER] Trust 117

be forgiving those loved ones who let him down in the well-
meaning way his father did.) Harold’s mother showed concern
for her child and anger at her husband, who had endangered him,
along with impressive slapping competence. W a s she not a faith-
ful mother and guardian? If trust were simply belief in the de-
pendability of a person to do some range of things, on cue, then
we would have to say yes. Harold could count on his mother to
attack anyone who harmed or endangered her child. Like a mother
cat, or a well-programmed robot, she could be counted on to leap
into action to protect her young. But trustworthiness is not just
mechanical dependability, and trust is not merely confidence in a
range of particular actions in a range of particular circumstances.
T h e trustworthy can show their trustworthiness in surprising ways,
and to trust is to be willing to give the trusted the benefit of the
doubt when the surprise is, initially at least, unpleasant. For t o
trust is t o give discretionary powers t o the trusted, t o let the trusted
decide how, on a given matter, one’s welfare is best advanced, t o
delay the accounting for a while, t o be willing t o wait to see how
the trusted has advanced one’s welfare.

As we sometimes but not always wisely delay gratification, so
we sometimes can delay knowing or understanding just what
others are doing with what matters to us. T h e pathologies of trust
therefore have to include both the truster’s bad timing of the
demand for an account, and also the trusted’s misuse of discre-
tionary powers, both by too-adventurous uses of them (as perhaps
Harold’s father was guilty of) and also by a refusal to relax some
inflexible rule, that is by a refusal to use discretion at all, by simply
falling back on reliance on some stimulus-response mechanism, on
some automatic pilot, be it instinctive anger or rigid principle. To
say, “I can trust him to remember my birthday: he has given his
bank a standing order to send the same flowers each year on that
date. Short of bank collapse, I can count on it,” would be to speak
at least ironically, if not sourly. One frequent thing that goes
wrong with a personal trust relationship is that it degenerates into

118 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values

one of mutual predictability. N o t merely does this make it boring
(as in marriages that freeze into unimaginative, repetitive, and
numbingly dependable mutual service), but it also lessens the like-
lihood that anyone’s good is really being furthered by the depend-
able behavior. For, as Aristotle emphasized, judgment must con-
tinually be used when we aim at contributing to someone’s well-
being. Turning to automatic pilot is not often a serious possibility
for those whose goal is the good of another — or even when their
goal is their own good. T h e assurance typically given (implicitly
or explicitly) by the person who invites our trust, unlike that typi-
cally given in that peculiar case of assurance, a promise or con-
tract, is not assurance of some very specific action or set of actions,
but assurance simply that the trusting one’s welfare is, and will
someday be seen to have been, in good hands.

An institutional example may, at this stage, be a good thing,
since I do not want to suggest that it is only in the context of per-
sonal relationships that trust is a good, and its diseased variants an
evil. There are interesting differences between the trust of inti-
mates, and what is good about it, and the nature and value of
more impersonal trust; each is prey to some sickness peculiar to
that type, but the main dimensions of fragility are the same, and
there are interdependencies between a healthy climate of imper-
sonal trust and the likelihood of a strong trust relationship of a
more personal For good marriages, and for marriages whose
ending is not too disastrous for the spouses themselves and for
their children, there must be well-functioning background institu-
tions, such as divorce courts, for when marriages break up, and in
more normal times schools, legislatures, supreme courts, and regu-
latory agencies, whose decisions will affect such matters as family
planning and the planning of both spouses’ careers, not to mention

9 See my “Trusting Ex-Intimates,” in Person t o Person, ed. George Graham and
Hugh Lafollette (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, l989), pp. 269-81, for
some peculiarities of trust between intimates, and its breakdown.

[BAIER] Trust 119

banks, insurance agencies, and other organizations whose policies
will affect the security each spouse can have.

But let us leave the domestic scene and turn to the academic
arena. Universities have boards of trustees, to whom the welfare
of the institution is entrusted. And an elaborate chain of trust
relationships usually goes from these trustees to president, provost,
dean, chairpersons, and their appointees within departments. A t
each of these levels the one in whom trust is placed is not merely
a rule applier but a decision maker. Rules there certainly will be,
and applying them will not always be such an easy and automatic
matter, but no set of university regulations will decide for univer-
sity administrators everything that they have to settle in their
day-to-day activities. When times are tough and cuts have to be
made, no rule will tell them what to do, They have discretionary
powers — their job is to think about the mission of the university,
to listen to all sorts of advisers and affected parties, and then work
out priorities as best they can. If they do their job competently
and with an appropriately firm will to the good of the institution
(seen always in light of its mission), their decisions need not be
predictable; they may surprise many, disappoint some, relieve
others. Some timid or tired administrators do become predictable
in their decision making and to that very extent show themselves
unwilling to use discretionary powers and so reveal themselves as
unsuitable recipients of our trust. For example, when a cut in
spending is judged necessary, a mechanical spreading of it across
all administrative units is usually a sure indicator of dereliction
of the duty to think about what should be done, rather than a sign
of a deep, thoughtful commitment to equality (especially given
the sort of units who are being accorded equal treatment). In
some institutions such mindless “equal sharing” of burdens be-
comes the rule, a predictable administration response to any fiscal
crisis. But I do not think that anyone would be tempted to give
those administrators awards either for superior wisdom or for
dogged integrity, let alone for boldness of vision. It is under-

120 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values

standable that those who do not wish any longer to have to think
about the good of their university might fall back on already-made
decisions, such as those structuring an institution into various
schools or faculties, and then simply say, “let them share the cuts
equally,” regardless of their unequal needs, unequal opportunities,
or unequal history of previous shares of burdens and benefits and
of use made of the benefits. Such a ruling would be a use of dis-
cretionary powers that amounts to a refusal to use them. It would
be like the policy of the relative whose birthday gift of flowers
came with mindless regularity on the right day. In these cases it is
not that there is no attention to the good of the person or body at
which the person is theoretically aiming. But it is not the sort of
attention that would be given by a trustworthy, thoughtful well-
wisher. T o trust is to let another think about and take action to
protect and advance something the truster cares about, to let the
trusted care f o r what one cares about. Thoughtless care verges on
“careless care,” on plain failure to give care.

It might be thought that where we have answerable officials,
who may be removed from office for poor performance of what it
is their responsibility to do, no question of trust will arise. Uni-
versity presidents, provosts, and deans, it might be said, are not
“trustees.” But it would be too swift to suppose that because we
do not call them trustees, no trust and entrusting has gone on. W e
cannot and do not rely simply on the conditional threat of removal
from office to motivate officials to discharge their responsibilities
properly. W e do hold them “accountable,” but the accountant’s
audits, so to speak, will be infrequent. We have no choice but to
entrust them with some matters, where constant checking on per-
formance is either impractical or undesirable. Nor does the fact
that there is some reliance on the threat of sanctions mean that
there will be no room for trust. In our attitude to other people
whom we are counting on, we typically combine trust on some
matters with careful checks on others.

[BAIER] Trust 121

In dealings with those we know a little, and are willing on that
basis to have business dealings with, we typically do partition the
matters we have them see to into those where we check up on
them and those where we do not. Some failures of such normal
business dealings occur because of the fuzziness of the understand-
ing of just where the division falls. If one stands over one’s
builder, watching and querying every move she makes, she may
well refuse to finish the job, since what self-respecting builder
would put up with such apparent lack of any trust in her profes-
sional skill and standards of care? Is she, the builder, not sup-
posed to be the one with the know-how? If the client thinks he
knows so much more, why did he hire the builder in the first
place — why not hire unskilled workers to obey the client’s com-
mands ? In some cases the trust dimension pathologically shrinks
to near zero, and there is a commensurate expansion of checking
and testing. Contracts are the useful contrivances we have for
such cases; as much as possible is spelled out, and checks and tests
are always in order. Another unhealthy condition is where there
is such an exaggerated fear of insulting the other that any check-
ing, even on matters where an honest mistake or miscounting is
both easy and easily detected without offense, or any request for
an account of the trusted’s activities regarding what was entrusted
is seen as tactless, dangerous to the cooperative relationship.

Rules to guide us on where to trust, where not to, where to
insist on precise specification in a contract, where not, are notori-
ously lacking. W e seem to have no choice but to trust our own
trust or suspicion on these matters, to check when we harbor sus-
picions of some bad performance, to trust when we have no such
suspicions; to spell matters out in an enforceable contract when
we judge that the other bears us “no real kindness,” as Hume put
it, and to leave things more casual when we judge that the mutu-
ality and “good offices” are a little “more generous and noble.”

l0

10 David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge and
P. H. Nidditch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), p. 5 2 1 .

122 The Tanner Lectures on Human Values

Some suspicions will be baseless and costly, some contracts regret-
table and destructive of fellowship; some trustings will turn out
to have been naive and unwise — that is only to be expected. But
if the alternative to sometimes giving trust is the policy of trying
to check everything out, to protect all one’s dealings with others
by formal contracts, or the empowerment of Leviathans to stand
guard over all of us, then the costs of that policy, especially its
opportunity costs, may sensibly persuade us to become like the
child Harold in the Updike story, and to take a few letdowns in
our stride.

If to trust on a given matter is to leave that matter to the
trusted, to see no need, for a while, to check up on how she is
doing, to assume that she is doing just fine, that her memory, com-
petence, and good will (Hume’s “kindness”) are all as one ex-
pected when one entrusted the matter to her, then, some might say,
only fools ever trust.11 For are not locks and checks always sen-
sible or, at the very worst, a slight waste of time and resources?
Might trust itself be pathological? I resist that thought, but I can
accommodate the cynics who ask it by allowing that it would
usually be foolish, in one’s attitude toward a given person on

Philosophy homework help

Evaluating an Argument
Before beginning this paper, make sure that you have completed all of the Modules in our course and
read over my feedback on Paper 2 and your Thesis/Objections Assignment carefully. It is also highly
recommended that you have read LaFollette’s “Writing a Philosophy Paper” from Ethics in Practice: An
Anthology. This paper is worth 15% of your grade and, as a result, will be graded out of 150 total points.
Make sure to follow the following instructions and look at the associated rubric.
Topic
For your final paper, choose one of the articles you read on your applied ethics topic (animal rights,
euthanasia, or global poverty). Explain the author’s position on your topic, then – given what you’ve
learned in the course – evaluate the author’s argument.
Specific Instructions for Structuring the Paper
This paper should be organized as a typical essay with an Introduction and a Conclusion, as well as
including Part I and Part II as follows:
Part I: Explain the author’s argument in the article that you’ve chosen. In his/her view, what is the
correct position to have on the applied ethics issue you chose? What are the reasons that he/she gives
in support of his/her view?
Part II: Present a potential problem for the author’s position. After presenting a potential objection to
the argument, explain whether you think that the author’s position is stronger than the criticism that
you presented by doing one of the following.
If you agree with the author’s view, explain why the objection is not a problem for his/her view (i.e.,
respond to that objection on behalf of the author).
If you disagree with the author’s view, explain how the objection is problematic for his/her position.
Grading
I grade based on content, not length. That being said, you should aim for around 3-5 pages. If your paper
is too short, you won’t have explained the argument or the objection fully. So, make sure to focus on
answering each part of the paper topic. If your paper seems to be a bit long, make sure every word is
necessary. You should be able to explain the concepts succinctly as well as clearly.
This is not a research paper, so you should not need to use any sources outside the course materials. If
you do use any sources, make sure you cite them properly.

Notes: Virtue Ethics & Euthanasia

Foundations
Annette C. Baier’s analysis of virtue is slightly different than that of Aristotle’s. Virtues, in her view, are
traits “that contribute to a good climate of trust between people, when trust is taken to be acceptance
of being, to some degree and in some respects, in another’s power” (p. 135). Aesculapius was the Greco-
Roman god of healing and medicine, so when Baier discusses Aesculapian Virtues, she is discussing
those virtues that are found “in trustworthy healers and will include due awareness of the power
discrepancy that the doctor-patient relationship involves, the will to communicate appropriately with
the patient, and to take timely action of various sorts” (135).
Healing, for Baier, includes both restoring health and relieving suffering. This is an important thing to
note when we are discussing euthanasia.
Creating a Good Climate of Trust
According to Baier, a trust includes a recognition that one is vulnerable in relation to another individual
and confidence that the other’s power will not be used to harm the vulnerable person(s). All individuals

in a relationship together contribute to the climate of trust and mistrust, so Baier will discuss a range of
healthcare roles and how their actions can create a healthy or unhealthy environment.
A good climate of trust, in her view, is one in which all individuals are vulnerable to each other and, as a
result, can be encouraged to trust each other (136). So, she thinks that we must empower the weaker
individuals in the relationship, which involves recognizing their rights. In the medical world, this would
involve:
codes of patient rights
patient advocates
While patients are the weaker parties in this relationship, doctors also have rights against their patients.
Because patients sometimes engage in malicious lawsuits, doctors need their own advocates (i.e.,
Medical Protection Society).
Trustworthy Health Professional
Baier states that a trustworthy health professional is a properly trained health professional who is
competent to do what she is asked to do. But how do we verify that a doctor, for example, is properly
trained and competent?
One way is to have a trustworthy system of hospital administrators and government agencies
responsible for verifying and recording health professionals’ qualifications. We must also be sure to have
enough health care workers to meet our needs.
What counts as properly trained?
Clearly, doctors must be trained to recognize the disease symptoms and be able to treat those
symptoms. But what other skills must they have? Why is kind of retraining necessary? Well, it is not
being realized that health professionals need communication skills and their scientific training and
clinical know-how (137). This is especially important, according to Baier, for creating an atmosphere of
trust.
If one is subjected to testing that he or she does not understand, one will experience fear and
potentially distrust and terror—one of the biggest complaints made by patients concerns poor
communication.
Patient Virtues
While patience is a virtue in patients, perhaps, there is also some responsibility to protest or lodge
complaints when things go wrong. They should communicate their fears and concerns as well as
demonstrate patience and trust. According to Baier, “threats to sue do not improve mutual trust,” nor
does being impatient and attempting to subvert the order of triage.
Euthanasia & The Goal of Healing
The saving of lives and care of patients has been considered the responsibility of health professionals – it
is part of the Hippocratic oath. Relieving suffering is only considered their goal if it does not threaten
health or life. Since health professionals’ main goal is to save or prolong lives, it is not odd that medical
associations oppose the legalization of voluntary euthanasia and “claim that it would be unethical of
doctors to end their suffering patients’ lives” (141). Going back to the concept of trust, Baier states that
we would not be able to trust a physician who was “overeager” to euthanize people. However, Baier
argues that it is unethical to refuse to assist patients in ending their suffering. Suffering is not taken
seriously enough. It is often treated with “patronizing disbelief” (see Baier’s examples on 141), and pain
– migraine, menstrual, arthritis – is not given a high priority in medical research. It ought to be the focus
of medicine to understand the pain and do their best to minimize it or end it.
It is the role of health-care workers to relieve suffering and prolong life, Baier argues, and they should
not have to consider the risk of prosecution when acting in this way. She states,

The physician one can trust the one who will remind one how one can bring about one’s own death by
exercising one’s right to refuse fluids, the one who does not have to risk prosecution if more active

assistance in dying is given, and the one who would so assist one, when one unambiguously and
repeatedly request such assistance (143).

Compassion is a virtue that everyone needs to have, according to Baier. To really consider the morality
of euthanasia, we must first recognize a right to considerate treatment and – from health professionals
– relief of pain. Baier discusses rights and virtues because, to be able to properly exercise virtue, we
need changes in the law – which is the domain of legal rights. For doctors to efficiently make
compassionate decisions and exercise truthfulness about their actions, we need legal change. Baier
states the following:
If medical professionals are to free themselves of the charge of prolonging the agony of the dying, they
must be given the legal power to administer euthanasia on repeated serious patient requests. Only then
will compassion become a fully functional virtue in the medical profession (152).
Baier’s conclusion
To have a humane medical profession and have a good climate of trust, we must allow physician-
assisted death when requested by the patient, as long as this practice is protected against abuse of
power. We cannot trust our doctors, according to Baier, until they are fully able to exercise compassion.

Philosophy homework help

Overview – Modern African Philosophy

Chinua Achebe is one of the best-known living African writers. Born in Ogidi, Nigeria in 1930, his work is representative of what is often called “postcolonial literature” – that is, a tradition of world literature that deals with life during the difficult transition made by many developing countries from rule by a foreign colonial power to freedom and independence. In this case, Achebe’s home country of Nigeria was under British rule until it achieved independence in 1960. Although the product of traditional Ibo culture (sometimes spelled “Igbo”) in southeastern Nigeria, Achebe’s parents were devout Evangelical Protestants who had converted to Christianity and were teachers in a missionary school. Both Achebe himself and his many novels and essays are the product of the conflict between these two cultures: indigenous African traditions and customs, and the externally imposed British and Christian ways. Paralyzed from the waist down in a car accident in 1990, Achebe now spends most of the time in the U.S., where he has taught at the University of Massachusetts, the University of Connecticut, and Bard College.

 Our reading for this week is taken from Achebe’s novel “Arrow of God” (1964), which is the third in a trilogy of novels that began with “Things Fall Apart” (1958) and continued with “No Longer at Ease” (1960). “Things Fall Apart” has been translated into 50 languages and was voted one of the 100 greatest novels of all time. The trilogy of works depicts the trials and tribulations of the people in a group of small African villages as they attempt to negotiate the cultural changes connected with the challenge to their traditional way of life posed by the arrival of Christianity and British culture. A primary theme that is dramatized in Achebe’s work is the struggle to define an authentic cultural identity in the midst of these conflicting traditions.

 So why are we studying a Nigerian novel for a unit on African Philosophy? Great question. First, the cultural conflicts that form the backdrop of Achebe’s work provide an interesting and thought-provoking opportunity for considering the differences between Western and African culture. More specifically, if we are going to take seriously the idea of philosophy as a “universal experience” put forth by Onyewuenyi in last week’s reading, it is important that we encounter an example of what such an approach to philosophy might look like. To recall, the idea of philosophy as a universal experience meant a way of doing philosophy, understood simply as reflecting on one’s world while trying to find meaning in it, that was more connected to everyday life and everyday people than Plato’s elitist conception of a purely intellectual pursuit open to a select few and detached from daily life. It may be that Onyewuenyi’s African approach to philosophy as a universal experience may lead us to expand our conception of what counts as “philosophy” to include literature, poems, traditions, and even music. Keep this in mind as you read the brief selection from Achebe’s “Arrow of God.”

Learning Objectives – Modern African Philosophy

1) To interpret the major conflict between two different cultures and ways of life symbolized by the events and arguments in Achebe’s story.

 2) To contemplate how the forced introduction of Western ideas and beliefs has impacted the culture, values, and identities of Africans.

Notes & Key Points

Notes on Reading

Achebe’s “Arrow of God” tells the story of group of characters in the fictional village of Umuaro, struggling to find meaning in the midst of the deep cultural conflict between their traditional way of life and the foreign culture and religion of their colonial rulers. As with any kind of literary work, it is important to be alert to themes and symbols when reading. Think about what different characters and events represent in terms of the larger cultural struggle between Africa and the Western world that we have been describing.

 The first thing you will notice of symbolic import are the names of the characters (for a list of the main characters see “Key Points” in these Lecture Notes). Some of the characters have names of obvious African origin, like Oduche or Ezeulu. Others are clearly non-African, like Mr. Goodcountry. Still others seem to suggest a combination of different cultures, like Moses Unachukwu. As they say, there are no accidents or coincidences in fiction. Names and events have been chosen intentionally for their symbolic significance (think about what Moses represents in the Jewish tradition for a clue to Unachukwu’s role). Each character seems to represent a side in the debate about what should become of traditional African culture in a context where not only Christian beliefs but Western cultural influences more generally have penetrated even their small village. Try to think about what the argument between Unachukwu and Mr. Goodcountry is really about.

 It becomes clear that the key conflict in the story is between Christianity and the traditional African way of life. Apart from the names of the various characters, the central symbol in the story is the python. Think about what the python represents and what it is that Oduche is struggling over in terms of the larger cultural context when he contemplates killing the python (p. 221). The other conflict in the story of interest to us is that between Ezeulu and his son Edogo, described on pp. 221-222. As you read from Achebe’s novel, try to think about what Achebe’s overall point is. What would you say is the moral to this story?

 

Key Points 

· List of main characters:

– Mr. Goodcountry (Christian missionary, an African)

– Moses Unachukwu (carpenter, missionary of new church)

– Oduche (young boy who contemplates killing the python)

– Ezeulu (priest and village elder)

– Edogo (son of Ezeulu, sent to missionary school by his father)

 

· The story opens with a debate between Mr. Goodcountry and Unachukwu (pp. 219-220). 

· After listening to both sides of the argument, Oduche makes an important decision about killing the python (p. 221). 

· Note the different reactions to the killing of the python by both Ezeulu and Edogo (p. 222). 

ASSIGNMENT

Modern African Philosophy

In a 500 word essay answer the following questions:

· The story opens with a debate between Mr. Goodcountry and Unachukwu (pp. 219-220). What is the central conflict between them about?

· After listening to both sides of the argument, Oduche makes an important decision about killing the python (p. 221). What does the python represent? What does the way in which Oduche goes about this task reveal about what he is thinking and where his loyalties lie? Note the specifics of how he kills the python. (This is very important and symbolically relevant).

· Note the different reactions to the killing of the python by both Ezeulu and Edogo (p. 222). What does this tell you about the generational differences in how traditional African culture is viewed?

· What does Achebe suggest about the future of traditional African beliefs and the Ibo cultural identity? Will it survive Christianity and British colonialism? If so, how must Africans treat these traditional beliefs if they want them to survive? The way Oduche treated the python?

· Finally, can you think of a current modern-day context where these same issues are apparent?  Note briefly.

Philosophy homework help

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd i 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Thirteenth
Edition

Brooke Noel Moore
Richard Parker
California State University, Chico

with help in Chapter 12
from Nina Rosenstand and Anita Silvers

Critical
Thinking

Final PDF to printer

moo7069X_fm_ISE.indd ii 12/24/19 06:04 PM

CRITICAL THINKING

Published by McGraw-Hill Education, 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10121. Copyright © 2021 by McGraw-Hill
Education. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Previous editions © 2017, 2015, and 2012.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database
or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education, including, but not limited to, in
any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.

Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside the
United States.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LWI 24 23 22 21 20

ISBN 978-1-260-57069-4
MHID 1-260-57069-X

Cover Image: McGraw-Hill

All credits appearing on page or at the end of the book are considered to be an extension of the copyright page.

The Internet addresses listed in the text were accurate at the time of publication. The inclusion of a website does
not indicate an endorsement by the authors or McGraw-Hill Education, and McGraw-Hill Education does not
guarantee the accuracy of the information presented at these sites.

mheducation.com/highered

Final PDF to printer

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd iii 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Chapter 1 Driving Blindfolded 1

Chapter 2 Two Kinds of Reasoning 35

Chapter 3 Clear Thinking, Critical Thinking, and
Clear Writing 73

Chapter 4 Credibility 102

Chapter 5 Rhetoric, the Art of Persuasion 141

Chapter 6 Relevance (Red Herring) Fallacies 185

Chapter 7 Induction Fallacies 207

Chapter 8 Formal Fallacies and Fallacies of Language 233

Chapter 9 Deductive Arguments I: Categorical Logic 257

Chapter 10 Deductive Arguments II: Truth-Functional
Logic 305

Chapter 11 Inductive Reasoning 362

Chapter 12 Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning 420

Brief Contents

Final PDF to printer

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd iv 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Final PDF to printer

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd v 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Contents

Preface xviii
Changes to the 13th Edition  xix
Acknowledgments xxi
About the Authors xxiv

Chapter 1 Driving Blindfolded 1
Beliefs and Claims 4

Objective Claims and Subjective Judgments 4

Fact and Opinion 6

Relativism 7

Moral Subjectivism 7

Issues 7

Arguments 8

Cognitive Biases 15

Truth and Knowledge 21

What Critical Thinking Can and Can’t Do 22

A Word About the Exercises 22

Recap 23

Additional Exercises 24

Answers and Tips 33

Chapter 2 Two Kinds of Reasoning 35
Arguments: General Features 35

Conclusions Used as Premises 36

Unstated Premises and Conclusions 36

Two Kinds of Arguments 37

Deductive Arguments 37

Inductive Arguments 38

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 40

Two Kinds of Deductive Arguments 40

Four Kinds of Inductive Arguments 41

Final PDF to printer

vi CONTENTS

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd vi 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Telling the Difference Between Deductive and Inductive
Arguments 42

Deduction, Induction, and Unstated Premises 44

Balance of Considerations 46

Not Premises, Conclusions, or Arguments 46

Selfies (and Other Pictures) 46

If . . . Then . . . Sentences 47

Lists of Facts 47

“A because B” 48

Ethos, Pathos, and Logos 48

Techniques for Understanding Arguments 53

Clarifying an Argument’s Structure 54

Distinguishing Arguments from Window Dressing 56

Evaluating Arguments 57

Recap 57

Additional Exercises 58

Answers and Tips 68

Chapter 3 Clear Thinking, Critical Thinking, and
Clear Writing 73

Vagueness 74

Ambiguity 76

Semantic Ambiguity 77

Grouping Ambiguity 77

Syntactic Ambiguity 77

Generality 79

Defining Terms 84

Purposes of Definitions 84

Kinds of Definitions 85

Tips on Definitions 85

Writing Argumentative Essays 87

Good Writing Practices 89

Essay Types to Avoid 89

Final PDF to printer

CONTENTS vii

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd vii 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Persuasive Writing 90

Writing in a Diverse Society 91

Recap 92

Additional Exercises 92

Answers and Tips 100

Chapter 4 Credibility 102
The Believability of Claims 103

Does the Claim Conflict with Personal Observation? 104

Does the Claim Conflict with Our Background Information? 107

Might the Claim Reinforce Our Biases? 108

The Credibility of Sources 111

Interested Parties 111

Physical and Other Characteristics 112

Expertise 113

The News 118

Mainstream News Media 118

Advertising 126

Three Kinds of Ads 126

Recap 129

Additional Exercises 130

Answers and Tips 139

Chapter 5 Rhetoric, the Art of Persuasion 141
Rhetorical Force 142

Rhetorical Devices I 143

Euphemisms and Dysphemisms 143

Weaselers 144

Downplayers 144

Rhetorical Devices II 146

Stereotypes 147

Innuendo 148

Loaded Questions 149

Final PDF to printer

viii CONTENTS

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd viii 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Rhetorical Devices III 150

Ridicule/Sarcasm 150

Hyperbole 151

Rhetorical Devices IV 151

Rhetorical Definitions and Rhetorical Explanations 152

Rhetorical Analogies and Misleading Comparisons 153

Proof Surrogates and Repetition 157

Proof Surrogates 157

Repetition 157

Persuasion Through Visual Imagery 161

The Extreme Rhetoric of Demagoguery 162

Recap 166

Additional Exercises 167

Answers and Tips 183

Chapter 6 Relevance (Red Herring) Fallacies 185
Argumentum Ad Hominem 186

Poisoning the Well 187

Guilt by Association 187

Genetic Fallacy 187

Straw Man 188

False Dilemma (Ignoring Other Alternatives) 189

The Perfectionist Fallacy 190

The Line-Drawing Fallacy 190

Misplacing the Burden of Proof 191

Begging the Question (Assuming What You Are Trying to Prove) 193

Appeal to Emotion 194

Argument from Outrage 194

Scare Tactics 195

Appeal to Pity 196

Other Appeals to Emotion 197

Irrelevant Conclusion 198

Recap 200

Final PDF to printer

CONTENTS ix

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd ix 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Exercises 200

Answers and Tips 206

Chapter 7 Induction Fallacies 207
Generalizations 207

Generalizing from Too Few Cases (Hasty Generalization) 208

Generalizing from Exceptional Cases 210

Accident 211

Weak Analogy 212

Mistaken Appeal to Authority 213

Mistaken Appeal to Popularity (Mistaken Appeal to
Common Belief) 214

Mistaken Appeal to Common Practice 215

Bandwagon Fallacy 216

Fallacies Related to Cause and Effect 217

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc 217

Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc 221

Slippery Slope 223

Untestable Explanation 224

Line-Drawing Again 225

Recap 225

Exercises 225

Answers and Tips 232

Chapter 8 Formal Fallacies and Fallacies of
Language 233

Three Formal Fallacies: Affirming the Consequent, Denying the
Antecedent, and Undistributed Middle 233

Affirming the Consequent 233

Denying the Antecedent 234

The Undistributed Middle 235

The Fallacies of Equivocation and Amphiboly 237

The Fallacies of Composition and Division 239

Final PDF to printer

x CONTENTS

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd x 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Confusing Explanations with Excuses 240

Confusing Contraries and Contradictories 242

Consistency and Inconsistency 244

Miscalculating Probabilities 244

Incorrectly Combining the Probability of Independent Events 245

Gambler’s Fallacy 246

Overlooking Prior Probabilities 247

Faulty Inductive Conversion 247

Recap 249

Additional Exercises 250

Answers and Tips 256

Chapter 9 Deductive Arguments I: Categorical Logic 257
Categorical Claims 259

Venn Diagrams 260

Translation into Standard Form (Introduction) 261

Translating Claims in Which the Word “Only” or the Phrase “The Only” Occurs 262

Translating Claims About Times and Places 263

Translating Claims About Specific Individuals 264

Translating Claims that Use Mass Nouns 265

The Square of Opposition 268

Existential Assumption and the Square of Opposition 268

Inferences Across the Square 268

Three Categorical Relations 269

Conversion 269

Obversion 270

Contraposition 270

Categorical Syllogisms 278

The Venn Diagram Method of Testing for Validity 279

Existential Assumption in Categorical Syllogisms 282

Categorical Syllogisms with Unstated Premises 284

Real-Life Syllogisms 285

The Rules Method of Testing for Validity 289

Final PDF to printer

CONTENTS xi

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd xi 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Recap 291

Additional Exercises 291

Answers and Tips 301

Chapter 10 Deductive Arguments II: Truth-Functional
Logic 305

Truth Tables and Logical Symbols 306

Claim Variables 306

Truth Tables 306

Symbolizing Compound Claims 312

“If” and “Only If” 312

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions 314

“Unless” 316

“Either . . . Or” 316

Truth-Functional Argument Patterns (Brief Version) 318

Three Common Valid Argument Patterns 319

Three Mistakes: Invalid Argument Forms 322

Truth-Functional Arguments (Full Version) 325

The Truth-Table Method 326

The Short Truth-Table Method 328

Deductions 334

Group I Rules: Elementary Valid Argument Patterns 334

Group II Rules: Truth-Functional Equivalences 339

Conditional Proof 347

Recap 350

Additional Exercises 351

Answers and Tips 358

Chapter 11 Inductive Reasoning 362
Argument from Analogy 362

Evaluation of Arguments from Analogy 363

Three Arguments from Analogy 365

Other Uses of Analogy 366

Final PDF to printer

xii CONTENTS

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd xii 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Generalizing from a Sample 371

Evaluation of Arguments That Generalize from a Sample 372

Three Arguments That Generalize from a Sample 372

Scientific Generalizing from a Sample 373

De-generalizing (Reverse Generalizing; the Statistical Syllogism) 375

Causal Statements and Their Support 382

Forming Causal Hypotheses 382

Weighing Evidence 384

Confirming Causal Hypotheses 395

Inference to the Best Explanation 399

Reasoning from Cause to Effect 401

Calculating Statistical Probabilities 402

Joint Occurrence of Independent Events 402

Alternative Occurrences 403

Expectation Value 403

Calculating Conditional Probabilities 404

Causation in the Law 406

Recap 407

Additional Exercises 408

Answers and Tips 416

Chapter 12 Moral, Legal, and Aesthetic Reasoning 420
Value Judgments 421

Moral Versus Nonmoral 422

Two Principles of Moral Reasoning 422

Moral Principles 424

Deriving Specific Moral Value Judgments 424

Major Perspectives in Moral Reasoning 427

Consequentialism 427

Duty Theory/Deontologism 429

Moral Relativism 430

Religious Relativism 432

Final PDF to printer

CONTENTS xiii

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd xiii 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Religious Absolutism 432

Virtue Ethics 432

Moral Deliberation 435

Legal Reasoning 439

Justifying Laws: Four Perspectives 441

Aesthetic Reasoning 444

Eight Aesthetic Principles 444

Using Aesthetic Principles to Judge Aesthetic Value 447

Evaluating Aesthetic Criticism: Relevance and Truth 448

Why Reason Aesthetically? 450

Recap 452

Additional Exercises 453

Answers and Tips 455

Appendix: Selected Exercises from Previous Editions 457

Glossary 480

Index 488

Final PDF to printer

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd xiv 12/10/19 01:23 PM

You’re in the driver’s seat.
Want to build your own course? No problem. Prefer to use our turnkey,
prebuilt course? Easy. Want to make changes throughout the semester?
Sure. And you’ll save time with Connect’s auto-grading too.

Make it simple,
make it affordable.

Connect makes it easy with seamless
integration using any of the major
Learning Management Systems—
Blackboard®, Canvas, and D2L, among
others—to let you organize your course
in one convenient location. Give your
students access to digital materials at
a discount with our inclusive access
program. Ask your McGraw-Hill
representative for more information.

Solutions for your
challenges.

A product isn’t a solution. Real
solutions are affordable, reliable,
and come with training and
ongoing support when you need it
and how you want it. Our Customer
Experience Group can also help
you troubleshoot tech problems—
although Connect’s 99% uptime
means you might not need to call
them. See for yourself at status.
mheducation.com

65%
Less Time
Grading

FOR INSTRUCTORS

They’ll thank you for it.
Adaptive study resources like SmartBook® 2.0 help
your students be better prepared in less time. You
can transform your class time from dull definitions to
dynamic debates. Find out more about the powerful
personalized learning experience available in
SmartBook 2.0 at www.mheducation.com/highered/
connect/smartbook

Checkmark: Jobalou/Getty ImagesPadlock: Jobalou/Getty Images

®

Laptop: McGraw-Hill; Woman/dog: George Doyle/Getty Images

Final PDF to printer

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd xv 12/10/19 01:23 PM

Effective, efficient studying.
Connect helps you be more productive with your study time and get better grades using tools like
SmartBook 2.0, which highlights key concepts and creates a personalized study plan. Connect sets you
up for success, so you walk into class with confidence and walk out with better grades.

No surprises.
The Connect Calendar and Reports tools keep you on track with the
work you need to get done and your assignment scores. Life gets busy;
Connect tools help you keep learning through it all.

Learning for everyone.
McGraw-Hill works directly with Accessibility Services
Departments and faculty to meet the learning needs
of all students. Please contact your Accessibility
Services office and ask them to email
accessibility@mheducation.com, or visit
www.mheducation.com/about/accessibility
for more information.

“I really liked this
app—it made it easy
to study when you
don’t have your text-
book in front of you.”

FOR STUDENTS

– Jordan Cunningham,
Eastern Washington University

Study anytime, anywhere.
Download the free ReadAnywhere app and access your
online eBook or SmartBook 2.0 assignments when it’s
convenient, even if you’re offline. And since the app
automatically syncs with your eBook and SmartBook 2.0
assignments in Connect, all of your work is available
every time you open it. Find out more at
www.mheducation.com/readanywhere

Top: Jenner Images/Getty Images, Left: Hero Images/Getty Images, Right: Hero Images/Getty Images

Calendar: owattaphotos/Getty Images

Final PDF to printer

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd xvi 12/10/19 01:23 PM

More Engaging

Moore & Parker are known for fresh and lively writing. They rely on their own classroom
experience and on feedback from instructors in getting the correct balance between

explication and example.

■ ■ Examples and exercises are drawn from today’s
headlines.

■ ■ Students learn to apply critical thinking skills to situ-
ations in a wide variety of areas: advertising, poli-
tics, the media, popular culture.

Critical Thinking . . . Skills for

First Pages

Co Gn ITIv E BIASES 19

moo41025_ch01_001-032.indd 19 09/06/19 12:33 PM

impossible to think that good judgment or rational
thought would lead them to such excess.*

Yet another possible source of psychological
distortion is the overconfidence effect, one of several
self-deception biases that may be found in a variety
of contexts.** If a person estimates the percentage
of his or her correct answers on a subject, the esti-
mate will likely err on the high side—at least if the
questions are difficult or the subject matter is unfa-
miliar.† Perhaps some manifestation of the overcon-
fidence effect explains why, in the early stages of the
American Idol competition, many contestants appear
totally convinced they will be crowned the next
American Idol—and are speechless when the judges
inform them they cannot so much as carry a tune.††

Closely related to the overconfidence effect is
the better-than-average illusion. The illusion crops up
when most of a group rate themselves as better than
most of the group relative to some desirable charac-
teristics, such as resourcefulness or driving ability.
The classic illustration is the 1976 survey of SAT tak-
ers, in which well over 50 percent of the respondents
rated themselves as better than 50 percent of other
SAT takers with respect to such qualities as leader-
ship ability.‡ The same effect has been observed when
people estimate how their intelligence, memory, or
job performance stacks up with the intelligence,
memory, and job performances of other members of
their profession or workplace. In our own informal
surveys, more than 80 percent of our students rate
themselves in the top 10 percent of their class with
respect to their ability to think critically.

Unfortunately, evidence indicates that even when they are informed about the
better-than-average illusion, people may still rate themselves as better than most in their
ability to not be subject to it.‡‡

‡‡http://weblamp.princeton.edu/ psych/f ACUl TY/Articles/Pronin/The%20Bias%20Blind.PDf . The better-than-average bias has not been
found to hold for all positive traits. In some things, people underestimate their abilities. The moral is that for many abilities, we are
probably not the best judges of how we compare to others. And this includes our ability to avoid being subject to biasing influences.

‡See Mark D. Alicke and other authors in “The Better-Than-Average Effect,” in Mark D. Alicke and others, The Self in Social
Judgment: Studies in Self and Identity (new York: Psychology Press, 2005), 85–106. The better-than-average illusion is
sometimes called the l ake Wobegon effect, in reference to Garrison Keillor’s story about the fictitious Minnesota town “where all
the children are above average.”

††This possibility was proposed by Gad Saad, Psychology Today, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/200901/
self-deception-american-idol-is-it-adaptive.

†See Sarah lichtenstein and other authors, “ Calibration of Probabilities: The State of the Art to 1980, ” in Daniel Kahneman, Paul
Slovic, and Amos Tversky, Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,
1982), 306–34.

**However, a universal tendency among humans to irrationally exaggerate their own competencies hasn’t been established. for
an online quiz purportedly showing the overconfidence effect, see www.tim-richardson.net/joomla15/finance-articles-profmenu-
70/73-over-confidence-test.html.

*Jamey Keaton, Associated Press. Reported in The Sacramento Bee, Thursday, March 18, 2010. Did the subjects suspect the
shocks weren’t real? Their statements afterward don’t rule out the possibility but certainly seem to suggest they believed they
truly were administering painful electrical shocks to the actor.

■ Does Kim Kardashian
wear too much makeup?
The issue is subjective, or,
as some people say, “a
matter of opinion.”

Stephen l ovekin/WWD/
Shutterstock

Confirming Pages

moo41025_ch07_207-232.indd 216 11/05/19 06:15 PM

216 CHAPTER 7 : InduCTIon FAllA CIES

Bandwagon Fallacy
Sometimes a speaker or writer will try to get
us to do something by suggesting that every-
one or most people are doing it. The idea is
not to cite what people believe as evidence
of the truth of a claim. Rather, the attempt is
made to induce us to do something by mak-
ing us feel out of step with things if we don’t.
This is the infamous Bandwagon Fallacy,
illustrated by this example:

Appealing to Tradition

According to Representative Steve King of Iowa (pictured here), “Equal protection [under the Constitution] is not equal protection
for same sex couples to marry. Equal protection has always been for a man and a woman to be able to get married to each other.”

YuRI GRIPAS/uPI/newscom Pete Marovich/ZuMAPRESS. com/newscom

I am the most popular candidate by far.
Only a minority support my opponent.

The speaker wants us to jump on the
bandwagon. He or she has not said anything
that is relevant to who we should support or
how we should vote.

Here is one more example:

Let’s get a spa. They are very popular
these days.

The speaker hasn’t really shown that
we need a spa. He wants us to get on the
bandwagon.

More Relevant

Moore & Parker spark student interest in skills
that will serve them throughout their lives,
making the study of critical thinking a meaning-
ful endeavor.

■ ■ Boxes show students how critical thinking
skills are relevant to their day-to-day lives.

■ ■ Striking visuals in every chapter show stu-
dents how images affect our judgment and
shape our thinking.

Final PDF to printer

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd xvii 12/10/19 01:23 PM

More Student Success

Moore & Parker provide a path to student suc-
cess, making students active participants in their
own learning while teaching skills they can apply
in all their courses.

■ ■ Learning objectives link to chapter sections
and in turn to print and online activities, so
that students can immediately assess their
mastery of the learning objective.

■ ■ Exercises are dispersed throughout most
chapters, so that they link tightly with the
concepts as they are presented.

■ ■ Students have access to over 2,000 exer-
cises that provide practice in applying
their skills.

the course. Skills for life.
First Pages

moo41025_ch08_223-246.indd 240 09/19/19 02:23 PM

240 CHAPTER 8: FoRMAl FAllA CIEs ANd FAllA CIEs o F lANG u AGE

Exercise 8-4
Here are 107 examples of the fallacies discussed in this chapter. Match each item to one
or more of the following categories or otherwise answer as indicated:

a. affirming the consequent
b. denying the antecedent
c. undistributed middle fallacy
d. confusing explanations with excuses
e. equivocation
f. composition
g. division
h. miscalculating probabilities

Note

Your instructor may or may not ask you to further assign miscalculating probabilities
into the following subcategories: Incorrectly combining the probabilities of indepen-
dent events, the gambler’s fallacy, overlooking prior probabilities, and faulty inductive
conversion.

1. Professor Parker can tell you if you are sick; after all, he is a doctor.

2. If this man is the president, then he believes in immigration reform. If this man
is vice president, then he believes in immigration reform. Therefore, if this man is
president, then he is vice president.

3. If global warming is for real, then the mean global temperature will have risen
over the past ten years. And that is what happened. Therefore, global warming is
for real.

4. My chance of being born on December 25 was the same as yours. So the chances
we were both born on December 25 have to be twice as good.

5. Sodium is deadly poisonous, and so is chlorine. Salt consists of sodium and chlo-
rine, which must be why we’re told not to eat too much of it.

6. The Bible commands you to leave life having made the world a better place. And
therefore it commands you to make the world a better place each and every day.

7. A dialogue:
JILL: Helen has her mother’s eyes.
BILL: Good lord! Can the woman still see?

8. Is an explanation clearly being offered as an excuse/justification? I didn’t buy tick-
ets to see Chris Angel’s show because I heard that he spends half his act with his
shirt off strutting around in front of the ladies in the audience.

9. If Congress changes marijuana from a Class 1 drug to something lesser, next year
the penalties for possession will be much less than they are now. But Congress is
not going to declassify marijuana this year. So we’ll have to live with the drastic
penalties for at least another year.

10. If you are rich, then your car is something like a Mercedes or a Bentley. Oh! Is
that your Bentley, you rich old thing, you?

11. Man! Three sons in a row? Your next kid is bound to be a girl.

Additional
Exercises

Final PDF to printer

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd xviii 12/10/19 01:23 PM

I t is remarkable how much university students have changed over the decades since we first began teaching in our 20s. Back then they called us by our first names or even “Dude.” Nowadays they call us “Sir,” as in, “Sir, do you need help?”
They are also better informed. Thanks to Instagram and Snapchat and other

sources of breaking news, they know what friends are doing and thinking at any
given moment.

Educators seem not to agree on what exactly critical thinking is, though they do
agree that, whatever it is, we can use more of it. They also agree that being informed is
important, though what they think is important to be informed about doesn’t necessar-
ily include how Emily did her nails or what Jacob thinks about the new Starbucks cups.

You have to wonder. How can teachers compete with such stimulating infor-
mation? Critical thinking instruction is fairly abstract. It doesn’t deal with topics. In
this book, we don’t discuss whether someone’s a good president or if global climate is
changing. Rather, we offer instruction on good and bad reasoning. We try to help read-
ers develop facility in spotting irrelevancies, emotional appeals, empty rhetoric, and
weak evidence. To compete with distractions, we offer examples and exercises we hope
first-year university students can understand and relate to, and we try to be as concise
and readable as possible.

What, by the way, is our definition of critical thinking? This is something we go
into more in Chapter 1; for now, let’s just point out that critical thinking is aimed at mak-
ing wise decisions about what to think and do. This book is not about critical thinking
as much as it is a book in critical thinking. We try to provide guided practice in what
we think are the most important critical thinking skill sets. Although as authors we dif-
fer somewhat in our emphasis, we both agree (as do many instructors) that drill-and-
practice is useful in improving students’ critical thinking ability. Online technology can
be helpful when it comes to drill-and-practice, as well as in enabling students to learn
at their own pace. (Details coming up shortly). But if you don’t use online assignment,
practice, and assessment platforms such as ours, this text contains hundreds and hun-
dreds of exercises of the sort that (we think) can be applied directly to the world at large.
Exercise questions are all answered in the answer sections at the end of each chapter.

If you use this text or the online peripherals, we would appreciate hearing
from you. We can both be contacted through McGraw-Hill Education or by way of the
philosophy department at Chico State.

Preface

Final PDF to printer

moo41025_fm_i-xxvi.indd xix 12/10/19 01:23 PM

A friend recently asked us which critical thinking skills we worry about people not having. At this point in time, we admit we are especially concerned about information- acquisition skills, the skills people use to acquire veridical information and to weed
out bogus news sources, misinformation, flimflam, and snake oil. There is much talk these
days about people lacking these skills, and everyone seems to assume the problem lies with
the people on the other side of the political aisle. Maybe both sides are right.

So, important revisions in this edition are aimed at improving information-
acquisition skills, and these revisions are found in Chapter 4 (Credibility). This chapter
is about recognizing dubious claims and sources. In it you will find our long-standing
analysis of credibility as having two parts, the believability of claims and the credibility
of sources. In this edition, we have expanded on the credibility of mainstream news,
social media, and other internet sources of information.

A society could become mis- or ill-informed through indifference or overt censor-
ship, to name two possibilities. But it could also get that way if enough people obtain
information primarily from sources assumed to be accurate and comprehensive, but
which in fact are not. Nobody wants to be misled, but most of us do like information
that fits with our view of the world, especially if it reinforces our pre-existing opinions
(or riles us up about people who don’t share our views). Motivated information-seeking
(seeking information for the purpose of confirming opinions we already hold) can lead
people to news sources that tailor the news for their audience. If enough people get
tailored news, society may become divided not only as to which sources are regarded as
authoritative but also as to what are and are not facts. Some of the reasons for thinking
such divisions exist today are discussed in Chapter 4. In that chapter, we also put forth
what we think is a non-partisan recommendation for obtaining legitimate news.

Another important batch of changes in this edition relates to inductive reasoning,
which is introduced in Chapter 2 and examined in more detail in Chapter 11. We now
divide inductive reasoning into four fundamental kinds: generalizing, de-generalizing
(which is the opposite of generalizing), analogical reasoning, and cause-effect reason-
ing. Other forms of inductive reasoning commonly discussed in texts such as this,
including notably sign arguments, arguments from examples, and inferences to the best
explanation, can be treated as one or another of the four basic kinds of inductive rea-
soning (as we ex

Philosophy homework help

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence is the attempt to construct machines that can think as well, or perhaps even better, than we can. A.I. started up around the 1950s, and progress was slow.

For example, playing chess is something that computers are very good at, but it took decades of effort to construct a machine that could defeat the worlds chess champion. In 1997, Deep Blue, constructed by IBM, beat Garry Kasparov, who at the time was the world champion.

But, for various reasons, progress in A.I. is rapidly accelerating. One of these reasons is the development of powerful “machine learning algorithms”.

Recently, a machine was built at Carnegie Mellon University (which, along with MIT, is a major hub of AI in the U.S.) using these machine learning algorithms. The machine plays poker, and demolished a handful of professional poker players. There are machines that play Go as well. And there are machines that do other things aside from playing games.

There could be a time when these machines are curing diseases and solving the world’s problems.

But some smart people (including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk) are worried about these machines. What if they decide to destroy us?

Do you think AI is possible? Should we worry about these machines?

The Singularity

The Singularity is a hypothetical moment in human history at which we manage to construct a “superintelligence,” a machine that is smarter than us.

We are used to being the smartest thing on the planet so this will be a big change. Some claim that the singularity will be one of the most important moments in human history and it will transform everything.

Some also claim that the singularity is close. They think it will happen during your lifetimes.

And what happens if this machine that is smarter than us builds something that is smarter than it. And then this new machine builds something smarter than it, and so on. We might get to a point where the gap in intelligence between us and these machines are huge.

There are a number of ways AIs might become dangerous.

-Governments might weaponize them on purpose.

-They could see us like we are ants and not worth keeping around since they might be so much smarter than us.

-Or they could “accidentally” kill us.

Imagine that we tell a super intelligent machine to eliminate human suffering. Being very logical, the machine concludes that the easiest way to do that is to kill all of us (human can’t suffer if there are no humans).

Nick Bostrom is a philosopher that worries about these possibilities. Here’s a quote from him:

“Suppose we have an AI whose only goal is to make as many paper clips as possible. The AI will realize quickly that it would be much better if there were no humans because humans might decide to switch it off. Because if humans do so, there would be fewer paper clips. Also, human bodies contain a lot of atoms that could be made into paper clips. The future that the AI would be trying to gear towards would be one in which there were a lot of paper clips but no humans.”

What do we make of any of this? Worried yet?

Technological Unemployment

Let’s suppose that machines don’t kill us.

There is still another worry: they are going to take all our jobs.

We are already seeing this start to happen.

We are already starting to see self-driving cars in some places; they are going to take a lot of jobs (trucking etc).

Machines might even take highly skilled jobs from us.

What are we going to do when we see unemployment rates that are three times that of during the Great Depression?

Some have started to argue that what will be needed is a Universal Basic Income. Governments are going to have to give everyone a set amount of money.

Should we worry about this? What should we do? Is a universal basic income the solution?

The Simulation argument

In 2003, Nick Bostrom, a philosophy professor, wrote a paper called, “Are you living in a computer simulation?”

We now have a lot of computing power. One thing that we have been doing with this computing power is running various computer simulations of things. People simulate the weather on computers for example. Sporting events and so on.

But what if we decided to run a simulation of the history of our universe? Or maybe a lot of simulations of the history of our universe? We don’t have the computing power yet, but maybe we will one day.

Think about the future of humanity. There seems to be only a few possibilities.

1. “The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage (that is, one capable of running high-fidelity ancestor simulations) is very close to zero”, 

Or maybe we survive, but decide that we are not interested in simulating our universe. That is,

2. “The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero”, or

maybe we survive, and maybe we decide to run a bunch of simulations of our universe. But if so, then there will be one reality, but in that reality they will be running very many simulations of reality. There will be lots of simulations of reality but only one reality, so it is more likely that we are in a simulation of reality than reality itself. That is,

3. “The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one”

So, either we all die, we continue to progress but decide not to simulate the universe on computers, or we are almost certainly in a simulation ourselves. We are basically like characters in a video game.

“Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears.”

— Nick Bostrom, Are you living in a computer simulation?, 2003


Are we in a simulation?

The Turing Test

The roots of A.I. are often said to be in the work of Alan Turing, a British mathematician and logician.

Turing was an interesting guy. He published a paper in 1936 (when he was 22 years old) called “On Computable Numbers.” In it, he developed the theoretical foundation of computer science.

During World War II, he cracked the Nazi’s enigma code, the code the German military used to send messages back and forth. This was a huge advantage for the Allies.

Turing died in the early 1950s in tragic circumstances.

But right before he died, he published a paper called “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” This is the paper credited with starting A.I.

The most famous idea in the paper is the Turing test (though Turing called it the “Imitation Game.”)

It is a test to determine if a machine is thinking or not. No computer has ever passed it, though sometimes someone will claim that one has.

Turing (1950) describes the following kind of game. Suppose that we have a person, a machine, and an interrogator. The interrogator is in a room separated from the other person and the machine. The object of the game is for the interrogator to determine which of the other two is the person, and which is the machine…The interrogator is allowed to put questions to the person and the machine of the following kind: “Will X please tell me whether X plays chess?” Whichever of the machine and the other person is X must answer questions that are addressed to X. The object of the machine is to try to cause the interrogator to mistakenly conclude that the machine is the other person; the object of the other person is to try to help the interrogator to correctly identify the machine.”

Turing says if a machine can fool the questioner 70% of the time into thinking it is a person, then the machine thinks.

What do we make of this? Could a machine that passes the Turing test be made? Is this a good test of intelligence?

Chinese room argument.

An objection to AI (and the Turing test) made by John Searle, a philosopher at Berkeley.

“Imagine a native English speaker who knows no Chinese locked in a room full of boxes of Chinese symbols (a data base) together with a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols (the program). Imagine that people outside the room send in other Chinese symbols which, unknown to the person in the room, are questions in Chinese (the input). And imagine that by following the instructions in the program the man in the room is able to pass out Chinese symbols which are correct answers to the questions (the output). The program enables the person in the room to pass the Turing Test for understanding Chinese but he does not understand a word of Chinese.

Searle goes on to say, “The point of the argument is this: if the man in the room does not understand Chinese on the basis of implementing the appropriate program for understanding Chinese then neither does any other digital computer solely on that basis because no computer, qua computer, has anything the man does not have.”

Thoughts?

Philosophy homework help

Technology and the Environment

For over a century, environmental issues have been a global pandemic—destructive activities leading to environmental degradation from soil water to air. The best gift to our lives is a well-conservative environment free from any disease with clean air. However, environmental issues such as pollution, global warming, water and waste disposal, acidification, and deforestation hinder the dream of a conservative environment. The main environmental issue is reckless pollution from water, air, and land. Therefore, this calls for a technological solution to solve the issue before complete and uncompensated degradation.

Recycling and treatment technology can be used to solve environmental problems enacted by pollution. Dumping non-biodegradable waste, acidification of water, and emission of untreated gas fumes have primarily contributed to pollution (Alcorn, 2020). Technology such as centrifuges can reduce the number of solids in wastewaters, reducing water pollution (Landrigan et al.,2018). Other technology entails processing, recycling, and installing meters and sensors to detect harmful emissions and dumping.

Underlying issues might be a technological fix left unaddressed.

Pollution is mainly caused by the recklessness of industries and people’s ignorance in specific environments. For instance, a motorist driving an unroadworthy vehicle with high combustion of fuels and emissions causes air pollution and may lead to global warming at large amounts. Other issues include industries releasing untreated waste, such as dumping acidic water into water sources or directly onto land (Gill, Viswanathan& Hassan,2018). From smog over cities to smoke inside houses causes equal chances of pollution. The main underlying issue is the lack of a proper strategy to handle waste without causing environmental damage.

Embracing a technological fix to recycle and treat waste may not address all the issues. The immediate solution is to create awareness among all people about the damage they are causing to the environment through pollution (Landrigan et al.,2018). The first step to addressing corruption is individual responsibility hence technical fixing of the underlying issue.

Alternatives might be ignored in favoring tech fixes in this specific case.

Ozzie Zehner, an environmental enthusiast, focused on embracing clean energy, creates an illusion of the cost of implementing new systems free from pollution. In a study to embrace natural solar energy, he argues the concept of burning carbon dioxide from solar is equal to burning coal for the same amount of power (Khan et al.,2020). Additionally, there is the likelihood to produce more solar arrays from a greenhouse in a mission to reduce air pollution. Thus, an alternative, more minor pollutant energy source might be equal to a different ride instead of a solution.

In cases of gas treatment before emission, the process entails the use of chemicals and combustion processors (Khan et al.,2020). Using solid chemicals to treat chemicals in gas fumes to solve air pollution can be equal to direct air pollution. Thus, some technological fixes are highly recommended in this case.

Can more human control of nature solve problems caused by human attempts to control nature and an Anthropocentric worldview?

Humans, especially in the western culture, feels entitled to global changes mainly in the section where they caused problems. Flemings has a significant impact on anthropocentric, the introduction of bacteria by human attempts in health, and later, he discovers penicillin as an antibiotic (MCKIBBEN, 2020). This is a positive indicator that human beings can fix their messes through human control.

Human beings induce pollution, and their effort is required to solve the environmental issue. Their responsibility is to own the breakdown, evaluate and develop technological fixes to handle pollution and prevent further degradation (MCKIBBEN,2020). Human beings have the control to conserve their habitat, prevent more effects of pollution and provide a strategic way to solve pollution.

Who or what might be left out if your issue is addressed by technology alone?

Vandana Shiva, an environmentalist, states that environmental pollution results from irresponsible actors, mainly in the fossil fuel industry. However, addressing the issue is not complete with technology alone; technology cannot control ignorance (Garrity-Bond,2018). Using technology to fix the problem will have the pollutants left out in the environmental conservation campaign. Thus, it is essential to educate people on ways to conserve the environment, ecological pollution hazards before fixing technology to deal with the main issue (Garrity-Bond,2018). Operators in fossil industries need to be educated, and in case of violation to conserve the environment, they should face the law.

Does the technology you identified rely on an individualized or collective sense of responsibility?

Recycling waste is a personal sense of responsibility. For instance, regarding plastics at an individual level, it is their responsibility to reuse the plastics. When depositing, they need to acknowledge it is a non-biodegradable waste; thus, combusting them would ease the pollution (Gill, Viswanathan& Hassan,2018). In gas fumes, from smoking to fuel vehicles combustion, it is individuals’ responsibility to ensure the smoke is controlled and minimized in the possible way to reduce gas pollutants in the air. The most common pollution is water pollution, where individuals or companies deposit waste products and untreated sewage, conservation of water resources is also an individual urge. It is the individual responsibility to utilize technology fixes to solve environmental problems, and in the long run, pollution will be eliminated.

How might we need to consider what ‘the problem’ is in the first place?

Pollution is both a social problem and a technological one. The impact of technology on pollution is evident. Emission of harmful gases in fuel combustion, manufacture of cheap plastics, less natural resources has a detrimental effect on the ozone layer. Contrary, pollution is a social problem in that billions of people suffer from pollution, health effects, water security, and extreme global warming due to the destruction of the ozone layer.

The effects of pollution cause social problems resulting from technological advancement. Thus, the issue serves as both social and technology.

Conclusion

Environmental issues are contributed mainly by reckless and ignorant people. Before initiating any technological measure to fix the problems, it is essential to create awareness of the pollution and ensure it is an individual responsibility to protect the environment. However, the technology of recycling and processing waste to harmless waste before deposition will effectively help eradicate environmental pollution.

References

Alcorn, Z. (2020). Planet of the Humans: A cocktail of valid criticisms, disinformation, and defeatism. Green Left Weekly, (1264), 18-19.

Garrity-Bond, C. (2018). Ecofeminist Epistemology in Vandana Shiva’s The Feminine Principle of Prakriti and Ivone Gebara’s Trinitarian Cosmology. Feminist Theology26(2), 185-194.

Gill, A. R., Viswanathan, K. K., & Hassan, S. (2018). The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) and the environmental problem of the day. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews81, 1636-1642.

Khan, N. A., Khan, S. U., Ahmed, S., Farooqi, I. H., Yousefi, M., Mohammadi, A. A., & Changani, F. (2020). Recent trends in disposal and treatment technologies of emerging-pollutants-A critical review. TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry122, 115744.

Landrigan, Philip J., Richard Fuller, Nereus JR Acosta, Olusoji Adeyi, Robert Arnold, Abdoulaye Bibi Baldé, Roberto Bertollini et al. “The Lancet Commission on pollution and health.” The lancet 391, no. 10119 (2018): 462-512.

MCKIBBEN, B. (2020). A-Bomb in the Center of the Climate Movement: Michael Moore’s Damage. Rolling Stone.

Philosophy homework help

For your final paper for Introduction to Philosophy you will use what you have learned
about aesthetics to illustrate your beliefs about a kind of medium. I would like you to
consider either option as your prompt. You may choose, but you can only choose one.
You do have some leeway in what exactly you talk about in order to reach the page count.
In either choice you must do the following:

1.Have a well thought out paper between 3-4 pages in length, this is a hard limit,
papers above and below this limit will receive reduced grades. Please try to keep it
concise, it shows mastery of the material.

2.Illustrate an understanding of aesthetic theory in general.

3.Illustrate an understanding in specific. The prompt you choose will supply you with a
short reading. You will show how this reading influences the medium you have
chosen.

4.Included enough quotes to support your argument. How many is enough? That is for
you to decide. The manner in which you cite must be either MLA, APA, or Chicago.

5.Refrain from using additional sources.

6.State, clearly, your view on the matter. You can agree with,
or disagree with, any of the sources you are allowed to use.

To summarize: make a claim about a certain kind of medium (painting, music,
architecture, etc), then illustrate an aesthetic theory about said claim (meaning you ought
to claim whether this is or is not art, or put forth a claim about beauty),
develop an argument as to why a reader should believe you.

Formatting:
Times New Roman (or other standardized font), size 12
Double Spaced
Title Page with Title of Paper, Name, Class and Semester (title page does not count
toward page count)
For other formatting questions please ask.

PROMPTS ON FOLLOWING PAGE

Prompts Prompt 1: Art as Experience
In reading this abridged version of John Dewey’s Art as Experience, I want you to
consider the interactive nature of art, and life in general. Particularly, you may want to
look at how something such as theater is interactive, or something such as being part of a
choir. You may discuss any medium you wish, but in order to provide you with some
guidance, you can consider two sub-prompts in particular: Does the theater require an
audience to be art? Are Video Games art? These are just suggestions; feel free to do a
different medium.

Prompt 2: Inspiration
In reading the Platonic dialogue called the Ion, you will see some claims about
inspiration, and reproduction. For this prompt I want you to consider the nature of art in
relation to our ability to allude and reference other works of art. In other words, does
something have to be ‘original’ to be an art object? What does ‘original’ mean? To
provide some guidance, consider these sub-
prompts (again, you can use these or any other idea you may have): Do types of cultural
architecture, i.e. Greco-roman, Arabesque, Gothic, exist solely in their respective regions/
times? Can we have new forms of these art today? Or are they ‘mere’ representations, or
interpretations of actual art? Alternatively, consider music: are remixes, and mashups
‘music’ in the sense of being original art works? Why or Why not are they to be
considered original; does this dictate their position as legitimate forms of art?

Philosophy homework help

Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:

· Textbook: Chapter 13

· Lesson

· Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

Introduction
Some people believe that you can tell who a person is by what they do when no one is looking. Let’s look at the following case. John Doe, a nurse, has downloaded an application to her phone that allows him to download copyrighted textbooks for a nursing course (that Doe is going to take) without his Internet Service Provider knowing it. The application is called “Cloak” as in cloak of invisibility (a hooded coat one wears to make it so others cannot see you). The application disguises his phone and makes it so the information on it is inaccessible. John is aware that other people who are of a lower socio-economic status (like him) also use this software program for the same reason (and to save money). John Doe knows that his religion forbids him from using this application to download in this manner. John Doe is focused on his own economic situation and does not consider the publisher, author, and others involved in the books. Think about a course of social action; what social values should be used to address this moral issue and conflict.

· Initial Post Instructions
Create a personal ethical philosophy and explain from which philosophy or philosophies (it must include at least one of the following: virtue ethics, Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, or social contract ethics) you created it and why the contents are important and meaningful for you. List its precepts.

· Take your personal ethical philosophy statement and use it to work through John Doe’s case. What is moral and immoral per your theory?

· How would the veil of ignorance or a different theory of justice address John Doe’s case?

Writing Requirements

· Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside scholarly source)

· APA format for in-text citations and list of references

Philosophy homework help

Becoming a Philosopher Project PHIL 1013
1

PHIL 1013

Becoming a Philosopher: Creative Project 2

Due Week 7

Assignment: to become a philosopher by choosing a social, religious, or political issue you care

deeply about. You will connect your issue to a philosopher you learned about this term. You should

explain your position with sound logic and emotional connection. Becoming a Philosopher is 2 of 2

Special Projects for the course.

Points Possible: 150

Objectives:

• To demonstrate knowledge of philosophies and philosophers learned in this class

• To integrate reasonable and varying evidence from experience, knowledge, and course

resources

• To achieve a tone that is both personable and academic

• To follow best-practice guidelines for your chosen medium (MLA format for essays)

Steps:

This project has three steps. See each week’s Moodle section for details.

Step 1/Week 5 (25 pts): Choose topic and related philosopher; explain your philosopher and how the

topic relates to that person’s ideas/writings

Step 2/Week 6 (25 pts) Find one source; submit outline or partial draft

Step 3/Week 7 (100 pts): Turn in competed project

Form of Project:

You have the freedom to use the best medium to communicate your new philosophy. I highly

encourage you to choose a different medium from the first project, but it is not required. You may

choose one of those listed below or get approval for another.

• Use at least two credible sources

• Essay: MLA format 3-5 pages

• Video: 3-5 minutes with a slide/image listing sources in MLA format

• PowerPoint: 10-12 slides with a slide listing sources in MLA format

• Platonic dialogue: 5-7 pages; styled as a conversation (dialogue) between you and your

philosopher-friend

Becoming a Philosopher Project PHIL 1013
2

Topics:

You should pick a topic that you care about but that you can still view logically and critically and not

just emotionally. Choose both a current issue and a philosopher whose writing and ideas can help us

understand the issue. Here are some ideas to get you thinking about your own:

• The Social Contract Theory as it applies to vaccine or mandates with Covid-19

• A theologian or religious philosopher’s views of whether we have an obligation to

participate in social justice movements

Content Requirements:

Whatever form the project takes, you should include:

• an introduction of the topic/issue and its relevance to current times (may use source)

• an introduction of the philosopher you are connecting to this issue

o briefly summarize the philosopher’s ideas (may use source)

o if a philosopher from the distant past, explain whether this particular issue existed when

the philosopher was writing/speaking

• a thesis (claim) that briefly summarizes your view about the issue

• the connection between the issue and the philosopher; apply the philosopher’s views to the

issue to refine your personal theory about the issue

• a personal reflection on how the philosopher and the issue affect you and what you feel your

obligation is (whether to convince others, to take action, or just to learn to tolerate others’

beliefs)

o apply the philosopher’s views to our current society

Becoming a Philosopher Project PHIL 1013
3

PHIL 1013 Becoming a Philosopher Scoring Guide

MLA format (10 points)
• MLA format for essays
• Best practices format for non-essay projects

/10

Purpose (15 points)
• Appropriate for subject, purpose, and audience
• Min. of 3 full pages of text for essay; 5 for dialogue
• 10-12 slides for PPT
• 3-5 min. for video

/15

Sources (15 points)
• Reputable sources
• Citation of philosopher’s original work
• Appropriate inclusion of all
• Smooth integration
• Works Cited page in MLA format
• Use of in-text citations

/15

Composition (15 points)
• Grammar and mechanics
• Academic style
• Unity and coherence
• Engaging introduction
• Satisfying conclusion
• Logical organization

/15

Content (45 points)
• Originality/creativity
• College-level analysis
• Inclusion of all content requirements
• More analysis than facts/summary

/45

Total points possible (100)

/100

Philosophy homework help

 The Behavioral Model of Leadership [WLOs: 2, 3] [CLOs: 2, 3, 4, 6]

Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, read Chapter 4 of the 
Northouse
 (2019) text describing the behavioral model of leadership and complete the Leadership Behavior Questionnaire at the end of the chapter. As you complete the questionnaire, choose answers that relate to how you typically behave in a workplace environment, as opposed to in a personal or social situation.

In your initial post of at least 300 words in length and referencing at least two required sources,

· Discuss what your questionnaire results mean in terms of your inclination to focus more on tasks or on relationship matters.

· Explain what your understanding of the behavioral model of leadership tells you about the types of workplace situations that are most comfortable for you and those situations in which you display the strongest leadership.

· Identify the types of situations in which you might be less effective as a leader. Conceptualize how you might change your behavior to be a more effective leader.

Philosophy homework help

Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:

· Textbook: Chapter 1, 2

· Lesson

· Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

Initial Post Instructions
The study of ethics and philosophy is one that brings many different kinds of “thinkers” together. One person’s philosophy on ethics is another person’s philosophy on evil. We will be working this term on constructing personal ethical bases and understanding how ethical codes (both personal and professional) are created and followed.

To start us thinking about the different areas of philosophy and ethics, and how we fit into the different molds or world views, let’s imagine the following scenario:

It is 2019. The federal law banning female circumcision is still under appeal in the courts. You are a nurse assisting a plastic surgeon at a local hospital. The plastic surgeon comes from a country where they practice “female circumcision”. This practice is also sometimes called “female genital mutilation”.

Fire Eyes: Female Circumcision, Written by Soraya Mire, Directed by Soraya Mire, Ethnographer Soraya Mire, Narrated by Carol Christiansen (New York, NY: Filmakers Library, 1995), 57 minutes

You are not a member of the doctor’s culture, but reside in a state where this practice is still legal. The plastic surgeon has agreed to perform this practice on a young girl, the daughter of a friend of the surgeon. The friend has authorized the procedure. The girl only knows this is a custom. You did not know that today you would be asked to assist in this procedure. You can refuse to participate (your job may be on the line in the future due to that decision). Or, you can assist the surgeon. What ought you to do? We now want to examine the ethical issues involved. To do this, let’s look at the role of relativism, moral truths, and other issues.

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following questions:

· What would a subjective moral relativist say about what this doctor is doing? Do you agree with the subjective moral relativist? Why or why not?

· Examine what a cultural moral relativist would say here. Do you agree with the cultural relativist? Why or why not?

· Name and evaluate general criticisms of cultural relativism as being the wrong moral approach.

· Is there an objective moral truth about any of the possible actions by the nurse and/or doctor in this case? Why or why not?

Writing Requirements

· Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside scholarly source)

· APA format for in-text citations and list of references

Philosophy homework help

Country; Kenya

Research Assignment 4: Your Country’s Health System | Guidelines & Grading Rubric Copy

Overview

Drawing on what you have learned about health systems, apply that knowledge to research, describe and analyze the health system in your country.

Your submission should be a short research paper of 800-900 words (please double space your paper and include your name on it!). You should include proper APA citations (in-text parenthetical citations, plus a bibliography). Minimum of 3 academic journal articles, and at least 5 reliable and trustworthy sources total. Please read the grading rubric below.

Instructions

Describe the overall health system (including organization, financing, coverage and model). After you’ve given this overview, analyze the key sector issues. You’ll need to be concise as you will only have a paragraph or less for each of the key sector issues. At a minimum, your paper should address:

· Organization: Is it a coordinated system run by the Ministry of Health or is it more fragmented and relies primarily on market forces or NGOs? Is there a linked system of primary care, hospital care, and tertiary care?

· Financing: Is it publicly funded, privately funded, supported by foreign donors, or a mix? Is the funding level sufficient to meet the needs of the population? If it has public funding, is it from taxes or insurance premiums? What percent of healthcare costs are paid by the government (versus individuals)?

· Coverage: ​Is there insurance? How does insurance work (who pays for it, what % of people are insured)? What costs are incurred by citizens ​(insurance premiums/cost of care)? Any recent significant changes in the system?

· Key Sector Issues​: ​Analyze ​the ability of your country’s health system to tackle its health issues by researching and describing each of the following issues discussed in class (a few sentences for each issue, or a short paragraph on each, is sufficient):

· Demographic and epidemiological changes important to undestanding the context

· Health workforce concerns (human resources)

· Access and equity

The key sector issues are covered in Units 4.2 and 4.3. See also 
this article from Skolnik 

 Download this article from Skolnikfor further information.

As you research you country’s health system, you are likely to encounter reports with a lot of technical and sector-specific language. Be sure that you understand the terms and phrases that you are using in your paper—one of the challenges of this assignment is sorting through the technical reports to find information that means something to you.

Assignment Grading

Criteria

Weight

Content: Paper includes a well-researched and cited discussion of your country’s health system, including the following topics: organization, financing, coverage, and 3 key sector issues.

50%

Analysis and Argumentation: Demonstrates ability to apply concepts from the course to research a specific country. Paper goes beyond long lists of facts and tells a story. Demonstrates sound reasoning. Ideas are convincingly developed and supported with concrete evidence. Considers full complexity and avoids oversimplifying. Uses multiple sources to back up argument. 

20%

Writing: Topic sentences, transitions, and paragraphs advance a complex series of ideas, claims, and evidence. Conclusion achieves a culmination of principal ideas. Sentences clearly written. Grammar, spelling and punctuation used properly.

10%

Citations & bibliography: Minimum of 3 academic journal articles, and at least 5 reliable and trustworthy sources total. Citations and bibliography follow APA style.

20%

 

Philosophy homework help

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227591551

What Is Computer Ethics?

Article  in  Metaphilosophy · August 2007

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9973.1985.tb00173.x

CITATIONS

334

READS

9,105

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Privacy View project

Philosophy of AI View project

James Moor

Dartmouth College

60 PUBLICATIONS   1,659 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Moor on 20 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

View publication statsView publication stats

Philosophy homework help

Final Project Part B Interview Transcript Outline

Hillary Houston

A. Importance of Cultural Diversity

1. Explanation on the identification of stereotypes in a culture that leads to a negative perception

2. Explanation on the impact of negative perception leading to discriminatory behavior

3. Explanation of the perceived notion of discrimination escalating to lack of conversation and change

4. The description of the beauty of grasping cultural identity to solving the problem

B. Importance of Anthropologists to Understanding Cultural Diversity

1. Defining concepts of human culture that inform decision making

2. Categorization of the impact of poor and right decision making derived from cultural practices in minorities

C. Conclusive Investigative Anthropology

1. Definition of ethnography in the context of identity – immigrant community

2. Explanation of essential characteristics at looking through the perspective of the culture hence sensitivity to specific needs within it

D. Cultural Connections and Their Impact

1. Explanation of consent and what it entails before study

2. Description of how questions are answered to inquisitors form the culture of focus

3. Explanation on the importance of stakeholder participation and feedback

E. Choosing a Perspective in Problem Solving

1. Give examples of perception of the minorities and implication to the immigration issues

2. Description of socio-political issues that led to the negative and positive perception around this community

F. Predictability through Anthropology

1. Definition of historical events and precedents hence their power and how they have influenced present condition or change

2. Description of recent action and their potential impact on the future hence extrapolation of problem-solving

G. Impact of Anthropology To Me

1. An explanation of the impact of understanding human behavior as a means to allow the right decision-making progress

2. Description of concepts of predictive analysis necessary to change the course of action and thus impact the community in the future.

Philosophy homework help

084d9e02cc20c647755ea34d82e611d

500 world

Link of two text

https://media.ccconline.org/ccco/2020Master/LIT211_212/Explorations/LIT211/content/index.html#/lessons/ESMGc74sZvwKlc_h2tfdmBwz7o201C36

https://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/iro/sim/sim14.htm


Philosophy homework help

DB1

Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, please read Chapters 1 and 2 in Northouse (2019), and Chapter 1 of Kinicki and Williams (2108), as well as the articles “Are Leadership and Management Different? A Review (Links to an external site.)” by Algahtani (2014) and “Leadership Versus Management: What’s the Difference? (Links to an external site.)” by Kotterman (2006).

In an initial post of at least 300 words (See How to Check a Word Count in Microsoft Word (Links to an external site.) for help), and Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.) at least two required scholarly sources, distinguish between leadership and management responsibilities in an organizational setting. Identify the different sets of responsibilities you expect would be assigned to a leader and to a manager. Discuss how these sets of responsibilities require different skill sets to accomplish. Determine which is a more natural fit for you: leadership or management.

Philosophy homework help

North Tower Dining Hall Case Study

[WLOs: 2, 3] [CLOs: 2, 3, 4, 6]

Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read Chapters 3, 4, and 5 in your 
Northouse
 (2019) textbook, and the article by Blanchard and Hershey (1996), “
Great Ideas Revisited (Links to an external site.)
.” Watch the video on situational leadership by Expert Program Management (2018), 

Situational Leadership Model Explained

 (Links to an external site.)
. Then, read the following case study and address the directives that follow.

North Tower Dining Hall Case Study

Jorge was recently hired to lead a large food service operation at a major university in New York State after the previous leader left the organization following a long illness. Jorge has a great deal of experience working with food service operations at other colleges and universities, and is well-versed in the operational needs of this new organization—the North Tower Dining Hall—that prepares three meals a day for the 650 students who live in the North Tower residence hall. 

Prior to assuming this position, Jorge oversaw the operations of a smaller residential food service operation at a small private university in Pennsylvania, so this position represents an increase in responsibility that he is happy to undertake. Jorge is known as a “no nonsense” manager, who is typically tough, but fair. He expects people to do their jobs and do them well, without much hand-holding. While this leadership style has worked well for Jorge in the past, some people who have worked for him have been unhappy with the way he treats people personally. Jorge wants results, and he doesn’t always care how people feel about his demands.

In his first few weeks on the job, Jorge focused on getting to know his managerial staff and the employees who report to them. He observed the daily workflow of the North Tower Dining Hall and noted both operational strengths and weaknesses in the kitchen and dining hall service operations. Jorge quickly decided that he needed to focus on the strengths and capabilities of his four direct reports, the managers who oversee the various elements of the operations. 

They have managed to hold things together after the previous leader, Diana, experienced a significant illness, which kept her away from the organization for long periods of time while she was receiving treatment, and which finally caused her to leave the organization. The effects of Diana’s lack of leadership during her illness and after she left the organization can be noted throughout the organization, and especially in the morale and spirit of the employees who miss Diana and were sorry to see her leave under such unfortunate circumstances. Jorge is aware of the feelings of the managers and staff, but he believes he must take charge of the organization because, in the words of the dean of campus life who hired him, “you need to get this operation working smoothly again.”

The four managers who oversee operations vary in experience and expertise. Dave has been with the organization for several years. He is competent in his responsibilities, and does a reasonably good job overseeing his employees, but he seems to be a bit unimaginative, showing little innovation or drive in planning and a hesitation to try anything new. He seems stuck. Likewise, Cynthia has been with the organization for several years, but she is an effective manager and is far more enthusiastic than Dave. Cynthia frequently raises ideas for improving or strengthening the operations of the dining hall, and Jorge thinks she has great capacity for growth. 

Rajeev is a relatively new manager who joined the team last year, and he is keeping up with the work, but just barely. Lack of leadership during his first year on the job means he has been operating without much support, and his operations are suffering, but his attitude seems to be positive and he has expressed a willingness to improve. Finally, Meena has been working in a managerial position for just six months, having transferred into her position from another food service operation on campus. She came into the position with more overall managerial experience than Rajeev, but she seems uncertain about what to do and how to do it. Jorge isn’t certain she can do the job.

In a paper of at least 1,500 words (excluding title, abstract and reference pages), and referencing at least three scholarly sources, in addition to required readings, apply the situational leadership model to describe an optimal approach for Jorge to take in working with the four managers who report to him.

In your paper,

· Apply the situational leadership model to describe the developmental level of the four managers, and what they need in terms of support and direction from their leader.

· Explain what might happen if Jorge, their leader, fails to acknowledge their developmental level.

· Apply the situational leadership model to identify and describe the optimal leadership approach Jorge should take to work with each manager described in the case study, providing examples, and supporting your conclusions with the literature.

· Describe the challenges Jorge may have in working with each manager because of his natural leadership style.

· Discuss how his usual way of working with direct reports might clash with the needs of some of the managers who report to him at North Tower Dining Hall.

· Apply elements of the skills-based model to recommend specific skills Jorge might need to develop to be most effective in his new role.

The North Tower Dining Hall Case Study paper:

· Must be at least 1,500 words in length (not including title, abstract, and references pages), and must include references to at least three scholarly sources in addition to required books and articles.

· Must be formatted according to APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center’s 
APA Style (Links to an external site.)
 (Access the resource 
How to Check a Word Count in Microsoft Word (Links to an external site.)
 for help in determining total word count.)

· Must include a separate title page with the following:

· Title of paper

· Student’s name

· University’s Name

· For further assistance with formatting your paper, including the title page, refer to the 
APA Template (Links to an external site.)
 from the Writing Center.

· Must be double-spaced, formatted in Times New Roman 12-point type font, and aligned to the left margin.

· Must utilize academic voice. See the 
Academic Voice (Links to an external site.)
 resource for additional guidance.

· Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper.

· For assistance on writing 
Introductions & Conclusions (Links to an external site.)
 as well as 
Writing a Thesis Statement (Links to an external site.)
, refer to the Writing Center resources.

· Must use at least three scholarly sources in addition to required books and articles.

· The 
Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.)
 table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for an assignment.

· To assist you in completing the research required for this assignment, view this 
University Library Quick ‘n’ Dirty (Links to an external site.)
 tutorial, which introduces the University of Arizona Global Campus Library and the research process, and provides some library search tips.

· Must document any information used from sources in APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center’s 
Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.)
 guide

· Must include separate abstract and references pages that are formatted according to APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center. See the 
Writing an Abstract (Links to an external site.)
 and 
Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.)
 resources in the Writing Center for specifications.

Carefully review the 
Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.)
 for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

Philosophy homework help

Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, please read Chapter 2 in Kninicki and Williams (2018), and the article by Powers (2014), “Innovating Our Thinking About Management: A New Model (Links to an external site.).”

In an initial post of at least 300 words in length, and citing at least two required scholarly sources, provide a brief overview of the evolution of management theory, beginning with the classical viewpoint, and evolving to the contemporary perspective. In your overview, highlight the prominent thinking of the major views of management, reflecting the perspective that management ideas are evolving as the world of work and commerce is changing. Conclude your overview with a reflection on the applicability of the contemporary perspective for the current times.

Philosophy homework help

Aristotle
384-322 BCE

*

Life and times

  • Father a physician to Phillip of Macedon
  • Philosophy studies in Athens under Plato
  • Tutor to Alexander the Great
  • Founder of the Lyceum
  • Unclear authorship of his written works (lecture notes? Student notes? Cicero’s testimony as to his abilities)
  • Invents Logic, systematic Biology, The philosopher of the middle ages

*

The teleological project in ethics

  • As opposed to Kant, who looks to intentions as the locus of an individual’s moral status, or Mill, who looks to the consequences of actions as the locus of an action’s goodness,
  • Aristotle looks at one’s character as the prime predictor of one’s ability to attain the good in life (which for him, is also happiness)

*

But,

  • But although the focus is different between Aristotle and Mill, both are teleologists about morality–the goodness lies in the promotion of some goal
  • In both cases, the goal is happiness
  • Where they differ is in their conceptions of happiness

*

Different teleologies

  • For Mill, happiness is something of an occurent state identified with pleasure
  • For Aristotle, happiness is not an occurent state, but rather something achieved over a lifetime
  • For Aristotle, it is not completely divorced from pleasure, but its relationship to pleasure is somewhat complicated and definitely not one of identity

*

The good

  • Every pursuit and every art aims at some end or good (telos)
  • Cognate notions: goal, purpose
  • Interesting issue: thickness and thinness of conceptions of the good
  • For the ultimate in a thin (contentless) conception of the good, see Kant
  • For richer conceptions, see first Mill, then Aristotle

*

The test for the final end

  • The end for which everything else is a means must be the final good
  • I.e., intrinsically good
  • Hence, finding the final end must be the key to living the good life
  • Implied assumption: it’s unlikely that the final good and the good life are not closely related

*

What is the final end?

  • The final end for Aristotle, is the good life or happiness (eudaimonia)
  • This is by far the best candidate for the final end
  • Note that the ‘the good’ spoken of here is unlike Kant’s good
  • Although happiness is unconditionally good, becoming happy will require one to be good at living

*

So, what are the things one must be good at to become happy?

  • To answer this, we must first investigate the human function (ergon)
  • The reason being, that the good or end (telos) of a thing resides in its function
  • That is, if we can speak of something as a good X, then its goodness resides in the fact that it performs what X’s are supposed to do, and performs them well

*

So,

  • If happiness is the good or end of humans, then we can discover it by discovering the human function
  • Note how radically immoral Kant would take even a discussion of the human function to be
  • What is a human that doesn’t fulfill the human function?
  • This would appear to open the door to treating humans as means–the main Kantian problem with teleology

*

Where to go from here?

  • The state (hexis) that enables anything to fulfill its function is its virtue (arete)
  • So, in order to find in order to find the human function, we must find and delimit human virtue

*

Where is human virtue?

  • In order to investigate human virtue, we must investigate the human soul (psuche) because it’s there that human virtue resides
  • That is, if the only options are the body and the soul, then it’s obvious that human virtue resides in the human soul
  • Why?
  • Because having a body, or even having a body of a certain type is no guarantee of happiness

*

The tie of virtue to soul

  • For Aristotle, original function, and, hence, original virtue, are completely owing and derived from the capacity of the soul whose activities gives rise to them

So what is the human soul?

  • In general (that is, independent of whether it’s a human or not), the characteristic activities that are essential to a living thing and that explain all of its features

*

Rational-leader

Human soul

Rational-follower

Appetitive

Nutritive

*

Human virtue within the Rational leader: Intellectual Virtues

Practical wisdom-phronesis

Theoretical virtue-theoria

Human virtue with the Rational follower

Ethical virtue: courage, temperance, etc.

How are these virtues generated?

  • Ethical virtue is generated and fostered by habit/training
  • Note Aristotle’s own semantic connection: the Greek word for ethics (ethikos) derives from the Greek word for habit (ethos)
  • Practical wisdom is acquired with the development of reason and its application to action and feeling
  • Theoretical virtue is generated and fostered by teaching

Focus, for the moment, at least, on ethical virtue and practical wisdom

  • Because the present topic is living well, we must investigate the generation of ethical virtue and practical wisdom, along with shortcomings of those two kinds of virtue

Ethical virtue

  • Starts with the raw material of actions and feelings and develops and builds them through training and habit and the development of rational faculties to further develop actions and feelings so that they are true manifestations of ethical virtue

Note

  • That Aristotle includes both actions and feelings into the discussion of ethical virtue
  • Think of Kant’s reaction
  • To this, Aristotle adds another level of ethical concern:
  • The notion of character stability

What is stability of character?

  • Aristotle notes that through habit, training and intellectual development, one’s ethical character is developed as a sort of second nature
  • That is, an ethical center of gravity around which one actions and feelings tend to revolve, especially as these feelings tend to accord or be in discord with the deliverances of our intellectual virtues

The continence spectrum

  • For Aristotle, characters can be arrayed on a spectrum as to their stability, where stability is read as the absence of inner conflict between one’s feelings and one’s rational judgments
  • Virtue—continence—incontinence—vice

Virtuous character

  • Is stable; not given to internal conflict regarding their actions and feelings
  • Consonance between what they intellectually ascertain to be the proper action or felling and what their emotions and appetites drive them towards

Continent character

  • The continent (enkrates) is characterized by inner conflict which they manage to suppress
  • They intellectually perceive the proper action or feeling, but are driven away from it by appetite
  • Still, they manage to counteract the drive and keep their action in line with their rational perception

The incontinent character

  • The incontinent (akrates) is also characterized by inner conflict of intellectual perception and appetite
  • However, unlike the continent, the akratic cannot withstand their appetites and end up acting or feeling in a way that goes against their rational perception of the best course

The vicious character

  • The vicious (kakos) are characterized by a rational perception which does not conflict with base appetite
  • In this sense, they are not riddled with inner conflict
  • In another sense, Aristotle thinks they will be conflicted because their desire will become so overweening that it will be unsatisfiable and this will lead to self loathing

The doctrine of the mean

  • Virtuous actions/feelings lie in a mean between the extremes of excess and deficiency
  • Note his examples: courage
  • The mean also applies to feelings as well
  • The commitment to unnamed feelings and actions as defined by their status vis-à-vis excess or deficiency

The mean cont.

  • The relativity of the mean
  • The intellectual requirements
  • Hitting the center of a circle
  • The unity of the virtues
  • Question: which gets a name, the axis from excess to deficiency, or the place on the axis

The mean, cont.

  • The relativity of the mean
  • The objectivity of the relative mean

So,

  • Ethical virtue is acting/feeling in a mean from a stable character state
  • Question for virtue theory: what about action guidance?
  • Is action guidance even the issue?
  • Can virtue theory provide sustantive ethical information?

Philosophy homework help

2/27/22, 1:22 AM Reflection 2

https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1478005/assignments/6100936 1/2

Reflection 2

Due Sunday by 11:59pm Points 10 Submitting a file upload (Turnitin enabled)
Available Feb 19 at 11:59pm – May 7 at 11:59pm 3 months

Start Assignment

PHIL. 134: COMPUTERS, ETHICS & SOCIETY

Kyle Yrigoyen

REFLECTION 2

In a short writing of roughly 500 words, please respond to all of the following questions:

1. Now that you’ve been introduced to a variety of normative ethical theories, how do you now
understand the relationship between ethics in general and computers in particular? Next, reconsider
Moor’s paper, “What is Computer Ethics?”; what does Moor mean by claiming that computers are
logically malleable devices? Furthermore, how does this claim about logical malleability lead to what
Moor calls the invisibility factor (of which he offers three kinds)? Please be sure to define your terms
and give examples.

Grading

Write a short essay that addresses the questions above. When you respond to these questions, you
should be specific and cite specific details from the class readings and your own research. You may
provide references from your own research, but only in addition to material provided by the course. Also,
you MUST make sure to cite your sources in your response and include a reference list at the end of
your essay. Citations must be from reputable sources. Sites like Wikipedia, about.com, etc. are NOT
considered acceptable sources.

Higher credit will be given for responses that show evidence of a systematic and comprehensive
understanding of the topics involved.

Formatting

2/27/22, 1:22 AM Reflection 2

https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1478005/assignments/6100936 2/2

Standard font, preferably Arial in either 11pt or 12pt. Be sure to structure your paper in proper paragraph
form. Do not write one, long run-on paragraph.

MLA, APA, or any other format is acceptable provided that it is consistent through the entire paper.
Please, no cover sheets.

Philosophy homework help

Kobe Thomas-Joshua

Reflection Paper: My Day in Plastic

Write a 750-1,000 word paper reflecting on the plastic in your own life using the Week 5 Exercise as your starting point. Your response should be carefully edited and clearly organized into a coherent whole. Please double space, use 12pt font, and be sure to provide in-text citations for course materials (include page numbers for specific quotes/paraphrased materials), and a list of works cited at the end. The content of the paper should do three things:

1) Reflect on the list-making process itself For example, you might address SOME of the following: How many items are on your list? Interesting observations about the contents? Was this exercise easier/harder than expected? Were there any surprises? Is it actually possible to figure out what everything is made from? Were you temped to change your routine to avoid having to list something?

2) Thoughtfully consider responsibility For example, consider SOME of the following: Is the plastic our lives simply the result of individual choices? Is it possible, as an individual, to avoid plastic in your daily life? Why or why not? Which items might you have control over or not and why? What other factors might limit individual interventions? (time/money/knowledge etc) Who or what else might be responsible? Who do you think should be responsible?

3) Connect your experience to broader issues via the readings by incorporating and properly referencing (with in-text/parenthetical citations) “the Story of Bottled Water” video AND at least one of the Maniates (Week 5) or De Wolff (Week 6) readings. How might plastic connect your daily life to global consumer culture/environments? How might these connections influence how you think about responsibility?


List of plastic items in 24 hours (Week 5)

1. Plastic cups

2. Straws

3. Trash bag

4. Trash can

5. Plastic sack

6. Toothbrush

7. Toothpaste

8. Water bottle

9. PlayStation

10. Plastic Cutlery

11. Ziplock bags

12. Paper plates

13. Bowls

14. Body wash

15. Mouthwash

16. Laptop

17. Cell phone

18. TV

19. Remote control

20. Shoes

21. Food storage containers

22. Milk container

23. Juice container

24. Light Switch

25. The car’s dashboard

26. Pill bottle

27. Bleach container

28. Mask

29. Fan

30. Fruit cups

31. Cold cuts

32. Bread package

33. Mop

34. Mop bucket

35. Laundry detergent

Philosophy homework help

Ion
Plato

Table of Contents
Ion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

Plato………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
ION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3

Ion

i

Ion

Plato

Translated by Benjamin Jowett

INTRODUCTION.•
ION•

INTRODUCTION.

The Ion is the shortest, or nearly the shortest, of all the writings which bear the name of Plato, and is not
authenticated by any early external testimony. The grace and beauty of this little work supply the only, and
perhaps a sufficient, proof of its genuineness. The plan is simple; the dramatic interest consists entirely in the
contrast between the irony of Socrates and the transparent vanity and childlike enthusiasm of the rhapsode
Ion. The theme of the Dialogue may possibly have been suggested by the passage of Xenophon’s
Memorabilia in which the rhapsodists are described by Euthydemus as ‘very precise about the exact words of
Homer, but very idiotic themselves.’ (Compare Aristotle, Met.)

Ion the rhapsode has just come to Athens; he has been exhibiting in Epidaurus at the festival of Asclepius,
and is intending to exhibit at the festival of the Panathenaea. Socrates admires and envies the rhapsode’s art;
for he is always well dressed and in good company−−in the company of good poets and of Homer, who is the
prince of them. In the course of conversation the admission is elicited from Ion that his skill is restricted to
Homer, and that he knows nothing of inferior poets, such as Hesiod and Archilochus;−−he brightens up and
is wide awake when Homer is being recited, but is apt to go to sleep at the recitations of any other poet. ‘And
yet, surely, he who knows the superior ought to know the inferior also;−−he who can judge of the good
speaker is able to judge of the bad. And poetry is a whole; and he who judges of poetry by rules of art ought
to be able to judge of all poetry.’ This is confirmed by the analogy of sculpture, painting, flute−playing, and
the other arts. The argument is at last brought home to the mind of Ion, who asks how this contradiction is to
be solved. The solution given by Socrates is as follows:−−

The rhapsode is not guided by rules of art, but is an inspired person who derives a mysterious power from the
poet; and the poet, in like manner, is inspired by the God. The poets and their interpreters may be compared
to a chain of magnetic rings suspended from one another, and from a magnet. The magnet is the Muse, and
the ring which immediately follows is the poet himself; from him are suspended other poets; there is also a
chain of rhapsodes and actors, who also hang from the Muses, but are let down at the side; and the last ring of
all is the spectator. The poet is the inspired interpreter of the God, and this is the reason why some poets, like
Homer, are restricted to a single theme, or, like Tynnichus, are famous for a single poem; and the rhapsode is
the inspired interpreter of the poet, and for a similar reason some rhapsodes, like Ion, are the interpreters of
single poets.

Ion is delighted at the notion of being inspired, and acknowledges that he is beside himself when he is

Ion 1

performing;−−his eyes rain tears and his hair stands on end. Socrates is of opinion that a man must be mad
who behaves in this way at a festival when he is surrounded by his friends and there is nothing to trouble him.
Ion is confident that Socrates would never think him mad if he could only hear his embellishments of Homer.
Socrates asks whether he can speak well about everything in Homer. ‘Yes, indeed he can.’ ‘What about things
of which he has no knowledge?’ Ion answers that he can interpret anything in Homer. But, rejoins Socrates,
when Homer speaks of the arts, as for example, of chariot−driving, or of medicine, or of prophecy, or of
navigation−−will he, or will the charioteer or physician or prophet or pilot be the better judge? Ion is
compelled to admit that every man will judge of his own particular art better than the rhapsode. He still
maintains, however, that he understands the art of the general as well as any one. ‘Then why in this city of
Athens, in which men of merit are always being sought after, is he not at once appointed a general?’ Ion
replies that he is a foreigner, and the Athenians and Spartans will not appoint a foreigner to be their general.
‘No, that is not the real reason; there are many examples to the contrary. But Ion has long been playing tricks
with the argument; like Proteus, he transforms himself into a variety of shapes, and is at last about to run
away in the disguise of a general. Would he rather be regarded as inspired or dishonest?’ Ion, who has no
suspicion of the irony of Socrates, eagerly embraces the alternative of inspiration.

The Ion, like the other earlier Platonic Dialogues, is a mixture of jest and earnest, in which no definite result
is obtained, but some Socratic or Platonic truths are allowed dimly to appear.

The elements of a true theory of poetry are contained in the notion that the poet is inspired. Genius is often
said to be unconscious, or spontaneous, or a gift of nature: that ‘genius is akin to madness’ is a popular
aphorism of modern times. The greatest strength is observed to have an element of limitation. Sense or
passion are too much for the ‘dry light’ of intelligence which mingles with them and becomes discoloured by
them. Imagination is often at war with reason and fact. The concentration of the mind on a single object, or
on a single aspect of human nature, overpowers the orderly perception of the whole. Yet the feelings too
bring truths home to the minds of many who in the way of reason would be incapable of understanding them.
Reflections of this kind may have been passing before Plato’s mind when he describes the poet as inspired, or
when, as in the Apology, he speaks of poets as the worst critics of their own writings−−anybody taken at
random from the crowd is a better interpreter of them than they are of themselves. They are sacred persons,
‘winged and holy things’ who have a touch of madness in their composition (Phaedr.), and should be treated
with every sort of respect (Republic), but not allowed to live in a well−ordered state. Like the Statesmen in
the Meno, they have a divine instinct, but they are narrow and confused; they do not attain to the clearness of
ideas, or to the knowledge of poetry or of any other art as a whole.

In the Protagoras the ancient poets are recognized by Protagoras himself as the original sophists; and this
family resemblance may be traced in the Ion. The rhapsode belongs to the realm of imitation and of opinion:
he professes to have all knowledge, which is derived by him from Homer, just as the sophist professes to
have all wisdom, which is contained in his art of rhetoric. Even more than the sophist he is incapable of
appreciating the commonest logical distinctions; he cannot explain the nature of his own art; his great
memory contrasts with his inability to follow the steps of the argument. And in his highest moments of
inspiration he has an eye to his own gains.

The old quarrel between philosophy and poetry, which in the Republic leads to their final separation, is
already working in the mind of Plato, and is embodied by him in the contrast between Socrates and Ion. Yet
here, as in the Republic, Socrates shows a sympathy with the poetic nature. Also, the manner in which Ion is
affected by his own recitations affords a lively illustration of the power which, in the Republic, Socrates
attributes to dramatic performances over the mind of the performer. His allusion to his embellishments of
Homer, in which he declares himself to have surpassed Metrodorus of Lampsacus and Stesimbrotus of
Thasos, seems to show that, like them, he belonged to the allegorical school of interpreters. The circumstance
that nothing more is known of him may be adduced in confirmation of the argument that this truly Platonic
little work is not a forgery of later times.

Ion

Ion 2

ION

PERSONS OF THE DIALOGUE: Socrates, Ion.

SOCRATES: Welcome, Ion. Are you from your native city of Ephesus?

ION: No, Socrates; but from Epidaurus, where I attended the festival of Asclepius.

SOCRATES: And do the Epidaurians have contests of rhapsodes at the festival?

ION: O yes; and of all sorts of musical performers.

SOCRATES: And were you one of the competitors−−and did you succeed?

ION: I obtained the first prize of all, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Well done; and I hope that you will do the same for us at the Panathenaea.

ION: And I will, please heaven.

SOCRATES: I often envy the profession of a rhapsode, Ion; for you have always to wear fine clothes, and to
look as beautiful as you can is a part of your art. Then, again, you are obliged to be continually in the
company of many good poets; and especially of Homer, who is the best and most divine of them; and to
understand him, and not merely learn his words by rote, is a thing greatly to be envied. And no man can be a
rhapsode who does not understand the meaning of the poet. For the rhapsode ought to interpret the mind of
the poet to his hearers, but how can he interpret him well unless he knows what he means? All this is greatly
to be envied.

ION: Very true, Socrates; interpretation has certainly been the most laborious part of my art; and I believe
myself able to speak about Homer better than any man; and that neither Metrodorus of Lampsacus, nor
Stesimbrotus of Thasos, nor Glaucon, nor any one else who ever was, had as good ideas about Homer as I
have, or as many.

SOCRATES: I am glad to hear you say so, Ion; I see that you will not refuse to acquaint me with them.

ION: Certainly, Socrates; and you really ought to hear how exquisitely I render Homer. I think that the
Homeridae should give me a golden crown.

SOCRATES: I shall take an opportunity of hearing your embellishments of him at some other time. But just
now I should like to ask you a question: Does your art extend to Hesiod and Archilochus, or to Homer only?

ION: To Homer only; he is in himself quite enough.

SOCRATES: Are there any things about which Homer and Hesiod agree?

ION: Yes; in my opinion there are a good many.

SOCRATES: And can you interpret better what Homer says, or what Hesiod says, about these matters in
which they agree?

Ion

ION 3

ION: I can interpret them equally well, Socrates, where they agree.

SOCRATES: But what about matters in which they do not agree?−−for example, about divination, of which
both Homer and Hesiod have something to say,−−

ION: Very true:

SOCRATES: Would you or a good prophet be a better interpreter of what these two poets say about
divination, not only when they agree, but when they disagree?

ION: A prophet.

SOCRATES: And if you were a prophet, would you not be able to interpret them when they disagree as well
as when they agree?

ION: Clearly.

SOCRATES: But how did you come to have this skill about Homer only, and not about Hesiod or the other
poets? Does not Homer speak of the same themes which all other poets handle? Is not war his great
argument? and does he not speak of human society and of intercourse of men, good and bad, skilled and
unskilled, and of the gods conversing with one another and with mankind, and about what happens in heaven
and in the world below, and the generations of gods and heroes? Are not these the themes of which Homer
sings?

ION: Very true, Socrates.

SOCRATES: And do not the other poets sing of the same?

ION: Yes, Socrates; but not in the same way as Homer.

SOCRATES: What, in a worse way?

ION: Yes, in a far worse.

SOCRATES: And Homer in a better way?

ION: He is incomparably better.

SOCRATES: And yet surely, my dear friend Ion, in a discussion about arithmetic, where many people are
speaking, and one speaks better than the rest, there is somebody who can judge which of them is the good
speaker?

ION: Yes.

SOCRATES: And he who judges of the good will be the same as he who judges of the bad speakers?

ION: The same.

SOCRATES: And he will be the arithmetician?

ION: Yes.

Ion

ION 4

SOCRATES: Well, and in discussions about the wholesomeness of food, when many persons are speaking,
and one speaks better than the rest, will he who recognizes the better speaker be a different person from him
who recognizes the worse, or the same?

ION: Clearly the same.

SOCRATES: And who is he, and what is his name?

ION: The physician.

SOCRATES: And speaking generally, in all discussions in which the subject is the same and many men are
speaking, will not he who knows the good know the bad speaker also? For if he does not know the bad,
neither will he know the good when the same topic is being discussed.

ION: True.

SOCRATES: Is not the same person skilful in both?

ION: Yes.

SOCRATES: And you say that Homer and the other poets, such as Hesiod and Archilochus, speak of the
same things, although not in the same way; but the one speaks well and the other not so well?

ION: Yes; and I am right in saying so.

SOCRATES: And if you knew the good speaker, you would also know the inferior speakers to be inferior?

ION: That is true.

SOCRATES: Then, my dear friend, can I be mistaken in saying that Ion is equally skilled in Homer and in
other poets, since he himself acknowledges that the same person will be a good judge of all those who speak
of the same things; and that almost all poets do speak of the same things?

ION: Why then, Socrates, do I lose attention and go to sleep and have absolutely no ideas of the least value,
when any one speaks of any other poet; but when Homer is mentioned, I wake up at once and am all attention
and have plenty to say?

SOCRATES: The reason, my friend, is obvious. No one can fail to see that you speak of Homer without any
art or knowledge. If you were able to speak of him by rules of art, you would have been able to speak of all
other poets; for poetry is a whole.

ION: Yes.

SOCRATES: And when any one acquires any other art as a whole, the same may be said of them. Would
you like me to explain my meaning, Ion?

ION: Yes, indeed, Socrates; I very much wish that you would: for I love to hear you wise men talk.

SOCRATES: O that we were wise, Ion, and that you could truly call us so; but you rhapsodes and actors,
and the poets whose verses you sing, are wise; whereas I am a common man, who only speak the truth. For
consider what a very commonplace and trivial thing is this which I have said−−a thing which any man might

Ion

ION 5

say: that when a man has acquired a knowledge of a whole art, the enquiry into good and bad is one and the
same. Let us consider this matter; is not the art of painting a whole?

ION: Yes.

SOCRATES: And there are and have been many painters good and bad?

ION: Yes.

SOCRATES: And did you ever know any one who was skilful in pointing out the excellences and defects of
Polygnotus the son of Aglaophon, but incapable of criticizing other painters; and when the work of any other
painter was produced, went to sleep and was at a loss, and had no ideas; but when he had to give his opinion
about Polygnotus, or whoever the painter might be, and about him only, woke up and was attentive and had
plenty to say?

ION: No indeed, I have never known such a person.

SOCRATES: Or did you ever know of any one in sculpture, who was skilful in expounding the merits of
Daedalus the son of Metion, or of Epeius the son of Panopeus, or of Theodorus the Samian, or of any
individual sculptor; but when the works of sculptors in general were produced, was at a loss and went to sleep
and had nothing to say?

ION: No indeed; no more than the other.

SOCRATES: And if I am not mistaken, you never met with any one among flute−players or harp−players or
singers to the harp or rhapsodes who was able to discourse of Olympus or Thamyras or Orpheus, or Phemius
the rhapsode of Ithaca, but was at a loss when he came to speak of Ion of Ephesus, and had no notion of his
merits or defects?

ION: I cannot deny what you say, Socrates. Nevertheless I am conscious in my own self, and the world
agrees with me in thinking that I do speak better and have more to say about Homer than any other man. But I
do not speak equally well about others−−tell me the reason of this.

SOCRATES: I perceive, Ion; and I will proceed to explain to you what I imagine to be the reason of this.
The gift which you possess of speaking excellently about Homer is not an art, but, as I was just saying, an
inspiration; there is a divinity moving you, like that contained in the stone which Euripides calls a magnet,
but which is commonly known as the stone of Heraclea. This stone not only attracts iron rings, but also
imparts to them a similar power of attracting other rings; and sometimes you may see a number of pieces of
iron and rings suspended from one another so as to form quite a long chain: and all of them derive their
power of suspension from the original stone. In like manner the Muse first of all inspires men herself; and
from these inspired persons a chain of other persons is suspended, who take the inspiration. For all good
poets, epic as well as lyric, compose their beautiful poems not by art, but because they are inspired and
possessed. And as the Corybantian revellers when they dance are not in their right mind, so the lyric poets are
not in their right mind when they are composing their beautiful strains: but when falling under the power of
music and metre they are inspired and possessed; like Bacchic maidens who draw milk and honey from the
rivers when they are under the influence of Dionysus but not when they are in their right mind. And the soul
of the lyric poet does the same, as they themselves say; for they tell us that they bring songs from honeyed
fountains, culling them out of the gardens and dells of the Muses; they, like the bees, winging their way from
flower to flower. And this is true. For the poet is a light and winged and holy thing, and there is no invention
in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and the mind is no longer in him: when he has not
attained to this state, he is powerless and is unable to utter his oracles. Many are the noble words in which

Ion

ION 6

poets speak concerning the actions of men; but like yourself when speaking about Homer, they do not speak
of them by any rules of art: they are simply inspired to utter that to which the Muse impels them, and that
only; and when inspired, one of them will make dithyrambs, another hymns of praise, another choral strains,
another epic or iambic verses−−and he who is good at one is not good at any other kind of verse: for not by
art does the poet sing, but by power divine. Had he learned by rules of art, he would have known how to
speak not of one theme only, but of all; and therefore God takes away the minds of poets, and uses them as
his ministers, as he also uses diviners and holy prophets, in order that we who hear them may know them to
be speaking not of themselves who utter these priceless words in a state of unconsciousness, but that God
himself is the speaker, and that through them he is conversing with us. And Tynnichus the Chalcidian affords
a striking instance of what I am saying: he wrote nothing that any one would care to remember but the
famous paean which is in every one’s mouth, one of the finest poems ever written, simply an invention of the
Muses, as he himself says. For in this way the God would seem to indicate to us and not allow us to doubt
that these beautiful poems are not human, or the work of man, but divine and the work of God; and that the
poets are only the interpreters of the Gods by whom they are severally possessed. Was not this the lesson
which the God intended to teach when by the mouth of the worst of poets he sang the best of songs? Am I not
right, Ion?

ION: Yes, indeed, Socrates, I feel that you are; for your words touch my soul, and I am persuaded that good
poets by a divine inspiration interpret the things of the Gods to us.

SOCRATES: And you rhapsodists are the interpreters of the poets?

ION: There again you are right.

SOCRATES: Then you are the interpreters of interpreters?

ION: Precisely.

SOCRATES: I wish you would frankly tell me, Ion, what I am going to ask of you: When you produce the
greatest effect upon the audience in the recitation of some striking passage, such as the apparition of
Odysseus leaping forth on the floor, recognized by the suitors and casting his arrows at his feet, or the
description of Achilles rushing at Hector, or the sorrows of Andromache, Hecuba, or Priam,−−are you in your
right mind? Are you not carried out of yourself, and does not your soul in an ecstasy seem to be among the
persons or places of which you are speaking, whether they are in Ithaca or in Troy or whatever may be the
scene of the poem?

ION: That proof strikes home to me, Socrates. For I must frankly confess that at the tale of pity my eyes are
filled with tears, and when I speak of horrors, my hair stands on end and my heart throbs.

SOCRATES: Well, Ion, and what are we to say of a man who at a sacrifice or festival, when he is dressed in
holiday attire, and has golden crowns upon his head, of which nobody has robbed him, appears weeping or
panic−stricken in the presence of more than twenty thousand friendly faces, when there is no one despoiling
or wronging him;−−is he in his right mind or is he not?

ION: No indeed, Socrates, I must say that, strictly speaking, he is not in his right mind.

SOCRATES: And are you aware that you produce similar effects on most of the spectators?

ION: Only too well; for I look down upon them from the stage, and behold the various emotions of pity,
wonder, sternness, stamped upon their countenances when I am speaking: and I am obliged to give my very
best attention to them; for if I make them cry I myself shall laugh, and if I make them laugh I myself shall cry

Ion

ION 7

when the time of payment arrives.

SOCRATES: Do you know that the spectator is the last of the rings which, as I am saying, receive the power
of the original magnet from one another? The rhapsode like yourself and the actor are intermediate links, and
the poet himself is the first of them. Through all these the God sways the souls of men in any direction which
he pleases, and makes one man hang down from another. Thus there is a vast chain of dancers and masters
and under− masters of choruses, who are suspended, as if from the stone, at the side of the rings which hang
down from the Muse. And every poet has some Muse from whom he is suspended, and by whom he is said to
be possessed, which is nearly the same thing; for he is taken hold of. And from these first rings, which are the
poets, depend others, some deriving their inspiration from Orpheus, others from Musaeus; but the greater
number are possessed and held by Homer. Of whom, Ion, you are one, and are possessed by Homer; and
when any one repeats the words of another poet you go to sleep, and know not what to say; but when any one
recites a strain of Homer you wake up in a moment, and your soul leaps within you, and you have plenty to
say; for not by art or knowledge about Homer do you say what you say, but by divine inspiration and by
possession; just as the Corybantian revellers too have a quick perception of that strain only which is
appropriated to the God by whom they are possessed, and have plenty of dances and words for that, but take
no heed of any other. And you, Ion, when the name of Homer is mentioned have plenty to say, and have
nothing to say of others. You ask, ‘Why is this?’ The answer is that you praise Homer not by art but by divine
inspiration.

ION: That is good, Socrates; and yet I doubt whether you will ever have eloquence enough to persuade me
that I praise Homer only when I am mad and possessed; and if you could hear me speak of him I am sure you
would never think this to be the case.

SOCRATES: I should like very much to hear you, but not until you have answered a question which I have
to ask. On what part of Homer do you speak well?−−not surely about every part.

ION: There is no part, Socrates, about which I do not speak well: of that I can assure you.

SOCRATES: Surely not about things in Homer of which you have no knowledge?

ION: And what is there in Homer of which I have no knowledge?

SOCRATES: Why, does not Homer speak in many passages about arts? For example, about driving; if I can
only remember the lines I will repeat them.

ION: I remember, and will repeat them.

SOCRATES: Tell me then, what Nestor says to Antilochus, his son, where he bids him be careful of the turn
at the horserace in honour of Patroclus.

ION: ‘Bend gently,’ he says, ‘in the polished chariot to the left of them, and urge the horse on the right hand
with whip and voice; and slacken the rein. And when you are at the goal, let the left horse draw near, yet so
that the nave of the well−wrought wheel may not even seem to touch the extremity; and avoid catching the
stone (Il.).’

SOCRATES: Enough. Now, Ion, will the charioteer or the physician be the better judge of the propriety of
these lines?

ION: The charioteer, clearly.

Ion

ION 8

SOCRATES: And will the reason be that this is his art, or will there be any other reason?

ION: No, that will be the reason.

SOCRATES: And every art is appointed by God to have knowledge of a certain work; for that which we
know by the art of the pilot we do not know by the art of medicine?

ION: Certainly not.

SOCRATES: Nor do we know by the art of the carpenter that which we know by the art of medicine?

ION: Certainly not.

SOCRATES: And this is true of all the arts;−−that which we know with one art we do not know with the
other? But let me ask a prior question: You admit that there are differences of arts?

ION: Yes.

SOCRATES: You would argue, as I should, that when one art is of one kind of knowledge and another of
another, they are different?

ION: Yes.

SOCRATES: Yes, surely; for if the subject of knowledge were the same, there would be no meaning in
saying that the arts were different,−−if they both gave the same knowledge. For example, I know that here are
five fingers, and you know the same. And if I were to ask whether I and you became acquainted with this fact
by the help of the same art of arithmetic, you would acknowledge that we did?

ION: Yes.

SOCRATES: Tell me, then, what I was intending to ask you,−−whether this holds universally? Must the
same art have the same subject of knowledge, and different arts other subjects of knowledge?

ION: That is my opinion, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Then he who has no knowledge of a particular art will have no right judgment of the sayings
and doings of that art?

ION: Very true.

SOCRATES: Then which will be a better judge of the lines which you were reciting from Homer, you or the
charioteer?

ION: The charioteer.

SOCRATES: Why, yes, because you are a rhapsode and not a charioteer.

ION: Yes.

SOCRATES: And the art of the rhapsode is different from that of the charioteer?

Ion

ION 9

ION: Yes.

SOCRATES: And if a different knowledge, then a knowledge of different matters?

ION: True.

SOCRATES: You know the passage in which Hecamede, the concubine of Nestor, is described as giving to
the wounded Machaon a posset, as he says,

‘Made with Pramnian wine; and she grated cheese of goat’s milk with a grater of bronze, and at his side
placed an onion which gives a relish to drink (Il.).’

Now would you say that the art of the rhapsode or the art of medicine was better able to judge of the
propriety of these lines?

ION: The art of medicine.

SOCRATES: And when Homer says,

‘And she descended into the deep like a leaden plummet, which, set in the horn of ox that ranges in the fields,
rushes along carrying death among the ravenous fishes (Il.),’−−

will the art of the fisherman or of the rhapsode be better able to judge whether these lines are rightly
expressed or not?

ION: Clearly, Socrates, the art of the fisherman.

SOCRATES: Come now, suppose that you were to say to me: ‘Since you, Socrates, are able to assign
different passages in Homer to their corresponding arts, I wish that you would tell me what are the passages
of which the excellence ought to be judged by the prophet and prophetic art’; and you will see how readily
and truly I shall answer you. For there are many such passages, particularly in the Odyssee; as, for example,
the passage in which Theoclymenus the prophet of the house of Melampus says to the suitors:−−

‘Wretched men! what is happening to you? Your heads and your faces and your limbs underneath are
shrouded in night; and the voice of lamentation bursts forth, and your cheeks are wet with tears. And the
vestibule is full, and the court is full, of ghosts descending into the darkness of Erebus, and the sun has
perished out of heaven, and an evil mist is spread abroad (Od.).’

And there are many such passages in the Iliad also; as for example in the description of the battle near the
rampart, where he says:−−

‘As they were eager to pass the ditch, there came to them an omen: a soaring eagle, holding back the people
on the left, bore a huge bloody dragon in his talons, still living and panting; nor had he yet resigned the strife,
for he bent back and smote the bird which carried him on the breast by the neck, and he in pain let him fall
from him to the ground into the midst of the multitude. And the eagle, with a cry, was borne afar on the
wings of the wind (Il.).’

These are the sort of things which I should say that the prophet ought to consider and determine.

ION: And you are quite right, Socrates, in saying so.

Ion

ION 10

SOCRATES: Yes, Ion, and you are right also. And as I have selected from the Iliad and Odyssee for you
passages which describe the office of the prophet and the physician and the fisherman, do you, who know
Homer

Philosophy homework help

Immanuel Kant

1724-1804

*

For reasons we’ll see as things go on

  • Kant is the heart of Western morality and politics
  • Understand Kant and you understand all of Western morality and politics (either directly or by contrast)
  • And you understand Eastern morality and politics (by contrast)

What is the Good?

  • What has value intrinsically–in and of itself?

*

A good will

  • A good will is not a necessary and sufficient condition for being good–it is the only thing that can be good, purely, at all
  • Anything else commonly thought to be good (money, health, even happiness) can be quite bad (in what sense?) if secured by the actions of a will that is bad

What is the will?

  • Loosely, the motive for one’s actions
  • More precisely:
  • The self conscious causal source of one’s actions

What makes a good will good?

It’s intrinsic character

  • Not in virtue of what it can effect or accomplish (or fail to…)
  • NB: a standing denial of consequentialism

How is a good will demonstrated?

  • Note the concern with demonstration and not development
  • Kant’s concern is with the Metaphysics of Morals, not the development of good moral character (cf. Aristotle)

A good will is demonstraded

  • By acting from duty
  • Not just in accord with duty
  • Parallel case of acting from and in accord with a rule
  • E.g., stay near to the surface of the Earth

When do we act from duty?

  • To answer this question, we must introduce and discuss the notion of an imperative
  • An imperative is a command
  • It purports to constrain one’s actions or beliefs in a certain way
  • That is, if one has an imperative to do or not do something, one is under an obligation to either do or not do that

Imperatives are of 2 kinds

  • Hypothetical: If you want ‘X’ (where X is some other object or reward), then you must (that’s the imperative part) do ‘Y’ (where Y is some action)
  • The force of a hypothetical imperative derives from the ultimate desire for the object or reward whose attainment is conditioned on the means (the X)

In a hypothetical imperative

  • The constraint is completely exhausted by the ultimate value
  • In other words, if one no longer accepts the ultimate value (desires it, etc.), one is completely released from the obligation
  • One is not obligated to do Y (for example) tout court

Example of a hypothetical imperative

  • If you want to succeed in this era of globalization, you had better get a college degree
  • As you can see, this imperative is completely conditional on your acceptance of and desire for the ultimate value: success in this era of globablization

On the other hand

  • A categorical imperative commands absolutely
  • Do ‘Y’
  • Without condition
  • Absolutely

Example of a categorical imperative (for Kant)

  • For Kant, the imperative ‘Don’t lie’ is categorical (more on this example later)
  • The obligation to tell the truth is never conditioned on some other good or value
  • E.g., ‘Tell the truth unless you think it will hurt their feelings’, etc.
  • The fundamental question for Kant is whether there are indeed such imperatives
  • Think of what Mill would say

The position of the will vis-à-vis imperatives

  • The will lies, as it were, at the nexus of imperatives
  • That is, the will can be inclined either hypothetically or categorically
  • So one can have a will to ‘Do Y if X holds’
  • Or one can have a will to simply ‘Do Y’, come what may

Graphic representation of this

  • Categorical Hypothetical

The Will

Action

The role of inclinations in the determination of the will

  • When the will is determined hypothetically, it is inclinations that serve as the psychological source of the will’s state
  • That is, what makes one obey a hypothetical command (or ignore it) is one’s peculiar and contingent tastes, predispositions, and nature

In sum

  • Our inclinations are those peculiar facts about us that determine which hypothetical imperatives bind our wills and which do not

When the will is determined categorically

  • There are no peculiar facts that condition or limit the scope of the imperative
  • One is bound to ‘Do Y’, no matter what one’s peculiar facts, etc.
  • In this sense alone, Kant claims that one’s will is determined by duty
  • Note: one’s will can’t be categorically determined to be bad

In the case of a categorical determination

  • Only then is the psychological source of the action truly something of moral value
  • By being categorical, it takes on an objectivity (and hence a value) that no hypothetically determined motive or action can have
  • Morality cannot be tied to hypothetical motives
  • No moral credit for inclinations

Graphic representation

  • Duty Inclination

Categorical

Hypothetical

The Will

Action

Dr. Ruth vs. Dr. Laura

  • An example of acting from inclination and acting against inclination and from duty
  • Even though the actions are consequentially identical, only one demonstrates a conscious concern with duty
  • Acting against inclination as a test
  • The Kantian moral hero

According to Kant

  • Whatever the dictates of morality are, they have to be framed as absolute imperatives
  • Why?
  • Because if they need not be, then morality would be conditional, but as we’ll see later, this, for Kant, undermines the notions of absolute value, absolute respect, and absolute dignity

For this reason

  • Only categorical imperatives can serve as ‘expressions’ or ‘reflections’ of duty
  • That is, only when the will is determined by duty is one acting morally

Kant argues that there is only one categorical imperative

  • That is, one overarching expression of what is truly your moral duty
  • It can, however, take many forms
  • That is, there are several different expressions of the one absolute form of your moral duty, but these are all inter-translatable

Universal law version

  • Act only on that maxim that you could at the same time will to be a universal law for all rational beings as such
  • Question: what is a maxim?
  • A maxim is a rule that one is consciously following as the psychological source of one’s action

Violations of the categorical imperative

  • Violations of the CI are rational incoherencies
  • That is, violations of the moral law are irrational
  • This is how Kant grounds morality in rationality
  • That is, value, respect, and dignity are founded not on an assertion of some other value, but on the very (non-normative) notion of rationality itself

A digression on this important point

  • Typically, questions of ‘why be moral?’ are only answerable with a direct appeal to yet more values
  • But this just supports one kind of value judgment (morality) with another (think of Mill)
  • But Kant thinks he’s accomplished the breathtaking feat of grounding morality not on more values, but on rationality or coherence itself

So

  • To be immoral is to be irrational
  • And one can’t rationally will to be irrational (cf. Mill’s test)

Kant’s examples of CI violations

  • The violations (i.e., incoherencies) come in two types
  • Contradiction in the maxim
  • Lying
  • Suicide from self love
  • Contradiction in the will
  • Homelessness
  • South Sea islanders

Other formulations: logically equivalent

  • Ends in themselves
  • The second version of the categorical imperative
  • Treat humanity, whether in yourself or in others, always as an end in itself and never as a means only
  • Violations of this version are violations of dignity

Dignity vs. fancy price

  • To say something has a price is to say that it’s value is conditional or hypothetical
  • Once it ceases to serve the purpose for which it was purchased (or some other one since discovered), it no longer has that price
  • To say that something has a price at all is to place it in the realm of means
  • To say something has dignity is to say it exists outside the realm of means completely by having no conceivable price

Respect vs. like

  • To respect something is to treat it with unconditional awe and place it outside the realm of fungible goods
  • To like something is precisely express one’s valuation of something, where this valuation is wholly owing to one’s inclinations
  • Respect is wholly independent of inclination, hence conditioned only on duty itself
  • Hence, something that can be commanded absolutely

So, to use a rational being is to give it a price

  • But to give it a price is to value it as an object of exchange and not an object of respect
  • No one could conceivably wish themselves to be viewed or treated that way
  • Hence any action which did treat others as means only could never pass the universal law version, and vice-versa
  • Hence the two are equivalent

The third form of the categorical imperative

  • Formula of autonomy
  • Only those actions which are justified exclusive of inclination count as actions of which one is the sole author
  • Auto-nomous: giving the law to oneself; being the origin of the law
  • Actions as the result of inclination, if they conflict with duty, are heteronomous

*

Kant’s notion of the moral self

  • For Kant, the center of the moral self is in the faculty responsible for the rational appreciation of duty, respect, dignity, etc.
  • The faculty responsible for the inclinations is, though perhaps psychologically central, morally irrelevant

*

The fourth form of the categorical imperative

  • Kingdom of ends
  • Act as a legislator in the kingdom of ends
  • The moral law as not some dogma imposed from without, but rather as the only justifiable system of treatment when analyzed from within
  • This ties morality to politics as the source of political fairness

So, what is a good will?

  • A will is good that cannot be bad
  • That is, a will that cannot fail to pass the tests for duty contained within the categorical imperative
  • Any will that does not fail that, cannot be bad, and hence, for Kant, must be good
  • What else would it be?

*

Philosophy homework help

2/20/22, 3:35 AM Reflection 1

https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1478005/assignments/6100935 1/2

Reflection 1

Due Sunday by 11:59pm Points 10 Submitting a file upload (Turnitin enabled)
Available Feb 12 at 11:59pm – May 7 at 11:59pm 3 months

Start Assignment

PHIL. 134: COMPUTERS, ETHICS & SOCIETY

Kyle Yrigoyen

REFLECTION 1

In a short writing of roughly 500 words, please respond to the following questions:

1. In your own words, what is philosophy? And, what is ethics? Furthermore, what do you think is the
relationship to ethics in general and our use of computers in particular? Why might this be important
to our society, from both your own perspective and that of general society as a whole? Please be
sure to define your terms and give examples.

Grading

Write a short essay that addresses the questions above. When you respond to these questions, you
should be specific and cite specific details from the class readings and your own research. You may
provide references from your own research, but only in addition to material provided by the course. Also,
you MUST make sure to cite your sources in your response and include a reference list at the end of
your essay. Citations must be from reputable sources. Sites like Wikipedia, about.com, etc. are NOT
considered acceptable sources.

Higher credit will be given for responses that show evidence of a systematic and comprehensive
understanding of the topics involved.

Formatting

Standard font, preferably Arial in either 11pt or 12pt. Be sure to structure your paper in proper paragraph
form. Do not write one, long run-on paragraph.

2/20/22, 3:35 AM Reflection 1

https://sjsu.instructure.com/courses/1478005/assignments/6100935 2/2

MLA, APA, or any other format is acceptable provided that it is consistent through the entire paper.
Please, no cover sheets.

Philosophy homework help

TOBACCO INDUSTRY
INTERFERENCE
A GLOBAL BRIEF

2

TOBACCO INDUSTRY
INTERFERENCE
A GLOBAL BRIEF

© World Health Organization 2012

All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization are available on the WHO web site (www.who.int) or can be purchased
from WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel.: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857;
e-mail: bookorders@who.int). Requests for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or for noncommercial
distribution – should be addressed to WHO Press through the WHO web site
(http://www.who.int/about/licensing/copyright_form/en/index.html).

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended
by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted,
the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.

All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication.
However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the
interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from
its use.

Image credits: Cover Fabrica; and pages 2 and 24.
Illustrations on pages 8–13: Yann Le Floch

Printed in France

Document number: WHO/NMH/TFI/12.1

3

TOBACCO INDUSTRY
INTERFERENCE
A GLOBAL BRIEF

4

5

Stop tobacco industry interference
in tobacco control

Curbing the tobacco epidemic

Tobacco addiction is a global epidemic that ravages entire countries and regions, wreaking the most
havoc in the most vulnerable countries and creating an enormous toll of disability, disease, lost
productivity and death. Tobacco use continues to be the leading global cause of preventable death.
It kills nearly 6 million people every year through cancer, heart disease, respiratory diseases,
childhood diseases and others. It also causes hundreds of billions of dollars of economic losses
worldwide every year. If current trends continue, by 2030 tobacco will kill more than 8 million people
worldwide every year, with 80% of these premature deaths occurring among people in low- and
middle-income countries. Over the course of the 21st century, tobacco use could kill up to a billion
people unless urgent action is taken.

We know what works to curb the tobacco epidemic. The action we need to take is laid out in the
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). So far, 173 nations (plus the
European Union) have pledged to work together to implement the Convention in order to protect
present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic
consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke. However, these tobacco
control efforts are systematically opposed by the tobacco industry. Who or what is the tobacco
industry and what forms do its interference with public health efforts take?

“The tobacco epidemic is entirely man-made, and it can be turned around through the
concerted efforts of governments and civil society.”
Dr Margaret Chan, at the launch of the WHO Report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2008

“The enemy, the tobacco industry, has changed its face and its tactics.
The wolf is no longer in sheep’s clothing, and its teeth are bared.”

Dr Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO, keynote speech,
15th World Conference on Tobacco or Health, Singapore, 20 March 2012

6

Tobacco industry opposition

What is the «tobacco industry»?
The “tobacco industry” includes manufacturers, importers and distributors of tobacco products and
processors of tobacco leaf – an entire group of businesses whose only goal is to make profits,
directly or indirectly, from tobacco products.

The tobacco industry has energetically promoted tobacco sales, despite knowing for decades that
tobacco use and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke damaged people’s health. Despite a
promise to investigate and share all research findings with the public, made in 1954 (1), the tobacco
industry has hidden the facts from the public and continues to deny the full impact of tobacco
products in order to maintain profits and increase sales. Dependency on tobacco is engineered,
in the case of smoking, by careful, calculated formulations of more than 1000 chemical and other
ingredients (2,3). The tobacco industry sells a product that, unlike any other legal commercial good,
kills up to half its regular users when consumed as directed by the manufacturer.

“I want to remind governments in every country of the range and force of counter-tactics used
by the tobacco industry – an industry that has much money and no qualms about using
it in the most devious ways imaginable.” Dr Margaret Chan, at the launch of the WHO Report
on the global tobacco epidemic, 2008

The tobacco industry puts profits before people

There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests and public
health policy interests. In one corner, the tobacco industry produces and promotes a product that has
been scientifically proven to be highly addictive, to harm and kill many and to give rise to a variety of
social ills, including increased poverty. In the opposite corner, many governments and public health
workers try to increase the health of the population by implementing measures to reduce tobacco
use. The tobacco industry recognizes the impact of these measures and actively fights against these
efforts because of their negative effect on its sales. Time and time again, the industry has used its
resources to halt these public health policies where it can, water them down when it cannot stop
them altogether, and undermine their enforcement when they are adopted.

The tobacco industry has decades of experience of operating away from the public eye. Although
these covert tactics continue, in recent years tobacco industry opposition has become more
aggressive and overt. It increasingly includes direct counter-action against policies and strategies
contained in, and promoted by, the WHO FCTC (4). The objective is to extend the tobacco industry’s
sphere of influence with the aim of reaching all levels and sectors of government, as well as
nongovernmental groups including the private sector and civil society, while trying to appear before
politicians and the public as indispensable contributors to economic and social welfare.

7

“Tactics aimed at undermining anti-tobacco campaigns, and subverting the WHO Framework
Convention, are no longer covert or cloaked by an image of corporate social responsibility.
They are out in the open and they are extremely aggressive.” Dr Margaret Chan, keynote
speech, 15th World Conference on Tobacco or Health, Singapore, 20 March 2012

Forms of tobacco industry interference

In its efforts to derail or weaken strong tobacco control policies, tobacco industry interference takes
many forms. These include:

• manoeuvering to hijack the political and legislative process;

• exaggerating the economic importance of the industry;

• manipulating public opinion to gain the appearance of respectability;

• fabricating support through front groups;

• discrediting proven science; and

• intimidating governments with litigation or the threat of litigation.

8

In a presentation to the Philip Morris Board of Directors in 1995, the then Senior Vice-President
of Worldwide Regulatory Affairs of the company stated: “Our goal is to help shape regulatory
environments that enable our businesses to achieve their objectives … [fighting] aggressively
with all available resources, against any attempt, from any quarter, to diminish our ability to
manufacture our products efficiently, and market them effectively …” (5).

The range of strategies used by the tobacco industry, then and now, to influence the political
and legislative process includes conspiring with lobbyists to promote self-interested decisions in
preference to those that serve the public good. Existing evidence suggests, for example, that in
several countries the tobacco industry tried to undermine the country’s position in the negotiation
of the WHO FCTC and continues to attempt to derail the treaty’s implementation (6,7,8,9,10,11,
12,13,14). The tactics used by the tobacco industry included: the inciting of controversy between
financial, trade and other ministries on one side and the health ministry on the other side; the
use of business associations and other “front groups” to lobby on the industry’s behalf; and the
securing of industry access to the WHO FCTC negotiations through its well established links with
the International Organization for Standardization (15). Other evidence shows that the industry has
sought to weaken legislation in many countries in all regions of the world.

Manoeuvering to influence political and legislative decisions also involves: creating and exploiting
legislative loopholes; demanding a seat at government decision-making tables; promoting voluntary
regulation instead of legislation; and drafting and distributing sample legislation that is favourable to
the tobacco industry. There have been cases of industry representatives actually writing the language
of tobacco control and other legislation, to ensure that any regulatory measures would not be too
restrictive on the industry’s aggressive marketing practices (16,17).

Another common strategy is entering into industry partnerships with different branches of government
to fund joint projects, such as border patrols to prevent illicit trade, sports programmes for children,
support for meetings and events and sponsoring of meetings that play on human rights concerns
and condemn regulatory initiatives.(18, 19, 20). Other strategies include making political campaign
contributions, chalking up favours by financing government initiatives on other health issues and
defending trade benefits at the expense of health. All these strategies, along with the claims of
wanting “reasonable” regulation that is ineffective, give the industry constant access to individuals in
power and the potential to manipulate the policy-making process.

Manoeuvering to hijack
the political and

legislative process

9

The tobacco industry boosts its efforts to interfere in the political process by exaggerating its own
contribution, expressed in terms of employment, tax contributions and other economic indicators,
to the economy of a country, region, province or municipality. Not only is the economic information
over-hyped, but it also ignores the negative economic impact of tobacco use, including the drain on
the public purse caused by the need to treat the millions of people afflicted by diseases caused by tobacco.

The industry claims, for example, to generate a high level of direct and indirect employment.
It opposes tobacco control measures on the grounds that they would have a negative impact on
employment and therefore on the country’s economy. Using this argument, the industry lobbies
against tobacco tax increases, predicting catastrophic consequences for its business. In reality,
evidence has shown, at least to date, that job losses in the tobacco sector have little to do with
stricter tobacco control measures. A recent publication (21) highlights how the tobacco industry
lobbied against cigarette taxation and tariffs on the pretext that reduced production costs would
preserve jobs. Despite obtaining tax advantages, the industry still reorganized and consolidated its
production processes, leading to job losses in the sector. In fact, even if its demands are met, it is not
uncommon for the industry to threaten to close a factory or department and move elsewhere, despite
its claims to social commitment and responsibility.

Sound economic studies show that industry claims of potential job and other economic losses
resulting from stricter tobacco controls are significantly overstated anyway; in fact, these losses are
negligible. If consumption declines, job losses in tobacco-dependent sectors, are more than offset by
increases in employment in other sectors with no negative impact on the overall economy (22).

Exaggerating
the economic importance

of the industry

10

Public opinion governs the workings of our society, and the tobacco industry devotes considerable
resources to trying to twist it. The industry is aware that the views of millions of people every day are
influenced by the mass media. The tobacco industry uses public relations firms and other groups to
concoct and spin the news to promote its lethal business. Public relations firms have often been used
in an attempt to manipulate the media and public opinion about various aspects of tobacco control
and to gather the support of persons who oppose government “intrusion” in business and taxation,
thus instigating general antiregulatory and antigovernment views.

However, the main way of manipulating public opinion is corporate social responsibility (CSR)
activity, also known as “social investment”. While CSR activities in many industries reflect an honest
commitment to behave ethically and contribute to economic development, while improving the quality
of life of the workforce, the local community and society at large, for the tobacco industry it is a
self-serving strategy. CSR activities by the tobacco industry may include ineffective youth smoking
prevention campaigns which allow the industry to present itself as “caring” for the very youngsters
to whom it also markets its deadly products. The industry takes pains to support social programmes
for tobacco growers and their children and unrelated social causes such as programmes to combat
domestic violence against women, disaster relief efforts and environmental causes and groups.
Every time a group accepts funds from or works with the tobacco industry, the industry claws back
some of the respectability it has lost through the social, economic, environmental and health damage
caused by its products. In summary, the tobacco industry uses CSR to claim that it cares for society
and the environment and to present itself as a responsible member of society.

These CSR efforts interfere with health policy by winning goodwill for the industry among politicians
and the public. The industry uses CSR to seduce groups not related to tobacco – sometimes not
even related to health – into becoming industry allies. In this way, when there are attempts to
regulate tobacco marketing, for example, the industry can call on a host of organizations which are
well disposed towards it, or in its debt, to speak on its behalf.

This phenomenon has recently been seen in countries from regions as diverse as Africa (23)
and Europe (24), where representatives of tobacco companies complained that a proposed ban on
sponsorship, a recognized form of marketing, was harmful and unnecessary. A chorus of protests
from charities supporting causes such as mental health and care for the elderly was then quoted in
the media and presented as opposition to proposed legislation banning tobacco marketing. Media
reports focused on the loss of income for the charitable organizations, and not on the health gains
to be made by restricting tobacco marketing.

Manipulating public opinion
to gain the appearance

of respectability

11

Years of deception have so isolated the tobacco industry from business and citizens that it needs
to simulate support. To this end, the industry uses front groups. Front groups are organizations
that purport to serve a public cause while actually serving the interests of a third party, sometimes
obscuring or concealing the connection between them. The tobacco industry uses phony “grassroots”
groups to give an impression of social support for its interests, typically “smokers’ rights” groups,
“citizens’ rights” groups and business groups.

“Smokers’ rights” groups are created and promoted behind the scenes to preserve the social
acceptability of smoking and speak out for allowing smoking in public places. Philip Morris proposed
adopting a variety of personas: “Sometimes we will need to speak as independent scientists,
scientific groups and businessmen; at other times we will talk as the industry; and, finally, we will
speak as the smoker” (25). Since smoke-free policies are widely supported by the general public,
the “smokers’ rights” groups try to maintain a “controversy” about secondhand smoke in the social
arena and focus the debate on the smoker rather than the tobacco industry or the harmful effects
of the smoke itself. “Smokers’ rights” groups oppose clean indoor air laws and policies, and take a
stand on other issues as well, such as tobacco taxes and advertising bans (26).

Business front groups are used to argue that tobacco control policies cause economic damage to
the businesses they claim to represent. The tobacco industry is known for funding tobacco growers’
associations and creating or funding restaurant or bar organizations to oppose smoke-free measures
in the hospitality sector. Their role is to insist that banning smoking would cost them business and to
create an aggressive mentality in legitimate restaurant and bar operators against government smoke-
free policies. The tobacco industry has also created front groups to oppose consumer regulation,
depicting it as an attack on individual freedom. It describes these regulation efforts as part of the
“nanny culture” led by a “growing fraternity” of food and anti-tobacco “cops”, “health care enforcers”,
“anti-meat activists” and “meddling bureaucrats” who “know what’s best for you” (27).

Fabricating support
through front groups

12

The scientific evidence about the harm caused by tobacco and secondhand smoke is so strong and
extensive that the industry needs to discredit it in order to get around or weaken tobacco control
legislation. “Doubt is our product”, a cigarette executive once observed, “since it is the best means
of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means
of establishing a controversy” (28).

The efforts of the tobacco industry to deny the lethal effects of secondhand smoke are well known.
For decades the industry has known that secondhand smoke is toxic. One company, for example,
privately performed extensive research on secondhand smoke in a secret laboratory and
demonstrated its toxicity (29,30). It then designed a global programme with other tobacco companies,
hiring scientists and lobbyists to dispute scientific evidence about health risks. The industry hired
scientists and briefed journalists, government officials and members of the scientific community in
order to keep them confused about the hazards posed by tobacco and secondhand smoke.
The majority of tobacco companies continue to deny that secondhand smoke kills (31,32).

Whether it is creating confusion about the harms of secondhand smoke, the addictiveness of
nicotine or the deleterious effects of smoking, the tobacco industry’s duplicitous tactics have spawned
a multimillion-dollar industry which dismisses research conducted by the scientific community as
“junk science”. Hired consultants have increasingly tried to skew the scientific literature, and have
manufactured and magnified scientific uncertainty, in order to divert policy decisions to the industry’s
advantage. In doing so, they have not only delayed action on tobacco control, but have weakened
public health safeguards and put up barriers which make it harder for lawmakers, government
agencies and courts to respond to future threats.

Discrediting proven science

13

An often-used threat, increasingly carried out, is the threat of legal retaliation against a specific policy
or set of policies. This can be at any level, from global to local. The tobacco industry, employing a
veritable army of lawyers, threatens legal action against governments over tobacco control policies
that threaten its profits. Legal arguments often question the constitutionality of any policy measure
or legislation, claim that due process was not followed in the phase that preceded the adoption of
legislation and argue against any implementation or regulatory language that follows adoption.

Since the entry into force of the WHO FCTC, domestic legal challenges by the tobacco industry and
its front groups have more and more frequently failed, as courts cite the treaty as the legal
foundation for strong tobacco control legislation. Recently, the industry has shifted its litigation
strategy, scaling up the use of international bilateral or multilateral agreements to challenge a
country’s tobacco control policy in the courts. For example, the tobacco industry has recently brought
actions against Australia, Norway, Uruguay and other countries which have introduced tougher
tobacco control measures in line with the WHO FCTC. The industry has pursued these governments
through international mechanisms and using bilateral investment agreements. It seems that these
intimidation tactics are deliberately designed to deter other countries from introducing similar tobacco
control measures (33).

Intimidating governments
with litigation or

the threat of litigation

14

Tobacco industry interference: always and everywhere a threat
to public health

Regardless of the shape or form it takes, tobacco industry interference is always designed to thwart
attempts to curb the tobacco epidemic and its negative social, economic, environmental and health
consequences. While there is a growing awareness of the tobacco industry’s unceasing attempts to
sabotage public health, it is less well known that tobacco companies often work hand in glove with
their commercial competitors to keep regulation to a minimum and obtain advantageous conditions
from the government to help them run their businesses.

Three things to keep in mind about tobacco industry interference:

• it is not always obvious;

• it is not always in the area of tobacco control; and

• it is not always even in the area of health.

Tobacco industry interference is a threat to public health, whether the industry is private or state-
owned. So all countries need to be aware and take action against tobacco industry interference.
WHO recognizes that the tobacco industry uses backhanded methods to thwart tobacco control ef-
forts, and urges governments to remain:

“… alert to any efforts by the tobacco industry to continue its subversive practice and to assure
the integrity of health policy development in any WHO meeting and in national governments.”
(World Health Assembly resolution WHA54.18, 2001) (34)

15

How to beat tobacco industry interference

Fortunately, to address this global threat there is a global solution. A total of 173 countries plus
the European Union (comprising almost 90% of the world’s population) have already agreed to
implement an international treaty, the WHO FCTC, that sets out policies aimed at controlling this
epidemic of disease, death and suffering. Countries that are Parties to this treaty recognize the
tobacco industry as a major barrier to achieving global health and have committed themselves to
overcoming this barrier, as shown by Article 5.3 of the treaty (35).

WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Article 5.3

“In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control,
Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of
the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.”

Because the industry interferes in all countries, those countries that are not yet a Party to the WHO
FCTC are also urged to counteract the industry’s malicious interference and refuse to provide it with
a safe haven for its business and litigation.

Everyone can help. Governments, nongovernmental organizations, academia and individual citizens
can all act to put an end to tobacco industry interference.

Governments must act to protect public health from tobacco
industry interference

All the Parties to the WHO FCTC have agreed on ways to stop tobacco industry interference.
They have adopted Guidelines for the implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC (36),
based on four principles:

Principle 1:
There is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry’s interests
and public health policy interests.

Principle 2:
Parties, when dealing with the tobacco industry or those working to further its interests,
should be accountable and transparent.

Principle 3:
Parties should require the tobacco industry and those working to further its interests to operate
and act in a manner that is accountable and transparent.

Principle 4:
Because their products are lethal, the tobacco industry should not be granted incentives
to establish or run their businesses.

16

Based on these principles, governments should take action to prevent tobacco industry interference
in tobacco control and public health. They should communicate information relevant to the tobacco
industry to policy-makers, decision-makers and stakeholders and establish coordinated approaches
involving all sectors of the government to promote full accountability and guide all interactions with
the tobacco industry, ensuring that these interactions are limited to what is strictly necessary and
transparently disclosed. A monitoring system for the tobacco industry, with relevant exchanges of
information at regional and global level, should be considered as an important tool to implement the
Article 5.3 guidelines.

More specifically, in applying the Article 5.3 guidelines, governments should:

• Raise awareness about the addictive and harmful nature of tobacco products and about
tobacco industry interference with tobacco control policies.

• Establish measures to limit interactions with the tobacco industry and ensure the transparency
of those interactions that do occur.

• Reject partnerships and non-binding or non-enforceable agreements with the tobacco industry.
Not accept funds or help from the tobacco industry. Not support or endorse tobacco
industry attempts to organize, promote, participate in or implement youth, public education or
other initiatives that are directly or indirectly related to tobacco control.

• Require that information provided by the tobacco industry be transparent and accurate.
Require the tobacco industry and those working to further its interests to submit regular,
truthful, complete and precise information on tobacco production, manufacture,
market share, marketing expenditures, revenues or any other activity, including lobbying,
philanthropy and political contributions, as well as the disclosure or registration of tobacco
industry entities, affiliated organizations and individuals acting on their behalf, including lobbyists.

• Denormalize and, to the extent possible, regulate activities described as “socially responsible”
by the tobacco industry, including but not limited to activities described as “corporate social
responsibility”.

• Avoid giving preferential treatment to the tobacco industry.

• Treat state-owned tobacco companies in the same way as the rest of the tobacco industry.

• Avoid conflicts of interest for government officials and employees. Governmental action in this
area should include:

– mandating policy on the disclosure and management of conflicts of interest, binding on all
government officials, employees, consultants and contractors;
– implementing a code of conduct for public officials which prescribes the standards
with which they should comply in their dealings with the tobacco industry;
– prohibiting contributions by the tobacco industry or any entity working to further its interests to
the coffers of political parties, candidates or campaigns, or at least requiring full disclosure of
such contributions.

17

Nongovernmental groups and academia need to monitor and
denounce interference
Nongovernmental groups and academia have an essential role in implementing the WHO FCTC and
Article 5.3 guidelines. In fact, any institution can help to counteract tobacco industry interference.
Here are some possible actions:

• Identify the potential allies and front groups of the tobacco industry, using legislative and
regulatory processes, in addition to any legal cases.

• Monitor whether the tobacco industry is complying with national regulations and laws.

• Denounce industry interference to the media, parliamentarians and government.

Individuals: everyone can help

• Be aware of the ways the tobacco industry interferes. Learn its ways and be vigilant.

• Use social media to inform others of tobacco industry interference and share your opposition to it.

• Denounce tobacco industry interference when you see it.

• Join nongovernmental groups working to stop tobacco industry interference.

18

FURTHER READING

• Article 5.3 guidelines: http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf

• Tobacco industry interference with tobacco control (WHO publication):
http://www.who.int/tobaccopublications/industry/interference/en/index.html

• WHO FCTC Implementation Database with information on implementation of article 5.3 by country
http://apps.who.int/fctc/reporting/database and http://www.who.int/fctc/reporting/party_reports

• International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. Article 5.3 toolkit:
http://www.tobaccofreeunion.org/assets/Article%205_3/Flyer%20Design%20%28web%29.pdf

• Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance Tobacco Control Resource Center:
http://www.seatca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=12&Itemid=93

• WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean publications on the tobacco industry:
http://www.emro.who.int/tfi/InPrint.htm

– Tobacco industry activities in Pakistan: 1992 – 2002
– Review of tobacco industry activities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: an introduction, 2008
– Review of tobacco industry activities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: the tobacco
industry’s tactics and plans to undermine control efforts in Egypt and North Africa, 2008
– Review of tobacco industry activities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: the cigarette “transit”
road to the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq: illicit tobacco trade in the Middle East, 2008
– Review of tobacco industry activities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: voice of truth, 2008

• Pan American Health Organization publication: Profits ove

Philosophy homework help

ARISTOTLE. Nichomachean Ethics excerpts

Book 2, Chapter 1
Virtue, then, being of two kinds, intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue in the main owes both its
birth and its growth to teaching (for which reason it requires experience and time), while moral
virtue comes about as a result of habit, whence also its name (ethike) is one that is formed by a
slight variation from the word ethos (habit). From this it is also plain that none of the moral virtues
arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. For
instance the stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards,
not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times; nor can fire be habituated to
move downwards, nor can anything else that by nature behaves in one way be trained to behave
in another. Neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are
adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit.

Again, of all the things that come to us by nature we first acquire the potentiality and later exhibit
the activity (this is plain in the case of the senses; for it was not by often seeing or often hearing
that we got these senses, but on the contrary we had them before we used them, and did not
come to have them by using them); but the virtues we get by first exercising them, as also
happens in the case of the arts as well. For the things we have to learn before we can do them,
we learn by doing them, e.g. men become builders by building and lyreplayers by playing the lyre;
so too we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing
brave acts.

This is confirmed by what happens in states; for legislators make the citizens good by forming
habits in them, and this is the wish of every legislator, and those who do not effect it miss their
mark, and it is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one.

Again, it is from the same causes and by the same means that every virtue is both produced and
destroyed, and similarly every art; for it is from playing the lyre that both good and bad lyre-
players are produced. And the corresponding statement is true of builders and of all the rest; men
will be good or bad builders as a result of building well or badly. For if this were not so, there
would have been no need of a teacher, but all men would have been born good or bad at their
craft. This, then, is the case with the virtues also; by doing the acts that we do in our transactions
with other men we become just or unjust, and by doing the acts that we do in the presence of
danger, and being habituated to feel fear or confidence, we become brave or cowardly. The same
is true of appetites and feelings of anger; some men become temperate and good-tempered,
others self-indulgent and irascible, by behaving in one way or the other in the appropriate
circumstances. Thus, in one word, states of character arise out of like activities. This is why the
activities we exhibit must be of a certain kind; it is because the states of character correspond to
the differences between these. It makes no small difference, then, whether we form habits of one
kind or of another from our very youth; it makes a very great difference, or rather all the difference

Book 2, Chapter 4
The question might be asked, what we mean by saying that we must become just by doing just
acts, and temperate by doing temperate acts; for if men do just and temperate acts, they are
already just and temperate, exactly as, if they do what is in accordance with the laws of grammar
and of music, they are grammarians and musicians.

Or is this not true even of the arts? It is possible to do something that is in accordance with the
laws of grammar, either by chance or at the suggestion of another. A man will be a grammarian,

then, only when he has both done something grammatical and done it grammatically; and this
means doing it in accordance with the grammatical knowledge in himself.

Again, the case of the arts and that of the virtues are not similar; for the products of the arts have
their goodness in themselves, so that it is enough that they should have a certain character, but if
the acts that are in accordance with the virtues have themselves a certain character it does not
follow that they are done justly or temperately. The agent also must be in a certain condition
when he does them; in the first place he must have knowledge, secondly he must choose the
acts, and choose them for their own sakes, and thirdly his action must proceed from a firm and
unchangeable character. These are not reckoned in as conditions of the possession of the arts,
except the bare knowledge; but as a condition of the possession of the virtues knowledge has
little or no weight, while the other conditions count not for a little but for everything, i.e. the very
conditions which result from often doing just and temperate acts.

Actions, then, are called just and temperate when they are such as the just or the temperate man
would do; but it is not the man who does these that is just and temperate, but the man who also
does them as just and temperate men do them. It is well said, then, that it is by doing just acts
that the just man is produced, and by doing temperate acts the temperate man; without doing
these no one would have even a prospect of becoming good.

But most people do not do these, but take refuge in theory and think they are being philosophers
and will become good in this way, behaving somewhat like patients who listen attentively to their
doctors, but do none of the things they are ordered to do. As the latter will not be made well in
body by such a course of treatment, the former will not be made well in soul by such a course of
philosophy.

Book 2, Chapter 6
We must, however, not only describe virtue as a state of character, but also say what sort of state
it is. We may remark, then, that every virtue or excellence both brings into good condition the
thing of which it is the excellence and makes the work of that thing be done well; e.g. the
excellence of the eye makes both the eye and its work good; for it is by the excellence of the eye
that we see well. Similarly the excellence of the horse makes a horse both good in itself and good
at running and at carrying its rider and at awaiting the attack of the enemy. Therefore, if this is
true in every case, the virtue of man also will be the state of character which makes a man good
and which makes him do his own work well.

How this is to happen we have stated already, but it will be made plain also by the following
consideration of the specific nature of virtue. In everything that is continuous and divisible it is
possible to take more, less, or an equal amount, and that either in terms of the thing itself or
relatively to us; and the equal is an intermediate between excess and defect. By the intermediate
in the object I mean that which is equidistant from each of the extremes, which is one and the
same for all men; by the intermediate relatively to us that which is neither too much nor too little —
and this is not one, nor the same for all. For instance, if ten is many and two is few, six is the
intermediate, taken in terms of the object; for it exceeds and is exceeded by an equal amount;
this is intermediate according to arithmetical proportion. But the intermediate relatively to us is not
to be taken so; if ten pounds are too much for a particular person to eat and two too little, it does
not follow that the trainer will order six pounds; for this also is perhaps too much for the person
who is to take it, or too little — too little for Milo, too much for the beginner in athletic exercises.
The same is true of running and wrestling. Thus a master of any art avoids excess and defect, but
seeks the intermediate and chooses this — the intermediate not in the object but relatively to us.

If it is thus, then, that every art does its work well — by looking to the intermediate and judgling its
works by this standard (so that we often say of good works of art that it is not possible either to

take away or to add anything, implying that excess and defect destroy the goodness of works of
art, while the mean preserves it; and good artists, as we say, look to this in their work), and if,
further, virtue is more exact and better than any art, as nature also is, then virtue must have the
quality of aiming at the intermediate. I mean moral virtue; for it is this that is concerned with
passions and actions, and in these there is excess, defect, and the intermediate. For instance,
both fear and confidence and appetite and anger and pity and in general pleasure and pain may
be felt both too much and too little, and in both cases not well; but to feel them at the right times,
with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right
way, is what is both intermediate and best, and this is characteristic of virtue. Similarly with regard
to actions also there is excess, defect, and the intermediate. Now virtue is concerned with
passions and actions, in which excess is a form of failure, and so is defect, while the intermediate
is praised and is a form of success; and being praised and being successful are both
characteristics of virtue. Therefore virtue is a kind of mean, since, as we have seen, it aims at
what is intermediate.

Again, it is possible to fail in many ways (for evil belongs to the class of the unlimited, as the
Pythagoreans conjectured, and good to that of the limited), while to succeed is possible only in
one way (for which reason also one is easy and the other difficult — to miss the mark easy, to hit it
difficult); for these reasons also, then, excess and defect are characteristic of vice, and the mean
of virtue;

For men are good in but one way, but bad in many.

Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative
to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of
practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on
excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively
fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both finds and
chooses that which is intermediate. Hence in respect of its substance and the definition which
states its essence virtue is a mean, with regard to what is best and right an extreme.

But not every action nor every passion admits of a mean; for some have names that already
imply badness, e.g. spite, shamelessness, envy, and in the case of actions adultery, theft,
murder; for all of these and suchlike things imply by their names that they are themselves bad,
and not the excesses or deficiencies of them. It is not possible, then, ever to be right with regard
to them; one must always be wrong. Nor does goodness or badness with regard to such things
depend on committing adultery with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right way, but
simply to do any of them is to go wrong. It would be equally absurd, then, to expect that in unjust,
cowardly, and voluptuous action there should be a mean, an excess, and a deficiency; for at that
rate there would be a mean of excess and of deficiency, an excess of excess, and a deficiency of
deficiency. But as there is no excess and deficiency of temperance and courage because what is
intermediate is in a sense an extreme, so too of the actions we have mentioned there is no mean
nor any excess and deficiency, but however they are done they are wrong; for in general there is
neither a mean of excess and deficiency, nor excess and deficiency of a mean.

Book 2, Chapter 7
We must, however, not only make this general statement, but also apply it to the individual facts.
For among statements about conduct those which are general apply more widely, but those
which are particular are more genuine, since conduct has to do with individual cases, and our
statements must harmonize with the facts in these cases. We may take these cases from our
table. With regard to feelings of fear and confidence courage is the mean; of the people who

exceed, he who exceeds in fearlessness has no name (many of the states have no name), while
the man who exceeds in confidence is rash, and he who exceeds in fear and falls short in
confidence is a coward. With regard to pleasures and pains — not all of them, and not so much
with regard to the pains — the mean is temperance, the excess self-indulgence. Persons deficient
with regard to the pleasures are not often found; hence such persons also have received no
name. But let us call them ‘insensible’.

With regard to giving and taking of money the mean is liberality, the excess and the defect
prodigality and meanness. In these actions people exceed and fall short in contrary ways; the
prodigal exceeds in spending and falls short in taking, while the mean man exceeds in taking and
falls short in spending. (At present we are giving a mere outline or summary, and are satisfied
with this; later these states will be more exactly determined.) With regard to money there are also
other dispositions — a mean, magnificence (for the magnificent man differs from the liberal man;
the former deals with large sums, the latter with small ones), an excess, tastelessness and
vulgarity, and a deficiency, niggardliness; these differ from the states opposed to liberality, and
the mode of their difference will be stated later. With regard to honour and dishonour the mean is
proper pride, the excess is known as a sort of ’empty vanity’, and the deficiency is undue humility;
and as we said liberality was related to magnificence, differing from it by dealing with small sums,
so there is a state similarly related to proper pride, being concerned with small honours while that
is concerned with great. For it is possible to desire honour as one ought, and more than one
ought, and less, and the man who exceeds in his desires is called ambitious, the man who falls
short unambitious, while the intermediate person has no name. The dispositions also are
nameless, except that that of the ambitious man is called ambition. Hence the people who are at
the extremes lay claim to the middle place; and we ourselves sometimes call the intermediate
person ambitious and sometimes unambitious, and sometimes praise the ambitious man and
sometimes the unambitious. The reason of our doing this will be stated in what follows; but now
let us speak of the remaining states according to the method which has been indicated.

With regard to anger also there is an excess, a deficiency, and a mean. Although they can
scarcely be said to have names, yet since we call the intermediate person good-tempered let us
call the mean good temper; of the persons at the extremes let the one who exceeds be called
irascible, and his vice irascibility, and the man who falls short an inirascible sort of person, and
the deficiency inirascibility.

There are also three other means, which have a certain likeness to one another, but differ from
one another: for they are all concerned with intercourse in words and actions, but differ in that
one is concerned with truth in this sphere, the other two with pleasantness; and of this one kind is
exhibited in giving amusement, the other in all the circumstances of life. We must therefore speak
of these too, that we may the better see that in all things the mean is praise-worthy, and the
extremes neither praiseworthy nor right, but worthy of blame. Now most of these states also have
no names, but we must try, as in the other cases, to invent names ourselves so that we may be
clear and easy to follow. With regard to truth, then, the intermediate is a truthful sort of person
and the mean may be called truthfulness, while the pretence which exaggerates is boastfulness
and the person characterized by it a boaster, and that which understates is mock modesty and
the person characterized by it mock-modest. With regard to pleasantness in the giving of
amusement the intermediate person is ready-witted and the disposition ready wit, the excess is
buffoonery and the person characterized by it a buffoon, while the man who falls short is a sort of
boor and his state is boorishness. With regard to the remaining kind of pleasantness, that which
is exhibited in life in general, the man who is pleasant in the right way is friendly and the mean is
friendliness, while the man who exceeds is an obsequious person if he has no end in view, a
flatterer if he is aiming at his own advantage, and the man who falls short and is unpleasant in all
circumstances is a quarrelsome and surly sort of person.

There are also means in the passions and concerned with the passions; since shame is not a
virtue, and yet praise is extended to the modest man. For even in these matters one man is said

to be intermediate, and another to exceed, as for instance the bashful man who is ashamed of
everything; while he who falls short or is not ashamed of anything at all is shameless, and the
intermediate person is modest. Righteous indignation is a mean between envy and spite, and
these states are concerned with the pain and pleasure that are felt at the fortunes of our
neighbours; the man who is characterized by righteous indignation is pained at undeserved good
fortune, the envious man, going beyond him, is pained at all good fortune, and the spiteful man
falls so far short of being pained that he even rejoices. But these states there will be an
opportunity of describing elsewhere; with regard to justice, since it has not one simple meaning,
we shall, after describing the other states, distinguish its two kinds and say how each of them is a
mean; and similarly we shall treat also of the rational virtues.

Book 2, Chapter 8
There are three kinds of disposition, then, two of them vices, involving excess and deficiency
respectively, and one a virtue, viz. the mean, and all are in a sense opposed to all; for the
extreme states are contrary both to the intermediate state and to each other, and the intermediate
to the extremes; as the equal is greater relatively to the less, less relatively to the greater, so the
middle states are excessive relatively to the deficiencies, deficient relatively to the excesses, both
in passions and in actions. For the brave man appears rash relatively to the coward, and
cowardly relatively to the rash man; and similarly the temperate man appears self-indulgent
relatively to the insensible man, insensible relatively to the self-indulgent, and the liberal man
prodigal relatively to the mean man, mean relatively to the prodigal. Hence also the people at the
extremes push the intermediate man each over to the other, and the brave man is called rash by
the coward, cowardly by the rash man, and correspondingly in the other cases.

These states being thus opposed to one another, the greatest contrariety is that of the extremes
to each other, rather than to the intermediate; for these are further from each other than from the
intermediate, as the great is further from the small and the small from the great than both are
from the equal. Again, to the intermediate some extremes show a certain likeness, as that of
rashness to courage and that of prodigality to liberality; but the extremes show the greatest
unlikeness to each other; now contraries are defined as the things that are furthest from each
other, so that things that are further apart are more contrary.

To the mean in some cases the deficiency, in some the excess is more opposed; e.g. it is not
rashness, which is an excess, but cowardice, which is a deficiency, that is more opposed to
courage, and not insensibility, which is a deficiency, but self-indulgence, which is an excess, that
is more opposed to temperance. This happens from two reasons, one being drawn from the thing
itself; for because one extreme is nearer and liker to the intermediate, we oppose not this but
rather its contrary to the intermediate. E.g. since rashness is thought liker and nearer to courage,
and cowardice more unlike, we oppose rather the latter to courage; for things that are further from
the intermediate are thought more contrary to it. This, then, is one cause, drawn from the thing
itself; another is drawn from ourselves; for the things to which we ourselves more naturally tend
seem more contrary to the intermediate. For instance, we ourselves tend more naturally to
pleasures, and hence are more easily carried away towards self-indulgence than towards
propriety. We describe as contrary to the mean, then, rather the directions in which we more often
go to great lengths; and therefore self-indulgence, which is an excess, is the more contrary to
temperance.

Book 2, Chapter 9

That moral virtue is a mean, then, and in what sense it is so, and that it is a mean between two
vices, the one involving excess, the other deficiency, and that it is such because its character is to
aim at what is intermediate in passions and in actions, has been sufficiently stated. Hence also it
is no easy task to be good. For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle, e.g. to find the
middle of a circle is not for every one but for him who knows; so, too, any one can get angry —
that is easy — or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the
right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy;
wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.

Hence he who aims at the intermediate must first depart from what is the more contrary to it, as
Calypso advises —

Hold the ship out beyond that surf and spray.

For of the extremes one is more erroneous, one less so; therefore, since to hit the mean is hard
in the extreme, we must as a second best, as people say, take the least of the evils; and this will
be done best in the way we describe. But we must consider the things towards which we
ourselves also are easily carried away; for some of us tend to one thing, some to another; and
this will be recognizable from the pleasure and the pain we feel. We must drag ourselves away to
the contrary extreme; for we shall get into the intermediate state by drawing well away from error,
as people do in straightening sticks that are bent.

Now in everything the pleasant or pleasure is most to be guarded against; for we do not judge it
impartially. We ought, then, to feel towards pleasure as the elders of the people felt towards
Helen, and in all circumstances repeat their saying; for if we dismiss pleasure thus we are less
likely to go astray. It is by doing this, then, (to sum the matter up) that we shall best be able to hit
the mean.

But this is no doubt difficult, and especially in individual cases; for or is not easy to determine both
how and with whom and on what provocation and how long one should be angry; for we too
sometimes praise those who fall short and call them good-tempered, but sometimes we praise
those who get angry and call them manly. The man, however, who deviates little from goodness
is not blamed, whether he do so in the direction of the more or of the less, but only the man who
deviates more widely; for he does not fail to be noticed. But up to what point and to what extent a
man must deviate before he becomes blameworthy it is not easy to determine by reasoning, any
more than anything else that is perceived by the senses; such things depend on particular facts,
and the decision rests with perception. So much, then, is plain, that the intermediate state is in all
things to be praised, but that we must incline sometimes towards the excess, sometimes towards
the deficiency; for so shall we most easily hit the mean and what is right.

  • ARISTOTLE. Nichomachean Ethics excerpts
  • Book 2, Chapter 1
  • Book 2, Chapter 4

Philosophy homework help

SHERIDAN COLLEGE

Term Test 1: (M.McNamara)

Number of pages: (includes title page)

Course: Intro to Studies in Creativity

Number of students:

Due Date TO SUBMIT: Feb.25 (11:59pm)

Number of hours: N/A

Instructor: M. McNamara


Instructions:

1. This take-home test is to be completed individually. As an open book test, students may (and are advised to) consult with their textbook, lectures, course notes, and other materials in order to formulate their responses.

2. The test is to be
returned by Friday, Feb. 25th at 11:59pm
via the SLATE dropbox folder (entitled “Term Test 1”)

3. Test Format: Students may prepare their responses in one of two formats (choose one):

a.
Written submission
: A word document, inclusive of a title page (with a word count) with the responses presented in the pages that follow. Please format your document as a double-spaced, Times New Roman Font 12pnt font. I am NOT specifying a word count although student should recognize that the development a comprehensive response capable of achieving a good grade will likely require an effort that will be reflected, in part, in the quantity of the submission (in addition to its’ quality)

b.
Video Submission
: A video submission (creative entries encouraged). Please note that I am NOT specifying a video length requirements. Students should recognize that the development a comprehensive response capable of achieving a good grade will likely require an effort that will be reflected, in part, in both the quantity and quality of the submission (not just in its’ creativity). If video files are too large to make it into the SLATE box… please create/submit the link so that I can view the file. Thanks.

4. This test requires you to
answer 2 of 4 questions
(choose 2 of the 4 questions I’ve proposed below). (Note- if you answer MORE than 2… I will be marking your first 2 responses as they appear in the submission). Each response will be evaluated out of 20 possible marks according to the following criteria (sorry, I know criteria based evaluation kills creativity):

a.
Demonstrated Knowledge of the Scientific Literature
: Has the student demonstrated a robust understanding of the scientific/course material that pertains to the given question?

b.
Development of A Comprehensive/Robust Position
: Has the student woven together a coherent, complex position on the chosen question?

5. On Week 7 activities and my availability: I am available through email if you have any questions although please note that I CANNOT give you any insights on the content of your response. Also, we will be holding a regularly scheduled debriefs on Week 7.

Good Luck!


QUESTIONS: CHOOSE 2 OF THE FOLLOWING 4 QUESTIONS (20 marks each/ 40 marks total)


1. Creativity Assessment:

Ok time to test your friends and family on their creativity! Below are two pictures/puzzles from the figural portion of the Torrance Test of Creativity Thinking (TTCT); which was discussed in the first half of this course. In this response, your challenge is to properly test your friends and/or family! Specifically, you will select two (2) individuals/subjects to participate (two people you know and who will be good sports). You will ask each individual to complete the two pictures, using the stimulus provided, and to provide each picture with its’ own title. Your job, then, is to assess the completed pictures using the criteria we discussed/used for the TTCT figural assessment. In developing this assessment, I want you to first define the criteria and then explain how/why you gave it the score you did. Granted, originality will be difficult to measure/assess… so here, I will accept the definition as well as a ‘hypothesized score’ (aka., your best guess at the what the score would be). Both pictures should have their own score. Finally, once you’ve discussed and scored the pictures/puzzles… briefly tell me- what do you think of this way of ‘assessing creativity’? Have fun and get creative!! NOTE- I’ve copied these pics onto two blank pages at the end of this test…. You can print off those pages and give them to your ‘test subjects’.


2. The Creative Person:

Judging from our conversations, it seems like many of us agree that it takes a ‘special personality’ to make the choice for creativity; to knowingly make the choices associated with a ‘creative life’; and to be able to sustain the dedication and commitment to creativity. With reference to the material we’ve covered on the ‘creative person’ (in both the text and lecture), compare/contrast/and discuss aspects of the “creative person” (ex., some aspect of their personality traits, personality states, and/or backgrounds) as they have been identified and/or considered in the scientific literature on the ‘creative person’. Then, briefly, consider how these features present themselves (or don’t present themselves) in yourself.


3. Cognition and Creativity:

Building on the work of psychology, this course has proposed the idea that consciousness (and creativity) involves different streams of thought (System 1 and System 2). Moreover, we’ve explored these Systems as they might help us understand and interpret creativity and creative thought. Here, we’ve also been introduced to the notion that creativity may actually be a ‘dual process’ that is harmonized and integrated in the critical role of ‘incubation’. In this answer, I’m hoping you will explain your understanding of creativity as ‘dual process’, functional fixedness, and the role of ‘incubation’ and insight problem-solving as cognitive processes aiding creative performance.


4. The Creative Product:

Our explorations of the Creative Product (in the debriefs, the lecture, and related readings in chapter 11, 16 and 17) stand in stark contrast to our earlier explorations of ‘creative cognition’. In short, while the early cognitive psychologists we’ve studied assumed all of the interesting things of creative occur inside a person’s head… our socio-cultural explorations of the ‘creative product’ assume the most important things to explain about creativity occur
outside of people’s heads
– in the social networks and worlds that we inhabit. This approach leads us to consider, for example, how social groups decide what is creative, who benefits from and consumes creative products, what/whose goals creativity serves, and how some creative products (or innovations) disrupt and/or destroy existing structures and institutions. Below, I have listed several events/items that might be consider “creative products” that reveal the socio-cultural nature of creativity. In this question, I would like you to choose one item from this list below and then discuss how this item reveals the socio-cultural nature of creativity. Here, I suspect your answers will diverge; but some concepts you may wish to consider in your discussion is how creativity is always judged and negotiated within a socio-cultural system; how creative products may disrupt social systems; how creativity serves as an effective strategy for navigating asymmetrical competitions; and/or the role of ‘gatekeepers’ in the creative process (to name just a few possibilities that may/may not be relevant).

Here is the list you can choose from:

· Narco-trafficking

· Crypto-currency (choose any form/currency you wish)

· Marcel Duschamp’s “Fountain”

· Komar and Melamid’s “America’s Most Wanted Painting”

· Uber (or any other ride-sharing platform)

· Any film of your choosing





Please complete the pictures below using the stimulus provided. Please also give each picture its’ own title.





Please complete the pictures below using the stimulus provided. Please also give each picture its’ own title.

3 | Page

Philosophy homework help

Case study of Film: El Susto! (1 hour, 15 min)

We have an amazing opportunity to be among the first people to view the brand new El Susto! documentary. The producer has given our class advane permission to show the film, and eventually it will make it out to high profile film festivals and/or Netflix.

The case study requires you to discuss the film, and there are also several exam study topics related to it. Be sure to check those out before you start watching. Enjoy!


https://vimeo.com/553346634/59943c8eca (Links to an external site.)

 

Here is the film’s promotional site if you’d like to learn more: 
https://elsustomovie.com/ (Links to an external site.)

Assignment Overview

After reading the assigned text, compose a 500 word reflection and submit it to the Canvas discussion board.

Content and Grading

In your reflections, address the following 3 questions.

1. What are the author’s main messages/arguments? What is the main takeaway of this case study? What is the essential background information that we need to understand it? (2.5 points)

2. How does the case study relate to concepts from the course (including lectures, readings and videos)? Connect themes in the case study to at least 2 concepts from the course.  Put these concepts in bold so that we can easily find them when grading, and be sure to explain or elaborate on HOW the case study illustrates, complicates or is connected to that topic. (4 points)

3. Share your personal reaction or stance on the issues developed in the case study. Has it changed your opinion on the topic? Does it relate to your own personal experiences? Does it connect to things you have studied in other courses, or articles you’ve been reading in the news lately? (2.5 points)

4. Proper citations (1 point)

Citations

You must include proper academic citation in your case study reflections. This is a good habit to get into generally. Visit this page for the general course citation guidelines.

· When referring to required course material, use a shortened version of the APA’s author-date, in-text parenthetical citation system, e.g. (Marmot 2010). You can abbreviate our course textbooks to RGH and PIH, or use the case study author’s last name. Be sure to spell the author’s name correctly! Lectures can be cited by the number, e.g. (Ryan lecture 4.2). Videos can be cited by the primary speaker or a shortened version of the title, e.g. (Bad Sugar) or (Rosling).

· When referring to outside articles or sources, use the APA’s author-date, in-text parenthetical citation system, e.g., (Washington Post 2021) and include a hyperlink or full citation to your original source at the end of your submission. Connecting the case studies to outside sources is always welcome, but be sure you are also

· You do not need to write a full bibliography for case study reflections.

relate to concepts from the course (including lectures, readings and videos)? Connect themes in the case study to at least 2 concepts from the course.  Put these concepts in bold 


Required readings and ppt


·
Tobacco Industry Interference: A Global Brief

  Download Tobacco Industry Interference: A Global Brief. 2012. World Health Organization.

· Skim pp. 1-7, read pp. 8-17 carefully.

· “
‘Best Buys’ and Other Recommended Interventions for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases

  Download ‘Best Buys’ and Other Recommended Interventions for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases.” 2017. World Health Organization.

· Skim the introductory information, and read pp. 6-9 carefully.

Philosophy homework help

Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, review Chapter 3 of the Northouse (2019) text, which introduces a skills-based leadership model, involving competencies associated with problem-solving, social judgement, and knowledge. Also read the following articles: Hammond, Clapp-Smith, and Palanski (2017), “Beyond (Just) the Workplace: A Theory of Leader Development Across Multiple Domains (Links to an external site.)
”; and Katz (1986), “Excerpts From Skills of an Effective Administrator (Links to an external site.)
.”

In your initial post of at least 300 words in length and referencing at least two required sources, summarize the three competency-based components of this the skills-based leadership model as depicted in Figure 3.4 of the Northouse (2019) text. Then, use the model as a basis for analyzing the performance of a political leader who represents your city or state (not a national leader) and whom you admire. Name the leader and describe how this leader exemplifies the components of the skills-based model, providing examples you can verify through public sources such as newspapers, periodicals, websites and public records. 

Philosophy homework help

Milestone 3: A Letter from the Future – What is oppression?

For this milestone project, you will be asked to define oppression and apply this definition to real-world experiences. You will write a letter to yourself as a kid. Knowing what you know now, and what we have been discussing and learning about in class, teach your younger self. Write your former self a letter using the following prompt:

1. After completing your discussion assignment, think about what oppression is and what Frye and Young’s two approaches have in common with respect to how they define oppression. Write a letter to your future self that responds to the following prompt:

· In the first paragraph/section, define oppression for your younger self by summarizing the two theories we examined (Iris Marion Young’s essay “Five Faces of Oppression” and Marilyn Frye’s essay “Oppression”).

· In the second paragraph/section, explain how sexism and racism are two different types of oppression by describing them in terms of the definition of oppression you have established in the first paragraph. Expand on this by describing:

i. What do racism and sexism have in common with one another?

ii. How do they differ from one another?

iii. Briefly describe how racism and/or sexism occurs on a local, national, and global level. Be sure to include these considerations.

· In the third paragraph/section, explain how forms of oppression such as racism and sexism violate Kantian (categorical imperatives), Aristotelian (virtue ethics), and Millsian theory (the greatest happiness principle). You don’t have to discuss every aspect of each philosopher’s theories. But it is important to discuss the central concepts within their theories.

2. Be sure to follow the letter format from Purdue OWL: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/653/01/

Philosophy homework help

11.1: NCDs/Chronic diseases

NCD =

1

Exam study guide topics (1)

Know the top 5 chronic diseases and that many of them have shared risk factors

Know the 6 risk factors that contribute the most to chronic disease

Know the most “cost-effective” interventions (aka “best buys”) per WHO guidance (see the pdf that we will talk about during lecture) for three of the specific risk factors for NCDs: 1) harmful use of alcohol, 2) physical inactivity, and 3) tobacco use

Understand the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. If given an example of an intervention (e.g., colonoscopies, healthy eating education, stroke rehabilitation services), determine if it is an example of primary, secondary or tertiary prevention.

2

Learning objectives (2)

Why do some people say that cervical cancer and liver cancer blur the line between infectious disease and chronic disease? Be able to explain.

From a list of health interventions, be able to identify which are focused on structural determinants of health and which are focused on individual behaviors

Exam study guide topics (2)

What do we mean by chronic diseases?

Often called NCDs (non-communicable diseases)

The big ones:

1. heart disease & stroke

2. chronic respiratory disease

3. diabetes

4. cancer

5. mental health

Also : blindness, arthritis, musculoskeletal, neurologic disorders and more

4

What do these chronic diseases have in common?

Some have shared risk factors

Often are long-lasting and take a long time to fully develop

Often these diseases co-exist

5

Shared risk factors for NCDs

Tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke

High blood pressure

Obesity (high body mass index)

Physical inactivity

Excessive alcohol use

Poor diets (low in fruits and vegetables; high in sodium and saturated fats)

Source: CDC

6

How would these chronic diseases impact the DALY?

In general, NCDs would have high YLL because of so many people dying young from NCDs

In general, NCDs have high YLL because so many people are affected and die from NCDs

In general, NCDs would have a significant number of years of disability due to the long-lasting nature of the diseases (YLD part of the calculation)

A and C

B and C

7

What can excessive alcohol use cause?

Impacts of short-term alcohol use: injuries, violence, miscarriage, risky sex, alcohol poisoning

What about long-term use?

High blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, liver disease, and digestive problems.6,16

Cancer of the breast, mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, and colon.6,17

Learning and memory problems, including dementia and poor school performance.6,18

Mental health problems, including depression and anxiety.6,19

Social problems, including lost productivity, family problems, and unemployment.6,20,21

Alcohol dependence, or alcoholism.5

CDC Fact sheet: Alcohol use and your health

8

3 types of prevention

Primary Prevention—intervening before health effects occur

Secondary Prevention—catching diseases in the earliest stages, before the onset of signs and symptoms

Tertiary Prevention—managing disease post diagnosis to slow or stop disease progression

9

Which type of prevention would an initiative to promote healthier eating be?

Primary prevention because it aims to change the risk factors before disease develops

Primary prevention because the intervention is considered the most important step in addressing chronic illness

Secondary prevention because the intervention utilizes screenings to catch people in the early phases of disease

Secondary prevention because the intervention is considered the second most important step in addressing chronic illness

10

Your ideas: Effective Public Health initiatives targeting 3 risk factors

Harmful use of alcohol

Physical inactivity

Unhealthy diet

11

The WHO’s “Best Buys” for chronic diseases

Document is one of the assigned readigns in this week’s Canvas: or available here http
://www.who.int/ncds/management/WHO_Appendix_BestBuys_LS.pdf

CEA = Cost Effectiveness Analysis

LMIC = Low and Middle Income Countries

12

WHO position on cost-effectiveness as a tool for decision making about public health policy

“Cost-effectiveness analysis is a useful tool but it has limitations and should not be used as the sole basis for decision-making. When selecting interventions for the prevention and control of NCDs, consideration should be given to effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, affordability, implementation capacity, feasibility, according to national circumstances, and impact on health equity of interventions, and to the need to implement a combination of population-wide policy interventions and individual interventions.”

13

Understanding WHO “Best Buys” for NCDs

14

Effective Public Health initiatives targeting 3 risk factors
http://www.who.int/ncds/management/WHO_Appendix_BestBuys_LS.pdf

Which PH measures would be effective?

Look through the BestBuys pdf and pick read the most cost-effective intervention for each of these:

Harmful use of alcohol (p. 7)

Physical inactivity (p. 9)

Tobacco use (p. 6)

WHO, 2017, ‘BEST BUYS’ AND OTHER RECOMMENDED INTERVENTIONS FOR THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF NONCOMMUNICABLE DISEASES

15

WHO NCD Targets

Governments have endorsed nine global voluntary targets with the overarching aim to reduce premature death from the four major NCDs by 25% by 2025.

Cardiovascular disease

Cancer

Diabetes

Chronic Respiratory diseases

16

17

Secondary prevention of chronic illness

Early diagnosis and treatment of:

High blood pressure

Overweight/obese

High blood sugar levels

Credit: Goldie, S., Global Health Clip-Chronic Disease 1.

18

What about diabetes?

Type I diabetes:

Pancreas doesn’t produce enough insulin

Most often develops in childhood, thought to be an auto-immune disease.

Type II diabetes:

Cells lose sensitivity to insulin

This is an NCD, connected to individual behaviors.

Insulin is important because it keeps blood glucose levels stable in the body. If glucose builds up in the blood, rather than entering cells or being store, it can wreak havoc. Complications of diabetes include Complications of diabetes include kidney disease, nerve damage, heart problems, eye problems, and stomach problems.

19

Type II diabetes risk factors:

You are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes if you

are overweight or obese

are age 45 or older

have a family history of diabetes

are African American, Alaska Native, American Indian, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander

have high blood pressure

have a low level of HDL (“good”) cholesterol, or a high level of triglycerides

have a history of gestational diabetes or gave birth to a baby weighing 9 pounds or more

are not physically active

have a history of heart disease or stroke

have depression 

have polycystic ovary syndrome , also called PCOS

have acanthosis
nigricans—dark, thick, and velvety skin around your neck or armpits

Source: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

20

Global Cancer Facts

Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally.

Tobacco use is responsible for approximately 22% of global cancer deaths.

Cancer causing infections, such as hepatitis and human papilloma virus (HPV), are responsible for up to 25% of cancer cases in low- and middle-income countries.

Late-stage presentation and inaccessible diagnosis and treatment are common in low-income countries.

Source: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/

21

Global top 10 cancers

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018. The most common cancers are:

Lung (2.09 million cases)

Breast (2.09 million cases)

Colorectal (1.80 million cases)

Prostate (1.28 million cases)

Skin cancer (non-melanoma) (1.04 million cases)

Stomach (1.03 million cases)

Source: WHO

Source: WHO

22

Risk factors for cancer

According to the WHO, around one third of deaths from cancer are due to:

high body mass index

low fruit and vegetable intake

lack of physical activity

tobacco use

alcohol use

23

Are there any vaccines that prevent cancer?

Cervical cancer:

HPV vaccine

Have you had the HPV vaccine series?

Liver cancer:

Hepatitis B vaccine

24

Cancer prevention: secondary interventions

Screening for Breast, Cervical, Colorectal (Colon), and Lung Cancers

25

CDC works to prevent chronic disease and associated risk factors in 4 ways:

Epidemiology and surveillance refers to systems that are used to track chronic diseases and their risk factors.

Environmental approaches refers to changes in policies and physical surroundings to make the healthy choice the easy choice.

Health care system interventions refers to improvements in care that allow doctors to diagnose chronic diseases earlier and to manage them better.

Community programs linked to clinical services refers to those that help patients prevent and manage their chronic diseases, with guidance from their doctor.

26

Behavioral Interventions versus Structural Interventions

Should we think about a more “BioSocial” approach to NCDs?

27

“What we describe as a structural approach to NCDs focuses on enduring social arrangements that determine the pattern and distribution of NCDs and their risk factors in a society. Even if we assume that individuals have the ability to make rational choice with respect to healthy behavior/lifestyle, such a choice occurs within certain boundaries set by society, government, and organizations [25]. We suggest that a structural approach conceives of the NCD epidemic as the byproduct of changes to domestic and international systems that have dramatically changed modes of living and created environments that encourage the adoption of harmful patterns of behavior.”

https
://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6035457/pdf/12992_2018_Article_380.pdf

28

Structural versus individual interventions?

Encouraging someone to eat a healthier diet, versus:

Incentives for supermarkets to locate in lower income neighborhoods

Taxes on sugary beverages

Subsidies for fruits and vegetables rather than for corn and soybeans

Expanding SNAP and WIC benefits

Enacting laws that require a living wage (raising the minimum wage)

Philosophy homework help

Week 7 Discussion: Is Recycling the Answer? – Discussion Group 6


From PHIL 2500.003/203 (12512)

Prompt

Over the past three week’s we’ve learned a lot about plastic pollution -from how our lives ended up so plastic, to how plastic ends up in global oceans. For this discussion, I am asking you to draw on what you have learned to answer the following question: can recycling solve the problem of plastic pollution? In supporting your position, be sure to draw on this week’s readings and video about plastic recycling, as well as other relevant materials from our focus on plastic pollution. This 24-minute Planet Money 
Waste Land (Links to an external site.)
” podcast from NPR is an engaging review of some of the major issues with plastics recycling and explains how we came to think that most plastic would actually be recycled (and why it isn’t).

Some questions to consider as you write your post: who should be responsible for plastics? The industry that makes it? Consumers who buy it? Cities, as part of their waste collection? If you think recycling can solve the problem, what about recycling needs to change? If you think recycling cannot solve the problem, what alternatives do you find most promising? Which of the three articles you read this week best supports your own position? Does your position on recycling assume plastic waste is an individual or systemic problem? 

Expectations

Write a 250-word initial post following the prompt above. Be sure to support your position with specific details from this week’s readings and videos. Then, reply to at least 2 other students’ posts with comments of 100 words or more. Your discussion contributions should be thoughtful, logically organized, and well-written/edited. Please be respectful, but do not shy away from challenging questions and constructive criticism.

Philosophy homework help

In a paper of at least 600 words (excluding title and reference pages),  and Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.) at least two different scholarly sources, in addition to required readings, address the first two assignment directives below in a more substantive manner, and respond to the third bullet point.

In your Managing Doctoral Study Responsibilities paper,

· Describe how you plan to manage class requirements and balance those requirements with your other responsibilities.

· Assess how your need for self-management aligns with the kinds of responsibilities managers might have for their employees in the workplace.

· Assess how your personal management strengths will assist you in managing your time and responsibilities during your doctoral studies.

The Managing Doctoral Study Responsibilities paper

· Must be at least 600 words in length (not including title and references pages), and must be supported by at least two different scholarly sources, in addition to required readings. This paper does not require an abstract.

· Must be formatted according to APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center’s APA Style (Links to an external site.) (Access the resource How to Check a Word Count in Microsoft Word (Links to an external site.) for help in determining total word count).

· Must include a separate title page with the following:

· Title of paper

· Student’s name

· University’s Name

· For further assistance with formatting your paper, including the title page, refer to the APA Template (Links to an external site.) from the Writing Center.

· Must be double-spaced, formatted in Times New Roman 12-point type font, and aligned to the left margin.

· Must utilize academic voice. See the Academic Voice (Links to an external site.) resource for additional guidance.

· Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper.

· For assistance on writing Introductions & Conclusions (Links to an external site.) as well as Writing a Thesis Statement (Links to an external site.), refer to the Writing Center resources.

· Must use at least two scholarly sources in addition to required books and articles.

· The Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for an assignment.

· To assist you in completing the research required for this assignment, view this University Library Quick ‘n’ Dirty (Links to an external site.) tutorial, which introduces the University of Arizona Global Campus Library and the research process, and provides some library search tips.

· Must document any information used from sources in APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center’s Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.) guide.

· Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center. See the Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.) resource in the Writing Center for specifications.

Philosophy homework help

Phil Week 8 DQR

Nestor Avila

Hello Class,

Yes, we as humans should do more to ensure animals have basic rights as well. We have rights to avoid unjust suffering within our society. If animals are sentient like us, then why shouldn’t they have the same right as we do? In 1966. the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued the Animal Welfare Act. This act ensures that animals used for research, farming, entertainment, sports are entitled to proper treatment. Although this may be true, animal welfare and animal rights are two different topics. When talking about animal welfare, we can still use them and exploit them so long as it isn’t in an irresponsible manner. When it comes to promoting their rights then they shouldn’t be used or exploited at all. 

In contrast, the European Union prohibited the testing of cosmetic products on animals in 2004. Later, the prohibition will include the ban of testing cosmetic ingredients on animals in 2009. Similarly, the Ringling Brothers retired their elephants, ending a 145 tradition after the public became aware of how the elephant were treated behind the scenes. Of course, there are laws and practices out there that are advocating for the rights of animals, but not enough to make in impact on those who strongly oppose the fair treatment. All lives, big or small are created equal. No one breed or species should have more rights than the other.

I include ethics in my current occupation by making sure that all my coworkers are comfortable, are not being overworked, and by ensuring the workload is distributed evenly. There is time where I will take on more workload and harder tasks in order to spare them from struggling and facing challenges. I will talk about ethics as a career competency by promoting decisions that benefit a group instead of an individual. I will incorporate ethics to also promote trust, honesty, and comfort between coworkers. 

Response –

Lucero Garibay

Hello class, I have enjoyed interacting with my peers and responding to their different views on moral matters. This course was everything that I thought it would be and more. It has solidified many of my own personal morals and added a few more methods when it comes to making decisions. I feel that remaining active in thinking about moral decisions is quite hard to master. Somethings do feel like a habit when it comes to making choices, but that is not always good. This course helped me understand that there is always a different way or idea and that there is no real right answer. Recently I have had to use my moral compass and really pay attention to each section. I work in a field where I constantly must give my best to remain patient and empathetic even when I do not want to. Retouching my moral compass has helped me reflect and it gives me an extra couple seconds before I just react to situations. Ethics will always be a part of my career. The medical profession is reliant and focused on ethical matters. If a person is not ethically competent not only does it affect their careers, but it also affects their whole life. I believe that everyone should take a course like this one to broaden their understanding of life and societal values. Society will continue to evolve, and moral changes will happen. Although I do not believe that morality changes quickly, I do think there is fluctuation. It is important to stay current with the times. This course was great, and I really do feel like I have expanded my scope of knowledge of ethics.  

Philosophy homework help

INTRODUCTORY NOTES

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?

WHAT IS ETHICS (MORALITY)?

WHAT ETHICS IS NOT

WHAT IS PHILOSOPHY?

So, what is this thing called Philosophy anyway? We might begin to answer that question by turning to

etymology, or the study of origins of words. Etymologically, the word “philosophy” came to us from

Classical Greek, by way of the Greek Philosophers Socrates and Plato. In this context, “philosophy”

means ​the lover of wisdom​: a combination of “lover” (​philia​) and “wisdom” (​sophia​). While the
designation “philosophy” originally meant to describe the activities carried out by those men and

women who are​ lovers of wisdom​, it has almost always included the activities of systematically
questioning and critiquing the nature of thought itself. In other words, philosophy might also be thought

of as ​the activity of thinking about thinking​. As Stanford philosopher David Hills says: “Philosophy is the
ungainly attempt to tackle questions that come naturally to children, using methods that come naturally

to lawyers”.

Generally speaking, then, philosophy might be called the critical investigation of thought thinking about

itself, or simply put, thinking about thinking. Traditionally, philosophy has been identified with particular

historical figures and with the activities they performed or principles by which they lived. By each of

these accounts, philosophy is then the love of wisdom, or as some contemporaries would say, the love

of understanding. The 20th century philosopher Wilfrid Sellars put it this way: the point of philosophy is

“to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest

possible sense of the term”.

I want to suggest to you that philosophy is an activity, and that as an activity, ​we are already doing
philosophy​ whether we are aware of it or not. I also want to suggest that anything we can do is worth
doing well. If we look to gain a systematic understanding of philosophy, it is helpful to distinguish

different domains of investigation that seek to ask and answer different sorts of questions. So,

contemporary philosophy is often subdivided into five distinct areas:

1. Metaphysics (including ontology)

2. Epistemology

3. Axiology

4. Social & Political Philosophy

5. Logic

1. ​Metaphysics ​(including ontology) investigates the fundamental nature of existence, being,
counterfactuals, modality (possibility, necessity, contingency); the mental and physical; space and time;

causation; free will; the existence or nonexitence of supernatural beings or phenomena; mereology

(material constitution, heap paradox); change, and identity.

2. ​Epistemology ​investigates the domain of knowledge; what knowledge is, what it isn’t; what is a belief;
justification; the structure of knowledge; the ultimate source of knowledge; evidence, perception,

introspection, imagination, memory, reason, testimony; skepticism and the limits of knowledge;

knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.

3. ​Axiology ​is the study of values; ethics and morality; the nature of right and wrong; duty and
obligation; virtues; care; justice; beauty; moral responsibility; metaethics; normative ethics; applied

ethics.

4. ​Social & Political Philosophy​ investigates the nature of social and political institutions; the state and
the individual; the essence of government; social responsibility; fairness; justice.

5. ​Logic ​is the study of argumentation; the nature of logical consequence, necessity; of validity and
invalidity; inductive and deductive inference patterns; truth preservation; formal systems; fallacies.

These five domains represent distinguishable areas of investigation subsumed under the activity of

doing philosophy. Questions asked from within these domains are often labeled ​first-order inquiries​.

Second-order inquiries​ occur when questions from any of the five domains are applied to other areas of
inquiry. So, for any given area of inquiry, we can investigate that area with respect to philosophical

analysis, and adding the phrase “philosophy of”:

Area Second-order inquiries

Law philosophy of law

Science philosophy of science

Art philosophy of art

Technology philosophy of technology

Religion philosophy of religion

Computer Science philosophy of computation

WHAT IS ETHICS (MORALITY)?

Ethics is a branch of philosophy, under axiology (the study of values).

Ethics can be defined as the study and application of standards that distinguish between right and

wrong, good and bad. In this course, we will use the terms ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ synonymously.

There are three branches of Ethics:

1. Applied Ethics

2. Normative Ethics

3. Metaethics

Applied Ethics

Applied Ethics studies ethical dilemmas, issues, and questions as they arise in various practical or

professional contexts. Also called casuistry, Applied Ethics is what we will be doing in this class, by

applying ethics to real cases.

Normative Ethics

Normative Ethics studies general theories and principles of ethics that can be applied to practical

situations. The ethical theories we will use are normative theories, or normative ethics. When you apply

Normative Ethics to cases, you are then doing Applied Ethics.

Rights Justice

Utilitarianism/Consequentialism Care Ethics

Deontology/Kantian Ethics Virtue Ethics

Metaethics

Metaethics studies the meaning of ethical concepts, theories, and principles. When you study the

meaning of ethical concepts, you question the meaning and the limitations of those concepts. You can

even question if there can be a good or complete ethical theory at all.

Why study Applied Ethics?

It’s important to realize that Applied Ethics isn’t an exact science, but that fact alone doesn’t imply

that doing Applied Ethics isn’t hard.​ Rather, it makes doing Applied Ethics even more difficult.

This is because we have no singular agreement about which ethical theory fits best in all cases. As a

branch of philosophy, a highlight of ethical analysis demands that we use logic to make our ethical views

clearer in our own minds, and to have a strong voice when we need to communicate important ethical

considerations. It is also a way for you to learn to reflect upon and make explicit your own assumptions

about what values you hold to, and perhaps why you hold to the values that you do. This is important

for every person who is to be considered educated, so that you can make your own informed ethical

decisions. These are the skills this course is meant to provide.

WHAT ETHICS IS NOT

Ethics is closely related to law…

Laws are standards of conduct enforced by power of government.

Laws usually reflect many of the moral values of society.

E.g., our society values honesty, so fraud is illegal.

Laws give us what a society holds as necessary rules of ethical conduct.

E.g., we hold that murder, rape, etc. are wrong. We all believe these actions are intolerable

behaviors. We believe that it is necessary to our society that these acts not be allowed, and our

laws reflect this belief. The important point here is necessary rules; rules that we feel are

ethically essential.

Laws can even change the moral values of a society.

…laws, however, are not ethics.

Often, rules of law are a minimum of ethical conduct.

E.g., we believe that identity theft is morally wrong but our laws controlling identity theft and

protecting those who suffer identity theft are minimal.

Some actions may be legal but unethical…

E.g., Jim Crow Laws.

…some actions may be ethical but illegal.

E.g., When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a public bus.

Laws rarely go beyond the minimum, especially when laws pertain to business, and most especially

when laws pertain to technology.

E.g., Technology is cutting edge, and often develops much faster than governments can write

and pass laws. Technology is often many steps ahead of what lawmakers know about

technology (Lawmakers are not usually trained in technical fields).

Because of these factors, our laws give us minimum protection from those who use technology

unethically. Of course, spamming and identity theft are two very obvious examples of how laws lag

behind what we know to be unethical.

Ethics is not social code.

Here in the Bay Area we live alongside people from every race, country, and religion. We learn tolerance

and we value tolerance. We believe that we should try to understand people from other cultures. We

should not be too quick to morally judge other cultures. This tolerance is important and ethical, but just

because we should not be too quick to judge others, this should not mean that there is no universal

ethics, an ethics of all humanity.

Ethics is not mere social convention or custom.

ETHICAL RELATIVISM wrongly claims that Ethics is mere social convention or custom, and that ethical

standards are relative to particular societies or cultures.

● Ethical Relativism does not allow for a global human culture, and it fails to see that indeed there
is a global human culture.

● Ethical Relativism does not allow for ethical progress.
● Ethical Relativism does not allow for criticism of your own culture and the ethical practices of

your culture.

Ethics is not minimal compliance with one’s Professional Code of Ethics.

Here in the U.S. almost every profession now has a Professional Code of Ethics.

● Not all rules of a professional code are moral rules.
● Sometimes the rules in professional codes are just expediencies, designed to turn the most

profit.

● Some rules of professional codes might prove unethical in some circumstances.

So, be aware: ethics should not be confused with the law, mere social codes or customs, or professional

codes. Instead, it is the principles we can derive from the study of ethics that provide the ethical

foundation for laws, social beliefs, and professional codes. Sometimes the laws, social beliefs, or

professional codes do not stand up to what we know to be ethical. We use moral reasoning to argue for

changes to laws, changes to social beliefs, and changes to professional codes. So, do not use laws to

justify your ethical claims about a case. Do not claim that something is ethical as stated by the

Constitution. Do not claim something is ethical because a law says it is. In ethics, you are required to

prove that the law is ethical by explaining the ethics. You cannot prove the ethics by appealing to a law.

As we learn to apply different ethical theories, some will be obviously good fits in certain cases whereas

some will not. Over the course of the term, you will learn to identify ethical principles as they arise in the

context of our subject matter, especially when it becomes obvious that there are tensions between

competing ethical principles.

Philosophy homework help

2/21/22, 11:07 AM W8: Evolutionary Ethics & Career Applicability – PHIL200 B006 Winter 2022

https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d2l/le/50064/discussions/topics/408797/View 1/3

W8: Evolutionary Ethics & Career Applicability

PHIL200 B006 Winter 2022 LE

Discussions List View Topic Settings Help

Search W8: Evolutionary Ethics & Career Applicability

Subscribe

Description:

For this forum, choose one of the following topics to respond to for your initial
post. When you respond to your peers please respond, if possible, to a learner
who has posted a contrary view on the topic you selected and then respond to
a learner who has posted to at least one of the topics you did not select. In your
primary response please add a brief statement about how the learning acquired
in this class will be applicable to your current or future career.

Topic A: Animal Rights

Assuming the research by DeWaal is correct, most if not all social animals have innate

dispositions to cooperate for survival and as such, develop moral codes for behavior. As such,

should humans not work more to ensure animals have basic rights even if they cannot ask for

them? What rights should those be and is there some sort of hierarchy (should dogs have

more rights than mice).

Topic B: Free Will (or not)

Imagine if we eliminated the notion of free will when it comes to our justice system. Present

an argument that “justice” works better if we seek to help and fix people rather than just

punish wrongdoers.

Topic C: Grand summary

Taking all you have learned in the class, discuss how you feel you will be more active in

thinking about moral decisions and how your compass will help in that process. Be specific

and if you can think of a recent moral decision where this class helped, please share.

2/21/22, 11:07 AM W8: Evolutionary Ethics & Career Applicability – PHIL200 B006 Winter 2022

https://myclassroom.apus.edu/d2l/le/50064/discussions/topics/408797/View 2/3

Rubrics

PHIL LD Discussion Rubric v2.0

Start a New Thread

Filter by:

Sort by:

Most Recent Activity

Final Reflection:

And finally, please reflect on the following:

How will you include ethics in your present or future career?
How will you talk about ethics as a career competency?

Before you post, please thoroughly edit your writing to ensure it is professional

and academic. For more details about how the initial post and peer replies are

graded, see the “Discussion Guidelines” and “Grading Rubric” linked below.

Discussion Guidelines & Grading Rubric

All Threads

Topic C
Joshua Young posted Feb 21, 2022 3:58 PM

0
Unread

0
Replies

0
Views

Subscribe

Good afternoon class,

As this course comes to an end I would just like to first off say it was a pleasure in going

more

Grand Summary
Diamond Turner posted Feb 21, 2022 2:16 PM S