philosophy

Based on your readings, what is one primary feature of post-Enlightenment ethical relativism and how does it compare or contrast with the Christian worldview?

2. Briefly describe the main parts of Plato’s Apology, namely Socrates’ refutation of the charges leveled against him, his suggestion of an alternative punishment, and his farewell. What did Socrates value most, and do you think he got what he wanted out of his life?

1) The Euthyphro where Socrates asks if the pious is pious because the Gods love it, or do the Gods love the pious because it is so pious. In short is it a God’s will that something is pious or is there some reason the pious is pious? For example, (the quiz question) Jesus comes to your door. Hypothetically, you know it is Him and you know He is God. He says to sell all you have, give the money to the poor, and come follow Him. Do you go with Him? Or do you ask questions and even argue with Him about it?2) The concerned Plato’s Republic where he describes his psychology. Do you agree with him that each person’s character is fixed from birth?Length: 250 words for each question.

1. What, if anything, essentially distinguishes literary works of art (such as epics, novels, drama, and poetry) from other kinds of writings, such as scientific reports, historical treatises, religious texts, guides, and manuals, which may happen to be written in a literary manner? 2. In his “Is Live Music Dead?” Lee R. Brown argues that recorded music functions as a “token” (i.e. an instance) of a larger “type” (i.e. musical performance) but recordings may someday “override this subtlety by treating all music sources as fodder to mix and match, without regard to their original status or the niceties of the process by which they were originally created.” Do you agree with Brown’s assessment? 3. Roger Scruton argues that representation is necessarily intentional (as in a painting or sculpture) whereas “photography is not representation”. Further, Scruton maintains that photography cannot create representations. Do you agree with Scruton? Why or why not? 4. Clive Bell famously argues that what makes an item a work of art is its “significant form”, by which he means “forms arranged and combined according to certain unknown and mysterious laws”. Do you agree that significant form is the “essential quality in a work of art”? 5. Linda Nochlin argues that “genius” is not some inherent trait that male artists possess but women lack; rather, the “little golden nugget” of genius is something that is “built up minutely…from infancy onward, although the patterns of adaptation-accommodation may be established so early within the subject-in-an-environment that they may indeed appear to be innate to the unsophisticated observer” Are there any other obstacles to women’s becoming great artists, beyond their having been (largely) denied the opportunities to develop their talents? How can women artists overcome these obstacles? 6. In his “The Aesthetics of Junkyards” San Jose State University philosophy professor Thomas Leddy argues that, contrary to appearances, it is possible discern aesthetic qualities in a junkyard, and further, that such an admiration need not be “anti-environmentalist” in nature. Is it possible to have an ethical aesthetic appreciation of a junkyard or landfill? 7. In her “Why (Not) Philosophy of Stand-Up Comedy?” Sheila Lintott argues that whereas “in tragedy the audience experiences negative emotion pleasurably, in stand-up comedy often the content is tragic but the audience experiences the positive pleasure of humorous amusement.” As Lintott herself asks, “How do form and content relate in these two cases?” 8. In his “Can White People Sing the Blues”, Joel Rudinow quotes jazz critic Ralph J. Gleason who argued, “[T]he blues is black man’s music, and whites diminish it at best or steal it at worst. In any case they have no moral right to use it…” Do you agree with Gleason’s assessment? Why or why not? 9. ‘Aesthetic Cognitivism’ is the view that art offers humanity another means of accessing reality. This view runs counter to scientific claims (particularly those of physicists) who contend that the natural sciences provide the only “accurate” picture of reality. The aesthetic cognitivists counter that art provides significant insights into ethics and human psychology. With whom do you agree and why?

Leni Riefenstahl was a German filmmaker who famously made many beautifully shot films; unfortunately, she also made propaganda films for the Nazis, including her most famous work, Triumph of the Will (1934). This raises two disturbing questions: Can a great work of art be considered evil? Should an artis be praised for creating beautiful, but morally repugnant, art? Dear Students, Please find the attached essay topics. This assignment will be due by Friday, January 15th. Write between 3 to 5 pages and be sure to include the following aspects: A statement of the issue (i.e. what’s being debated?) A statement of where you stand on the issue (i.e. your thesis). Your main argument. Consideration of a counter-argument. Respond to the counter-argument.

With your own words answer the following discussion (310 words max) DO NOT WRITE IT AS AN ESSAY FORMAT . Would it be immoral to clone a human being? Defend your view. With your own words agree or disagree with the following discussion (100 words max ) I believe it would be immoral to clone a human being as it creates a human under the idea that it has been brought into this world to be used for specific purposes rather than an individual who was born to find their purpose and place in the world. Examples of this can be seen in so many scenarios, starting with the use of therapeutic cloning. This process of cloning the patient’s body for medical research calls into question the moral status of a human embryo. This only gets more morally complicated as we move into reproductive cloning. Producing a new human to be a copy of another is morally incorrect as it fails to take into consideration the impacts the “life” will have on the clone all justified by “helping” the original person who is being cloned. Additionally, the thought that a clone could be used to replace a person who has been lost creates a scary devaluation in human life from “one of a kind” to easily replicated and therefore not as valued. When we take on the role of creating a human through science, rather than through natural processes, it goes against human nature and can be unknowingly harmful for the individuals produced. The fact that we know cloning still has so many unknown consequences and outcomes, yet we still continue to experiment, already shows a lack of empathy for the “individuals” being created. In conclusion, I believe cloning a human is immoral because we are taking a natural process of creating a unique individual and creating a copy of that person without the same uniqueness. Even worse, creating a person who lives with the sole purpose of aiming to fulfill the purpose of another individual. This alone takes away the unique value a person has with their own soul but rather creating a “shell of a person.” What is human life for a person, without the right to an open future to develop as he or she chooses, but rather an expectation to be just like the originating person. I believe as a society we must go with our gut reactions and trust that the value and dignity of human life is far too important to put at risk.

PLEASE READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE BIDING. Please cause this is a very confusing and complicated order. 1) The question i’m going to post is not the actually question I need but it’s going to be something similar to the one I post for this bid. The real question will be posted as soon as i get it, because when I do there is a time limit to when I need it( an hour and 30 mins). Which is why i’m posting a sample of the question, so you can be familiar with the prompt.  2) i’M not sure when in getting the prompt but it will be between today and tomorrow morning. i need someone who is usually online so they can see it as soon as i post it. 3) The price on this paper is small compared to the hard work that will be done so please let me know if you want to set a new price.  4) I’m open to providing a contact number is that will be easier for you. NOW INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PAPER. Source– 1 source is required. there are also restrictions on  citing outside sources, and directly quoting/paraphrasing from the book. WORD COUNT- NO WORD COUNT MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM BUT PLEASE MAKE THE PAPER AT LEAST A PAGE. EXAMPLE PROMPT FOR THE PAPER. You are an engineer at the main factory of Gizmonix Corporation, a Fortune 500 manufacturing  concern. The local newspaper has reported that freshwater mussels in the river that runs by your  factory have been dying over the last six months at an unprecedented rate, creating a severe crisis in the river’s ecosystem. The die-off in the mussel population coincides with a dramatic and  unexplained rise in the level of the rare industrial chemical ITZ in the river. In the company  cafeteria, you overhear a group of researchers from the research and development (R & D) division  talking about the ITZ they are using in a product development project, and the large quantities of  ITZ they have been secretly dumping in the river for the last six months. You talk privately with  several reliable sources, all of whom confirm that this is happening. Your sources also say that they  would never admit this in public; and that the project team has been very careful not to leave any  kind of paper trail, which means that there is no written record of the secret dumping. The state  Environmental Protection Agency, which would be responsible for intervening in this situation, has  been very friendly to industry. The agency has never imposed fines or criminal sanctions on any  company for even the most severe environmental damage. The president of the commission is the  husband of your company’s Vice President for R & D.  Your task in this essay is to determine, using the conditions proposed by Richard DeGeorge,  whether it is ethically permissible or ethically obligatory for you to blow the whistle in this case.  Your essay must include   1. a concise but thorough summary of DeGeorge’s conditions, indicating which conditions (if  satisfied) make whistle-blowing permissible and which conditions (if satisfied) make whistle blowing obligatory   2. an analysis of which of DeGeorge’s conditions (if any) are met, and which (if any) are not  met—in this part of the essay, be sure that you discuss all the conditions   3. an explanation of why it is or is not morally permissible, and of why it is or is not morally  obligatory, to blow the whistle in this case—in this part of the essay, be sure to appeal to the  relevant conditions in justifying your answer

Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you: State your position on the topic you selected. Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons. Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases. Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the “Believing Game,” even if your position on the issue has stayed the same. The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing: Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph. Address the main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences. Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The format is different than other Strayer University courses. Please take a moment to review the SWS documentation for details. Based on the guidelines in SWS, “A well-researched assignment has at least as many sources as pages.” Since this assignment requires you to write at least 3-4 pages, you should include at least 3-4 references. The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are: Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language. Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking. Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.

Three Parts to Include in Report: Part One: Intro to Philosopher 1. Name and time period of philosopher 2. What was the report (focus) of the philosopher in ethics? 3. Tell us about the basic BIO. of the philosopher? 4. Tell us a few things totally offbeat and unusual (and perhaps funny) about the philosopher. Part Two: Primary Readings/Summary 5. What is the name of the philosopher’s famous work in ethics (primary readings)? 6. How many pages did you read of it? Which sections?? 7. Give us a basic summary of what you read. (sections 7 and 8 are the most important parts of the report) 8. Analyze the material…compare/contrast/evaluate Part Three: Application 9. Apply the philosopher’s ideas to today / to yourself. 10. Would you recommend this philosopher to others? Overall, what do you think about this philosopher? Did the philosopher change your thinking in any way? Any final statements about this philosopher??

For this week’s assignment respond to one of the following options, and include Option 1, 2, or 3 as part of your heading. Option 1: The first option is to name and describe in detail a key specific and recent healthcare technology. What are at least two key moral problems this technology creates? What are the proper moral guidelines for dealing with it in your view? Compare your approach to what a utilitarian and ethical egoist would say (each independently). Option 2: In the second option, name and describe in detail a key specific and recent social technology. What are at least two key moral problems this technology creates? What are the proper moral guidelines for dealing with it in your view? Compare your moral approach to what a utilitarian and social contract ethicist would say (each independently). Option 3: John Doe, Patient One, is in late-stage of kidney disease. If he does not receive a new kidney, then he is predicted to die within a week. Doe is 45, single, and has no children. Doctors theorize that Doe damaged his kidney by not following a low-salt diet. Doe inherited one million dollars and is known for giving money to charity. Without a transplant, he will probably be forced to spend all his money searching for a kidney outside of the usual legal channels. Patient Two is Jane Doe (no relation to John). Patient Two is the mother of two children (ages 21 and 24). She is divorced and 55 years old. She developed kidney problems due to eating a high-fat and high-sugar diet. If she does not receive a kidney within one month, doctors believe she will die. Patient Three is an orphan. This orphan lives in a state facility. She was born with a genetic condition that constantly damages her kidney. The only known approach to her condition is to provide her with a kidney transplant every so often. She is 11 and has already undergone two kidney transplants. She will perish in two months if she does not receive another transplant. All three patients are at the same hospital. The hospital only has one kidney to give out. The orphan’s birth parents were known to be of a religion that is opposed to organ donation. The other patients come from religions that do not oppose organ donation. Who should get the kidney? Why should that candidate receive it over the others? Devise a course of social action and a solution for this case by using the ethics of egoism and then utilitarianism to a key moral conflict involving health care in this case. Appraise the interests of diverse populations (in terms of ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) and how they relate to the case. For all the options: Cite the textbook and incorporate outside sources, including citations. You should not be using any text you used in a discussion board or assignment for this class or any previous class. You will submit all of the following: A written report that presents one of the options above (Be sure to give equal time to each element.) An oral presentation that summarizes the report and examines the ethical ideas beyond the particulars of each case. The link or a scan of the article mentioning the health technology, social technology, or case you are reporting on. If you made up the case, please indicate that in your report. You should not be using any text you used in a discussion board or assignment for this class or any previous class. Cite the textbook and incorporate outside sources, including citations. Writing Requirements (APA format)