philosophy

Term Paper Topics: Choose one (1) of the topics below and write a fully developed term paper that adheres to the above guidelines. 1. In The Republic, Plato explores several important themes (e.g., justice, power, human nature, etc.) Choose one (1) of the above themes (or another approved by me) and fully articulate Plato’s position. Use two (2) or (3) distinct arguments/concepts from The Republic to support your thesis. Do you agree or disagree with Plato’s position with respect to your chosen theme? Why or why not? 2. In his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, Rousseau uses the traits of “perfectability” and “free will” to help describe different aspects of human nature. What does Rousseau mean by perfectability? How does Rousseau define free will? Does Rousseau think that perfectability and free will are positive attributes for us to have, or does he think they are negative attributes (or a little bit of both)? Explain fully. Finally, explain whether you agree with Rousseau’s position or not. 3. Mary Wollstonecraft artfully explores several different feminist themes in her A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, including the institution of marriage, the role education ought to play in a young woman’s development, and arguing that women should be financially selfsufficient. Choose one (1) of the above feminist themes (or another from our readings) and fully explain Wollstonecraft’s position. Next, compare and contrast Wollstonecraft’s position with that of a modern-day author/academic/theorist who has written on that same feminist theme. Which person – Wollstonecraft or the author of your choosing – has the best approach? Have we as a society finally “solved” this particular issue, or is there more room for improvement? Your term paper must follow the following guidelines: ? Total paper length must be at least 2,500 total words in length (approximately six (6) to seven (7) double-spaced pages plus title page and works cited page). You must insert the final “word count” on the bottom of the works cited page. Failure to include the total “word count” in your term paper will severely diminish your final grade on the assignment. Instructions for adding the “word count” field to your term paper will be given in class. Instructions can also be found here: http://www.thewindowsclub.com/how-toinsert-word-count-in-word ? Your paper must be typed, double-spaced in 12-point Times New Roman font with 1-inch (1”) margins on all sides. ? Your paper should include a title page at the beginning of the paper, as well as a separate works cited page located at the end of the paper. Your title page should be fully descriptive and include (at minimum) the paper title, course name, semester and year, instructor name, student name, and date. Your works cited page should adhere to MLA Style (discussed further below). ? Each page of your paper (except the title page) should include a page number located in either the upper or lower margin. A table of contents is not necessary, but may be included if you desire. ? In writing your paper, you must clearly articulate a central thesis that responds to the paper topic you have chosen. Then, you must develop and execute that thesis. If you have any questions about this requirement, please ask me for help. ? In writing your paper, you must use and properly cite any relevant primary course text(s), as well as at least two (2) additional outside sources. Your outside sources should be scholarly in nature (e.g., article from a peer-reviewed journal; not Wikipedia or SparkNotes). If you only use the minimum two (2) outside sources, both MUST be scholarly in nature. If you use more than two (2) outside sources, most (but not all) should be scholarly in nature. If you have any questions about outside sources, please ask me for help. ? If your paper fails to cite any sources, you will receive an automatic “0.” ? You may find the following online research sources helpful: o Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – https://plato.stanford.edu/ (good background reading on topics and philosophers) o www.philpapers.org (a very extensive database of published philosophy articles) o The JSTOR database at your school’s library. Page 2 ? Use MLA Style Guide when citing your primary and outside sources. Please note that MLA Style differs depending on whether you are giving an in-text citation or a citation on a works cited page. The following link contains a helpful free guide on MLA Style and several citation examples: https://library.hccs.edu/mla-guide Plagiarism: You are expected to strictly adhere to the college’s policy on plagiarism.

1. Should the products of the labor of the community be shared equally? Or, should those who have worked harder and longer get more? Or, should those whose needs and wants are greater get a larger proportion? Or, should those who are more valuable to the community get more? A sense of natural justice has been appealed to on behalf of every one of these options. There are good arguments pro and con for all of them. Try to list as many as you can. 2. Recall John Rawls’s two principles of justice. Give a short argument detailing how those two principles might be derived from his “original position.” Rawls insisted that, for the derivation to work, individuals must be self-interested and rational. Explain why this is so. Your task: Post your responses to both discussion questions, and the word count for each of your reply should be 100-200 words.

In our course, the essays that we’ll write will involve considering and responding to the views of another thinker (or thinkers). As we well know by now, whenever we engage with someone else’s thoughts, our first order of business is to make sure we understand what they are claiming. Only once we are confident that we understand their view can we responsibly consider whether or not we agree with it. The way we can test whether we understand a view is by trying to explain in our own words: what the view is and what reasons are offered to think that it is true. From here, we can then articulate whether or not we agree, and why. As it turns out, once we have done these three things, we have the foundation of a philosophy paper. That is, a philosophy paper is built on three sections: (1) the explanation of a view, (2) the explanation of the argument for that view, and (3) an evaluation of the view and the argument that supports it. So, in this exercise, you should write a three-paragraph paper on Dan Moller’s ‘An Argument Against Marriage’. In the first paragraph, explain in your own words Moller’s thesis (i.e., his central claim). In the second paragraph, explain in your own words Moller’s argument for his thesis. In the third paragraph, explain whether or not you agree with his claim and argument, and explain why. Here is the reading down below: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55b6412be4b0db2e41d0b473/t/55b694e0e4b0b4cd5d2faa83/1438029024731/marriage.pdf

Course Objective(s): CO5: Evaluate various approaches to the mind-body problem. Please pick one of the following questions to answer for the forum this week: •Jeremy Bentham argued that when we think about whether someone/something ought to count morally that ” The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” a.) Why would it make sense for a utilitarian like Bentham to make such a statement? b.) Do you think that he’s right about the ability to suffer as what we ought to look at when we’re thinking about whether someone/something counts morally? c.) If we took this seriously what would it mean for our treatment of non-human animals? •Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy is extremely strict about what we ought and ought not do. So strict that he argued that it is always and everywhere wrong to lie. a.) Explain why Kant thought that lying was always wrong using the categorical imperative as a guide. b.) Explain whether you think Kant was right or wrong about this lying business and make sure to use clear examples to help your explanation along. If he was wrong, what’s an example of when it’s morally ok to lie, and if he was right, what’s an example where it looks ok to lie but it really isn’t ok? •Kant focused on the intentions behind your actions when assessing the morality of the act, while Bentham and Mill focused on the consequences of your act when assessing it’s moral worth. Of the two, consequences and intentions, which do you think is more important when it comes time to assess the morality of actions? Do good intentions save a bad outcome, or vice versa? Make sure to provide some clear and specific examples in your explanation. Also note that while it’s possible to look at both intentions and consequences, for any act it looks like we can only really prioritize one of those.

In this order, the writer will read provided material (Book – PDF, not the whole book, haha, just specific sections) and answer four questions. Instructions: 1) Answer all questions/sub-questions – fully, clearly and concisely. These are philosophy questions, therefore, argue and support arguments with evidence within the textbook, no need outside sources, and no need to take a stance on a position. 2) Each question needs – intro, body and conclusion, what matters here is, how well the argument is articulated, proper citations if used direct material, and Questions: 1) “The Land Ethic” – (i) articulate Leopold’s land ethic (do not provide a summary – attempt to pull out the premises and subconclusions/conclusion(s) of his piece); (ii) explain how one might cultivate in one’s self or others, a land ethic; Is there anything within Leopold’s piece that suggests that his land ethic could actually be used to develop an appreciation for human environmental destruction of our biosphere or does his piece contain elements that prevent this possibility? Pg.75 2) “Identification as a Source of Deep Ecological Attitudes” – (i) articulate Naess’s position in this piece (do not provide a summary – attempt to pull out the premises, explain the most pertinent concepts, and identify the subconclusions/conclusion(s) of the piece); (ii) explain how one might cultivate in one’s self or others, a relationship of “deepness” to the environment; Is there anything within Naess’s piece that suggests that his push towards “identification” could actually be used to develop an appreciation for human environmental destruction of our biosphere or does his piece contain elements that prevent this possibility? Pg.88 3) Elaborate the argument (do not provide a summary – attempt to pull out the premises, explain the most pertinent concepts, and identify the subconclusions/conclusion(s)) of Warren’s piece on “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism”; (ii) Provide an argument not provided by Warren or by the textbook itself for why Warren is correct that any general feminist position also must attend to the domination of nature and why any theory of the domination (or logic of domination) of nature must also be feminist; (iii) Provide an argument not anticipated by Warren herself or by the textbook against the argument you create in section (ii). pg.164 4) In “Two Objections and Responses” (Section D), objections are lodged against Hill’s and Williston’s accounts (the immediately preceding readings. (i) Elaborate two arguments not found in “Two Objections and Responses,” in my lectures, or in Hill’s or Williston’s respective works (they anticipate some counter-objections against their own positions) against Hill’s and/or Williston’s arguments and (ii) elaborate two replies not found in “Two Objections and Responses,” in my lectures, or in Hill’s or Williston’s respective works to argue against the objections you lodge in (i). Pg.253 Textbook Pdf: https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21Au8%5FK2KETQCQ8AI&cid=0CE5D5AD46AB8383&id=CE5D5AD46AB8383%214599&parId=CE5D5AD46AB8383%21238&o=OneUp

For questions that ask you to elaborate on objections to arguments or positions or to build up the plausibility of arguments or positions using reasons not found in the textbook, please do not rely on secondary material. Rather, try to use your own thinking and extrapolate/elucidate your reasoning with your own examples/analogies/etc. o Be clear where you are glossing a view and where you are advancing a view. Examples, : according to so and so , as so and so also said, if you don’t have this its assumed its your writing. According to. o Be very clear about stating how you go from one line of thinking to another. Even if it seems ridiculous. 1 (starts on page 75) “The Land Ethic” – (i) articulate Leopold’s land ethic (do not provide a summary – attempt to pull out the premises and subconclusions/conclusion(s) of his piece); (ii) explain how one might cultivate in one’s self or others, a land ethic; Is there anything within Leopold’s piece that suggests that his land ethic could actually be used to develop an appreciation for human environmental destruction of our biosphere or does his piece contain elements that prevent this possibility? 2 (starts on page 88) “Identification as a Source of Deep Ecological Attitudes” – (i) articulate Naess’s position in this piece (do not provide a summary – attempt to pull out the premises, explain the most pertinent concepts, and identify the subconclusions/conclusion(s) of the piece); (ii) explain how one might cultivate in one’s self or others, a relationship of “deepness” to the environment; Is there anything within Naess’s piece that suggests that his push towards “identification” could actually be used to develop an appreciation for human environmental destruction of our biosphere or does his piece contain elements that prevent this possibility? 3 (starts on page 154) Elaborate the argument (do not provide a summary – attempt to pull out the premises, explain the most pertinent concepts, and identify the subconclusions/conclusion(s)) of Warren’s piece on “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism”; (ii) Provide an argument not provided by Warren or by the textbook itself for why Warren is correct that any general feminist position also must attend to the domination of nature and why any theory of the domination (or logic of domination) of nature must also be feminist; (iii) Provide an argument not anticipated by Warren herself or by the textbook against the argument you create in section (ii). 4 In “Two Objections and Responses” (Section D), objections are lodged against Hill’s and Williston’s accounts (the immediately preceding readings. (i) Elaborate two arguments not found in “Two Objections and Responses,” in Hill’s or Williston’s respective works (they anticipate some counter-objections against their own positions) against Hill’s and/or Williston’s arguments and (ii) elaborate two replies not found in “Two Objections and Responses,” in my lectures, or in Hill’s or Williston’s respective works to argue against the objections you lodge in (i).

In The Republic, we will be looking at the passage where Thrasymachus argues that Justice is whatever is in the interest of the stronger, in section 336b. At what point do you think Socrates really starts to take control of the argument? Assignment Expectations Don’t give me a play-by-play statement, but rather try to find the point where the tide turns in Socrates’s favor. This is a judgment call. There is no right answer. I am not going to say, “No, the argument turned two sentences earlier.” However, I do want you to give me solid reasons why you think the argument works the way it works. Write a 3-page paper, answering this question, and upload your work by the end of the module.

for the questions its about the readings on the 2 passages. using also class rooms discussions. each question has to be one page. -Solomon and Plato- 1• How does one attract commitment according to the Song of Songs. 2• Contrast the three speeches with Diotema’s speech in Plato for the third page 3rd page -students will be asked to hand in an essay where they grapple with a relationship crisis in the light of one or more of the texts studied. -Narrate the crisis • Resolve it with one or both of the texts studied in class love crisis reference to what we studied

This is a thought exercise. Read only the story and think about it on your own. Do not consult any other sources. The story (see attached) is “The Ring of Gyges” from Plato’s Republic. Then answer the questions at the end, giving as much detail in your arguments as possible. The answers in total should comprise 3 double- spaced pages.

In this comparison/contrast essay, choose one of the following questions to answer. Place one of the bold titles at the top of your essay. The prompts under each question are intended to guide your response. Anselm & Aquinas on God: Compare and contrast the method and approach taken by Anselm & Aquinas to rationally prove the existence of God. In your reply consider some of the following; What is the difference between an Ontological and Cosmological approach? How is an a priori form of reasoning different from an a posteriori form of reasoning? Aquinas’ argument relies upon reasons and evidence? What is the evidence? Anselm proves his point from reason alone. What are his reasons? What are some of the rational assumptions that Aquinas relies upon. For example; Is it reasonably compelling to reject an infinite regress? Explain. How does the difference between contingency and necessity impact these arguments? Is relying upon reason alone a sufficient condition to prove something exist? Explain. The assignment is to be 2-3 pages in length (approx. 1300 words or 125 lines) using standard 12″ font size with 1.5 spacing. You may use bullet lists sparingly for only part of your essay. Any late assignments will receive partial credit and must be turned in before advancing to the next week.