philosophy

Argument Paper Instruction GuideThe Argument Paper is different in important ways from the Close Reading Paper. Whereas the Close Reading is a textual interpretation assignment, the Argument Paper is an analysis argument, particularly, an analysis of an argument you find in the text.Step 0: Select you argument from one of the texts we have read or will read in class this semester. Refer back to the Close Reading Guide for tips on text selection and prewriting techniques. I really cannot emphasize the importance of prewriting enough. Just do it!Step 1: Put the argument you selected in standard form. This should be the first part of your paper. You know how to do this: no explanation necessary, just number the premises and conclusion and capture the essential structure of the argument.Step 2: This is the analysis part of the paper and probably the bulk of the writing and thinking. In this section of the paper you are going to explain how the argument works by breaking it up into its parts and walking the reader through each step of the process. Imagine you are explaining the argument to a little brother or sister or friend. What needs to be said and what can safely be left out? How does one premise lead into another? Where do the premises come from and in general, what are their justifications? Follow the inferential thread for the reader all the way to the conclusion.Step 3: This is the synthetic or critical part of the paper. Take a step back from what you’ve done previously and take it in. Pull the disparate pieces together and say something about the whole. Is this a good argument? Why or why not? Use the resources you’ve gained through the semester to talk about the argument. Is it deductive or inductive? If it is deductive, is it valid and sound? What kind of deductive inference is it or what multiple kinds of deductive inference does it involve? If it is inductive is it strong and cogent. What type of inductive inference/s does it involve? Finally, talk a bit about the context of the argument. Why is it occurring in the text in the place it is and what work is it doing? Does it successfully accomplish that work? Why is this argument important?

It’s an argumentative essay. Lying is a hot topic in morality, for we are not suppose to lie, but are there not times we actually should lie? In the PowerPoint you read three weeks ago, I had a slide with the different types of lying; in that slide I had the contention that belief without proof is actually worse than lying, because someone who believes without proof is saying truth has no value. Read “BY THE WATERS OF BABYLON” by Stephen Vincent Benét – see attachment. A good source: http://www.tkinter.smig.net/Outings/RosemountGhosts/Babylon.htm (Links to an external site.) Instructions: MLA style, type, size-12 Times New Roman, double-space. Answer the following question using chunk style. Use no more than 1500 words ASSIGNMENT: Should TRUTH be given out in small doses, or should the truth, facts, be wholly available to each and every person? For how is it we actually do come upon the truth of things? You must use at least: 1) two quotes from Benet, and 2) should have at least two quotes from an additional source.

Scenario: (Don’t answer the questions in this scenario yet, these are for you to consider only, answer questions 1-5 below the scenario) Imagine time were somehow to start back over again from when our first ancestors walked the earth (and nobody was aware time had re-started, nor had any memory of it) would history literally repeat itself the exact same way? Or would things change? Would something like World War II still happen? And with all the same people involved (Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, the Nazis, the Axis powers, the Allied powers, etc.)? What about on a much smaller scale? Would you end up taking this particular class at this particular university with all the same classmates you currently have, me as teacher, with your same schedule of classes for this semester, etc? After you’ve given it some thought, answer the questions below: 1-2 Choose two of these three theories Soft determinist, Hard Determinist, or Libertarian, and then answer the following questions for BOTH of those theories you chose: (Conclusion/Application) According to this theory, would history repeat itself in the exact same way (or in a similar way)? On a small scale, on a large scale? Why? In your own words, explain why a person holding this theory would argue this. 3. (Opinion) What was the most confusing part about this chapter or lesson? 4. (Opinion) What do you believe would happen in the scenario above? Would time repeat itself exactly the same? Or would it change? Why? Do you agree with any of the theories discussed?

In a 3-4 page essay, explain the reasons for the dominance of England in the formation of colonies in North America. Include discussions of the similarities and differences between the New England, Middle, and Southern (including Chesapeake) colonies.

I need a writing sample for Masters program admission in philosophy. It can be any topic, preferably a topic in political or social philosophy. The admission process is very competitive, so I really need your help in preparing a strong argumentative paper.

Contrast Plato and Aristotle’s views of virtue.

Include in your response

a) What is virtue?
b) How do we become virtuous?

How are moral laws different from the laws of physics and chemistry?

Do these differences undermine natural law theory?

What is the difference between psychological and ethical egoism?

Does the truth of one of these theories imply the truth of the other?

Utilitarians think that some humans are morally equal to some animals.

What exactly do they mean by this and how do they argue for it?

Do you agree with them? Why or why not?

What does Kant mean by “the good will”?

How is it possible for someone to do the right thing but lack a good will?

Do you agree that actions are praiseworthy only if they are performed from the good will?

Compare and contrast the role that Kantian ethics, Virtue Ethics and Feminist Ethics assigns to emotion.

Choose what you would like to discuss.

For Example:
The Divine Command Theory
The Euthyphro Dilemma
Moral Relativism
Morality Without God and the like

Be sure to provide reasoned evaluations of the issues and discuss them philosophically rather than just stating your opinion.

It is said that David Chalmers thinks that consciousness is a fundamental property. I want you to think about whether or not that is true.

Before you get started, there’s a few concepts I want you to understand. They are “mass,” “wetness,” “emergence,” and “fundamentality.”

Mass is that property of matter that, among other things, gives it weight. (Actually, there’s three kinds of mass, but they’re equivalent, so I’m ignoring the distinction.) Matter (apparantly) has mass because atoms contain “Higgs bosons,” and these Higgs bosons carry mass with them, so that everything made of atoms will have mass. The more higgs bosons in an object, the more mass, and therefore the more weight an object will have.

Wetness is that slight tendency of water to stick to things. Throw a bucket of water on a friend. You will notice that while most of the water runs off him on to the floor, some of it sticks to him. In particular, water sticks to surfaces, so clothing with a lot of surface area, like a wool sweater, will hold a lot of water, while clothing with minimal surface area, like plastic raincoat, will hold comparitively little water. Wetness is caused by the fact that water molecules (made from one atom of oxygen and two of hydrogen) are weakly attractive to each other and to other particles. Hence small masses of water will stick to whatever they touch while larger masses overcome the attraction and flow away.

Emergence is when a property only shows up in the universe when certain other conditions are met. For instance, wetness only appears in the universe when there are weakly attractive molecules, like water molecules, that can stick to surfaces. Oxygen molecules do not have wetness. Hydrogen molecules do not have wetness. But when oxygen and hydrogen are combined to make water, then wetness emerges from the combination. If you think about it, TONS of properties are emergent. Just think of any property that you have to put stuff together to get, and that’s an emergent property.

Fundamentality or “being fundamental” happens when a property is just there in certain objects, and doesn’t have to be made by combining things. Wetness is not a fundamental property precisely because it emerges from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen in water. Mass, on the other hand is a fundamental property because, basically, it’s just there. You really can’t get rid of it. Sure, you can take the Higgs bosons out of particles (theoretically) but you can’t get the mass out of the Higgs boson. You’re stuck with it. That’s what makes it fundamental.

Apparantly, Chalmers believes (among other things) that consciousness is a fundamental property.
I believe that, whatever else is going on with Chalmers, consciousness cannot possibly be a fundamental property of anything.

Now read the Wikipedia entry on David Chalmers and the one on philosophical zombies

Reading Questions
According to Chalmers, what must a successful theory do?
According to Chalmers, how must it do this thing?
What is a “fundamental property?”
How do physicists deal with fundamental properties?
What do physicists show about these properties?
What does Chalmers believe that philosophy of mind must face up to?

(You can ignore all the stuff about “property dualism.” It really doesn’t help here. Start again at the words “According to Chalmers.”)

According to Chalmers, what will happen once we have stated those laws?
According to Chalmers, what exists without those laws?

Now, do you agree with Chalmers that consciousness is a fundamental property? Why or why not?

What do you think of Chalmers’ argument?

DO NOT USE OUTSIDE RESOURCES. Cite page numbers and include sources for the Stich and Donaldson textbook only. Plagiarized assignments will receive a 0. Essays written without page numbers or a bibliography will be sent back for you to edit and resubmit. Professional writing requires citing whenever you are explaining philosopher’s theories.

Assignment Instructions: Please Follow outline below when writing the paper.

For this assignment we will use a thought experiment.

Suppose you are a train conductor on a runaway train. The train heads straight for five men who will not have time to get out of the way, and your train will kill them. But! You notice there is a track going to the right, and you have just enough time to pull the lever and turn onto that track. There is one person on that track who will die just as assuredly as the five would if you stayed on their track. Should you head to the right?

You will write an essay of approximately 1000 words which describes what you think a utilitarian would recommend that you do in the train scenario, what Kant would do in the train scenario, and what you would do in the train scenario and why you would choose to do that. This paper requires that you use in-text citations for any quotations you include and that you create a references page citing all of the references that you quote in the paper. You may use MLA style citations (a guide to these can be found here)

. DO NOT USE OUTSIDE SOURCES FOR THIS PAPER.

Use the following guidelines to structure your paper. This is a kind of fill-in-the-blanks guide to writing this paper. Include the sentences in bold italic word for word in your paper. You will need several of your own sentences in addition to those provided below.

Introduction (1 or 2 paragraphs):

Your introductory paragraph should have the following (not necessarily in this order).

A. Thesis statement- You should state what you think is best to do in the situation described by the scenario. I think I should___________________. Fill in the blank with either divert the train to the right killing one person or not divert the train to the right even though this will result in the death of five people.

B. Background for the thesis. This should include mentioning that you will be evaluating what Utilitarianism and Deontology say about this thought experiment and a brief description of the thought experiment.

C. Plan of the Paper. It might help your reader to tell them how your paper will go. Something like: “I will begin by describing what Bentham would have me do in this situation. Next, I will contrast that with what Kant’s moral theory

Section I:

Jeremy Bentham would probably want me to ____________________,

because _[explain one or more of the primary principles of Utilitarianism and how he would apply it to the train scenario to decide what I should do].
As he says, “[pick a quote from the utilitarianism section of the text that illustrates that specific principle]” (cite it too) and explain what the quote means in your own words,

Section II:

On the other hand, Kant would most likely tell me to ___________________

Kant’s moral theory requires us to follow the [pick one the Universalization Test or the Humanity Formula] which says ” [add a quotation here] . (cite it too).
What Kant means here is ______________________

So, you can see that he is primarily concerned about _________________________ and he would probably conclude that I should ________________.

Section III:

Personally, I think I should _______________________

Even though I might share some of the values underlying _________’s position, like __________________________,

I nevertheless would decide to _________________________________
because __________________________________.

The conflicts and exploration of the early 19th century helped shape the philosophies and morale of the nation. Explain how events like the War of 1812 and exploration towards the West by the United States may have impacted the sense of what it was to be “American” during this period.Your response must be at least 200 words in length.