Why do we speak? What is the use of language? how did it come about? Do animals communicate? etc…
The paper should be around 1400 words, word format is preferred. MLA format, font 12. suggested research articles from the book : A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy (Oxford U. P, 2020) by Craig Edward. Any edition; used ok.
Directions: Respond to the following ethical dilemma. Be sure to demonstrate familiarity with the material from the chapter to inform your essay response. After you have stated your response to the dilemma, write a criticism of your answer from the point of view of a rational and competent person who disagrees with you. Then respond to this imaginary critique.
Ethical Dilemma: Your country is in the middle of a lawless revolution. You know that some of your neighbors are starving, but you have plenty of food for them. Are you obligated to give them some of that food? Why or why not?
Learning Objective: Formulate one’s own conception of ethical theory in order to make responsible decisions and to make meaningful analyses of ongoing ethical controversies.
Grading Rubric
Full credit requires: All relevant information is summarized appropriately in an “essay style” format (no bullet points, no excessive citations, etc.). Exhibits the ability to elaborate on the information summarized using proper philosophical language. Where possible uses the information outside of the reading context to clarify the meaning of it.
Partial Credit: Most of the relevant information is summarized appropriately in an “essay style” format (no bullet points, no excessive citations, etc.). Exhibits the ability to elaborate on most of the information summarized using proper philosophical language. Where possible uses the information outside of the reading context to clarify the meaning of it.
No Credit: Very little or no relevant Information is summarized and/or wrong format is used. It does not exhibit the ability to elaborate on most of the information summarized using proper philosophical language. And/or it does not uses the information outside of the reading context to clarify the meaning of it.
write an essay typed and double spaced at least 3 pages.
DO NOT USE THE INTERNET TO RESEARCH THESE QUESTIONS. Anything cited or downloaded from the internet will be considered plagiarism. See syllabus for penalties for plagiarism.
-1) Explain St. Thomas Aquinas’ first three “ways” or proofs of God’s existence. Explain how these arguments work and why they are convincing. Give at least one criticism of each of Aquinas’ three arguments. How do recent discoveries of the “big bang” theory affect Aquinas’ argument?
I need 2 of these papers written separately.
Research Paper. 4000 words. On Copying and Distributing Digital Media Digital Media Ethics, chap. 3. You will first develop a one-page prospectus outlining your plan for the organization and goals of this paper, to be approved by the instructor. A successful paper addresses a prominent specific issue about today’s journalistic or social media while synthesizing relevant information gained in the course (lectures and readings), information from a selected body of secondary literature, and the student’s academic experience.
Course Descriiption
Ethical standards for valuable communications are needed more than ever. Internet ethics is for everyone, as we have become information generators and broadcasters too. Disinformation, propaganda, and ideology are disseminated by the people more effectively than any government. How can the value of free speech be preserved in our “post truth” world, without resorting to censorship? The media ethics of journalism upholds high standards of accuracy and honesty despite social and political pressures. Fake news and faked images are proliferating, requiring digital media ethics. A new global media ethics brings spotlights upon the causes of freedom, security, and justice for all peoples.
This new course meets either a Philosophy or Humanities Core Area requirement OR a Professional Media and Communications concentration elective.
Course Objectives
Students will examine ethical questions at the intersections of communications, media, internet, society, and politics, and study interdisciplinary approaches and answers to those questions.
Communication Ethics. We are all communicators, generating and repeating perspectives on what we observe and judge about other people and the world. Communication’s human function is to strengthen social community. This principle exposes how any of us can mis-use communication methods, media, and technology to instead serve selfish aims, partisan advantages, or anti-social agendas. Ethics must be built into all communication.
Internet Ethics. In this internet age when people can easily reach and influence the minds of others, motivations and agendas behind social media behavior must be scrutinized. Disinformation, propaganda, and ideology are easily and quickly spread to millions of people by the same people themselves, more effectively than any government’s own broadcasting. Can social media apply its own restraints, to filter itself better before governments impose censorship? Free speech isn’t what it used to be during a by-gone era of newspapers and podiums. What is the value of free speech in our “post truth” world, while the internet is leaving many minds less free?
Media Ethics. The role of a journalist is provide information about matters of public importance to the public in timely and understandable ways. Duties to the Public: Social Importance, Accuracy, Non-Bias, Honesty, Civility. Duties to the Profession: Treatment of Sources, Information Gathering, Conflicts of Interest.
Digital Media Ethics. On the internet, anyone can report and spread “news”, including AI and bots. Genuine journalism in the cybersphere of social media must figure out what is authentic and significant, filter out deception, fakery, and propaganda, and reach the online public with information that people can access and use.
Global Media Ethics. Traditional media objectives include (a) making government more transparent and accountable, (b) shining spotlights on suffering and injustice, and (c) covering issues important to minority and disadvantaged groups. Global objectives now add (d) reporting information needed on international and global scales, (e) exposing criminal and dangerous activities of countries that affect their citizens or their neighbors, and (f) supporting the causes of freedom, security, and justice for all peoples.
Students will additionally achieve individualized learning objectives while completing their assignments, with opportunities to:
explore how controversies over journalistic integrity have many more dimensions in our times, complicating efforts to maintain journalism as a true profession;
take multiple perspectives on the public’s engagement with media, asking whether “consumers” of media content should receive what they want to hear, or what they need to hear;
imagine how entertainment goals of social media could be more compatible with the public service aims of journalism; and
join their own voices to ongoing debates about ethical and political controversies surrounding journalism and social media by contributing their well-informed assessments for academic consideration.
Required Texts
Charles Ess. Digital Media Ethics, 3rd edn. Polity, 2019. ISBN 9781509533435
Philip Patterson et al. Media Ethics: Issues and Cases, 9th edn. Rowman and Littlefield, 2019. ISBN 9781538112588
Alexander Klimburg. The Darkening Web: The War for Cyberspace. Penguin, 2018. ISBN 9780735222830
Course Requirements
You are expected to do the readings, observe lectures, and engage with the course material in depth. Your responsibilities include completing all the assignments. Participation is essential to your success in this class. Students should spend approximately 12 hours per week on the work for each module.
Class Participation. Regular attendance at classes, participation in Discussion via Canvas, and a ten-minute presentation to the class in May about your research paper topic. 200 points possible. 20% of total grade.
Commentary Piece. 1000 words. A commentary piece, typical for a magazine or blog, offers insight and commentary on an issue of public importance, composed for a broad audience. Students will choose a current controversy related to a matter raised during the first six weeks. This commentary will either (a) support optimism about the public’s ability to protect their personal information and privacy despite all of their online activities, or the commentary will (b) support pessimism about the public losing more and more privacy no matter how much they try to mange their online activity. 100 possible points. 10% of total grade.
Analytical Essay. 2000 words. This essay will fulfill two goals: (1) first explain how the media is expected to uphold standards of fairness and ethics while covering a major story of national or international importance; and then (2) explore why it can be very difficult to meet those expected standards while also trying to fulfill the responsibility of serving the public’s best interests. 300 possible points. 30% of total grade.
Research Paper. 4000 words. On an issue of students’ choice from the course’s topics, except for issues already addressed by your previous assignments. You will first develop a one-page prospectus outlining your plan for the organization and goals of this paper, to be approved by the instructor. A successful paper addresses a prominent specific issue about today’s journalistic or social media while synthesizing relevant information gained in the course (lectures and readings), information from a selected body of secondary literature, and the student’s academic experience. 400 possible points. 40% of total grade.
Citation Style: The APA Style (APA Publication Manual 6th Edition) is used widely in SCS courses. Consult http://pitt.libguides.com/citationhelp/APA (Links to an external site.)
Class Schedule
This tentative schedule is subject to change as necessary.
Week
Topic
Readings, Events
Week 1
Jan 12
Ethical Issues in Digital Media
Digital Media Ethics, chap. 1, 6
Week 2
no class
No class on Monday Jan 17 – MLK Day
Week 3
Jan 24
Privacy in the Digital Era
Digital Media Ethics, chap. 2
Week 4
Jan 31
Copying and Distributing Digital Media
Digital Media Ethics, chap. 3
Week 5
Feb 7
Who is a Friend Online?
Digital Media Ethics, chap. 4, 5
Week 6
Feb 14
Information Ethics–We are all Journalists Now
Media Ethics, chap. 1, 2
Week 7
no class
No class on Monday Feb 21 – President’s Day
Week 8
Feb 28
Strategic Communications in Business
Media Ethics, chap. 3, 7
Feb 28: Commentary paper due
Week 9
no class
No class on March 7 – spring break
Week 10
March 14
Loyalty–Who deserves Protection and Justice?
Media Ethics, chap. 4
Week 11
March 21
Democracy–Mass Media or Individualism?
Media Ethics, chap. 5, 6
Week 12
March 28
Photo and Video Journalism, Art and Entertainment
Media Ethics, chap. 8, 10
Week 13
April 4
Information for Social Justice
Media Ethics, chap. 9, 11
Week 14
April 11
The War for Your Cyberspace
The Darkening Web, parts 1, 2, 3
Week 15
no class
No class on April 18 – Easter break
Week 16
April 25
The Global War for Cyberspace
The Darkening Web, parts 4, 5, 6
April 25: Analytical paper due
Week 17
May 2
student presentations
Week 18
May 3-10
complete Research paper
May 10: Research paper due
This reflective well written and structured paper must be of about 3000-word (about 5 to 6 pages,), double spaced, with one-inch margins, using Times Roman 12pt font.
You may choose any two entities of your choice: be it a poem, a painting, a movie, an object of art, an essay, a piece of music in short, literally anything that you think will contribute to the quality of your paper but is important to provide the rationale and the meaning for it.
Further instructions are uploaded in the document.
Explain the main line of argument in Adam Moore’s discussion of employee
monitoring. Moore has a thesis here. It is a recommendation for how
companies can monitor employees while at the same time respecting their
privacy. Your task here is to identify that thesis and to explain the
premises he employs in support of his thesis. I’m less concerned about
length than clarity. Clear writing often involves fewer words.
Please read over their feedback carefully (at least twice) and then answer these questions. The answers you give will affect the other student’s peer review grade. More importantly, it will help them give better feedback in the future. Therefore, it is essential that you be thoughtful, honest, and clear in your feedback.
There is no curve for these assignments. Therefore, there is no incentive to give dishonest scores.
Receiving critical feedback is always difficult. However, it is also essential to improvement. While I’m asking you to give feedback on the feedback you received, please take this opportunity to practice honestly evaluating your own performance without falling into the twin traps of dismissing your critic as completely wrong or giving up and assuming that they are completely right. Here are 2 tricks which help me: (1) Remember that the feedback is just about the words you wrote on the assignment, it has nothing to do with you as a person or even as a student; (2) Tell yourself that the person giving you feedback is trying to help you improve (for outside of class: this lets you mentally recast an angry critic as passionate about helping you).
For this week, please do the following:
From Part I of the exercises in 3.4, only do these numbers: 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 25
Just name the fallacy being committed, unless there is no fallacy. If that’s the case, just type “NF”.
We are only covering begging the question, complex question, and false dichotomy in this section, so your answers will be one of those or NF!
PreviousNext
At 4:420-421, Kant argues that
“when I think a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains. For since besides the law the imperative contains only the necessity of the maxim to conform with this law, whereas the law contains no condition to which it is limited, nothing is left but the universality of a law as such, with which the maxim of the action ought to conform, and it is this conformity alone that the imperative actually represents as necessary”
Analyze and critically evaluate this argument. Why does Kant think that any moral requirement must take the form of a “categorical imperative”, and why does Kant think that the fundamental categorical imperative is that the maxim of our will should conform to a universal law? (You may want to consider how this argument relates to Kant’s earlier claim that a morally worthy will must act “from duty” and hence must act simply from “respect for the law” (4:399-400).) Discuss whether Kant’s reasoning is persuasive. If you think it is not persuasive, explain why not. If you think it is persuasive, consider and respond to at least one possible objection to Kant’s argument.
Students are required to submit a 1000-word (minimum) term paper, which will count for 20% of their final
course grade. The student must include the following in this paper:
Cultural Reflection: The student will discuss how their culture has shaped their identity and world
view.
Cultural Comparison: The student will compare their culture to a different culture.
Cultural Accommodation: The student will consider how an individual can adjust their actions to
successfully interact with someone from another culture.
Civic Responsibility: The student will discuss their civic responsibilities as a member of a particular
community. The student should also describe the degree to which they meet those responsibilities. What
steps could be taken to improve civic engagement nationwide?
Culture and Civic Responsibility: What is the relationship between culture and civic
responsibility. How can civic responsibility improve intercultural interactions?
Philosophical Engagement: Somewhere in the course of this paper, the student should incorporate
significant references to at least two thinkers we’ve discussed this semester.
The article linked below is from The New York Times. Non-subscribers are limited to the number of articles they can read, but the Dallas College Library provides full access to The New York Times. Create an account so that you can access the article (and have free access to The New York Times!)
In Section B of Chapter 7, you read about moral relativism (also called moral subjectivism). After reading the article Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts and watching the video below, describe what you understand the moral relativist position to be and explain any problems you see with regard to accepting moral relativism. Your response must refer to and discuss at least 2 points from the article. Finally, ARE you a moral relativist? Or do you reject moral relativism? Defend your position.
NB: Often in this discussion students discuss cultural relativism, a specific kind of moral relativism, but for this thread, we are discussing moral relativism in general rather than cultural relativism.
Make sure to follow the instructions given in Unit 1 in the Discussion Forums: Protocol and Grading Criteria folder for making specific references to texts, videos, and podcasts; posts that do not make references according to these instructions will not receive full credit.
How to make specific references to texts and videos:IMPORTANTMany of the threads ask for specific references to the text, videos, or podcasts, and sometimes students seem not to understand what is meant by ‘specific reference.’ A specific reference to the text should give the name of the reading and the author, if applicable, and the page number (for example, if you refer to a reading within our text not by the author of the text but by another writer included in our text, give the name of the author, the title of the reading, and the page number; if you refer to part of the text written by the textbook author, give the page number). When providing a specific reference, you may quote or paraphrase, but your reference should be thorough (a complete idea) and specific. A specific reference to a video should give the timestamp; to see the timestamp, simply look at the progress bar for the video and give the time during the video at which the point you want to reference occurs, e.g. 1:34. You should make podcast references with the time stamp also.
Here are some examples:
In the reading “On the Pragmatic Theory” by William James, James says blah blah blah on p. 264.
In the video, the narrator says that Plato’s idea of the soul is blah blah blah [2:56].
In the podcast, Sam Harris says blah blah blah [4:34].
Sometimes, students do not answer all the questions in a forum thread, but for full credit, you should thoroughly answer all questions.
Works Linked/Cited:
“What is Ethical Relativism?” YouTube, uploaded by Philo-notes, 11 Dec. 2019, What is Ethical Relativism? – PHILO-notes Whiteboard Edition – YouTube. Accessed 3 June 2020.
McBrayer, Justin P. “Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts.” The New York Times, 2 Mar. 2015, Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts – The New York Times (nytimes.com). Accessed 8 Aug. 2021.
Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral FactsBY JUSTIN P. MCBRAYER MARCH 2, 2015 3:25 AM March 2, 2015 3:25 am 2526
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.
PhotoGeorge Washington, depicted here taking the oath of office in 1789, was the first president of the United States. Fact, opinion or both?Credit via Associated PressWhat would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?
I was. As a philosopher, I already knew that many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts. While there are no national surveys quantifying this phenomenon, philosophy professors with whom I have spoken suggest that the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.
A misleading distinction between fact and opinion is embedded in the Common Core.What I didn’t know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame. But they aren’t. There are historical examples of philosophers who endorse a kind of moral relativism, dating back at least to Protagoras who declared that “man is the measure of all things,” and several who deny that there are any moral facts whatsoever. But such creatures are rare. Besides, if students are already showing up to college with this view of morality, it’s very unlikely that it’s the result of what professional philosophers are teaching. So where is the view coming from?
A few weeks ago, I learned that students are exposed to this sort of thinking well before crossing the threshold of higher education. When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:
Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.
Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.
Hoping that this set of definitions was a one-off mistake, I went home and Googled “fact vs. opinion.” The definitions I found online were substantially the same as the one in my son’s classroom. As it turns out, the Common Core standards used by a majority of K-12 programs in the country require that students be able to “distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text.” And the Common Core institute provides a helpful page full of links to definitions, lesson plans and quizzes to ensure that students can tell the difference between facts and opinions.
So what’s wrong with this distinction and how does it undermine the view that there are objective moral facts?
First, the definition of a fact waffles between truth and proof — two obviously different features. Things can be true even if no one can prove them. For example, it could be true that there is life elsewhere in the universe even though no one can prove it. Conversely, many of the things we once “proved” turned out to be false. For example, many people once thought that the earth was flat. It’s a mistake to confuse truth (a feature of the world) with proof (a feature of our mental lives). Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can’t. In that case, E=MC2 is a fact for a physicist but not for me.
But second, and worse, students are taught that claims are either facts or opinions. They are given quizzes in which they must sort claims into one camp or the other but not both. But if a fact is something that is true and an opinion is something that is believed, then many claims will obviously be both. For example, I asked my son about this distinction after his open house. He confidently explained that facts were things that were true whereas opinions are things that are believed. We then had this conversation:
Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”
Him: “It’s a fact.”
Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”
Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”
Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”
The blank stare on his face said it all.
RELATEDMore From The StoneRead previous contributions to this series.
How does the dichotomy between fact and opinion relate to morality? I learned the answer to this question only after I investigated my son’s homework (and other examples of assignments online). Kids are asked to sort facts from opinions and, without fail, every value claim is labeled as an opinion. Here’s a little test devised from questions available on fact vs. opinion worksheets online: are the following facts or opinions?
— Copying homework assignments is wrong.
— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.
— All men are created equal.
— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.
— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.
— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.
— Drug dealers belong in prison.
The answer? In each case, the worksheets categorize these claims as opinions. The explanation on offer is that each of these claims is a value claim and value claims are not facts. This is repeated ad nauseum: any claim with good, right, wrong, etc. is not a fact.
In summary, our public schools teach students that all claims are either facts or opinions and that all value and moral claims fall into the latter camp. The punchline: there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths.
The inconsistency in this curriculum is obvious. For example, at the outset of the school year, my son brought home a list of student rights and responsibilities. Had he already read the lesson on fact vs. opinion, he might have noted that the supposed rights of other students were based on no more than opinions. According to the school’s curriculum, it certainly wasn’t true that his classmates deserved to be treated a particular way — that would make it a fact. Similarly, it wasn’t really true that he had any responsibilities — that would be to make a value claim a truth. It should not be a surprise that there is rampant cheating on college campuses: If we’ve taught our students for 12 years that there is no fact of the matter as to whether cheating is wrong, we can’t very well blame them for doing so later on.
Indeed, in the world beyond grade school, where adults must exercise their moral knowledge and reasoning to conduct themselves in the society, the stakes are greater. There, consistency demands that we acknowledge the existence of moral facts. If it’s not true that it’s wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged? If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we prosecute people for crimes against humanity? If it’s not true that all humans are created equal, then why vote for any political system that doesn’t benefit you over others?
Our schools do amazing things with our children. And they are, in a way, teaching moral standards when they ask students to treat one another humanely and to do their schoolwork with academic integrity. But at the same time, the curriculum sets our children up for doublethink. They are told that there are no moral facts in one breath even as the next tells them how they ought to behave.
We can do better. Our children deserve a consistent intellectual foundation. Facts are things that are true. Opinions are things we believe. Some of our beliefs are true. Others are not. Some of our beliefs are backed by evidence. Others are not. Value claims are like any other claims: either true or false, evidenced or not. The hard work lies not in recognizing that at least some moral claims are true but in carefully thinking through our evidence for which of the many competing moral claims is correct. That’s a hard thing to do. But we can’t sidestep the responsibilities that come with being human just because it’s hard.
That would be wrong.Justin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.
In this discussion I would like us to examine the way in which individuals with professions in the Fields of STEM (science technology engineering mathematics) can find a sense of meaning through contributing to the well-being and vital future of humanity and beyond.
The point of this discussion is to explore the way that scientists, engineers, etc., can be involved in their field not for the money or prestige but for the sake of contributing to the betterment of humanity. Try to think first how one of these fields can be seen as contributing to mankind. Then highlight a particular individual within that field who exemplifies the idea of contributing to humanity through engagement in one of the STEM fields.
So,
1) How do one of the stem fields contribute to the betterment of humanity? Give a general reflection on this but also go into some detail for the sake of getting beyond mere platitudes or common place reflections.
2) Who is a member of the STEM Fields who clearly demonstrates the way that one’s career or profession in the STEM disciplines can be a vehicle for a personal sense of meaning through making a contribution to the betterment of mankind? Who is this person and how have they demonstrated this?
PLEASE BE THOUGHTFUL I NEED TO PASS THIS PHILOSOPHY CLASS!! <3
Answer 2 questions in 450 words each. Please give complete answers that draw upon relevant parts of the texts from the course. (I provided the texts so be sure to use them. You are not allowed to use outside source) Be sure to consult the course readings when formulating your answer. For each question, reference specific things from the text that support your answer, and take care to answer each part of the question. Feel free to consult your discussion posts, but you are writing original answers here; make sure the answers don’t repeat discussion posts! A great answer will draw conclusions that demonstrate comprehension of the texts as well as original insight, clarity, and accuracy, both in the writing (spelling and grammar), and interpretation. Remember to work independently. When you are finishing up check: Did you answer 2 questions in 450 words each? Did you answer each part of each question? Did you draw upon the readings, and reference the relevant sections of the text? Did you demonstrate original insight? Did you proofread and correct grammar and spelling?
Question 1: Discuss some of the ways that people use quantifiers like “all.” What are three examples of mistakes with understanding “all”? How can diagrams help us to visualize relationships like “All S are P.” Describe two types of diagrams that help with understanding quantification. How does familiarity help, in some cases, and hinder, in other cases, our understanding of “all”?
Question 2: What are some forms of logical proof? Give three examples of proofs and explain why they are convincing. What are the law of the excluded middle and the principle of non-contradiction? What is proof by contradiction. How is consistency important in proof? Why might it be easier to disprove than to prove things? Explain.
Please do not write a whole essay for this assignment. Separate your answer for part 1 and part 2.
This assignment is about writing a potential paper. There are two parts:
Part 1: Paper Proposal (~500 words)
Please imagine a possible paper that you could write for the class. We are not writing whole papers. But if you were to write one, what would it be? Please write a 400-500 word abstract (summary) of this potential paper. Try to imagine vividly and express what the thesis would be, as well as the main points of your argument. A useful idea is to connect themes from different modules to each other. Be sure to address these points: What further questions might be inspired by the paper? What texts from the course would you use? (The texts are attached and you are not allowed to use outside source, they are The Art of Thinking and Logic Made Easy).
Things to possibly consider: Some sample ideas to consider incorporating in your theme. (Please use these as inspiration – remember, the aim is to explore a topic of your choosing – these are suggestions to help you choose a topic, but remember not to answer these questions. Come up with your own original theme/topic/thesis): What is the nature of thinking?; How is understanding and recognizing cognitive errors helpful in thinking more clearly?; What are some methods of proof or logical argumentation and how can they help to avoid logical mistakes?; What are some common mistakes in reasoning and why do we make them?; What is the negative (not) and its role in argument and thinking?; fuzzy logic; What are intuition pumps and how do they help us to think more clearly?; how mistakes help us to think or are useful in other ways; themes in artificial intelligence; determinism and free will; computing, large numbers, evolution, and information; computation and consciousness.
Part 2: Annotated Bibliography (~1000 words total, ~300 words per text)
Please choose one text/chapter from “The art of thinking” and two texts/chapters from “Logic Made easy” , for a total of 3 texts, and write for each a summary that expresses some of the main points, and explores how they connect to your paper topic for each text. More instructions/hints: This is like writing an annotated bibliography that could be part of the background for your imagined paper. The annotated bibliography should include summary of the text, reflection, criticism, analysis, etc. Each of the 3 entries should be between 300 and 350 words. Use any style of citation. For the annotated bibliography in Part 2, you’re writing brief summaries and discussions of three texts that you choose, and you will relate each of the texts back to the topic of your overall project. Indicate the chapter/text you selected for each entry.
Final Note: Please follow the instructions carefully. You are not asked to write an whole essay. Please separate part 1 and part 2. Each entry of part 2 should be separated as well.
PROMPT: In modern society, what are the strongest reasons to validate and invalidate the legitimacy of natural law and legal positivism?
First, state what is natural law and legal positivism as well as the differences, similarities, and possible interdependent relationship between natural law and legal positivism.
Then, demonstrates the legitimacy of natural and legal positivism. Compare and Contrast through time and period. (MAIN PROMPT)
Finally, argue why one overlaps the other and how it affects law in general.
Please cite at least one book. Use the Bibliography List for reference. Use as many sources from the Bibliography list.
please edit this summative research for your primary text #1: Plato: the republic book VII (Allegory of the cave) summarize how it applies to your topic quotes your topic is “human rights issues in Uganda against political oppositions” and include this in your research notes do the same thing for your Primary Text #2: Thomas Hobbes, 1651:leviathan chapter xii of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery Summarize how this applies to your topic quotes and include it in your research notes also for the claim word it differently and make it straight to the point an idea to make it straight to the point would be how Most people fixated on ideal of current President – that he is good – but he is not – leading Uganda backwards – not fundamental path to freedom and for your research notes organize them under subheadings the subheadings could be Context, Philosophical approaches, Hobbes, Rawls, Plato and Aristotle provide a plagarism report for the research notes because they have be in my own words get the information from Scholarly Database’s not articles
There are 3 sets of questions. Each set should have a 1-page response. For each set of questions, I have attached the associated coursework. Anything that references our textbook can be accessed via my Chegg account.
If you have issues accessing it, let me know. I can copy and paste the pages into a word document for you.
I will upload the documents per unit assignment. There are three in total for a total of 9 questions If you would like, once you complete one unit you can send it to me. Or you can send them all at once. Either way is fine.
Below are the guidelines for each question:
Total 100 points possible (34 points per question). Worth 25% of your final grade.
Answer questions 1 through 3 in approximately 1 – 2 pages each (thus 3 – 6 pages total, double-spaced, 1 inch margins, reasonable font such as 12 point Times). For each question, grading will be based on the following considerations:
• Did you answer every part of the question completely?
• Did you define key concepts and describe the arguments and views you discuss?
• Did you provide cogent reasons in favor of your answers?
• Did you express yourself clearly?
Remember, your goal is to demonstrate that you understand the topics. Make sure you include enough detail, in your own words, to show that you understand the topics.
You can use information from articles we have read for class, as well as outside sources. If you do rely on a source for anything you say, cite that source clearly using a standard citation format (my favorite is Chicago, but you can use others if you prefer). See the articles at the “Avoiding plagiarism and citing sources” link, found on Moodle under the Exams section.
Week Four: Weekly Russell Round Up/Commentary
After completing this week’s assigned chapters of Russell’s The Problems of Philosophy as well as the other required readings, do the following:
First, briefly summarize what you learned from reading the Russell chapters this week. Then, set about achieving your main goal in this assignment, beyond the summary, which is to tie together any theories, themes, concepts, important ideas, arguments, important observations, etc. you discover in Russell’s work and the particular philosophical views and the general content covered in the other readings.
For example, in Week Four, you will be summarizing Chapters XIII-XV in The Problems of Philosophy, and then you will look for how what he says there links up with, adds to, or even conflicts with the philosophical views and ideas of James, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. Chapter XV will likely be the focus of the comparative part of your commentary.
Please take a moment to review the detailed Russell Round Up Guidelines before completing this assignment. Also, don’t forget to review the scoring rubric for this assignment: Russell Round Up Grading Rubric.
This brief, informal essay should be in the 400-500-word range. You may submit your “Russell Round Up” as a file attachment or simply write it directly into the text editor (but best practice is always to save your work in a file so you don’t risk losing it if your computer shuts down). Please pay careful attention to grammar, spelling, word use, and writing style; this means you need to proofread your work before submitting it. This assignment is worth 10 points (weighted at 10%), for a total of 40% of your course grade for all four Round Up essays. Please see the course calendar for assignment due dates.
You will provide an account of the proper frame of mind that must be established if logical thinking is to take place at all. From Parts Two and Three, the heart of the book, explain the fundamental principles of logic and the language of logic. Emphasis must be placed on explaining the foundational truths that govern logical thinking (part two), while Part Three focuses on logical argument—the emphasis of your presentation must be on explaining the public expression of logical thinking. Finally, in Part Four, discuss attitudes and frames of mind that promote illogical thinking.
You will provide 8 pages (begin at the very top of page one, no additional spaces added, and end on the last line of page 8) Times New Roman
Prompt: In the light of George Berkeley’s critique, what is the strongest reason for believing in the existence of an external world?
Guidelines
Your essay response should be 400-450 words.
Have a brief intro paragraph in which you provide a thesis that clearly responds to the prompt. Your thesis should be a direct answer to the prompt – for example, “In the light of the arguments presented by George Berkeley, the strongest reason for believing in the existence of an external world is the explanatory power of such a hypothesis.”
Note: The strongest reason for believing in an external world may not be a reason strong enough to justify believing in the external world. So, in arguing for the strongest reason, you are not necessarily committed to believing that there is an external world. It would be important, therefore, to indicate – whether you think your strongest reason is good enough to justify believing in an external world.
Properly organize your thoughts in the body of your essay into concise, distinct paragraphs, each of which begins with a clear topic sentence that unifies the content in the paragraph. I’d suggest that you allocate one paragraph to briefly stating what you regard as Berkeley’s strongest argument against belief in an external world realism. Use another paragraph to develop what you regard as the strongest reason in favor of there being an external world. Use another paragraph to compare/contrast your reason for affirming the existence of an external world and Berkeley’s skepticism about it. Here it would be important to clarify whether the strongest reason in favor of an external world is good enough to justify our believing that such a world exists. Then a very brief conclusion. You’re done!
Include at least one quote from Berkeley. Cite parenthetically (for example, Berkeley, Principles, Intro. 1 or Berkeley, Principles, 24).
