The United Galaxies, which is in charge of everything in the universe, has chosen you to write a document that will set up the fundamental moral guidelines for a newly found planet, the Blank Moral Slate (BMS). With a range of species including humans about to move to the BMS, this planet presents a unique chance to start everything fresh, including its moral code. Your Task: You're tasked with writing an informative yet concise document called a white paper. This report's purpose is to help readers understand a complex issue, solve a problem, or make a decision. In this case, it will present the basic ethical rules we should follow on BMS, show how they would operate, and discuss their pros and cons. Choose one of the moral frameworks Subjectivism to base your code. Have your paper explain how the chosen moral framework would function on BMS and why it is the best choice. Please follow this STRUCTURE : 1. Introduction (300-400 words): Describe (DO NOT EVALUATE THE THEORY JUST YET) the chosen moral theory, how it operates, and how it can be applied to a hypothetical situation on BMS. 2. Benefits (300-400 words): Talk about what you believe is the most appealing aspect of this moral framework and/or why it's a better choice than the others. 3. Possible Issues and Comparisons (500-700 words): Discuss potential problems with your chosen theory, how it can address these issues, and how it compares to one of the other moral frameworks (just choose one for comparison).
Each presentation will be allotted 10 minutes and will consist of a presentation (10 mins) followed by a Socratic teaching question. You must create a question that is interesting to your fellow students and the question must be related to concepts that you taught in your chapter section. Each group will present a slide show. Your group will write a narrative for each slide in your slideshow by typing it into the “notes” for each slide (ppt format). The first part of the presentation should include: a discussion of the section of the book chapter that you are presenting on.
Instructions Instructions: Throughout the course, you encountered a number of different moral theories. While you had enough exposure in the first few weeks to build a moral compass, you have had more time to get to know the theories better and may be morally motivated by a different primary theory or set of theories than you used for the week three assignment. The goal here is to pick just one theory you feel is a “best guide” for moral behavior. Then you are to create an Infographic promoting that theory, either on its own or by comparing it to other theories. Consider yourself as being in marketing and you are trying to convince others to choose your theory. Describe situations where this theory provides good guidance. Focus on the positives (i.e. consequentialist theories allow you flexibility while treating everyone equally, non consequentialist theories provide solid rules to follow and proper justification, virtue theories focus on the person and not the action, etc.) Details: Using one of the following programs, create an infographic that promotes your theory in a convincing way as an ideal guide for future moral decisions. https://piktochart.com/ https://www.visme.co/ https://prezi.com/ or MS PowerPoint
Instructions Course Objectives: CO4: Evaluate and analyze various forms of argument for rhetorical devices, fallacies, and possible pseudo-reasoning. (Evaluate) CO5: Create an argument free from logical errors. (Create) Description: For this assignment, you will use MS PowerPoint to present your final argument utilizing one of the three forms covered in the class (Classic/Aristotelian, Toulmin, or Rogerian). After a catchy title slide, you will present your introduction paragraph on slide 2. This should be the same introduction produced in week 5, but with some tweaking based on instructor feedback. Then, you will add at least one slide for each of the components of that type of argument. For example, if you choose the Classical argument, you will need at least one slide labeled for each component: Statement of the Background, Position, Proof, and Refutation. Be sure you see the lesson on Refutations. [See attached templates. You are not compelled to use them and if you do, they need jazzing up a bit. However, you should at least compare them to yours before submitting to ensure you have all the parts necessary for success on this assignment.] You are NOT pasting a paper into the slides. Doing so will cost points for not following directions. Each slide should have several bullets providing your best points for each component. Those bullets are then explained in the notes as commentary or in the transcript for any dialogue should you choose to narrate the presentation.
See the Week 13, 14 & 15 Overview for details. Personal identity and Moral Responsibility This quiz (writing a short paper) is about personal identity and moral responsibility, covered last week. It is not about Rachels Chapter 6, “Body and Mind”. Before opening this Core Quiz, review your study from last week of Rachels Chapter 5 “The Problem of Personal identity”, and of Video Lecture 11. Pay particular attention to sections 5.4 and 5.5 of the Rachels chapter, and to related parts of the Video lecture.
In this final essay, write at least 1000 words about the topic(s) that interested you most this semester in this broad overview and introduction to Philosophy. Be specific about what you have learned or how you might be thinking differently now?
Answer ONE question 1. “Bodily changes follow directly the perception of an exciting fact, and our feeling of these bodily changes as they occur is the emotion.” (William James, 1884, “What is an emotion?”). Discuss. 2. “Emotions are forms of evaluative judgment that ascribe great importance to things outside one’s control.” (Martha Nussbaum, 2004, “Emotions as judgements of value and importance”). Discuss. 3. Are Mallon and Stich right in saying that “evolutionary psychologists and social constructionists [should] stop seeing each other as adversaries and start seeing each other as natural allies”? (Ron Mallonand Steve Stich, 2000, “The odd couple”). 4. “Guilt … presents … an evolutionary puzzle. Although it is hard to imagine someone who never experiences fear flourishing in life, it is not difficult to imagine an individual thriving despite—or perhaps even because of—a lack of guilt. … Might not such individuals have had an evolutionary advantage over those who experience guilt? If so, how do we account for guilt’s evolution?” (Grant Ramsey and Michael Deem, 2022, “Empathy and the evolutionary emergence of guilt”). Discuss. 5. Present and evaluate Joshua Greene’s dual process model of moral judgment.
I have previously done the assignment and it was wrong. My professor did not like the topic so we need to work on finding a new topic first and then start writing the paper. This basically needs to be about 2 philosophers arguing on the same topic, aka: a conversation between 2 people about the same topic. For bibliography: two best websites to help you begin your bibliography will be the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) https://plato.stanford.edu/ and Phil Papers https://philpapers.org/ Please look at the Stanford Encyclopedia and pick out a particular sub-section which summarized at least two sources that were in conversation with each other. I looked at section 2.4 of the entry on Casual Determinism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#LawNat as an example of a place to find a topic. There is a debate discussed there about whether laws of nature explain the way the world is, or laws of nature are just the way it is. That same section also discusses a debate about whether laws of nature are necessary or not. Both of those are examples of topics that you could pick, and your paper would be based on the sources discussed in that section. Please first let's get an approval of the topic then we will start writing the paper.
Congratulations! You have been chosen to be a delegate at the first ever Distributive Justice Council. The policies the Council adopts here will determine the new world wide system of distribution. You have been assigned a random portion of the population on whose behalf you will advocate. It is possible that you, yourself, are a part of this population, but you may have been assigned to a different delegate instead. As these things are anonymous, we unfortunately have no way of knowing. You are bargaining on behalf of your clients in an Original Position. You have to come up with a principle of distributive justice which your clients will which your clients will be able to live under satisfactorily. You know nothing of your client’s talents, abilities, gender, religious views, sexual orientation etc. Fortunately, the other delegates are in exactly the same situation. You will have to think about how you will justify your choice to your clients when you find out who they are. Note: a prior OP (Original Position) has already agreed that basic liberties — freedom of conscience, religion, expression, association, and the rights to participate in public and political life, as well as the liberties associated with the psychological and physical integrity of the person — must be guaranteed to all, so you need not worry about violations of people’s basic liberty-rights. You have six principles from which to choose. Remember that these principles will govern your client’s entire life, and he/she will not be able to escape. Laissez Faire: Markets will operate without government intervention, except to protect private property (including intellectual property through patenting and copyrighting legislation) and to place modest limits on the emergence of oligopolistic and monopolistic markets. Equality of Resources: People will have roughly equal resources available to them over their full lives. Sufficiency: Everyone will have a `basic needs’ safety net guaranteed. Above that level, markets will determine rewards, except as the democratically elected legislature chooses to constrain them. (If you select this principle, be prepared to explain what count as basic needs and why). Maximin: Inequalities of resources will be arranged so that the least advantaged will better off than they would be under any other arrangement. Equality of Welfare: Resources will be distributed so that everyone is more or less equally happy. You may, if you choose, formulate a compromise between these principles, or formulate an entirely different principle. If so, it must be precise and you must be prepared to defend it. Once you choose your principal, you will need to sketch out a rough notion of how the principal will work in practice. For example: If you choose #5, how will you evaluate whether the distribution has made everyone more or less equally happy? What will you do if this is not the case?
Select an opinion editorial and write a letter to the editor about it. You must make sure that you correctly analyze the argument’s thesis, the premises for it and any counter-objections that it addresses. You will then assess whether the editorial is convincing or not, offering reasons for your position. Attach a photocopy of the article to your paper. Your paper should be at least three pages.
