Expert Answers

Description Please discuss Locke's conception of religious toleration and the separation of church and state in an essay that answers the following questions: Do you find Locke's expansive vision of toleration useful and ethical? Why or why not? Do you believe that there are ever cases where it is acceptable for a society to decide not to tolerate religious communities whose beliefs or practices seem 'too extreme' to be tolerated. If so, what considerations or principles can help one to determine exactly which religious communities should be treated as intolerable? Do you believe that it is ever acceptable for individuals' religious beliefs to affect the administration of law? Why or why not?

Description Proofs.docx  Here is the chapter guide Predicate Logic.pdf 

Description What is Michael Pollan’s reply to someone who defends killing and eating animals by pointing out that animals kill each other all the time? Please answer in a paragraph (5 sentences min.)

Description Part 1: Select an argument from below to solve and discuss.  1.   If either the sea turtle population continues to decrease or rescue efforts are commenced to save the sea turtle from extinction, then nesting sanctuaries will be created and the indiscriminate slaughter of these animals will be halted. If either nesting sanctuaries are created or poachers are arrested, then if the indiscriminate slaughter of these animals is halted, then the sea turtle population will not continue to decrease. Therefore, the sea turtle population will not continue to decrease. (C, R, N, I, P) 2.   Either deposits should be required on beer and soft drink containers, or these containers will be discarded along highways and the countryside will look like a dump. If these containers will be discarded either in parks or along highways, then deposits should be required on soft drink containers. Therefore, deposits should be required on soft drink containers. (B, S, H, C, P) 3.   If asbestos workers sue their employers, then if punitive damages are awarded, then their employers will declare bankruptcy. If asbestos workers sue their employers, then punitive damages will be awarded. If asbestos workers contract asbestosis, then either they will sue their employers or their employers will declare bankruptcy. Therefore, either asbestos workers will not contract asbestosis or their employers will declare bankruptcy. (S, P, B, C) Part 2: Translate the selected argument into symbolic form, using the letters in the order in which they are listed. Then use indirect proof and the eighteen rules of inference to derive the conclusion. Having done so, attempt to derive the conclusion without using indirect proof. Part 3: Share your translation and conclusion

Description Short Paper on Mill Mill famously argued that the ethical action is what leads to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Please write an essay about Mill's utilitarian ethical theory that answers the following questions: Does utilitarian theory require us to--somehow--have certain knowledge about the future? Can we identify which actions will cause the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people without having certain knowledge of the future? Can a utilitarian consistently reject as immoral the enslavement of a small group of people whose enslavement brings great happiness to a much larger group of people? Do either of these two problems (the 'knowing the future' problem and the 'justification of slavery' problem) mean that utilitarianism is an unsatisfactory ethical theory? Why or why not? Please ensure that your essay addresses each component of the assigned questions and that your answer is well-organized, uses excellent, college-level prose, and makes judicious use of textual evidence. Your essay should be 600-900 words long. Paper should be written in APA format.

Description Question 1 1.  What, according to Kant, gives an action its moral worth? a. the consequences that follow from it b. the situation in which it is performed c. the moral worth of the agent who performs it d. the principle of will that motivates it Bottom of Form Question 2 1.  Which of the following is a Kantian explanation of why lying is wrong? a. It involves treating another person merely as a means to an end. b. It runs counter to our natural feelings of sympathy for other human beings. c. It might produce some short-term advantage for the liar, but in the long run it will not promote his or her happiness. d. It violates a divine commandment. Question 3 1.  Which of the following imperatives is categorical? a. Work hard if you want to succeed in life. b. Act according to maxims that promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. c. Always treat humanity as an end and never merely as a means. d. All of these are correct. Question 4 1.    Suppose John is stuck in his car on the side of the road and needs help. I don’t know John, but I know that he has a sister--whom I would like to meet. In fact, I’ve been trying to figure out a way to introduce myself to her. Use the humanity principle to explain why it would be wrong to help John for this reason.(Please respond with Paragraph) 2. Using the universalizability categorical imperative, explain exactly why Kant thinks it is wrong to steal or commit adultery  (discuss only one—not both). Make sure you carry this as far as Kant demands you do to reveal the irrationality or absurdity of immoral acts—that is, it should lead to a contradiction of some sort involving stealing or adultery (and not some ancillary action). (Please respond with Paragraph)

Description We looked at “Freedom” this week, but as the term ends, it is always a good idea to try to tie together different ideas in order to see the coherency. While you are writing, please do not use the textbook or any outside materials. You can mention things in the textbook, but you will not have time to look them up. The paper you write is intended to give you the opportunity to express your philosophical viewpoints. Please take a few minutes to read through the two choices for the first part, to choose one of them, to figure out your views, and to scribble down a skeleton outline for an argumentative essay. You will be trying to prove that your view is the best one. Make sure you include: An introductory paragraph with a clear thesis statement, At least two evidentiary paragraphs, each offering supporting points, A brief summary of the opposition’s main point and a refutation of it, and A summarizing conclusion. After you have answered either Question A or Question B in Part 1, go to Part 2 and answer the single question there as well. PART 1 In a well-developed short essay, address the prompts for one of the choices below: Question A Freedom and Morality. In Chapter 18 of The Prince, Machiavelli offers advice for future rulers: “Everyone admits how praiseworthy it is for a political leader to keep his word and to behave with integrity rather than cunning. Nevertheless, our experience has been that those leaders who have done great things have considered keeping their word of little account and have known how to beguile men’s minds by shrewdness and cunning. Occasionally, the words of leaders must serve to hide the facts. But the lies should be told in such a way that the general population does not become aware of them; or, if the lies are discovered, excuses must be ready at hand to be produced immediately. In the end, the leaders most likely to reach their goals and sway the people are those who have not relied on integrity or on keeping their word.” Contrastingly, Aristotle said that we are not free if our actions are caused or influenced by external compulsion (including deceit or insufficient evidence). The old joke asks, “How can you tell a politician is lying?” And, the classic answer is, “His lips are moving.” Americans have always suspected that their politicians leaders tell falsehoods, and recent national leaders have even admitted that they “misspoke” (i.e., lied) on numerous occasions to the American people. Define freedom in your own terms, specifically outlining those aspects of yourself that you consider the basis of your own conception of “acting freely.” To what extent can people truly be free if they are living in a society where their leaders routinely lie to them in order to gain the common man’s compliance? To what extent is it possible or impossible for a person to be “acting freely” when he lacks the relevant (and truthful) information needed for his decision-making? Explain which type of government you believe provides the most individual freedoms and that you personally believe would be more preferable to live in—an immoral and powerful government that lies to the people or a weak but moral government in which the leaders always tells the truth. Defend your position for why your choice is more desirable than the alternative. Question B Freedom and Self. Define freedom in your own terms, specifically outlining those aspects of yourself that you consider the basis of your own conception of “acting freely.” An idea we were left with from the textbook is that people are so largely influenced by both nature and nurture that it is difficult to make any sort of decision which has not already been affected by both internal and external influences; our “self identities” are not a creation of own but largely the product of biology and relationships. But, choosing to “act freely” implies that we are choosing freely, without influences affecting our choices. Think back to our discussion of the “essential self” in Week 4 as you address the following questions. To what extent does your conception of “acting freely” include playing roles and interacting with other people? To what extent do other people limit your freedom? How can your “essential self” be free choose to “act freely” while living in a world in which you are bound by obligations to various kinds of other people? Under which conditions would you be confident to declare that you had freely chosen a “free act”? PART 2 In no more than one or two paragraphs, answer the following: As you reflect on your work and your learning in this class, what has been the most important skill you have mastered, insight you have secured, or knowledge you have gained? With respect to the skill, insight, or knowledge you have identified, why is that thing important to you and in what ways, and to what ends will you be able to use it later on?

Description Techno-Pessimism vs Techno-Optimism and Enhancement Choose and respond to one of the following questions: QUESTION A Contrast Joy and Kurzweil’s techno-pessimism and techno-optimism. How would Kurzweil respond to the Kaczynski dilemma (this will require you to articulate and evaluate the dilemma)? QUESTION B Concerning enhancement, is there a value to “natural human engagement” with the world? Why or why not? If you answer in the affirmative, is that position compatible with the views of the society and technology articulated in earlier readings? If you answer in the negative, how would articulate the problem with things like steroid use, which are widely regarded as wrong? Use at least two of this week's readings as resources in your initial post. I don't have the reading material for this one, but I do have the book title. The pages are 249-310 Winston, M. E., & Edelbach, R. D. (2012). Society, ethics, and technology (4th ed. ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Description These discussion boards have been designed to explore controversial philosophical topics. Some of the questions are designed to solicit very personal responses and opinions, and these debates have the potential to become heated. In the act of creating ideas, heat can be a good thing, but not at the expense of hurt feelings or frustration. Remember that the practical aspect pf philosophy asks us to examine and perhaps even change something about ourselves. Hopefully, we will be challenged by others with a different opinion, but we need to remember that a challenge to our beliefs is not a threat. To the contrary, it should be regarded as an opportunity to re-evaluate and understand why we hold these beliefs. Some important rules to follow: There will be no Ad hominems (attacks against the person); not following this rule may result in failure of the assignment. You can disagree with a person’s opinions, but you may not attack other people. You may, however, disagree with the ideas of others, but do so in a constructive manner. For example, you can say, "I don't agree with your post. I think instead that . . . " But, you cannot say, “You’re an idiot” or even “That’s just plain stupid.” Academia requires a diversity of opinions but presented politely; after all, ethics is part of Philosophy. Avoid making statements meant to be absolute (such as, "There is no other way to think about this"). Instead of asking closed-ended questions looking for a “yes” or “no” or the “right” answer, ask open-ended questions (such as, “Have you thought about . . . ?”) Try to connect the current discussion to topics from other lessons. Remember that all of the Philosophers wrote about more than a single topic and the way they think about one area of Philosophy probably affects other areas as well. For example, it might be extremely useful to mention John Stuart Mill’s ethical theories from an earlier lesson during a later discussion of his support for women’s rights and equality. Rather than simply reacting to the readings and the responses of your classmates, think about the arguments being made. Really consider the effectiveness of these arguments. “I agree” responses are not useful to the discussion and will not receive credit. Give some serious consideration to the topic or scenario before answering; and, then, using the questions below as a guide, write a 75-100 word initial response about the issue being discussed. Next, please take the time to respond to at least two of your classmates. Respond After reviewing the chapter on Non-Western philosophies, answer the following questions: Do you think that patriarchy (rule by men) and racism are institutionalized in Western philosophy and culture? Why do you think so, or not? Do you believe that members of different races think differently? How do you know? If so, to what do you attribute this difference—nature, nurture, education, choice, or something else? What was the most intriguing thing you discovered while reading this chapter? Why did you find it to be interesting? This is a discussion. Initial post must be between 75 to 150 words, but may go longer depending on the topic. Please cite any outside sources used.

Description Week 4 Discussion Choose and respond to one of the following questions: Question A Imagine Stanley and Steinhardt had the opportunity to reply to Taylor’s case. Compose that reply. Note: This prompt requires that you are able to summarize Taylor’s reasoning and point to particular disagreements, then articulate reasons to reject some of Taylor’s support. Question B We see both benefits and deleterious effects of development in these readings. Take one example discussed by the authors and, using the moral concepts discussed last week, provide an argument concerning our interacting with or restricting use of a particular technology. Use at least two of this week's readings as resources in your initial post.