Category: Philosophy

please see the instructions and rubric attached. APA Format, use in-text citation with page numbers and video time stamps included.

Please write a “Socratic” dialogue of around 1,000 words. Here is the prompt (do not plug this prompt into ChatGPT or any other AI service if you want a passing grade):
PROMPT: Two friends find themselves in a life-or-death situation. They’d like to survive, but there might be a limit to what they will do to see another day on earth. Although they are buddies, they have quite different metaphysical views (that means they have different views about the fundamental nature of reality!). One has views similar to Plato; the other has views similar to Epicurus. Will they disagree about what they can (or must) do to survive? Will they disagree about what it means to live or to die? Will one convince the other to come around to their point of view? Will their friendship survive the ordeal? That’s for you to determine!
BASIC GUIDELINES: Your dialogue should show your understanding of the difference between idealism and materialism, as discussed in Modules 5 and 6. Your dialogue should be approached in the spirit of Socratic Method described by Farnsworth (reading 6). This means that the friends are trying to understand each other’s points of view, trying to get them to consider their own views more carefully, and using various techniques to do so (See Farnsworth). You do not need to do any additional research, beyond the assigned readings. You also do not need to quote directly from Plato or Epicurus (though if you do, please give the citation). Since you might come up with an original scenario where the names Plato and Epicurus are not spoken, please indicate your understanding of this unit’s ideas through the use of footnotes or endnotes (see example below*). So, when your characters say something “Epicurus-like” or something “Plato-like” (or something “materialist” or something “idealist”) please point that out in a footnote.
ADVICE: Keep in mind that 1,000 words is really not all that long (consider that the Laches is at least 7,000 words and Apology is closer to 10,000!), so there is only so much philosophical work you can do in such a short dialogue. You do not need to cover multiple sub-topics. Just come up with a single “scene” — about 5 minutes of conversation — that allows the characters to discuss their metaphysical differences. The “story” can be incomplete, and the life-or-death situation does not need to be resolved.
Formal Requirements
1,000+ words
In dialogue form, in response to the prompt
Including at least THREE notes that show connections to assigned readings 6, 9, 10, 11
* Here’s an example of what I mean by asking you to use footnotes or endnotes (this example uses courage instead of material from the metaphysics unit):
A section of dialogue with numbered notes
Cora: You say courage is a virtue, and that virtues require wisdom. So, you think that bear over there was wise when she protected her cubs from us?
Donatello: Not exactly – I mean, she was just following her instincts.
Cora: But you said her action was courageous. So, either she was courageous and wise, or she lacks wisdom and also lacks courage. Are these our options? (1)
Donatello: Or maybe courage isn’t the kind of thing that requires wisdom — maybe I was wrong about that.(2)
The footnotes
(1) Here I am trying to use a version of questioning and focusing on consistency, as described by Farnsworth (see p. 26-27).
(2) This section of the dialogue is borrowing from Plato’s Laches, where Nicias declares that non-human animals are not courageous and Laches disagrees. (See Laches, p. 15 of the pdf). I’ve changed how those ideas are presented, to show the implications for the concept of courage.
Basic rubric for Dialogue (110 points possible, so 10 bonus points are possible):
20 – Shows understanding of materialist metaphysics, as given to us by Epicurus.
20 – Shows understanding of idealist metaphysics, as given to us by Plato.
20 – Uses footnotes effectively to indicate connections between the dialogue and the assigned readings.
20 – Shows at least a starting grasp of some of the techniques of Socratic Method (as articulated by Farnsworth).
20 – Is philosophically engaging and thoughtful, beyond just fulfilling the assignment.
10 – Is free from careless errors.

Please write a “Socratic” dialogue of around 1,000 words. Here is the prompt (do not plug this prompt into ChatGPT or any other AI service if you want a passing grade):
PROMPT: Two friends find themselves in a life-or-death situation. They’d like to survive, but there might be a limit to what they will do to see another day on earth. Although they are buddies, they have quite different metaphysical views (that means they have different views about the fundamental nature of reality!). One has views similar to Plato; the other has views similar to Epicurus. Will they disagree about what they can (or must) do to survive? Will they disagree about what it means to live or to die? Will one convince the other to come around to their point of view? Will their friendship survive the ordeal? That’s for you to determine!
BASIC GUIDELINES: Your dialogue should show your understanding of the difference between idealism and materialism, as discussed in Modules 5 and 6. Your dialogue should be approached in the spirit of Socratic Method described by Farnsworth (reading 6). This means that the friends are trying to understand each other’s points of view, trying to get them to consider their own views more carefully, and using various techniques to do so (See Farnsworth). You do not need to do any additional research, beyond the assigned readings. You also do not need to quote directly from Plato or Epicurus (though if you do, please give the citation). Since you might come up with an original scenario where the names Plato and Epicurus are not spoken, please indicate your understanding of this unit’s ideas through the use of footnotes or endnotes (see example below*). So, when your characters say something “Epicurus-like” or something “Plato-like” (or something “materialist” or something “idealist”) please point that out in a footnote.
ADVICE: Keep in mind that 1,000 words is really not all that long (consider that the Laches is at least 7,000 words and Apology is closer to 10,000!), so there is only so much philosophical work you can do in such a short dialogue. You do not need to cover multiple sub-topics. Just come up with a single “scene” — about 5 minutes of conversation — that allows the characters to discuss their metaphysical differences. The “story” can be incomplete, and the life-or-death situation does not need to be resolved.
Formal Requirements
1,000+ words
In dialogue form, in response to the prompt
Including at least THREE notes that show connections to assigned readings 6, 9, 10, 11
* Here’s an example of what I mean by asking you to use footnotes or endnotes (this example uses courage instead of material from the metaphysics unit):
A section of dialogue with numbered notes
Cora: You say courage is a virtue, and that virtues require wisdom. So, you think that bear over there was wise when she protected her cubs from us?
Donatello: Not exactly – I mean, she was just following her instincts.
Cora: But you said her action was courageous. So, either she was courageous and wise, or she lacks wisdom and also lacks courage. Are these our options? (1)
Donatello: Or maybe courage isn’t the kind of thing that requires wisdom — maybe I was wrong about that.(2)
The footnotes
(1) Here I am trying to use a version of questioning and focusing on consistency, as described by Farnsworth (see p. 26-27).
(2) This section of the dialogue is borrowing from Plato’s Laches, where Nicias declares that non-human animals are not courageous and Laches disagrees. (See Laches, p. 15 of the pdf). I’ve changed how those ideas are presented, to show the implications for the concept of courage.
Basic rubric for Dialogue (110 points possible, so 10 bonus points are possible):
20 – Shows understanding of materialist metaphysics, as given to us by Epicurus.
20 – Shows understanding of idealist metaphysics, as given to us by Plato.
20 – Uses footnotes effectively to indicate connections between the dialogue and the assigned readings.
20 – Shows at least a starting grasp of some of the techniques of Socratic Method (as articulated by Farnsworth).
20 – Is philosophically engaging and thoughtful, beyond just fulfilling the assignment.
10 – Is free from careless errors.

Key Details:
• Format: Typed responses.
• Length: Responses to the questions should be concise, fitting in no more than one page typed.
• Task: Answer any three of the questions provided.
• Sources: No outside resources are allowed. Do not use Google, articles, or any material except the readings provided for this course.
• Reminder: Include your solemn declaration.
Instructions for the Writer:
Please carefully follow the instructions provided on the exam sheet. This includes:
1.answer only three questions
2.Using only the assigned course readings to support your answers. Do not use any outside resources, such as Google, articles, or any other materials.
Selected Questions and Relevant Readings for the Exam
    1.    Putnam’s Brain in a Vat Argument
    •    This question focuses on Putnam’s argument that Bivvie, as a Brain in a Vat (BIV), cannot truly say of themselves that they are a BIV.
    •    Primary Reading: Putnam.pdf.
    •    Optional Support: Kripke.pdf (semantic theories related to meaning).
    2.    Skepticism about the Future and the ‘Grue Problem’
    •    This question examines the connection between skepticism about the future (as in Short-lived universe) and the grue problem.
    •    Primary Readings:
    •    Hume.htm (problem of induction and skepticism about the future).
    •    Vanfraassen.pdf (explores the grue problem directly).
    3.    Internalism/Externalism and External World Skepticism (Dreaming)
    •    This question looks at how the internalism/externalism debate influences the interpretation of external world skepticism using the Dreaming example.
    •    Primary Readings:
    •    Descartes.pdf (for the Dreaming argument).
    •    Pryor.pdf (on internalist and externalist views of justification).
What I Expect:
• Responses must be well-written, clear, and demonstrate a deep understanding of the material.
• Each answer should directly and fully answer the question, leaving no part unaddressed.
• While concise, the answers should also be detailed and carefully thought out to reflect high-quality academic work.
• Pay close attention to the nuances of the readings and ensure your answers align with the original texts provided.
Thank you for your effort. I’m expecting strong, well-crafted answers that meet the requirements of the assignment. If you have any questions or need clarification, feel free to ask.

Revise the paper. Review the corrections given by the professor and the downloaded paper and revise it. Fix citations so they do not have just the book number but the specific lines (readings attached below).

Essay: Is Morality Objective or Subjective?
Turnitin™ enabledThis assignment will be submitted to Turnitin™.
Instructions
Introduction:
Moral relativism and moral objectivism are two key theories in ethical philosophy. They ask whether morality is based on universal truths or shaped by cultural or individual views. This essay explores both ideologies and their role in ethical decisions.
Instructions:
Write an essay exploring moral relativism and moral objectivism, their ethical foundations, and their impact on society.
Guidelines:
Word Count: 1000-1500 words.
Citations: Use MLA 9th edition for citations and include a “Works Cited” page. Plagiarism will result in an F, as outlined in the syllabus.
Anonymity: Do not include your name anywhere in the essay or filename to ensure unbiased grading.
Essay Structure:
Introduction:
Introduce the debate between moral relativism and moral objectivism.
Explain why this debate is relevant to ethical discussions today.
Moral Relativism:
Define moral relativism.
Two Types:
Cultural Relativism: Morality is shaped by cultural norms.
Subjectivism: Morality is based on individual beliefs.
Discuss strengths and weaknesses of both types.
Provide real-world examples of relativism in action.
Moral Objectivism:
Define moral objectivism and its core principles.
Discuss strengths and weaknesses.
Provide real-world examples of objectivism in action.
Comparison:
Compare the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of both relativism and objectivism.
Discuss the impact of favoring one over the other.
Personal Reflection:
Share your stance on the debate and explain why.
Address potential counterarguments to your view.
Conclusion:
Summarize the main arguments.
Highlight the importance of understanding these moral theories for ethical decision-making.
Suggested Resources
Doing Ethics 6th Edition by Lewis Vaughn
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) has 1800 entries as of Summer 2023. Entries are managed by field experts and reviewed by an Editorial Board.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), founded in 1995, is a free, peer-reviewed resource on philosophy topics. Run by volunteers, it has 30 editors and 300 authors with doctorates.
Dallas College Philosophy & Religion Lib Guide The Dallas College Philosophy Lib Guide is designed for efficient academic research, offering access to philosophy databases and news publications. Consider using news articles as real-life examples. The ‘How to Research’ section provides librarians’ contact information for early assistance in your study. If you need citation help, the ‘Citation Help’ section has MLA reference tools.
Dallas College Tutoring Services: You have access to free tutoring. Our writing tutors are available to assist you with the writing and citation process.
Key Outcomes Expected
Marketable Skills:
Present a clear delineation of moral relativism and moral objectivism.
Reflect on the impact of these moral philosophies on community ethos and actions.
Contemplate potential repercussions linked to each moral stance.
Demonstrate ethical rigor in your exploration and composition.
Adhere to the assigned submission deadline.
Manifest empathy and respect in addressing varied moral perspectives.
Harness appropriate resources to bolster your exploration. Ensure all references are cited correctly.
Retain clarity, coherence, and organization in your essay.
Critical Thinking Skills:
Define the crux of the debate.
Incorporate and critically evaluate different perspectives.
Assess the underlying assumptions associated with each moral stance.
Recognize the subtleties and nuances of your chosen perspective.
Incorporate opposing viewpoints within your discourse.
Extract informed conclusions based on your exploration.
Personal Responsibility:
Identify ethical complexities intrinsic to the debate.
Define and defend your position with logical reasoning.
Reflect on the potential outcomes of your chosen moral perspective.

Final Essay: Moral Dilemma Analysis ⭐
Hide Assignment Information
Turnitin™
Turnitin™ enabledThis assignment will be submitted to Turnitin™.
Instructions
Introduction:
In Western philosophy, various theories help explain how we make ethical decisions. From Kantian ethics, which focuses on duties, to Utilitarianism, which emphasizes maximizing overall good, these theories guide us through ethical dilemmas. In this essay, you’ll analyze one of four ethical dilemmas provided, using two moral theories from Chapters 4 through 8.
Instructions:
Write a 1000-1500 word essay analyzing one of the four ethical dilemmas provided, applying two moral theories. Explain how each theory approaches the dilemma and what solutions it offers.
General Guidelines:
Word Limit: 1000-1500 words.
Citations: Include 5 sources in MLA format. Avoid plagiarism.
Anonymity: Do not include your name in the essay or filename. This is the only change to MLA formatting.
Essay Outline:
Introduction:
Introduce the ethical dilemma you have chosen from the provided list and explain its importance.
State the two moral theories you will apply.
Analysis of the Dilemma Using Two Moral Theories:
[Moral Theory 1]:
Definition: Summarize the key points of the theory.
Application: Explain how the theory would address and resolve your chosen ethical dilemma.
Strengths and Weaknesses: Highlight the theory’s advantages and limitations in relation to the dilemma.
[Moral Theory 2]:
Definition: Summarize the key points of the theory.
Application: Explain how the theory would address and resolve your chosen ethical dilemma.
Strengths and Weaknesses: Highlight the theory’s advantages and limitations in relation to the dilemma.
Comparative Analysis:
Compare how the two theories approach the dilemma.
Discuss the impact of choosing one theory over the other.
Personal Reflection (one-third of the essay):
Present your own view on the dilemma and support it using course material.
Address potential counterarguments to your position.
Conclusion:
Summarize your main points.
Emphasize the value of moral theories in understanding ethical dilemmas.
Available Moral Theories:
Choose two from the following:
Utilitarianism: Focuses on maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number.
Ethical Egoism: Suggests acting in one’s self-interest.
Kantian Ethics: Focuses on duties and universal moral laws.
Feminism and Ethics of Care: Emphasizes relationships, empathy, and care.
Social Contract Theory: Moral rules arise from agreements within a society.
Virtue Ethics: Focuses on developing good character traits.
Natural Law Theory: Morality is inherent in human nature and can be understood through reason.
Note: Metaethical theories like moral relativism and objectivism are excluded from this essay.

Please provide an answer that is 100% original and do not copy the answer to this question from any other website since I am already well aware of this. I will be sure to check this.
Please be sure that the answer comes up with way less than 18% on Studypool’s internal plagiarism checker since anything above this is not acceptable according to Studypool’s standards. I will not accept answers that are above this standard.
No AI or Chatbot! I will be sure to check this.
*I have attached the textbook that you must use. Please be sure to cite the textbook and include it in the works cited page along with in-text citations with page numbers from it.*
Discussing the nature of morality.
Using your textbook and one other source,answer the following question:
According to natural law theorists, how can nature reveal anything aboutmorality? Include and explain what the statement “How nature is revealshow it should be” means in this context.
Part 1: Essay Response        
Answer the questions above. Consider different methods for examiningthis theory; contrast/compare with other theories and actions.
Use examples in your writing. Don’t forget to cite your sources.
You must do the following in your discussion post.  
400 minimum word count. 
Include at least one external source.
Essay style, using paragraphs.  
Apply MLA format for citations. 
Requirements: Minimum 400 Words Times New Roman Size 12 Font Double-Spaced MLA Format Excluding the Works Cited Page | .doc file
Please provide an answer that is 100% original and do not copy the answer to this question from any other website since I am already well aware of this. I will be sure to check this.
Please be sure that the answer comes up with way less than 18% on Studypool’s internal plagiarism checker since anything above this is not acceptable according to Studypool’s standards. I will not accept answers that are above this standard.
No AI or Chatbot! I will be sure to check this.
Please be sure to carefully follow the instructions.
No plagiarism & No Course Hero & No Chegg. The assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
Please be sure to include at least one in-text citation in each paragraph along with the exact page numbers that relate to the information that you are discussing.

Evaluate the morality of telling the truth using Kant’s reasoning about moral laws. In what circumstances does telling the truth meet Kant’s maxim for moral behavior and in what circumstances does telling the truth fail to qualify as a moral act? Use quotes from Kant’s Groundwork for a Metaphysics of Morals and concrete examples to explain your reasoning. (150-400 words)

GOAL:
To be familiar with the concept of a fallacy and its role in philosophy, logic & argumentation, and general human cognition.
MATERIAL COVERED:
Fallacy readings located in module WEEK TWO.
QUESTION/PROMPT:
Read the Fallacy readings carefully.
Pick one of your favorite fallacies.
For your chosen fallacy, find a visual, a written, and video artifact of that fallacy. You should have a total of 3 artifacts (examples) for your chosen fallacy. I will only grade one example of each.
Visual: an image, picture, poster, pictorial advertisement, etc.
An X (former “tweet)), Instagram, Facebook, etc. that contains only words, does not count as a visual artifact, it is a written artifact. To count as a visual artifact, the image itself must be committing the fallacy; that is, it must be making a legitimate mistake and not referencing one. For this reason, cartoons, artistic illustrations (particularly political cartoons), and animations are bad choices as examples of fallacies. The purpose of many cartoons (political, especially), etc. is to illustrate the error in reasoning in such a way as to make it obvious to the general reader. Thus, it is not committing the fallacy, but showing it – making it obvious. Do not use cartoons and their like as examples.
An image of a text message/tweet/IG/FB/TT/etc. whose content is originally based on the written word and does not depend on an image for its meaning/understanding, does not count as an example of an image. For example, an image/screenshot/etc. of a series of text messages counts as a written and not visual artifact.
Video: YouTube videos/shorts, Instagram videos, Facebook Reels, etc. If you use a long video, make sure to give me a time stamp where the fallacy occurs. NOTE: Texas outlawed TikTok for state business. Please avoid the hassle and do not use TikToks.
Also, follow the same advice for the visual artifacts above for videos; that is, do not use cartoons, animations, texts, etc., as examples.
Written: magazine/newpaper articles, blog posts, X’s (tweets), tumble’s, IG’s, (written out paragraphs), etc.
THE IDEA IS TO USE EXAMPLES (ARTIFACTS) THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE SERIOUS, AND COMMITT AN ACTUAL FALLACY IN DOING SO. An artifact that demonstrates or illustrates a fallacy is not an example of a fallacy.
Label each artifact as either visual, video, or written.
You may not google or run an internet or AI assisted search for things like “example of X fallacy”. You need to 1) understand the nature of the fallacy by studying it, and 2) organically find an example using your own understanding and cognitive attention. I will be taking off points for not following this rule.
You need to explain why and how each artifact is an example of the fallacy.
For all artifacts (visual, video, written) make sure that you either give me something that I can directly view on the Word document (like a picture), or that you provide a WORKING url (link) that I can copy and paste into a browser address bar. DO NOT give me a Dropbox, Google Doc, etc, link. Obviously your explanations and descriptions need to be written out.
All examples need citations – I need to know exactly where you got the material from and I need to be able to find it myself with the citation information you provide.
On a Word document (.doc, or .docx) follow the following format for each artifact:
Fallacy Name: ______________
Artifact Type: (visual, video, written)
Artifact Source: (insert URL or other source indication)
Analysis of Artifact: Insert your explanation and analysis of your artifact here. Use as much space as needed.
Image: (If you have an image, put it after the above.)
NOTE: I will take off 2 points each for the following:
Not having 3 (a visual, video, written) artifacts.
Failing to provide a citation that takes me exactly to your source. All three artifacts/examples need a citation. (Test out your links before you submit.)
Using a cartoon, artistic illustration, or animation as an example of a fallacy.
Discovering or suspecting that your artifact came by way of some type of direct search for a fallacy.
Module 2 Source:

Fallacies