Category: Philosophy

Abstract:
The tension between individual freedom and collective responsibility has long been a central theme in political philosophy. This article revisits this paradox in light of contemporary societal challenges such as climate change and global health crises. Drawing on the works of Hannah Arendt and Jean-Paul Sartre, it explores how autonomy can be redefined to incorporate mutual interdependence without eroding personal liberty. The paper concludes by proposing a framework for “relational freedom” that balances self-determination with ethical responsibility toward others.

Abstract:
As artificial intelligence systems increasingly become a part of daily life, ethical frameworks struggle to keep pace with technological advancements. This article explores post-humanist ethics as a lens for AI morality, focusing on the decentralization of human primacy in ethical decision-making. Drawing from thinkers such as Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour, it argues for a reimagined relationship between humans, AI, and the broader ecological network, proposing a model where ethical agency is distributed rather than centralized.

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

you will choose one of the TED Talks below and form a response based on the provided guidance using the provided template Download the provided template. As you respond to the questions, you will be expected to connect the concepts covered in this course to the information in your chosen video Please ensure that you use the template and follow APA format for your paper, including a title page, and a reference page.
TED. (2022, April). You Don’t Actually Know What Your Future Self Wants / Shankar Vedantam [Video]. https://www.ted.com/talks/shankar_vedantam_you_don_t_actually_know_what_your_future_self_wants
For each number below, complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the subject matter of the class.
The Argument and Syllogism: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
Summarize the overall argument of the video in your own words. Be sure to include details and the main points the speaker used to make the argument.
Identify the three parts of the syllogism the speaker uses to make the overall argument:
Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion
Testing the Syllogism: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
Based upon the syllogism (your answer to Part 1. B), does this argument demonstrate inductive or deductive reasoning? Provide support for your choice. Be sure to only choose deductive OR inductive; you cannot choose both or neither.
If the argument is deductive, test your syllogism (your answers to Part 1. B) in terms of logical validity and soundness. Be sure to not only tell if the syllogism is valid and sound but also show how/how not or why/why not. If the argument is inductive, test your syllogism (your answers from Part 1. B) in terms of being a stronger or weaker inductive argument. Be sure to not only tell if the syllogism is stronger or weaker but also show how or why.
Rhetorical Appeals: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
Identify examples of all three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos) that you noticed in this video and what information from the video has led you to your choices. Be sure to select specific words, phrases, or ideas and explain their connections to each type of appeal. Also, indicate what effect the use of these appeals has on the persuasiveness of the argument.
Rhetorical Devices and Logical Fallacies: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
Identify at least one specific rhetorical device and one specific logical fallacy in the way this topic is presented. Be sure to define the rhetorical device and fallacy and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether you think the use of each device and fallacy was deliberate or not and assess the effect that each one has on the argument.
NOTE: Remember, ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical appeals, NOT devices, so they are not what is being asked here. This is asking about rhetorical devices.
Moral Reasoning: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
A. Which specific kind of moral reasoning is demonstrated in your topic? Briefly elaborate on why you chose the one you did. Be sure to define the specific kind of moral reasoning you chose and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether the use of this kind of moral reasoning was deliberate and what effect it has on the persuasiveness of the argument.
Reaction and Reflection: Offer your position on the argument presented in the video you selected. Using your critical thinking skills, explain whether the speaker’s argument was effective or ineffective, and why.
Conclusion: What are the positive implications and negative consequences for the critical reasoning concepts that were used throughout your paper and in the video?
When completing this assignment, please keep the following in mind:
Use the provided template.
First and third person (I, we, her, him, they) are fine for this assignment, but do not use second person (you, your).
Include a title page, indicating which topic you chose.
Adhere to basic APA formatting, including:
12-point Times New Roman font
Double-spaced text
1-inch margins throughout
Support your logic with in-text citations from our textbook.
Cite any outside sources that you used to support your ideas in proper APA format with in-text citations and references.
Be sure to review the associated rubric for more guidance on the content that your response is expected to contain.

you will choose one of the TED Talks below and form a response based on the provided guidance using the provided template Download the provided template. As you respond to the questions, you will be expected to connect the concepts covered in this course to the information in your chosen video Please ensure that you use the template and follow APA format for your paper, including a title page, and a reference page.
TED. (2022, April). You Don’t Actually Know What Your Future Self Wants / Shankar Vedantam [Video]. https://www.ted.com/talks/shankar_vedantam_you_don_t_actually_know_what_your_future_self_wants
For each number below, complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the subject matter of the class.
The Argument and Syllogism: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
Summarize the overall argument of the video in your own words. Be sure to include details and the main points the speaker used to make the argument.
Identify the three parts of the syllogism the speaker uses to make the overall argument:
Major Premise
Minor Premise
Conclusion
Testing the Syllogism: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
Based upon the syllogism (your answer to Part 1. B), does this argument demonstrate inductive or deductive reasoning? Provide support for your choice. Be sure to only choose deductive OR inductive; you cannot choose both or neither.
If the argument is deductive, test your syllogism (your answers to Part 1. B) in terms of logical validity and soundness. Be sure to not only tell if the syllogism is valid and sound but also show how/how not or why/why not. If the argument is inductive, test your syllogism (your answers from Part 1. B) in terms of being a stronger or weaker inductive argument. Be sure to not only tell if the syllogism is stronger or weaker but also show how or why.
Rhetorical Appeals: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
Identify examples of all three rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos) that you noticed in this video and what information from the video has led you to your choices. Be sure to select specific words, phrases, or ideas and explain their connections to each type of appeal. Also, indicate what effect the use of these appeals has on the persuasiveness of the argument.
Rhetorical Devices and Logical Fallacies: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
Identify at least one specific rhetorical device and one specific logical fallacy in the way this topic is presented. Be sure to define the rhetorical device and fallacy and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether you think the use of each device and fallacy was deliberate or not and assess the effect that each one has on the argument.
NOTE: Remember, ethos, pathos, and logos are rhetorical appeals, NOT devices, so they are not what is being asked here. This is asking about rhetorical devices.
Moral Reasoning: Complete a thoughtful and thorough paragraph long enough to demonstrate your understanding of the course concepts indicated.
A. Which specific kind of moral reasoning is demonstrated in your topic? Briefly elaborate on why you chose the one you did. Be sure to define the specific kind of moral reasoning you chose and demonstrate how or why the source employs them. Also, discuss whether the use of this kind of moral reasoning was deliberate and what effect it has on the persuasiveness of the argument.
Reaction and Reflection: Offer your position on the argument presented in the video you selected. Using your critical thinking skills, explain whether the speaker’s argument was effective or ineffective, and why.
Conclusion: What are the positive implications and negative consequences for the critical reasoning concepts that were used throughout your paper and in the video?
When completing this assignment, please keep the following in mind:
Use the provided template.
First and third person (I, we, her, him, they) are fine for this assignment, but do not use second person (you, your).
Include a title page, indicating which topic you chose.
Adhere to basic APA formatting, including:
12-point Times New Roman font
Double-spaced text
1-inch margins throughout
Support your logic with in-text citations from our textbook.
Cite any outside sources that you used to support your ideas in proper APA format with in-text citations and references.
Be sure to review the associated rubric for more guidance on the content that your response is expected to contain.

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).