Category: Philosophy homework help

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING POST BELOW IN 50 WORDS OR MORE:
 Peter Singer thinks that the right thing to do is to try to prevent bad occurrences unless we have to sacrifice something morally significant what he means by this is that if you are able to help someone without having to do something morally wrong you should help them. I agree with him because if you can help someone you should do it as long as you are not doing something wrong. Singer also talks about the experiment that if we all put in 5 dollars we shouldn’t give more than 5 because everyone would give 5 but in reality, we don’t work like that some people may give five but others may give less so if we are able we should give more, and I agree with him if we are able to help we should help people something that he said and may me think is that he said that sometimes we buy expensive clothes not because we need but to look more presentable or to appear that we have money but we could actually give this money to someone who actually needs it. I believe it is ethical to help people if you are in a situation that can do it because is moral to do it, he gives a lot of reasons why we should help and he explains ways we can do it. many times we spend our money on things we don’t really need just to have more but instead, we should try to help people with that money one more thing that he said that I find interesting is that he said that helping people or a community should not be considered charity but something good that we can do but don’t have to do. So I do agree with Peter if we can help someone without having to do something morally wrong and we are able to help them we should do it. 

In Book IX, Chapter 8 of Nicomachean EthicsPage(146-148), Aristotle discusses two conceptions of self-love or selfishness. There is a common view of self-love or selfishness which he initially considers to be somewhat plausible, but after further analysis rejects as mistaken. He then describes another, more fundamental view of self-love or selfishness which he thinks is the correct one.
Describe the two conceptions of self-love or selfishness that Aristotle discusses. What role do reason and virtue play in each conception? What is Aristotle’s ethical evaluation of each conception? Do Aristotle’s views on what he considers to be the fundamental, properly understood nature self-love and selfishness challenge modern notions about this subject?

In Book IX, Chapter 4 of Nicomachean Ethics Page (141-143), Aristotle discusses self-love and friendship. He describes the way an excellent (fully virtuous) person will regard his or her self, and how a vicious (the opposite of virtuous) person will regard his or her self.
Compare and contrast these two types of persons as Aristotle describes them. According to Aristotle, how does each of them approach friendship, and—more fundamentally—what is the relationship of friendship to self-love?

Part I – Explain the author’s argument in the article that you’ve chosen. In his/her view, what is the correct position to have on the applied ethics issue you chose? What are the reasons that he/she gives in support of his/her view?
Part II – Present potential problems for the author’s position. This will not need to be fully developed. Just give three potential problems with the author’s argument (in complete sentences) as bullet points. Make sure that you briefly explain to them so that I know why this is a problem for the author’s argument. After presenting the potential problems, explain which objection is the best objection to the author’s argument, in your view. Make sure to explain why. 

 
For this discussion board please review Peter Singer’s entry in our textbook “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (Page 678).  You also may want to review the following video:
Peter Singer’s Examined LifeLinks to an external site.
Based on the reading (and video) what does Peter Singer think ‘the right thing to do’ is?  Do you agree with him?  Why or why not?  If you agree with him explain – in your own words – what following his philosophy could do (as an ethical benefit).  If you disagree with him, provide an alternative solution. What would be better?
 Your initial post should be between 250-300 words

PLEASE READ THE POST BELOW AND RESPOND TO IT IN 50 WORD OR MORE:
Ethics are based on our morals and that everyone has free will but what is free will? 
Free will is the theory that we make our own decisions and actions, This decision could have a positive or negative impact on our life and we are the ones who choose which impact with want. another definition we need to know to answer this question is morally responsible this basically means that based on our beliefs our ideas we believe this person is responsible for their action.
We can’t blame someone morally if, in fact, that person did not choose the action under consideration. Or is this not the case?
I believe this is not the case in the book we can read “Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge” This theory states that we don’t really have free will because God already decides which actions we are going to take so human free will is just an illusion I don’t agree with this because is supposed that God let people pick their actions so he also gives us free will I believe we all have free will and we are able to decide our actions, based in our morals and beliefs.
What role does free will play in human nature?  Do we possess free will? 
Free will plays a huge role in human nature, free will is what all humans have to make a decision, A theory that challenges this is the dilemma of determinism Which states that our actions are determined by factors that surround us and that we are not responsible for our actions but I disagree with this because we at the end we always take the decision ourselves yes I agree sometimes our environment pushed to take decisions but we always have another option, for example, let’s say you’re kidnapped and they told you we let you free if you killed the other person that is with you one person could say that his actions would determine because of his environment but I believe he still had free will That person can still pick what they want to do.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Book VII Page (99-119), Aristotle discusses “incontinence,” or weakness of will. In the case of weakness of will, a person knows which action is in accord with virtue, but allows appetites to overpower reason and chooses to act against reason and virtue. Aristotle argues that the possibility of weakness of will shows that virtue is more than simply knowledge (as Socrates thought), for a person can have knowledge of what is right yet fail to do it.
According to Aristotle, what gives rise to weakness of will, and how can a person with weakness of will be improved?

In order to ‘have’ ethics, however, we must also have free will.  This makes sense, right?  We can’t blame someone morally if, in fact, that person did not choose the action under consideration.  Or is this not the case?  What do you think?  What role does freewill play in human nature?  Do we possess free will?  Provide your best argument for or against freewill/determinism.   
 Your initial post should be between 250-300 words  

PLEASE RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING POST FROM ANOTHER CLASSMATE IN 50 WORDS OR MORE: 
The freedom from bodily restraints that would prohibit us from behaving gives us the appearance of having free will over our actions and ideas. When we put our plans into motion, we get the confidence to achieve our goals. The ability to choose a specific action from a set of potential outcomes is what is meant by the word “free will.” The concept of free will is inextricably related to personal accountability. One has the right to suggest what is best for himself. The exercise of free choice might constrain others’ independence. Making moral choices and voicing opinions is a hallmark of free will. However, one should have the privilege of free will only if their decision does not harm another individual. 
Determinism is the belief that every action is the predetermined consequence of some earlier cause. By understanding the causal linkages between occurrences, someone with perfect knowledge of the laws of nature and all metaphysical facts in the past could predict everything that would happen in the future. 
A person’s sense of free will arises from their self-awareness and awareness of the options available. The notion of free will centers on ideas about the bounds of human freedom. It educates the individual about the norms of society and the rules of law. One learns the hard way what he should and should not do.
The idea of free choice does not give somebody carte blanche to murder or hurt other people. It encourages independent thought and guarantees everyone’s right to follow the law. Having the power of choice implies responsibility for making moral and ethical decisions. It gives us a clearer picture of who we are and how we fit into the broader context of life.

 
Robert Nozick famously created a thought experiment known as the “Experience Machine”. Please watch this short video clip that includes an explanation of this thought expirement:
Nozick’s Experience MachineLinks to an external site.
In this journal submission please discuss whether you would ‘enter’ the experience machine.  Would you plug in and spend your life ‘hooked up to the machine’?  Why or why not? Make sure to fully defend your answer.  
Please be sure to write at least 250 words.