Category: Philosophy

Your answer to this question must make reference to at least two of the
readings from this semester. You don’t have to agree with them (although
you might), but your answer to the question of the meaning of life should be
explained, at least in part, in relation to them.
Make sure all of your quotes are properly cited, and that you include a work-cited
section at the end of the paper. Any act of plagiarism, or use of an AI program to write
your paper will result in failing the paper

The last part of the Research Paper Assignment will provide a philosophical analysis of your scientific controversy. You will assess whether your controversy is a real scientific controversy or a created controversy (this is a technical term introduced in your Harker book). If it is real you should explain what the source of the scientific disagreement was and how it was resolved (if it was resolved). You should evaluate whether, and to what extent, your controversy undermines the authority of science.
My assessment: real scientific controversy

Please refer to the requirement. No need look for outside sources. Just review the powerpoint slides and material I provided. Please dont focus on the divergence problem. Focus on the essay prompt. I have also provided my solution but not sure whether is right but something like this.

For this essay, choose one of these prompts:
1) Engaging thoughtfully with multiple relevant readings, consider the ethics of factory farming and/or of using animals for food more generally. You should argue for a positive thesis — but one that is grounded in philosophical argument, not merely in personal thoughts/feelings. You should consider one serious objection to your position and engage with it thoughtfully and fairly.
2) Consider the various views about the moral standing of animals that we’ve covered. Engaging carefully with the relevant readings, argue for one of these views and consider one serious objection to it.
For whichever one, please fully explain everything and constantly reference the book. I will send notes and can send pages from the textbooks too if needed for reference. The textbooks that we have done readings from are: (1) Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, ed. by Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III, 1st edition. and (2) The Animal Ethics Reader, ed. by Susan J. Armstrong and Richard G. Botzler, 3rd edition. Please cite these with references and flesh out an amazing essay! Also please cite them so that I can go through and check. Thank you so much! Let me know if there are any questions! Also, please don’t cite any outside sources. Just from the books!! Thank you!

I have wrote 4 pages paper about the following topic: You might consider Benedict in light of Rachels’s argument that there is less moral disagreement than it seems (Rachels, 5-6), or Rachels’s argument that all cultures must have some values in common (Rachels, 7), or some other argument for moral objectivism from Rachels, King, or Aquinas. Who makes the stronger case, and why?
My professor got back to me and put some notes in my paper. I will be attaching the pdf that he gave my where you can find both my paper and his comments. Some of the comments are just about non-proper citations. I will attach the article that I used so that you can cite properly. My professor want the citations to be in the following way: (name of the author, page number where you took the information from). Therefore, I would like to correct for all the remarks that my professor gave me and also add information that you find relevant from the articles so that to enhance the quality of my essay.

FINAL EXAM CRITICAL REFLECTION PAPER ASSIGNMENT
(DUE BY May 12, 2024-11:59 PM-b/f Midnight)
Philosophy 103 is a general education course designed to assist students in the development of critical life skills. One of the goals of this assignment is to assess student competence for each of these objectives:

Written and Oral Communication— Speak and write clearly about philosophical issues.
Critical Analysis and Reasoning— Logically evaluate a philosophical argument or position.
Information Literacy— Evaluate and select appropriate academic sources.
Personal and Professional Ethics— Explain the importance and relevance of rationally and constructively questioning basic beliefs and assumptions
Local and Global Diversity— Identify and describe varied conceptions of human nature that are implied by different philosophical theories.

ASSIGNMENT:

Purpose: The purpose of this critical reflection essay assignment is to demonstrate that you can employ a line of philosophical reflection to explain the issue raised by the selected question or topic, and articulate your position. It seeks to demonstrate if students can apply philosophical arguments to support their chosen thesis. You are expected to use the arguments, theories, and philosophical understanding that you acquired in this course in your paper.

Additionally, you are required to use library or internet based peer reviewed resources to support your claims with a minimum of 3 resources either in support of or antithetical to your view. This assignment should reflect your view and a diverse perspective distinct from your own. Apply your ethical reasoning to the topic and allow your perspective to be reflected in your discussion.

Directions: Compose an original, philosophical essay (1500 words minimum). Select a topic of your choosing from the assigned options below and clearly employ a line of philosophical reflection to apply to the issue raised by the question or topic, and expound upon your position, employing philosophical arguments to support your thesis. You are expected to use the critical thinking analysis, arguments, theories, and philosophical understandings that you acquired in this course in your paper.
Be certain to use APA Format to include a cover page with your name, course number, section, and title for your paper. Your paper will be graded on accuracy, clarity of explanation, and depth of understanding. You are not graded on the specific position you take on the question but on how well you explain and argue your position.
STEPS FOR THE CRITICAL-REFLECTION ESSAY:
1. Select one of the questions listed below.
2. Determine a thesis statement; in other words develop a clear philosophical position on the topic you select. Your essay must make reference and cite at least 3 of the philosophers or philosophical theories covered in this course. Cite the appropriate academic sources/references that you have used to construct your thesis and supporting argument.
3. Develop clear arguments for your thesis including critical thinking terms: hypothesis, thesis, antithesis, synthesis and so on.
4. Anticipate the most likely objections to your arguments, and explain how you would defend your arguments against objections.
6. Summarize the results of your analysis of the original topic/problem.
ASSIGNED TOPICS: (PLEASE CHOOSE FROM THIS LIST)

Research Topic: What is Aristotle’s contribution to Logic? & What other philosophers have contributed to Logic and Critical Thinking? Give examples and cite at least three or more sources (Peer Reviewed sources)
Explain how deductive and inductive reasoning function in creating critical thinking? Give examples and cite at least three or more sources (Peer Reviewed sources)
What is Critical Thinking (define). What are some benefits of critical thinking ? How is it helpful and why? Give examples and cite at least three or more sources (Peer Reviewed sources)
Explain how Egocentric, Pre-reflective claims, and Fallacies influence, and impact Objectivity and Critical Analysis. Give examples and cite at least three or more sources (Peer Reviewed sources)

ASSIGNMENT SPECIFICATIONS:
Minimum 1500 words typed in Times New Roman 12-pt font, double-spaced with 1” margins. The Works Cited page is not included in the assigned page length.
APA style format and documentation for parenthetical citations and a reference page.
Minimum of 3 peer-reviewed secondary sources in addition to assigned primary sources.
Utilize library or internet peer reviewed databases to locate appropriate sources to support or negate philosophy views in your discussion.

Instructions
Exercise 1
Write each of the following arguments into standard form:
Plato will graduate only if he bribes his instructors. But Plato does not bribe, never has, never will. Therefore, Plato will not graduate.
In the absence of interesting activities in the world life would be boring. But I don’t find life boring—in fact—life is not boring. Therefore, there must interesting activities in the world.
If the washing machine is disconnected, nothing will get washed. But it is connected, I plugged it in myself. So, we will be able to wash.
Your gas bill will be acceptable provided that you do not use more that X many units a month. But you never do use more than X units a month, so your bill will be acceptable.
If Socrates is a dogbomber, then he will have trouble holding down a job. Knowing Socrates, he definitely will have trouble holding down a job, so he must be a dogbomber.
Label the premises (P) and the conclusion (C); you can use the line (“——–“) to separate the conclusion from the premises.
Identify which inference form is used in each of these (affirming the antecedent, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or denying the consequent).
And then, state whether the inference (the argument) is valid or invalid
Additional Information
Conditional Statements
If … the cat is on the mat … then … the dog is in the yard
(P) (Q)
The antecedent the consequent
Different ways of representing the conditional:
“P implies Q”
“if P is true, then Q is true”
“P → Q”
“P Ↄ Q”

Note: The statement “if P then Q” is a false statement only
when its antecedent statement P is true but its consequent Q is false; otherwise the statement “If P then Q” is true.
Therefore,
When P is false, then “If P then Q” is a true statement
When Q is true, then “If P then Q” is also a true statement
Two Valid Inference Forms (and two invalid forms.)
Valid
A. Modus Ponens (affirming the antecedent)
1. P → Q If P is true then Q is true (P implies Q)
2. P P is true (affirms the antecedent of premise 1)
—————————————-
3. Q Q is true
Given that, assuming that, 1 and 2 are true then it is not possible for Q to be false
also Valid
B. Modus Tollens (denying the consequent)
1. P → Q If P is true then Q is true (P implies Q)
2. ~ Q Q is not true (denies the consequent of premise 1)
———————————
3. ~ P P is not true
If P truly implies Q, but Q is false, then P must be false
Note that these two inference rules come right out of the meaning of the statement “If P is true, then Q is true”.
Negating a conditional
If statement S is true, then…
not-S, or ~ S, or ⌐ S are false
If S is a conditional statement, If P then Q, then to negate it it must be negated this way:
not- (If P then Q). The “not” must go on the outside of the parenthesis so that the whole expression is negated.
The statement ” if not-P then Q” with “not” inside says something different.
Note also that asserting ” Not- (if P then Q) ” is logically equivalent to asserting “P and not-Q”,
i.e. asserting that P can be true while Q is not

Invalid – These are Formal Fallacies (they violate logical form)
Denying the antecedent is a fallacy
1. If P is true then Q is true
2. P is false (denies the antecedent of premise 1)
—————
Q is false
This argument form is invalid
Even though P implies Q, so might other things. P being false does nothing to Q’s truth status, one way or the other
also a Formal Fallacy
Affirming the consequent is a fallacy
1. If P implies Q
2. Q is true (affirms the consequent of premise 1)
————-
P is true No, this is an invalid inference
Stylizations of conditional statements: If P then Q
These are different ways of stating “If P then Q”, different ways of translating “If P then Q”.
P is a sufficient condition for Q
Q is a necessary condition for P
Q is so if P is so (‘so’ roughly meaning true)
Q provided that P
P only if Q is so
Only if Q is P so
Given that P is so, then Q
Not-P unless Q
Assuming P, then Q
Note: “if” dictates antecedent. For example, “P if J” means “If J then P”. It has nothing to do with the letters. It is the logic of “if”.
But the word “only” alters things. The statement “if P then Q” means the same thing as “P only if Q”., or “only if Q is the case, is P also the case”. Thus “if” and “only if” are different. “If” indicates a sufficient condition and logically will identify the antecedent. “Only if”, on the other hand, indicates a necessary condition and logically identifies the consequent.
The above are all variations (translations) for saying “If P then Q” or “P implies Q”
Before starting homework Exercise 1` be sure to review the above translation rules (or stylizations) for conditional statements (right above); and also especially review the material starting at the top about conditionals and the inference forms (some are valid and some are not).
For the homework start off with this exercise – call it Exercise 1
Do the exercise offline first so that you have it ready to copy and paste it into the submission device.
These are exercises on argument forms involving conditional propositions.
Re-write each of the following arguments into standard form:
Plato will graduate only if he bribes his instructors. But Plato does not bribe, never has, never will. Therefore, Plato will not graduate.
In the absence of interesting activities in the world life would be boring. But I don’t find life boring—in fact—life is not boring. Therefore, there must interesting activities in the world.
If the washing machine is disconnected, nothing will get washed. But it is connected, I plugged it in myself. So, we will be able to wash.
Your gas bill will be acceptable provided that you do not use more that X many units a month. But you never do use more than X units a month, so your bill will be acceptable.
If Socrates is a dogbomber, then he will have trouble holding down a job. Knowing Socrates, he definitely will have trouble holding down a job, so he must be a dogbomber.
Each argument will have the premises listed first, and then the conclusion at the bottom. Label the premises P for each premise and C for the conclusion. You can use the line (“——–“) to separate the conclusion from the premises. Identify (state) which inference form is used in each of these (is it affirming the antecedent, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or denying the consequent?)
Explain whether the inference (the argument) is valid or invalid. (remember, these are only exercises in deduction—do not get involved with inductive assessments about the truth of the premises.
HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT
Exercise 1 above), Display each of those five arguments into standard form. Identify which inference form is used in each, and explain whether the inference (the argument) is valid or invalid.
Again, just repeating the exercise specifications:
Re-write each of those five arguments into standard form: that is a list with one sentence per line; the premises listed first, and then the conclusion at the bottom.
Label the premises (P) and the conclusion (C); you can use the line (“——–“) to separate the conclusion from the premises.
Identify (state) which inference form is used in each of these (affirming the antecedent, affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or denying the consequent).
And then, state whether the inference (the argument) is valid or invalid. (remember, these are only exercises in deduction—do not get involved with inductive assessments about the truth of the premises.

A 2.5 to 3 double spaced paper on Hume and Descartes on the a priori proof for God regarding to Philosophy. The paper is to expand on the ideas talked about in the text which will be provided below and can be counted as source. Only essay topic A should be written, all other topics should be ignored. I will provide any other additional text if needed.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm
__________
General Paper Instructions
Assignment: 2.5 to 3 double-spaced page paper (no less than two full pages please)
The paper should be expository in nature. By expository, I mean that you should primarily strive to make sense of (i.e. explain) the ideas, arguments and views expressed in the text(s) rather than to provide your own critical analysis of them.
The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate the depth of your comprehension of the text(s) and to showcase your ability to interpret and make sense of subtleties and complexities of the author’s thought. Consequently, you will need to substantiate your interpretation with direct reference to the text(s) in question, in the form of quotations or, preferably, paraphrases. Always include page numbers for these references, such as (p. 24) and indicate which work you are citing if it is not absolutely clear (i.e., Meno or Meditations)
The key to a good paper is to be specific, concrete and focused. Be sure to avoid making vague generalizations. Make sure that you back up your claims with textual support. In fact, every non-trivial claim in your paper should be accompanied by some sort of textual reference (to either primary or secondary sources). Make sure that your thesis is formulated clearly and explicitly in the first paragraph and that the body of your paper (i.e., every subsequent paragraph) directly supports that thesis. I expect to see well-written, well-organized, polished prose: coherent sentences, a natural flow from sentenced to sentence, unified paragraphs and transparent transitions from paragraph to paragraph.
Clear writing can only result from clear thinking. So, first and foremost, you must get to know the material that you chose to write about—read it and read it often, before you begin to write. I suggest that you start writing well before the deadline so that you have time to revise your ideas and edit your writing. Also, I suggest that you have a family member, friend or classmate or fellow philosophy club member read a draft for clarity. You are also encouraged to take advantage of Metro’s Writing Center (KD 3rd floor).
Although you must provide textual support of you claims (by cite page numbers), you are free to be creative in your responses. So, for instance, you are free to compose your essay in the form of a dialogue between Descartes and Socrates, Chomsky, Nagel, etc. But if you go that route, you must still offer something like a “thesis statement,” strive for clarity and provide textual support for you claims.
Rubric:
Although I do not assign grades based on a rubric, I offer the following rubric for your own benefit. It will give you a sense of the kinds of things that I hope to see in a paper.
Total points for the assignment correspond to the following grade:
16 to 20 total points = A
11 to 15 total points = B
6 to 10 total points = C
1 to 5 total points = D
0 total points = F
I. “Thesis” or statement of student’s position
4. Specific position (thesis, perspective or hypothesis) is sophisticated, interesting and original, and it reflects a comprehensive awareness of the nuances and complexities of the relevant philosophical issues/problems.
3. Specific position may not be original or imaginative, but it is articulated in a sophisticated manner that reflects a comprehensive awareness of the complexities of the relevant philosophical issues/problems.
2. Specific position is relevant and stated clearly, but reflects only a basic awareness of the relevant philosophical issues involved.
1. Specific position is stated, but is either obvious or trivial, and it reflects partial or inadequate awareness of the relevant philosophical issues involved.
0. The statement of one’s position is irrelevant, unintelligible, or absent.
II. Evidence/Explication:
4. Successfully identifies and masterfully explicates the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are most relevant to the student’s position.
3. Successfully identifies the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are most relevant to the student’s position, and appropriately explains or explicates some, if not all, of them.
2 Partially identifies and adequately explicates the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are most relevant to the student’s position.
1. Identifies the some of the texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work that are relevant to the student’s position, but fails to identify the most important texts, passages and aspects of an author’s work or fails to explicate them adequately.
0. Fails to identify and explicate relevant texts.
III. Analysis
4. The analysis is fresh and exciting, posing new ways to think about the material, and it clearly and compellingly relates “textual” evidence to the student’s position.
3. The analysis is compelling, if not original, and it consistently relates “textual” evidence to the student’s position.
2. The analysis sometime relates “textual” evidence to the student’s position, but the connections are not always clear or compelling.
1. The analysis only minimally supports the student’s position.
0. The paper lacks analysis, or the analysis fails to support the student’s position.
IV. Contextualizing
4. Clearly demonstrates command of the broader philosophical theories and ideas (of the authors/texts under consideration) by situating the specific evidence in the appropriate argumentative contexts and by articulating some of the relevant implications of the student’s analysis.
3. Demonstrates adequate awareness of the broader philosophical theories by situating the specific evidence in the appropriate argumentative contexts.
2. Demonstrates some awareness of the broader philosophical theories and ideas by attempting to situate the specific evidence in broader argumentative contexts.
1. Demonstrates little awareness of the broader philosophical theories and ideas.
0. Demonstrates no awareness of the broader philosophical theories and ideas.
V. Control of Syntax and Mechanics (including essay structure)
4. Uses graceful language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency, and is virtually error free.
3. Uses straightforward language that effectively conveys meaning to readers with few errors.
2. Uses appropriate language that usually conveys meaning to readers with clarity, although the writing may include some errors.
1. Uses language that sometimes impedes meaning because of errors in usage.
0. Uses words that nevertheless I not certain if language this is or what because ; )

ESSAY TOPICS: (Please select ONE AND ONLY ONE topic from the below…a, b, c or d).
A) Hume and Descartes on the a priori proof for God:
In Part IX of the Dialogues, both Philo and Cleanthes offer objections to Demea’s a priori proof for God’s existence. Some of these criticisms specifically target Demea’s cosmological proof for God, but others are designed to challenge the credibility of any a priori proof whatsoever. Those broader objections might, therefore, serve to undermine the proofs for God that Descartes puts forth in his Meditations. In your essay, I want you to (a) spell out Demea’s cosmological proof in some detail. (b) Next, explain one or two of the criticisms that Philo and/or Cleanthes mounted against that proof. Finally, (c) I’d like you to consider how Descartes might have responded to these criticisms. Do those objections prove fatal to Descartes’s own proofs for God. If so, why? If not, why not? (You can, if you like, write this paper in the form of a dialogue between Philo, Demea and Descartes.).

Susan Wolf, a professor of moral philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, challenges the idea that the morally idea

Review the Document: Carefully read the ″EQUALITY INSTRUCTIONS″ document provided. Pay close attention to all the details and notes included, as these will form the basis of the essay content and structure.
Draft an Outline:
Create a Detailed Outline: Using the plan provided in the ″EQUALITY INSTRUCTIONS″ document, draft a clear and structured outline of the essay. The outline should include all main headings, subheadings, and key points that will be covered in each section.
Incorporate All Notes: Ensure that all additional notes and instructions from the document are reflected in the outline. This includes any specific examples, arguments, or references that need to be included in the essay.
Submit the Outline for Approval:
Send the Outline for Review: Before starting the essay, please submit the outline to me for approval.
Wait for Feedback: Do not begin writing the essay until you have received feedback on the outline. I will review the outline to ensure that it closely aligns with the instructions and the intended focus of the essay.
Revisions if Necessary:
Incorporate Feedback: If any revisions are needed, please adjust the outline accordingly and resubmit it for final approval. Make sure to address all feedback points to align the outline with the ″EQUALITY INSTRUCTIONS″ document.
Begin Writing Once Approved:
Start the Essay: Once the outline has been approved, you may begin writing the essay. Follow the approved outline closely to structure your arguments and ensure that all required content is comprehensively covered.
Alignment and Cohesion:
Ensure Cohesion: As you write, keep referring back to the ″EQUALITY INSTRUCTIONS″ document to ensure that your essay remains aligned with the initial instructions and maintains a coherent argument throughout.
Final Submission:
Review Before Submission: Before sending the final draft, please review your work to ensure it meets all the criteria laid out in the ″EQUALITY INSTRUCTIONS″ document and the approved outline.
Submit the Completed Essay: Send the completed essay by the agreed deadline.