Category: Philosophy

I have the prompt attached, as well as what I have written so far to show what I was trying to go for, but i have been unsuccessful trying to figure out the rest. I have been really struggling to understand what I have been reading in order to understand and then translate it to the paper. The first sentence must be a thesis statement. I also have a lot of links for resources to use provided by my professor and can send pictures of the textbook if need be.

Please read the article and answer the questions at the end. Each question should be answered in 4-5 sentences.

Please write on option number 1. in the uploaded document
1. Plato’s Meno. First, explain Meno’s Paradox and how Socrates solves it. Then, state clearly what Socrates’s explanation tells us about Plato’s theory of knowledge. Finally, discuss the possible problems and weaknesses and offer a solution to the paradox.

1-2 paragraphs
Choose 2 quotations directly from the chapter for either a philosophy or philosopher (that I will provide). Please DO NOT do random quotes that do not correlate.
The 2 quotations MUST be central to the philosophies/ or philosophers way of thinking and their approach.
This proposal must be able to allow me to focus in on the 2 quotes research, content, and allow me to further comment on the philosophy/ or philosopher.

After studying Lee’s lectures on utilitarianism explore in detail how a restricted utilitarian would answer the question of whether it would be right for a judge to accept a bribe to rule a certain way in a case. Show your work. That is, carefully explain each step in your reasoning. Note: For this assignment you need not use any materials apart from those in the class texts — indeed you are encouraged not to. However, no matter what sources of information you use — even the textbook — be sure to make adequate attribution (e.g. in footnotes). You are expected to do your own work. Use of unacknowledged sources (e.g., uncited books, classmates, friends, tutors, mentors, web pages, other papers, AI apps) for this assignment constitutes cheating. If you use AI, be sure you are aware of the course policy (see syllabus).

1. Write a summary about one of the primary readings before prompting zotGPT to provide the same summary. A competent summary is generally 150-250 words, provides an overview of the topics covered, and answers basic questions about the original text. This should include the main idea, supporting points/reasoning, and main evidence/methodology used.
2. Reflect on the differences between your summaries, and write a short reflection about how these tools can enrich our learning if we use them wisely. What did you learn from comparing summaries? Were any important details included or excluded? When thinking about genAI and how they ‘learn’/are ‘trained’/ ‘taught’ how might this relate to the legal and moral tensions in Euthyphro’s dilemma? Or, in light of Rawls’ theory of justice and the veil of ignorance/reflective equilibrium how might genAI be useful for creating a more just world and society?

Provide two critical feedback points for each of them. Introduces a new idea or is a meaningful response to it. Please either expand the thought, add additional insights, or respectfully disagree and explain why.

Main question: For Aquinas, what authority would the state have independently of the Church to regulate religion? Why?
Justification: Aquinas’ stance on this topic illuminates the historical basis of discussion about religious freedom and the demarcation lines between secular and ecclesiastical authority. How come?
Methodology: this paper will analyze primary sources from Aquinas, focusing on his works on political philosophy and religion.
Key consideration: the significance of Aquinas’ theory of natural law and how it applies to creating a just society.
Recognizing the expression ‘the public good’ and its relationship with religious ritual. The extent to which Aquinas’ assertion validates the limitations of ecclesiastical and civil authority.

The expected outcome: This essay suggests that Aquinas would bolster a view that dismisses a state that can set limits on religion. While the state does need to promote the public good, it should not be in charge of people’s beliefs or displays of faith, except when these directly oppose orderly society or the common good.
Extra Study: By introducing a point of contention against the idea that the state may implement regulations on religious freedom based on Aquinas’ theories, this essay is a starting point for further analysis of how Aquinas’ ideas may relate to today’s discussions of religious liberty and the rule of law.
What you will find is that, at least on a surface reading, the chapters from De regno seem to be in tension with the Summa and Sentences texts, as De regno seems to suggest that the state does have an independent role in promoting eternal salvation and thus regulating religion. In order to prove your thesis, you need to explain how the three sets of texts (ST, the Sentences commentary, and DR) can be reconciled.
The paper is also meant to be a research paper, and so you will need to engage with secondary literature on the topic. Fortunately, there is a lot of material on your research question that will be helpful in developing your argument. In particular, you should consult the following sources and engage with them in your paper:
I.T. Eschmann, “St. Thomas Aquinas on the Two Powers,” Mediaeval Studies 20 (1958): 177–205; Paul Sigmund, “Law and Politics,” in The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, eds. Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 219. (These two scholars both argue essentially the opposite of your conclusion)
William McCormick, S.J., “‘A Unity of Order’: Aquinas on the End of Politics,” Nova et Vetera 21 (2023): 1019–1041; Leonard Boyle, O.P., “The De Regno and the Two Powers,” in Facing History: A Different Thomas Aquinas (Louvain-la-Neuve: Collège Cardinal Mercier, 2000), 1–12; Laurence Fitzgerald, O.P., “St. Thomas Aquinas and the Two Powers,” Angelicum 56 (1979): 515–556. (these scholars try to show the compatibility of the texts).

Group Assignment 3
The Assignment:
For Group Assignment 3, provide a detailed and developed response to the question in the PDF called “Group Assignment 3 The Firefighter’s Dilemma” (provided as an attachment to this discussion). If you are in the “Utilitarians” group, you must answer the question according to utilitarianism; if you are in the “Deontologists” group, you must respond according to “deontology/duty theory” (Kant); if you are in the “Virtue Ethicists” group, you must respond according to Virtue Ethics. Briefly explain the important aspects of the theory you are using, and then provide your response to the firefighter’s dilemma, clearly demonstrating how your response is in accord with the moral theory you have been assigned. Do not include any personal opinions or theories other than the theory you have been assigned, or your group will fail the assignment.
Group Assignment 3 The Firefighters’ Dilemma.pdf
The Due Dates:
FRI., May 24, 11:59 pm: Initial Answers Due. Provide a brief explanation of the theory you have been assigned. Then provide an argument for whether the THEORY YOU HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED deems the actions of the firefighters to be moral or immoral. Someone NEW (someone who has not been a group leader yet) should volunteer to be group leader.
Mon., May 27, 11:59 pm: Comment on at least two of your group members’ posts, providing constructive feedback and respectfully stated disagreement where relevant. Come to some sort of consensus as a group about whether the firefighters were moral or immoral, according to your theory. Give suggestions regarding whose answers, or portions of answers, should be used in the final answer.
WED., May 29, 11:59 pm: Final Answer due! Your group leader should post one final answer for the group, based on the discussions and consensus reached.
Your group leader needs to make the post, in the GRADED DISCUSSION BOARD (the main discussion board for the group). The Final Answers posting should say “FINAL ANSWERS” at the top of the posting, and must include the names of all group members who participated fully in completing the assignment. Also, it must include the names of those who did not participate fully, with a brief indication of level of participation (for example, “Bob posted his initial answers on time, but we never heard from him after that.”) And, of course, this post needs to include the group’s final answers to be graded.

Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 6, 7
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Introduction
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinions – but not their own facts.” (Daniel Patrick Moynihan, cited in Vanity Fair, 2010, para. 2)
We form opinions – and make our judgments – based on facts we observe and values we hold. Our judgments are also influenced by the opinions of others. In the section “An Expert on Hate in America” in Chapter 6, one of the authors, Dr. Peter Facione, renders an opinion on a non-profit civil rights organization: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Dr. Facione is a leading advocate and one of the most influential voices in the field of critical thinking.
His endorsement of the civil rights organization is unqualified. It is also transparent: Dr. Facione reveals that he is a financial supporter of the organization and has arranged speaking engagements for its founder. This is Dr. Facione’s invitation to you, the reader:
Knowing where you can learn more about the SPLC for yourself, and knowing about Dr. Facione’s endorsement and support of the Center’s work, evaluate this claim made by Dr. Facione: “The SPLC is an expert on hate in America” (p. 124).
The endorsement of the SPLC is contained in the most current edition of the text, whose copyright date is 2016. Since that time Morris Dees, co-founder and former chief trial counsel, has been fired (Hassan, Zraick & Blinder, 2019). Previously, there has been controversy about groups and individuals that are listed by the SPLC as “hate groups” (Graham, 2016; Price, 2018). The organization, which has nearly a half-billion dollars in assets, has also been criticized for how it spends these funds (Robinson, 2019).
Self-Assessment Question
Before you submit your initial post, make sure to read the assigned chapter. Then, ask yourself the following: Did the article in Chapter 6 of the text seem credible and reliable? Why? Be very specific:
Was it because it is in a textbook?
Because it was written by a learned and respected person?
Because of content in the article?
Because of your previous knowledge of the SPLC?
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
Conduct additional research on the SPLC. Did your opinion alter in any way? Why?
Only after you have done some responsible research should you begin to respond to the discussion prompt. The discussion is not about the SPLC; it is not about Dr. Facione. It is about what you have learned about forming opinions.
Your post must answer this question:
How do you define the term “expert”?
Your post must also discuss at least two (2) of the following questions:
How important are facts in the process of forming an opinion? Explain what you believe to be the purpose or function of facts in making a judgment.
How did you respond to the self-assessment question? Since doing further research, have you re-thought the way in which you assess credibility and reliability? What is the importance of factoring the recency of a reference or opinion (i.e., how old is it?) into an assessment of credibility and reliability?
How would you evaluate Dr. Facione’s claim “The SPLC is an expert on hate in America” (p. 124). Does the SPLC fit your definition of “expert”? Be specific in your answer.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least one peer. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references
Grading
This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:
Discussion Guidelines
Course Outcomes
CO 4: Evaluate arguments by applying tests of truthfulness, logical strength, relevance, and non-circularity.
CO 5: Evaluate the role of cognitive bias and fallacies of relevance in critical reasoning and decision-making.
CO 6: Apply principles of critical reasoning to political, educational, economic, and/or social issues.
Due Date
Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT Recommended by Wednesday
Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
Posts must be on two separate days.
References
Facione, P. A., & Gittens, C. A. (2016). Think critically (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Graham, D.A., (2016, October) How did Maajid Nawaz end up on a list of ‘anti-Muslim extremists’? https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/
Hassan, A., Zraick, K., & Blinder, A (2019, March 24) Morris Dees, a co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is ousted. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/morris-dees-southern-poverty-law-center-fired.html
Price, G. (2018, June 18) Southern Poverty Law Center settles lawsuit after falsely labeling ‘extremist’ organization. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-981879
Robinson, N. J. (2019, March) The Southern Poverty Law Center is everything that’s wrong with liberalism. Current Affairs. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-liberalism
Vanity Fair. (2010, October 10). An American original. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/11/moynihan-letters-201011