Ethics and Trust in Critical Thinking Decisions
- Imagine you are seeking information on a new car that you are thinking of buying. Determine the level of trust that you would place in information provided by the following: a salesman at the car lot, the dealer’s Website, social media (i.e. Facebook), an associate from work, and finally a close friend. Discuss the key factors involved in assessing the amount of trust that you put into each.
- If you were in a position to persuade another person, explain whether or not you would slant information in such a way as to make your point seem more credible if you sincerely believed that your position was correct. Discuss the primary ethical dilemmas that this scenario could cause for both you and the person whom you are trying to persuade.
99% of the human body is composed of just six elements. We are all 65% oxygen, 18% carbon (the basic component of all organic molecules), 10% hydrogen, 3% nitrogen, 1.5% calcium and 1% phosphorus (the other 1% is primarily composed of potassium, sulfur, sodium, and magnesium). On the open market the appropriate quantities of these elements to construct a person would sell for less than $10. What else goes into making a human? Information. There are between 20 and 25 thousand genes in human DNA, which carries the biological instructions that make each species and each individual unique. But DNA is simply made of chemical building blocks called nucleotides and during cell division DNA is copied and the copies are transferred to new cells. Just as the body can be explained in terms of its physical composition so too can the “mental” be explained in terms of the physical composition of the brain, which is constructed out of 86 billion specialized cells called neurons. Neurons transmit nerve signals to and from the brain at 200mph. While no one neuron is conscious, the system as a whole certainly is. In this sense, we are all simply a complex organization of matter that is capable of processing information. While brain neurons cannot be purchased on the open market, computer processors capable of carrying out 33,000 trillion calculations per second (a much higher rate than brain neurons) can be purchased. Given such speed it would not take anywhere near 100 billion such processors working together to surpass the computing powers of the human brain. Would a sufficiently complex but artificially arranged configuration of such elements and processors be conscious? What does your answer have to say about philosophy of mind? 2. Global warming has rendered the continuation of life on Earth impossible. Luckily, we have been able to melt the polar ice caps on Mars which has created the atmospheric conditions necessary to sustain human life. You have no choice but to make the 36 million mile journey to Mars. However, you can choose your method of transport. One method is teletransportation. You will step into a scanner here on earth which will destroy your brain and body, while recording the exact states of all your cells. This information will then be transmitted to a replicator on Mars. Travelling at the speed of light, the message will take three minutes to reach its destination. The replicator will create, out of new matter, a brain and body exactly like yours. The person on Mars will look like you, think like you, in fact be indistinguishable from you. He or she will feel as though they have merely fallen asleep on Earth and then woken up on Mars. This method is 100 percent reliable. The other choice is to go by spaceship. This is very risky and there is a 50 percent chance that the ship will not complete the journey and you will die in transit. But if you do successfully take the spaceship, then your body and brain won’t at any stage have been destroyed. You must make the choice which you think will give you the best chance of surviving. What does your choice say about your philosophy of mind? Before answering, consider this interesting fact from Steve Grand: Not a single atom in your body today was there when you were born
Critical Analysis Papers
Writing Tips [Prof. James Prior, NYU University]
• Include a thesis statement in your introductory paragraph.
• The paper should consist of the reasoned defense of some claim.
• A good paper is modest and makes a small point; but it makes that point clearly and straightforwardly, and it offers good reasons in support of it.
• Make the structure of your paper obvious. It would be helpful if you submitted an outline, but it’s not required.
• Be concise, but explain yourself fully.
Some Possible Writing Strategies [Paper needs to do evaluative work.]
• Criticize an argument; or show that certain arguments for the thesis are no good.
• Defend the argument or thesis against someone else’s criticism.
• Offer reasons to believe the thesis.
• Offer counterexamples to the thesis.
• Think of the CAP as a persuasive/argumentative paper. Imagine that you are trying to persuade an intelligent, but uninformed reader of your conclusion.
• Your paper has to do substantive work, not merely regurgitate an author’s main points.
Requirements of the Paper
• Papers should either be in Microsoft Word format (.doc) or Rich Text format (.rtf).
• Four-to-six pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman font, 12 point, one-inch margins.
• MLA or Chicago system of citation.
• Include a cover page that contains the title of the paper, your name, my name, the date, and the class (e.g., BUSI 2301.702).
• You may use as many sources as you wish, but you must cite either our textbook.
• Possible outside sources include books, journal articles, magazines, databases, Websites, videos, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and almanacs. When possible, try to cite from recent sources.
• Make sure you evaluate your online sources for trustworthiness and credibility.
Sample Footnotes (For those following the Chicago Manual of Style)
Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip,
Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule (New York: Times Books, 2004), pp. 25-26.
Nadrian C. Seeman, “Nanotechnology and the Double Helix,” Scientific American
290 (June 2004): 64-75.
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, eds., The Founders’ Constitution (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000), chap. 9, doc. 3, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/.
Shermer, Good and Evil, 25.
Seeman, “Nanotechnology,” 64.
In your written component of the Final Project, you will analyze an argument in relation to a specific issue. Then, you will respond to that argument by providing a counterargument. Please choose one reading or media artifact from the Final Project Argument Options. Be sure to choose an issue in which you are interested and for which you have enough factual evidence to create a strong argument.
Complete the steps below based on your chosen argument:
Step One: Evaluate the Argument
- Identify the issue that is addressed in the argument.
- Explain the argument and identify the premises and conclusions.
- Evaluate the argument.
- If the argument has a deductive component, is it valid and sound? Why?
- If the argument has an inductive component, is it strong or weak? Why?
- Remember that arguments often contain both inductive and deductive components. Do your best to identify all the arguments that are used to support the position presented in the piece.
Step Two: Create a Counterargument
- Create a counterargument to the original argument.
- Present premises that support your own position while also pointing out the weaknesses inherent in the original argument. Avoid the use of fallacious reasoning and anecdotal evidence.
- If you are using inductive arguments, make sure that they are strong. If you are using deductive arguments, make sure that they are valid and attempt to provide sound premises.
- Use factual evidence and/or logical support from at least three scholarly sources to support your argument.
- This might require you to play “devil’s advocate.” Remember that you do not need to agree with the position for which you argue. You may need to take on an opposing position to your own personal view and argue from that position. Critical thinkers are able to take on opposing perspectives and identify the strongest arguments from those perspectives.
Choose one of the options below to present your argument evaluation and counterargument.
- Written Assignment
- Must be 1100 to 1400 words in length, excluding the title page and reference page(s).
- Must include at least three scholarly sources to support the counterargument.
- Must be formatted according to APA 6th edition style guidelines as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.
I have picked in defense of traditional marriage
Please help me to take the Philosophy summer online class 08/07/2015—18/08/2015, do all the homeworks, quizzes, and exams, use the textbook Lewis Vaughn, ed. The Power of Critical Thinking 4th ed. I have the Ebook.
If there are some one can help me please be honestly, give me your price. Thank you!
Short Answer 1:
- Patrick argued that philosophy is important for what two main reasons? How does a person’s philosophical beliefs determine how they understand the world around them? Can you give an example?
- What does “orthodoxy” mean and what does Chesterton mean when he says that even the anarchist dynamiter “ought to feel that, whatever else he is, at least he is orthodox”? What does this have to do with his argument that it is a terrible idea to try to be a practical person without first doing philosophy (i.e., thinking about ideals and our philosophical beliefs)? Do you agree – why or why not?
- Lewis argued that the most important question that one should ask about a belief isn’t whether it will make you happy, but what instead? How does he argue that simply the intent to be nice, good or happy isn’t enough? What do you think of his argument?
- Explain the problem of religious diversity and the two main responses to it. What are the strengths and weaknesses of these two responses? Which do you favor and why?
Short Answer 2:
- Explain one of the arguments for the existence of God we discussed in class. Don’t just tell me what the argument is, explain how the argument works. Do you think that this proof would be effective at convincing a non-believer to become a theist? Why or why not? Do you think these arguments are worthless if they can’t convince opponents?
- What is a regress in justification? How is foundationalism supposed to stop regresses of justification? (Be sure to explain the difference between basic and nonbasic beliefs!)
- What is the evidentialist objection to religious belief? How does this objection relate to foundationalism? What is Plantinga’s response to this objection? Do you side with Plantinga or the evidentialist? Why?
- Explain Pascal’s Wager. What is the purpose of this argument? Do you find it convincing?
Short Answer 3:
- Søren Kierkegaard described his main task as figuring out “how to be a Christian in Christendom.” What does he mean by this? Explain how this idea ties in with his existentialism and his fideism. Finally, how does he use the story of Abraham and Isaac to oppose the common way of being a Christian at the time?
- Why do existentialists tend to focus on “limit situations” (e.g., death, plagues, etc.)? What does this have to do with “the crowd,” the aesthetic mode of life, and Kierkegaard’s choice of the story of Abraham and Isaac?
It is a small marble statue that presents a youthful, beardless Christ, who is dressed as a philosopher and carrying a scroll that is unopened (Cayley & Powell, 2013). The iconography can be said to be having a combination of both Christian and Imperial attributes in one figure. The attributes are a youthful Apollo-like God and consequently a wise and elderly philosopher. Here, Christ who is from God is presented as strong and formidable (Cayley & Powell, 2013). This artwork was primarily chosen to show a difference in how Christ is represented then, to what he was described later in the Christian history. Due to the rarity of the sculpture, it could be clearly seen that the making of these form of statues was considered to not be acceptable.
Cayley, E., & Powell, S. (2013). Manuscripts & printed books in Europe 1350-1570: Packaging, Presentation & consumption. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Write a 500-700 word essay comparing Continental, Pragmatic, and Analytic philosophies.
In your essay, include:
- Examples of the three schools.
- A definition and description of each school of thought.
- A comparison between all three schools.
- At least one example from each that adequately describes the school’s position on a topic of your choice.
Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.
Part 1. Symbolize the following sentences using propositional logic (2 pts each)
- Marvin drank the POISON and MARVIN is ill.
- If the diagnosis is CORRECT, then the INSURANCE company allowed the claim.
- The diagnosis is CORRECT.
- Provided that the diagnosis is CORRECT, JUAN will get the medicine if the DOCTOR will prescribe the medicine.
- Marvin drank the POISON only if MARVIN is ill.
- The INSURANCE company allowing the claim is a sufficient condition for JUAN getting the medicine. 7. LEWIS will confess or WILSON will get the death penalty, but not both.
- Neither did Johnson pull the TRIGGER nor is JOHNSON guilty.
- It is not the case that both LEWIS will confess and WILSON will get the death penalty.
- WILSON will get the death penalty if and only if LEWIS does not confess.
- Construct proofs for the following sequents. Even if you do not feel that you can get to the conclusion, try to do as many lines as you can since you will be given some points for attempting to do the proof. Each one is worth 10 points.
- R & (R→S), P & (P→T)├ S & T
- (A → B) & (A → C) ├ A→ (B & C)
- D → T, (D & T) → F ├ D → F
- A & B, (A → C) & (B→D) ├ C & D
- (P & R) → S, S ↔ T, ─T ├ R → ─P
- P v Q, P → (T → S), P → T, S ↔ Q ├ S
- A→(B→C), B & −C ├ −A
- R & S, S → (P → Q), Q → P ├ P ↔ Q
- FvR, F→S, ─S, R→B ├ B (hint: use MT and DA in this proof)
5e. U→I, M→U ├ ─ I→ ─ M (hint: use arrow-in to get your conclusion; use MT in the process)
- O→(AvC), ─ A ├ O→C (hint: try using arrow-in to get your conclusion; use DA in the process)
- (C→S) & (─ C→S)├ S (hint: try using dash-out to get your conclusion; also use MT in the process)
10d. F→(L&A), ─ Lv ─ A├ ─F (hint: try using DM and MT)
500-750 words only!!! references needed
Written Analysis in Philosophy point of view of four moral perspectives
Submit a written analysis of the selected case from the vantage point of four moral perspectives. Analyze any current event from four moral perspectives.
(Consequentialism – Deontological Ethics – Natural Ethics – Virtue Ethics – Ethics of Care – Ethics and Religion)
No plagerism MLA format
Discuss ideas and theories of Democritus and Anaximander on the structure of the cosmos, their style of reasoning and their theories (such as the “reasonable cause” principle). Feel free to postulate on the influence of their ideas on modern scientific reasoning and basic theories. Since there is a lot more on Democritus and in more detail than on Anaximander, feel free to give more emphasis to Democritus, unless you may feel more attracted to the ideas of Anaximander.
The exam should be done in an essay that has at least five pages, but to write that essay you have to get the information from the book which is THE FLAME OF MILETUS.
Note: ONLY ONE SOURCE WHICH IS THE BOOK “THE FLAME OF MILETUS”.Â THANK YOU
The attachment contains three questions, only one question will be picked and explained in this essay. So, i leave that choice to the writer. The writer can pick the one he is more confident with. The wirter needs to let me know in advance which qestion he desires to write about, so i can provide more guidelines if it is necesarry.
Only resources that can be cite in this assignment are the books itself. No online or outside citation for this specific assignments. The writer should add some of his/her knowledge about the books and make his/her own statements that make the prof. feel like the assignment is not written robotically.
Once again it is really important that the writer needs to put his own thoughts and ideas even it is right or wrong. Please do not explain what happened in the book, please explain what do you think that might occur in a different way or similar way with your own thought process. Since, the prof already knows what’s in the book he doesn’t want to hear it again in my essay, he wants to know what do I think happened in the books. Thus, Please make it more interesting by putting your own ideas even it is wrong. it is the only way that I can get full points, otherwise I would fail.
Instructions: You need to identify the structure of the premises and conclusion, Â and place them in a standard form using the standard categorical propositions, i.e, Â A, E, I and O. Then, you must use Venn Diagrams to examine their validity or invalidity. You need to Â provide your translation schema. Please show your work!
1. Only valid arguments are sound. No argument with false premises is sound. Therefore, no valid argument has false premises.Â
2. Â To be a successful office manage you must be a good liar. Bill Rash was a superb liar. So, Bill was certain to be a great office manager.Â
3. All insects have articulated bodies, and all animals with articulated bodies have six legs. Therefore, all animals with six legs are insects.Â
4. Only material bodies have extension Having extansion is a property only of things that exist in space. Therefore, only material bodies are in space.
5. Some starvation diets are effective ways to lose weight. However, starving yourself is bad for your heart. Thus, some effective ways to lose weight are bad for your heart.Â
6. Some politicians are public representatives without ethical values. No public representatives without ethical values are corrupt. Therefore, some corrupt people are politicians.Â
How do the philosophical readings relate to the political and social upheavals of the Late Republic? Catullusâ€™ Poetry??
-How much did the events under Marius and Sulla impact Caesar, Pompey, and Ciceroâ€™s generation?
-Did Caesar, Pompey, and Cato ruin the Republic? Why is Caesar often blamed?
-How would Polybius react to the collapse of the Roman Republic? How does Sallust view the problems?
**Polybius believed all countries grow, decay, change, and collapse. Polybius would respond: â€œOh whatever, it was bound to happen eventuallyâ€
-What significant details do we analyze in Ciceroâ€™s Letters? How much do we trust Ciceroâ€™s Letters for historical analysis?
-Compare/contrast Caesar and the Gracchi; Caesar/Marius; Caesar/Sulla; Caesar and Pompey?
These Guidelines give you broad descriptions.Â Details regarding your assignments can be found in supplemental samples and documents in Doc Sharing.
Your final grade includes points accumulated for your
- a two-part annotated bibliography;
- a draft; and
- a final paper.
The following are guidelines to assist you in completing the course successfully.
Guidelines for Discussions (350 points): Please do not merely cut, paste, and attribute in the discussions. For every idea you paraphrase or lines you quote, you must have at least two lines of your own original analysis, evaluation, or personal connection. Learning the humanities is not about finding information; it is about engaging originally and authentically with what you are reading. Posts that achieve quality measures, have gravitas, density, add value to the discussion, make connections, show effort, and enrich peers. It is important, also, to read your professor’s and peers’ posts so that your own posts are on task and not merely locked on the top-level questions.
Guidelines for the ProposalÂ (100 points): A proposal offers a detailed and full description of your project (as best you know it at the time of writing) in no more than 2 pages.Â To succeed, students will need to find at least one source of information related to their topics.Â Students may work with their professors to identify areas of inquiry or may accept a topic and focus from the list. Understand that you are making a best effort to describe your project early on, but allow yourself to be open to growth and change as you conduct research and focus your intentions.
Guidelines for the Two-Part Annotated Bibliography (75 and 125 points): Good annotations make for excellent papers. You are required to annotate two academic scholarly resources in week two and three additional resources in week three for a total of five. A scholarly resource is written by an academic scholar, holding a Ph.D. or other terminal degree, is published in a multi-volume, peer-reviewed journal, and has ample references of its own.Â Successful annotations begin with your introduction (to the best extent you know it at that point in time), capture publication details, briefly summarize a text, locate key terms, find controversies to analyze and evaluate, and assist in the creation of new knowledge.
Guidelines for the Draft (150 points): Your draft should be a largely finished product, impeccably formatted, and nearly complete.Â It should have all the APA citation and referencing fully in place.Â In length, it should be five-to-seven pages.
Guidelines for the Final Paper (200 points): The essay must be nine to ten double-spaced pages in length (not including the title or reference pages). The margins should be no more than one inch (right and left). The essay should be composed in 12-point Times New Roman font. Â Include a minimum of five scholarly sources. Other sources may also be used, but at least five sources must be academic and scholarly. Â Dictionaries, encyclopedias, websites ending with the .gov, .org, or .edu, newspapers or other media sources do not constitute scholarship. All of the sources must be documented and cited using APA format.
A fundamental part of ethics is the search for the good life and how to live rightly.
Most of us have goals and dreams. You probably have a vision of what the good life would look like for you. With this in mind, do you think pluralism would help you to live in a diverse society, one in which other people’s opinions and lifestyles may clash with your pursuit of the good life? Does relativism offer a better or worse alternative? Explain your reasoning.
Your paper should be 2-3 pages in APA format.
The course project requires you to research and write an analytical paper comparing and contrasting the political views of two philosophers on one of the following areas:
- Human Conflict – the nature and causes thereof.
- The best or best possible cooperative social arrangements, capable of resolving or diminishing society’s common problems.
- The moral foundations of political legitimacy (what is the good state).
- Who should govern – one, few, or many?
Within your paper discuss how the views of your two chosen philosophers on the one chosen political issue relate to that same political issue today. Share your own well-supported views on the matter in a conclusion.
Finalize your search for the two and write a paragraph in which you announce their names and the one area of political thought for comparison. In a sentence or two, explain what draws you to this focus.
Teacher note: In lieu of this weeks class you will complete an essay exam based on last weeks lectures and class discussions. Answer all three of the questions below. (Do NOT retype the question on your paper.) Simply type your answer corresponding to questions 1, 2, 3. Each essay must be one full typed page each, double-spaced in Times New Roman, size 12 font. Be sure to label your paper with your name, the date and course section number ALL on the first top line. You will be PENALIZED for using more than one line for this data.) Â Please number your pages.
*** A PDF of the lecture notes has been attached.
1) Identify three ways in which post-modern Americans harm themselves in non-physical ways according to the Buddhist tradition.
Â 2) Compare and contrast the 10 moral tenants of Hinduism with the Ten Commandments from the Judeo-Christian Tradition.
Â 3) Compare and contrast the â€œLife in Communityâ€ concept of African Traditional Religions with â€œIndividualismâ€ as a top American value.
For this assignment, please make sure to analyze and discuss one (and only one!) of the following two classical arguments for the existence of God:
1.Â Â St. Anselmâ€™s Ontological Argument
2.Â Â Clarkeâ€™s Cosmological Argument
You may argue either for or against the soundness of the argument, but you must take up and defend a specific position.
Epistemology Matrix and Essay
Part 1 Matrix:
Analyze epistemology in philosophy by completing the following matrix. Provide a definition of the branch of philosophy as given in a philosophical source (the readings, supplemental materials, or outside academic sources) and list a minimum of three historical developments, theories, key contributors, and principal issues. Bullet point answers are acceptable.
Part 2 Essay:
Write a 500-word response below that further describes the bullet-point ideas referenced on the matrix under the principal issues column. Principal issues are concerns that arise when considering a particular philosophical school of thought. Include APA citations from the readings, supplemental materials, and outside academic sources.
After completing the readings for this week, draft a 6â€“8-page paper. This assignment will be completed in three parts, so you may want to use section headers to organize your paper. Remember to explain the theories you reference with supporting citations to the textbook and online lectures before contrasting them, utilizing correct APA format. You may want to use examples to illustrate your understanding of key ideas in each theory. Use this APA Citation Helper as a convenient reference for properly citing resources.
- Address the following in your paper: Mind/Body Dualism: Compare/contrast Cartesian rationalism and at least one version of empiricism. You may draw upon your analysis of the Cartesian Method in this weekâ€™s discussion assignment. Remember to explain the key ideas associated with each theory. Be specific as to which version of empiricism is the focus of your analysis. (2â€“3 pages)
- Responses to the Mind/Body Problem: Compare/contrast Kantian Idealism and Phenomenology and explain how each attempts to respond to/resolve the mind/body problem encountered both by empiricists and rationalists. (2â€“3 pages)
- Evaluate and Respond: Once you have explained the relevant theories and the philosophical challenges of the mind/body dualism, present your own philosophical response to this epistemological problem. In your response, consider how/whether your own views are similar to the theories you discussed in parts one and two (2â€“3 pages.)
Submit your assignment in the W3: Assignment 2 Dropbox by Tuesday, May 19, 2015.
|Assignment 2 Grading Criteria
|Compared/contrasted Cartesian rationalism with at least one version of empiricism. Cited support for the interpretation from the text and online lectures.
|Compared/contrasted Kantian idealismÂ with phenomenology as they relate to the mind/body problem. Cited support for the interpretation from the text and online lectures.
|Presented your own philosophical response to the mind/body problem and compared them to the theories presented above.
|Used correct grammar, and spelling, and APA citation.
Write an 800-1,000-word essay on your personal worldview. Briefly discuss the various possible meanings of the term “spirituality,” and your understanding of the concepts of pluralism, scientism, and postmodernism. Primarily, address the following seven basic worldview questions:
- What is prime reality?
- What is the nature of the world around us?
- What is a human being?
- What happens to a person at death?
- Why is it possible to know anything at all?
- How do we know what is right or wrong?
- What is the meaning of human history?
Please answer one question from any 3 sections (1-1.5 pps. per question, 3-5 total).
- Explain Friedmanâ€™s arguments about social responsibility?
- Compare and contrast Milton Friedman on the social responsibility of business and Michael McFarland on the social responsibility of engineers.
- Evaluate Vanasupa et alâ€™s arguments for fostering social responsibility in the classroom.
- Explain the progressive safety concerns and challenges airbags saw in their early implementation. (hint use dates).
- Explain the safety concerns in the 2010 Toyota Prius and Lexus Hs250h models. Are the design engineers morally responsible for the resulting accidents? Why or why not?
- Compare and contrast McFarland, Perrow, and Martin and Schinzinger on ways to make engineering safer.
- Do we owe it to our employer to be loyal to our work? Why or why not?
- From your reading, what are good and bad ways of defining loyalty? Why?
- The ‘Coast Guard’ video shows an engineering whistle-blowing in public via Youtube. According to DeGeorge and/or other authors is the engineer a) morally permitted, b) obligated to whistle-blow?
- What are the fundamental changes Catalano would like to see made to ABET criteria? Evaluate his arguments.
- Compare and Contrast Hawsâ€™ and Catalanoâ€™s ideas about how to teach Engineering Ethics with the way this class was run. Evaluate which is â€œbetter.â€ Why?
- What is just war theory? Evaluate arguments such as Fichtelbergâ€™s that just war theory should apply to engineers or engineering.