Category: Philosophy

Topic: Social Inclusion/Exclusion
Short Paper: Students will each write a short paper (1200 words maximum not including the list of references) addressing the meaning of social inclusion/exclusion. You may write a strictly conceptual paper, for example, distinguishing social inclusion/exclusion from other concepts such as poverty, inequality, capability deprivation, basic needs, social development, and/or human development. It is equally acceptable to write a paper on a specific example of social exclusion and propose and describe a successful approach to inclusion, provided that the paper uses the illustration to put forth a definition or concept of social inclusion. The objective of the paper is to demonstrate an understanding of the key concept “social inclusion/exclusion,” and the paper must serve this purpose. Please use 12 point Times New Roman font, double-spaced lines and at least 1-inch margins.
44)Compensation: 1)Fairness 2) Utilitarian Sort-term justification
There will be 2 questions that have to be answered separately. one page for each of the questions.
Article#3 will be used for question#1
and Article#8 will be used for question#2
1)be a problem solver not a victim
2)you can use explanatory footnote
3) make sure to use at least 3 Citations from the Articles IN THE PARAGRAPHS

Topic: Law and terror
Write an essay about the right of habeas corpus in the context of the war on terror. Your essay should address the following subtopics:
Explain the historical evolution of habeas corpus, including its English and American traditions. The explanation of its evolution within the American tradition should include the general meaning of the right of habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution and its relationship to the protection of other civil liberties.
Provide examples from U.S. history of the suspension of habeas corpus and their applicability to the present.
Analyze the relevance of habeas corpus to the contemporary U.S. situation during the war on terror, especially with respect to persons characterized by as enemy combatants or illegal combatants.
Explain the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the right of habeas corpus with respect to enemy combatants or illegal combatants (i.e., the views of the five justices making up the majority in Boumediene v. Bush as well as the views of the four dissenting justices).
Evaluate a minimum of four perspectives on this topic expressed by justices of the Supreme Court, leaders in other branches of government, and commentators in both the academic and popular media. Your evaluation should consider perspectives on the following topics as they relate to habeas corpus:
The role of the President as Commander-in-Chief.
The role of Congress in determining when habeas corpus can be suspended.
The role of the Supreme Court in protecting civil liberties, including the judicial philosophy which should guide the Court in this role, and
In your evaluation, you should also include your personal philosophy, values, or ideology about the balance between civil liberties and national security in the context of an unending war on terror.
Follow these requirements when writing the Final Paper:
The body of the paper (excluding the title page and reference page) must be at least 1,500 words long.
The paper must start with a short introductory paragraph which includes a clear thesis statement. The thesis statement must tell readers what the essay will demonstrate.
The paper must end with a short paragraph that states a conclusion. The conclusion and thesis must be consistent.
The paper must logically develop the thesis in a way that leads to the conclusion, and that development must be supported by facts, fully explained concepts and assertions, and persuasive reasoning.
The paper must address all subtopics outlined above. At least 20% of the essay must focus on subtopic five, listed above (your evaluation of perspectives on the topic).
Your paper must cite at least three academic articles (excluding the course textbook) and at least four other kinds of sources (e.g., Supreme Court opinions, magazine or newspaper articles, the course textbook, and reliable websites or videos).
Use your own words. While brief quotes from sources may be used, altogether the total amount of quoted text must be less than five percent of the body of your paper.
When you use someone else’s words, they must be enclosed in quotation marks followed by an APA in-text short citation (author, year, and page) to your source. The in-text citation must correspond to a full APA citation for the source on the reference page at the end of the essay.
When you express in your own words someone else’s ideas, arguments or facts, your statement must be followed by an APA in-text short citation (author, year, and page) to your source. The in-text citation must correspond to a full APA citation for the source in the reference page.
The form of the title page, the body pages, and the reference page must comply with APA style. Additionally, the title page must include the course number and name, the instructor’s name, and the date submitted.
The paper must use logical paragraph and sentence transitions, complete and clear sentences, and correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
For this paper you need to do research in peer-reviewed journals or other sources that are considered to have reliable information. In addition to your required course text, you need at least seven scholarly sources, three of which must be peer-reviewed journal articles from the Ashford Online Library.
Academic research papers must meet university level standards of quality. What constitutes quality, academic research?
Primary sources written by experts in the field of study
Secondary sources supported by research in primary sources
Credible sources (experts in the area of study)
Relevant research (materials are pertinent to the area of study)
Peer-reviewed journal articles (journal articles reviewed by recognized experts in the relevant field of study).
Educational and government websites (those ending with a web URL suffix of .edu or .gov) may be appropriate in some cases but should be evaluated carefully.

philosophy
Study Books Used in Class:
The Fundamentals of Ethics by Shafer-Landau
Description:
Ethics/Philosophy Writing Assignment
Required book – The Fundamentals of Ethics by Shafer-Landau

1. A contemporary philosopher, Ronald Dworkin, has written, “In my own view, someone who leads a boring, conventional life without close friendships or challenges or achievements, marking time to his grave, has not had a good life, even If he thinks he has and even if he has thoroughly enjoyed the life he has had.” Would a hedonist agree with this statement? What about a desire satisfaction theorist? And what about someone who believes in an “objective theory of human welfare”? (See page 44 of our textbook for an account of this third type of theory.) Be sure to cite reasons for the answers you give, and, in addition, be careful to make clear what each of the theories mentioned here maintains.

2. When he first starts discussing hedonism and the desire satisfaction theory, Shafer-Landau cites as a point in favor of each theory that neither one puts forward an “objective theory of human welfare.” (see pages 24-25 and 44-45) But by the end of his discussion of theories of human well-being in Chapter 4, he says that it is a flaw in the desire satisfaction theory that it doesn’t give an objective account of human welfare. What reasons does Shafer-Landau cite to support his view in Chapter 4 that it is a flaw in the desire satisfaction theory that it doesn’t give an objective account of human welfare?

Answer each questions separately and answer all the questions here. In giving your answers, pretend you are writing for someone who has not read the Shafer-Landau text or attended our class. Write your paper in such a way that a person of this sort could understand the material you are explaining. Also try to put things in your own words as much as possible, rather than simply parroting back what is written in Shafer-Landau’s book. Your aim here should be to demonstrate to me that you understand the material. 4 pages double spaced.

Political Philosophy

 

1. What is new in Hobbes’ political philosophy, as against his predecessors? Discuss. You may wish to refer to the state of nature, the faith in ‘political science’, and the role of fear.
2. Can one reconcile Hobbes’ preference for undivided and unlimited sovereignty with his reputation as one of the founders of liberalism?
3. To what extent is Hobbes’ entire political thesis founded on a hedonistic psychology?
4. According to Locke, what makes political power legitimate? Under what conditions, if any, may people rightfully rebel against their government?
5. Compare Locke’s account of “the state of nature” with either or both of Hobbes’ or Rousseau’s accounts of the “state of nature”. Do you find either compelling? Or do they all share problems?
6. A long liberal tradition tends to suggest that although they are both considered founding figures of modern political liberalism, Locke is a genuine (classical) liberal, whereas Hobbes, (despite supporting many positions that are taken for granted in later liberal thought) has a far too authoritarian or even absolutist conception of government to qualify as genuinely ‘liberal’. With an eye to the similarities and differences between Hobbes and Locke, discuss how issues of ‘security’ have a potential to make “Lockean” liberalism reveal a “Hobbesian” side. Explain how political liberal theory, might handle the issue of a Hobbesian shadow raised by questions of sovereignty or security. [Note: aspects of Mill, Hayek and Rawls may all be helpful to this question].
7. In TheSocial Contract is Rousseau a defender or an opponent of the project of the Enlightenment?
8. What is Marx’s attitude toward capitalism and/or “globalization”? Is he against it? And if not, how and why not?
9. What does Marx mean when he says that the history of human relations has been one of ‘class struggle’? Critically discuss with the implications for political philosophy in mind.
10. Rousseau’s political philosophy has been an influence on both totalitarian and radical democratic thinkers. How do you interpret Rousseau? Does his philosophy contribute to freedom, or justify totalitarian government?
11. Compare and critically discuss Rousseau’s concept of the General Will and Mill’s concern with the “tyranny of the majority.” Is the General Will compatible with freedom for every member of society, or is Rousseau being overly idealistic?
12. Explain Rousseau’s criticism of representative democracy. Do you agree with this criticism? Do you think Rousseau offers a workable alternative?
13. Explain and critically discuss Mill’s “simple principle” of liberty (the “harm principle.”) Is this an adequate principle for regulating the relations between society and individuals? What, if any, limitations might it have?
14. Identify a current Australian law or government policy which may appear to conflict with Mill’s liberalism. Explain how you think Mill would criticize this law or policy, and then explain why you agree or disagree with Mill’s liberal views on this issue. (Some examples of laws and policies from which you might choose are the criminalization of recreational drug use, compulsory wearing of seatbelts, anti-terrorism laws, asylum seekers, and film, literature, and media censorship).
15. Mill’s liberalism seems to rest on the possibility of distinguishing between actions which only affect oneself (“self-regarding” actions) and actions which affect others (“other-regarding” actions). Do you think this distinction can always be made? If not, does this invalidate Mill’s liberal philosophy?
16. “All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned…” This sentence appears in TheCommunist Manifesto as what many commentators have regarded as a kind of paean to capitalism and to the bourgeoisie. What is it about capitalism (and the bourgeoisie) that endow them with such a revolutionary potential? Given that it has a revolutionary potential, what is a) wrong (for Marx) with capitalism and b) allows it to pave the way for human emancipation?
17. Compare and contrast Marx and Rousseau. To what extent is Marx the heir of Rousseau?
18. Explain Hayek’s criticisms of socialism. Do you agree with them? Justify why or why not.
19. Hayek argues, in effect, that mankind cannot be free unless the economy is free. Explain the reasoning behind this view. Do you agree? Explain why or why not.

20. Imagine yourself in Rawls’ “original position.” Explain what kind of society you would choose to live in. Explain why you agree or disagree with Rawls’ own conclusions.
21. Rawls’ related ideas of the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance” have often been criticized on the basis that it is simply not possible for anyone to detach themselves from their actual social position, even in imagination. Explain the “original position” and the “veil of ignorance,” and why you agree or disagree with this criticism.
22. Discuss the different understandings of freedom (or autonomy) in AT LEAST TWO of the following authors: Marx, Rousseau, Mill, Hayek, Rawls, Locke, Hobbes.

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC13)

 

Philosophy

Present Popper’s account of scientific methodology. Explain his motivations for presenting the account
and show how he uses it to solve the demarcation problem. Give two examples, one that illustrates
successful scientific methodology and one which fails to be scientific, according to Popper. Finally, raise
at least one objection to Popper’s view.
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC13)

 

Philosophy

Present Popper’s account of scientific methodology. Explain his motivations for presenting the account
and show how he uses it to solve the demarcation problem. Give two examples, one that illustrates
successful scientific methodology and one which fails to be scientific, according to Popper. Finally, raise
at least one objection to Popper’s view.
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC13)

 

Introduction to Philosophy
1) Research Kant and Mill (and/or Utilitarianism); develop your explanations of their conclusions and the reasons that they give in support of them; and develop your own reasoning and views on the issues dealt with over/against Kant’s and Mill‘s theories.
2) Aristotle has a different approach to Ethics than either Kant’s, or Bentham’s and Mill’s approach. His approach has been referred to as “virtue ethics,” as opposed to “deontological ethics,” or “teleological ethics.” The emphasis is on “virtues” as character traits. Read Aristotle in the Kessler text, and add your research on Aristotle and “Virtue Ethics.” Evaluate Aristotle’s and virtue ethicists’ reasoning, and evaluate “virtue ethics.”
3) Choose one of the arguments for the existence of God that we have studied (Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological) and do further research on the argument, including possible problems cited by critics. For example, for the Teleological Arg. (aka, the Design Arg.)do further research on classic and contemporary statements of the argument by Wm. Paley and Richard Swineburn, and the classic critique by David Hume. Explain the argument as fully as possible and critique it “on its merits,” considering possible problems cited by critics.
4) Explain and critique Confucius/Confucianism as it is found in the Analects, and research Mozi and Mohism. How do Kongzi and Mozi differ? Explain and critique their positions. Who has the better reasons for their position, in your view, and why?
5) Research “Theodicy,” the Greek philosopher, Epicurus, and the “Problem of Evil” argument against the existence of God. Explain and evaluate this argument.
6) Research, explain and critique the relationship between contemporary theology and the concept of the “evolutionary cosmos” in the sciences, as it is seen, for example, by the theologians, scientists and philosophers who participated in the film, “Faith and Reason.” (The position of the Christian thinkers in the film is usually referred to as “evolutionary theism,” “theistic evolutionism.,” or “guided evolutionism“)
7) Research the “Conflicting Truth-Claims Problem,” or the “Problem Of Many Religions.” Describe the “Problem ;“state the skeptical arguments that arise out of it and some possible replies. Describe your own position and support your conclusions.
Notes: (1) You need 4 sources, including articles from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which are on Reserve in Pfau Library and can be accessed online (the access number is r1s12190), and the Kessler text. And you need to refer to your sources in the body of your Term Paper. So, you need what is called a “Works Cited” page, a “Sources Cited” page, or a “Bibliography” page at the end of the Paper ; and notes in the Paper that refer to the books and/or articles on your “Works Cited” page. Kessler always provides lists of books and articles for further reading. There is a lot of literature on the above topics. Use the school Library, and you can use the Internet, along with the Kessler text. You need to demonstrate that you have actually read the “Sources” that you cite by explaining their contents.
(2) The above topics are “pre-approved.” If you want to do something else, then you need to provide a typed request, with a Topic; a Thesis regarding it, and a list of Sources for approval. It can be on anything covered in class, or in the text. There are no exceptions to #2.
(3) In any case, you must (1) give reasons in support your position/thesis ; (2) consider objections to your thesis cited by critics, and (3) give replies to those objections.
(4) Papers are to be written in accordance with relevant “handouts.” They should typed,
double spaced, and a minimum of one thousand words long.
II.
Your Term Paper should have three sections.
1) in the first paragraph briefly state the topic or issues that you will be dealing with and /or the argument(s) that you will discuss in your paper. And briefly state your own position or Thesis regarding the Topic.
2) the main body of the paper should do what you say you will do in the opening paragraph—here is where you display your research and demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the material: explain positions, lay out arguments, objections, replies, and you give your own defense or support for your Thesis regarding the topic or issues that you are dealing with.
3) in one ending paragraph briefly state what you have accomplished in your paper
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (Code GAC 13)

Locke and Hobbes

Topic: Compare Locke and Hobbes on the subject of rebellion against a monarch once the commonwealth is established. What does each think? How does each prove his point?

Subject: Philosophy
Please only use Locke’s "Second treatise of government" and Hobbes’s "Leviathan" as resources.
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order today and get 13% Discount (code GAC13)

 

 

Introduction to Philosophy
1) Research Kant and Mill (and/or Utilitarianism); develop your explanations of their conclusions and the reasons that they give in support of them; and develop your own reasoning and views on the issues dealt with over/against Kant’s and Mill‘s theories.
2) Aristotle has a different approach to Ethics than either Kant’s, or Bentham’s and Mill’s approach. His approach has been referred to as “virtue ethics,” as opposed to “deontological ethics,” or “teleological ethics.” The emphasis is on “virtues” as character traits. Read Aristotle in the Kessler text, and add your research on Aristotle and “Virtue Ethics.” Evaluate Aristotle’s and virtue ethicists’ reasoning, and evaluate “virtue ethics.”
3) Choose one of the arguments for the existence of God that we have studied (Ontological, Cosmological, Teleological) and do further research on the argument, including possible problems cited by critics. For example, for the Teleological Arg. (aka, the Design Arg.)do further research on classic and contemporary statements of the argument by Wm. Paley and Richard Swineburn, and the classic critique by David Hume. Explain the argument as fully as possible and critique it “on its merits,” considering possible problems cited by critics.
4) Explain and critique Confucius/Confucianism as it is found in the Analects, and research Mozi and Mohism. How do Kongzi and Mozi differ? Explain and critique their positions. Who has the better reasons for their position, in your view, and why?
5) Research “Theodicy,” the Greek philosopher, Epicurus, and the “Problem of Evil” argument against the existence of God. Explain and evaluate this argument.
6) Research, explain and critique the relationship between contemporary theology and the concept of the “evolutionary cosmos” in the sciences, as it is seen, for example, by the theologians, scientists and philosophers who participated in the film, “Faith and Reason.” (The position of the Christian thinkers in the film is usually referred to as “evolutionary theism,” “theistic evolutionism.,” or “guided evolutionism“)
7) Research the “Conflicting Truth-Claims Problem,” or the “Problem Of Many Religions.” Describe the “Problem ;“state the skeptical arguments that arise out of it and some possible replies. Describe your own position and support your conclusions.
Notes: (1) You need 4 sources, including articles from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which are on Reserve in Pfau Library and can be accessed online (the access number is r1s12190), and the Kessler text. And you need to refer to your sources in the body of your Term Paper. So, you need what is called a “Works Cited” page, a “Sources Cited” page, or a “Bibliography” page at the end of the Paper ; and notes in the Paper that refer to the books and/or articles on your “Works Cited” page. Kessler always provides lists of books and articles for further reading. There is a lot of literature on the above topics. Use the school Library, and you can use the Internet, along with the Kessler text. You need to demonstrate that you have actually read the “Sources” that you cite by explaining their contents.
(2) The above topics are “pre-approved.” If you want to do something else, then you need to provide a typed request, with a Topic; a Thesis regarding it, and a list of Sources for approval. It can be on anything covered in class, or in the text. There are no exceptions to #2.
(3) In any case, you must (1) give reasons in support your position/thesis ; (2) consider objections to your thesis cited by critics, and (3) give replies to those objections.
(4) Papers are to be written in accordance with relevant “handouts.” They should typed,
double spaced, and a minimum of one thousand words long.
II.
Your Term Paper should have three sections.
1) in the first paragraph briefly state the topic or issues that you will be dealing with and /or the argument(s) that you will discuss in your paper. And briefly state your own position or Thesis regarding the Topic.
2) the main body of the paper should do what you say you will do in the opening paragraph—here is where you display your research and demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of the material: explain positions, lay out arguments, objections, replies, and you give your own defense or support for your Thesis regarding the topic or issues that you are dealing with.
3) in one ending paragraph briefly state what you have accomplished in your paper

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

Place an order and get 15% Discount (Code GAC15)

When taking into consideration how I would respond in two possible cases in a zombie
outbreak, both involving a man about to murder his curable, zombie wife and children, my views
seemed to carry a bit of dispute. The first case consists of the man with a rifle, allowing you to
take the gun and kill the man slightly more indirectly. While the second scenario involves no
weapons, requiring you to very directly kill the man with your own hands. I think both of these
cases follow a direct correlation with the previously discussed trolley cases, in that the first case
allows you to pull a lever, killing one man and saving four, while still keeping a distance from
the situation. And in the second case, you are required to directly push a man off the bridge to
save four people. The difference between both cases seems to come down to direct and
indirectness. My view on the first case, in both the zombie and trolley scenarios, follows
utilitarianism, while the second case brings out a deontology view.
When it comes to personhood, it isn’t about whether I am seeing one person as more
important than another, but rather if I would find myself capable in the situation to have a direct
hand in choosing someone’s, anyone’s, death. In case one of the zombie situation, one must
make a more indirect choice. This scenario could allow for slightly greater rational thinking. If
it would be easy to kill the man with his gun, then really the only decision seems to be whether
more or less people die. This is where utilitarianism comes into play. It is an obvious utilitarian
choice to simply shoot the man because this creates greater happiness by saving more people (his
wife and children). Some may argue that the choice to just kill the man could end up not being
the best, or most pleasurable, option. Say if the man was actually on the verge of solving world
hunger, or if one of his children grows up to be a serial killer. Then the choice to kill the man
and save his family no longer maximizes happiness. This is when it comes down to rule
utilitarianism, stating that we can generally assume that saving more people is better than one. In
a quick decision, we cannot possibly assess every outcome, so the best decision is the one with
the most immediate happiness.
In the second zombie scenario, involving no weapons, my view seems to take a turn. If
needed to actually beat a man with my own hands, I don’t believe I would do it. This decision
clearly doesn’t follow utilitarianism, seeing as it really only has to do with my happiness of
avoiding beating a man. So, the choice seems to fall under deontology, most specifically the 2nd
formulation of the Categorical Imperative, stating to, “Act so as to treat humanity as an ends,
never as a mere means.” If I were to kill the man, it would just be to save his family, and thus
would be treating him as a mere means to get to a goal. I obviously would not want to kill the
man, so it would not be my goal, or an end. This would be wrong from a deontologist point of
view. The right decision would be to avoid treating anyone as a means completely, that being to
not kill the man, just to save his family. But this seems to end with all the wrong consequences.
This act results in an entire dead family, and one grieving old man. I completely agree that this
is the wrong result. While I don’t believe I could brutally kill the man, I do think that it would
end up being the wrong choice not to do so.
Clearly, sometimes consequences matter. In my mind, both cases should end in killing
the man to save more people, but that doesn’t mean that I could do so myself. Yes, utilitarianism
may seem to be the right answer in both scenarios, but that doesn’t mean we have to follow it.
Morality isn’t always easy.

• First item on the list is what position the essay you read defends

• Second, the reasons you see offered in favor of that position

• Third, the objection to that position

• Finally, the response to the objection.

You should then assess the argument for clarity, completeness, and whether it is compelling.

• Clarity: Did you understand it? Was any of it unclear? Were there grammatical errors (significant or insignificant)? How many times did you have to read it to understand it.

• Completeness: Did they do everything the essay asks them to do (i.e. does your list have all four of those items)? What is missing? Are things out of order? (Do they have their support reasons after their objection?)

• Compelling: Did you find the argument convincing? Did they offer a strong objection or a weak one? Were their reasons (in defense of their view and in response to the objection) good, strong, interesting?