Hume

For Hume, what are the two kinds of statements that are the only legitimate possible objects of human knowledge? Can you think of examples of widely held beliefs that don’t fit into these two categories? Would you agree with Hume that the belief you used as an example is actually a nonsensical belief to have
2. CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON: What do you think of Kant’s claim that space and time are not properties of things in themselves, but only of things as they appear to us? In particular, how (if at all) is Kant’s position different from the skepticism of Meditation I? Is Kant’s view reasonable, in your view, and why/why not?
Sources:

Citation Style:

1 pages / 275 words (Double spacing)

hedonism, ethical egoism

1 What’s Hedonism and the pleasure argument? (Triff lecture)
2- What is “sustainable pleasure” according to Epicurus? (same lecture as above)
3- Define Ethical egoism. What’s the difference between genuine (BEST) and apparent interests? Bring an example from your own life.
4- What is Psychological Egoism? Do you find the argument from Psychological egoism convincing? Explain your answer.
5- Point to the difference between interest and best interest. Bring an example from real life to make the point.
6- Make a defense of ethical egoism in two points.

You will need to synthesize in your own words material covered in the lectures and do some independent thought.

Identify any important differences between the cases and explain how they affect his conclusions.
* Don’t get confused: Crisp uses this term in an extremely non-standard way.
Explanation- At the beginning of his paper, Crisp says that he will show “all forms of a certain common type of advertising are morally wrong…[because] they override the autonomy of consumers.” He identifies 3 varieties of this type of advertising: subliminal suggestion, puffery, and repetition (end of last full paragraph on p.413). However, that’s the last we hear of repetition in the paper.
Sometimes this is fine. Suppose I’m arguing that smurfs are awesome. There are a lot of smurfs. It would be tedious to go through them one-by-one (Handy is awesome because…. Papa Smurf is awesome because….). The better thing to do is to pick a representative smurf, show why that smurf is awesome, and then argue that those reasons generalize to other smurfs.
But now the game depends on whether the smurf I’ve chosen is in fact representative. It might be that the reasons Smurfette is awesome (e.g., her impeccable choice in footwear) don’t generalize. Thus the danger of this strategy is that it’s an easy way to mislead your audience (or yourself!). The argument might only work for the one example and not translate to the others.
Analogously, Crisp implicitly asserts that the reasons puffery is problematic also apply to repetitive advertising. Thus what I’m asking you to do is figure out whether his arguments about puffery really do apply to repetitive advertising.
That means you need to, at the very least, (1) explain why he thinks puffery undermines autonomy; and (2) explore whether the same reasoning shows the same thing about repetitive advertising.
You can approach this serially —do (1), then do (2). Or you can approach this in parallel —do (1) and (2) for the argument about autonomy, then do (1) and (2) for the argument about rational choice. Both approaches can be fine. Personally, I prefer the serial approach; the parallel approach makes it easy to get mixed up about what I’m supposed to be discussing. But this is personal preference. Do what works for you.

PHI2600 Writing question

You will write a 1200-1500 (minimum) word reaction/position paper. There is no maximum. You will be watching the movie HOTEL RWANDA and following the instructions below. Make sure to CITE your sources. You CAN ONLY use class material to make your case. NO OUTSIDE SOURCES! (Unless we are using FACTS (like the video below, you cannot use outside opinion or analysis unless you have run it by me first.) The link to the movie description on the internet movie database is below but you must find access to the movie yourself. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395169/
HANDY-DANDY GUIDE TO WRITING A PAPER FOR ME:
1. Introduction/Thesis: State your Thesis and introduce your paper!
the sketch of your primary claim with relevant supporting ideas (do you lean towards a universal or relativistic model of morality?)
mention the movie and how it’s relevant
here you should be making specific but not detailed (think of your introduction as your table of contents) claims/points
2. SUMMARY/SYNOPSIS– What are you reacting to? THIS SHOULD ONLY BE A SHORT SUMMARY. It should not be more than a few hundred words.
Goal: Present what you are writing about.
Identify all of the basic information: about the book/movie/documentary that you will be relating to your argument and explaining in more detail later in your paper.
the author of the piece, the title of the piece, the title of the book or journal from which it was taken (if relevant), the publisher, and the year of publication;
the topic or subject of the piece—for example, “The Triangle Shirt-Waist Fire” or “Revitalization efforts underway in Roxbury’s Codman Square.” In other words, tell what the piece is about in a word or a phrase.
Ex? In-class.
3. What is Cultural Relativism? How does the movie relate?
Explaining Cultural Relativism, the argument(s), give elaborations in terms of the movie, and how does CR arise in different circumstances in the movie?You should be using scenes from the movie and class materials (books, lectures, etc…) to explain what CR is, including the argument(s) for it.
You should be citing class materials and quoting when appropriate (from both the book and the movie).
Give examples that parallel the scenes in the movie to back up your interpretive analysis.
Ex. ? In-class.

4. .Thought Prompts/Analysis/Personal Response–
You will be choosing a side: Pro Relativism or Pro Universalism (weak or strong).
Goal: You should be writing about your naive* views as they relate to the possibility of a universal morality versus a relativistic model. You should use the movie as an entry point.
*Naive? Let’s talk about it….
I have listed a few questions below that should help you think about the case you want to make and how to relate it back to the movie. You should be connecting our discussion about cultural relativism (esp, the cultural differences argument [ie, the argument for CR) and criticisms of CR) with the themes and ideas in the movie. The questions below are NOT the writing prompts for this assignment. They are meant to get you brainstorming.
What goals does the United Nations pursue? When, if at all, is UN intervention or involvement morally permissible?
Tatsi tells her husband (scene 17, roughly 1:20:24 into the film): “You are a good man, Paul Rusesabagina.” Does she mean he is a good Hutu? If not (or if not merely that), what does it mean to be a (morally) good person?
How do you react to the piece on a (moral) personal level? Why?
How does the piece relate to your experience or your own “naive” moral perspective?
what questions does the piece raise for you — about the material, about other things?
does the piece remind you of other readings you’ve done for the class? compare and contrast the piece to those readings.

Discussion Forum: Ethics

(2) What would it mean to say that morality is relative? Is it?
(3) Why did Moore claim that moral properties are not natural properties? Was he right?
(4) What is the categorical imperative, and how is it meant to underpin a normative moral theory?
(5) What is virtue ethics, and what problems does it face?
(6) What is euthanasia, and why is it considered to be morally different to murder or suicide?Is it?
(7) What do you think is the best moral argument for vegetarianism? Does it work?

philosophy article on sexual harassment and evaluate the author’s view

Find one philosophy journal article on sexual harassment, summarize the article, and then critically evaluate the author’s view. The journal must be a peer-reviewed philosophy journal, and the paper must be on a philosophical issue related to sexual harassment. Papers can be found using the Philosopher’s Index, which is located on the library’s website. Your summary should include a statement of the author’s thesis, as well as 1-2 arguments she gives in defense of this thesis. At the end of the paper, in your critical evaluation YOU MUST CRITICIZE THE AUTHOR’S VIEW. Even if you agree with the author, I would like you to raise one objection to his/her view. Don’t focus on legal; personal experience. you need to use philosophical approach. Your papers should be 2-3 pages, in APA format (you do not need to include an abstract).

Engineering philosophy

This week we’ll look more closely at the case by reading an essay from Dennis Gioia, Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics (Links to an external site.). Gioia was Ford’s Field Recall Coordinator during the Pinto controversy, responsible for issuing recalls on defective products. In his article, Gioia explains his decision-making process during the Pinto crisis in terms of the corporate scripts driving his decisions. Gioia writes, “I remained convinced that I had made the “right” decision in not recommending recall of the cars. In light of the times and the evidence available, I thought I had pursued a reasonable course of action. More recently, however, I have come to think that I really should have done everything I could to get those cars off the road.“
Your assignment this week is to write on the ethics of conforming to the “scripts” prescribed by your professional environments. Was Gioia wrong to follow the corporate script? Does he bear responsibility for “just following orders”? Next week we’ll talk about whistle-blowing and the ethics of breaking scripts. But this week, let’s focus on the ethics of following scripts. In preparing your post, please consider the following sources:

Thematic Outline

In transition of the subjects… you have to expand it out when explaning.The transition s to short
The themes that you have chosen not to be longer in Length, the instructions ask for it to be at least 3 pages in length. Maybe you can expand on the themes more. In the previous instructions, I’ve attached the 6 peer-reviews articles from my schools library. Those articles should be the one’s you pull your information from. I’m not allowed to use any outside sources. Please use the articles that have already been choosen. I will attach what you started so far and make the themes etc. longer in length please. Thank youInstructionsThe purpose of this assignment is to identify themes related to your chosen Research Paper topic and organize those themes in a logical manner. The Outline will provide structure to the Research Paper as you work to compose it. When complete, each theme should become a subheading ordered to present each topic/theme to the reader in a logical order.A form for the Thematic Outline is attached to this dropbox. There are three distinct steps identified in the Outline form; be sure to complete each step. Use APA style throughout, and formal third-person narrative. The completed assignment should range in length from 3 to 6 pages due to the form used.