Philosophy Question

This week you continue to work on your paper that addresses a current controversial issue. This paper is to be in the form of an argument. You have selected a topic and chosen issues related to that topic; this week, you will thoroughly research both sides of the issues you have chosen. Keep in mind that your paper must define the issue, present evidence on both sides of the issue, and then argue that one side is stronger and more persuasive than the other. Your paper must address at least three relevant aspects of the issue. More specific directions for each part of the paper will be found within the specific assignment in the weekly modules; the assignment this week is to research both the pro and con sides of the issues you have chosen to address.
This week, you will conduct an issue review for your selected topic for your project. Present a brief report of your research on both sides of the issue. This should include the following:
Citation of your sources
Links to the sources where available
Brief description of the content of each of the sources (50 to 80 words for each source)
Your research review should address at least three (3) aspects of the issue that is the subject of your paper and must present at least one pro and one con article review on each aspect. Sources should be scholarly or of very high substantive quality.
Click on the following link to view an example. The first aspect is written out completely, with APA citation and brief description of the content. The next two aspects should be completely written out by you in your report, including correct APA citation and a brief description of the content. Because the topics vary widely, the nature of your research will also vary. If you are writing about gene therapy, for example, you will have to support your points with scholarly medical opinion. You may need to review researching techniques. Visit the research links provided in the Required Resources section in this activity for more information.
Example,Issue: Legalization of Prostitution
Aspect 1: SafetyPro: Stern, S. W., (2019). Sex workers of the world unite. The American Scholar, pp. 40-54.
The author presents the case, largely though the words of sex-workers themselves, for de-criminalization and for allowing sex workers to control the conditions of their work—that is, to operate brothels themselves, choose their physicians, provide and receive benefits, and work outside brothels if they so choose – which will make them safer and less apt to be exploited.
Con: Der Spiegel Staff. (2013, May). How legalizing prostitution has failed. Der Spiegel Online.…
Staff writers report that since de-criminalization of prostitution in Germany in 2003, exploitation and human trafficking remain significant problems. According to one German law enforcement officer, Germany is a “center for the sexual exploitation of young women from Eastern Europe, as well as a sphere of activity for organized crime groups from around the world” (Germany’s Human Trafficking Problem section)
Aspect 2: SESTA/FOSTAPro: (APA citation to article supporting SESTA legislation; brief description of content)
Con: (APA citation to article against SESTA legislation; brief description of content)
Aspect 3: EconomicsPro: (APA citation to article showing better income/standard of living after de-criminalization; brief description of content)
Con: (APA citation to article showing real economic benefit is to pimps, traffickers brief; description of content
Writing Requirements (APA format)
Length: 1-2 pages (not including title page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page

Explain the problem of evil. How do philosophers like David Hume understand the problem of evil and the challenges

Explain the problem of evil. How do philosophers like David Hume understand the problem of evil and the challenges that it poses to a theistic worldview? How do philosophers interested in defending theism and the existence of a higher power respond? Which view, if either, do you find more compelling? Please elevate the writing with higher English language. Thank you.

Philosophy Question

Each of the following arguments is invalid. Find a counterexample for each: argument with same form, true premises and false conclusion.
1. Joe Biden is a Democrat and/or a politician. Therefore, he is a Democrat and a politician. [Not: and/or means that one or both could be true.]
2. If Chile is a country, then so is Belize. Belize is a country. Therefore, so is Chile.
3. Some dogs are pets. All poodles are dogs. Therefore, some pets are poodles.
4. NO freshman got an “A”. All freshmen are science majors. Therefore, no science majors got an “A”.
5. Joe Biden is a Democrat and/or a politician. Joe Biden is a politician and/or he went to law school. Therefore, Joe Biden is a Democrat and/or he went to law school.
6. Mary is a sophomore and/or a senior. Mary is a senior. Therefore, Mary is not a sophomore.
7. Some dogs are pets. Some pets are poodles. Therefore, some dogs are poodles.
8. No fish are animals. No mammals are birds. Therefore, no fish are birds.
9. Question: Is this argument valid? a. If Patel signs the contract, Jones will be pleased. If Baumstein signs the contract, Jones will be pleased. Therefore, if Patel and Baumstein both sign the contract, Jones will be pleased.

Ludwig Wittgenstein Q

In PI s. 30, Wittgenstein writes:
…one could say: an ostensive definition explains the use—the meaning—of a word if the role the word is supposed to play in the language is already clear.
Explicate this claim by connecting it with Wittgenstein’s stipulation about the terms “ostensive explanation” and “ostensive definition” in s. 6. (First say what W. stipulates about the term “ostensive definition” in s. 6. Second, describe the abilities of a person who is able to ask what a thing is called. Finally, show that the claim in s. 30 follows from W’s characterization of ostensive definition. Give yourself a page to answer.)
(You don’t have to write anything for this question. Just think about the answer.) Read s. 31. What does it add to what W. has already said in s. 30?

Watch the videos and read the material. Open a document and answer the questions, upload. Virtue Ethics Crash Course

Watch the videos and read the material. Open a document and answer the questions, upload.

Virtue Ethics

Crash Course Virtue Ethics (Links to an external site.)

The following are PDF reading assignments:

Aristotle, Book 1 of Nichomachean Ethics

Aristotle, Book 2 of Nichomachaen Ethics

Wimberly Virtue Ethics and the Commitment to Learn.pdf

Utilitarianism (Links to an external site.)

Reading link or PDFs: (Links to an external site.)

Mill Utilitarianism



A short introduction to Kant’s Categorical Imperative (Links to an external site.)

Supreme Principle of Morality – HARVARD’s Michael Sandel Justice Series (Links to an external site.)


Kant Groundwork

When thinking of the Categorical Imperative and the Supreme Principle of Morality one must consider the concept of evil.


Nietzsche Good Bad, Good Evil (Links to an external site.)

What is MASTER-SLAVE MORALITY? What does MASTER-SLAVE MORALITY mean? (Links to an external site.)

Another perspective: Hegel – Master / Slave Morality (Links to an external site.)

Reading link: (Links to an external site.)

Answer the questions.

1) How is freedom possible within the domain of the Categorical Imperative?

2) Why does Kant focus on the intention of the act, the duty of the act, and the duty of right intentional morality?

3) From material and lectures, how would you summarize Nietzsche’s view of the essence of life?

4) Nietzsche criticizes the search for truth and knowledge and emphasizes that there are other things just as valuable. What is your experience with the otherness of good/good and good/evil or good/bad and good/evil? What do you identify as good/evil that brings an overall positive “good” to the life equation of your experience?

5) Define master and slave moralities.

Public policy

Write a 400-word essay in which you include:
An introduction.
Select a specific example of public policy from one of the following fields:Economic policyAn example of economic policy is U.S. budget deficit spending.

Education policyAn example of education policy is the implementation of national education standards.

Environmental policyAn example of environmental policy is the Clean Air Act.

Foreign policyAn example of foreign policy is how we conduct trade with other countries.

Healthcare policyAn example of healthcare policy is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

Welfare policyAn example of welfare policy is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Provide a summary of this public policy.

Explain how three different factors shaped this public policy.How do political factors shape this public policy?Support your responses with at least one specific referenced example.

How do social factors shape this public policy?Support your responses with at least one specific referenced example.

How do economic factors shape this public policy?Support your responses with at least one specific referenced example.

Support your examples with information from the text and at least two, additional academic sources.
A conclusion.
Correct grammar and syntax.

Isserman, M.,

Write a short, objective summary of 1300 words which summarizes the main ideas.

Materials for Paper 1
Mark Burkholder and Lyman Johnson, Colonial Latin America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 200-208, 228-230
Bemberg,María Luisa and Antonio Larreta. I, the worst of all (Links to an external site.). Directed by Maria Luisa Bemberg. New York: First Run Features, 2003.
Additional Resources:
Writing a Great History Paper.pdf
History Paper Rubric.pdf
Have a thesis statement and be built around an argument. Your thesis statement will respond to the question you receive for that specific assignment and must go in the introductory paragraph.
Build your argument and provide examples in the following paragraphs.
Make sure each body paragraph has a topic sentence, evidence, and a concluding sentence.
Cite evidence. Either you quote or paraphrase the information from your sources, make sure you provide proper references, using Chicago style footnotes.
Reserve the last paragraph to strongly affirm, after showing evidence, your thesis statement.

Philos 3: Week 2 Discussion Prompts

Make three posts in the discussion forum: 1st post due by Thursday noon; 2 more posts due by Saturday noon. The post due on Thursday is a substantive response to one of the open-answer questions. The two posts due on Saturday are comments on posts of your peers.
Respond to one of these prompts and be clear about which one you are referring to:
PROMPT #1: NATURAL KINDS: What, if anything, makes a natural kind a kind as opposed to some other natural grouping? John Stuart Mill (1843: 122–3) noted that horses formed a natural kind but white things do not. Mill’s point is that, natural similarity among white things notwithstanding, leukocytes, chalks, white vans, clouds, comets, and degenerate (white) dwarf stars are too diverse a group to form a natural kind. Given this position, are there any genuine natural kinds? Explain your answer.
PROMPT #2: ONTOLOGY OF ARTIFACTS. Do you believe that human intentionality can bring new things into existence? Explain your answer.
PROMPT #3: PATENTING OF DNA. Do you think that human DNA should be patented? Explain your answer.
PROMPT #4: PARADOX OF CONSTITUTION. Consider the following argument: “The puzzles about ‘identity over time’ seem to be puzzles not about anything’s identity but about what principles of unity we do or should use to divide up the world into whole enduring individuals — about how we do use words or about how it would be best to use words. That these examples do not pose genuine problems about anything’s identity is apparent from the fact that we understand the situations described in these examples completely; we all agree on what happened according to each example; no one is left confused about anything except what to say. but genuine problems of identity leave one confused about what to think, not merely about what to say” (Ruth Millikan). Do you agree with the author’s point that the paradox of constitution is merely a verbal problem? Explain your answer.
PROMPT #5: IDENTITY OVER TIME. What, if anything, does the paradox of constitution tell us about the identity of things and persons over time? Is four-dimensionalism about identity over time a plausible view? Can you think of any ethical or legal consequences four-dimensionalism about identity over time might have?