Category: philosophy

Philosophers’ views on an adult child’s duty to parents.

Posted on | by

 

 

 

Chapter 11 explains two philosophers’ views on an adult child’s duty to parents. Lin Yutang, a Chinese philosopher says that children owe a never-ending debt of gratitude to their children, while Jane English, an American philosopher, says that the parent-child relationship should be based on friendship: a parent’s need and the child’s willingness or ability to help.
1. Which parent-child relationship does your family follow? Give an example of what they say or do.

2. Do you subscribe to the same philosophy as your family? Are you or will you be different with your own children?

3. What conflicts naturally exist within each philosophy?

 

The nature versus nurture debate

Posted on | by

 

 

 

 

 

In thinking about the nature versus nurture debate, explain why you think nature, nurture, or both has/have the strongest impact on development. Include information from the video and scholarly resources to support your viewpoint. Please give specific examples from your own development or the development of someone you know.

Be sure to provide the URL link(s) and/or title(s) to any resource used as reference in your post.

 

Video link:

 

Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, Nozick’s theory, virtue ethics

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

Choose 5 of the included case studies, and analyze all 5 using one of the following ethical theories: Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, Nozick’s theory, virtue ethics, Rawls’ theory, or Marxism.

Provide a paragraph that accurately describes the theory you will be using.
Describe the case study before you apply the theory.
Provide a conclusion.

Avoid using phrases like: “In my opinion,” “I believe,” “Ethics is difficult and not certain, so it is hard to tell if this ethical theory is right or not,” since these ethical arguments undermine ethics as a discipline. Present these opinions and feelings as statements of fact.

Narrative’s powerful opening scene

Posted on | by

 

 

1.) Describe in detail the Narrative’s powerful opening scene. For what offense is
Douglass’s Aunt Hester punished so brutally? What does Douglass the adult writer
expect the reader to understand or surmise about her relationship to the master that the
child Douglass would not have known?
2.) Who is Sophia Auld? How is she first described? Describe her initial relationship
with Frederick. How does she change? Why does she change? According to Douglass,
what does the change in her illustrate?
3.) Why is Frederick determined to learn to read? Describe in detail the strategies he
uses to become literate – learn to read and write. How does literacy change him?
4.) What is the purpose of Chap. IV? Discuss two or three specific examples of brutality
that Douglass describes; what impact do these descriptions have on you as a reader?
How does he show, again, that slavery had a horrible effect on white people as well?
5.) Douglass asserts that: “Going to live at Baltimore laid the foundation, and opened
the gateway, to all my subsequent prosperity” (1184). How was Baltimore liberating for
him, both as a child and later as a teenager? In other words, what opportunities did
Baltimore provide that were not available to him on the plantation?
6.) What does Douglass find particularly abhorrent about “Christian” slave owners?
Provide one of the examples he gives to support his critique. What is the purpose of the
“Appendix” (p.1224) Douglass added to his narrative?
7.) Why is Douglass sent to live with Covey, the “slave-breaker”? What strategies does
Covey use to “break” slaves? How does Douglass describe the first six months of his stay
with Covey?
8.) How does Douglass claim manhood? In the Narrative, Douglass presents his fight
with Covey, rather than his escape, as the climax and turning point of the narrative.
Why is this experience a turning point for him?

The Impossibility Of Moral Responsibility

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

Argumentative Essay on Harry G. Frankfurt’s Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility, Galen Strawson’s The Impossibility Of Moral Responsibility, and Aristotle’s Book III of Nicomachean Ethics
You are tasked with writing a 6-page argumentative essay that involves crafting a reasoned response to, or application of, the ideas presented in Harry G. Frankfurt’s “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” Galen Strawson’s “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility,” Aristotle’s Book III of Nicomachean Ethics, and find one additional legitimate academic source outside of these three texts. The essay should go beyond merely finding examples from the texts and instead express your critical response and argument. It should thoroughly address each aspect of the guidelines, showcasing critical engagement with the ideas and the underlying reasoning supporting them. Additionally, it should demonstrate a clear understanding of the texts and avoid major interpretive issues.

When the People You Love Don’t Think Like You

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

Introduction
Facione & Gittens (2016) state, “Strong critical thinking about complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect those with whom we disagree” (p. 344). The authors of your text ask us to take seriously the points of view of those with whom we disagree.

Should I respect the point of view of a misogynist – a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women?
Should I respect the point of view of a racist?
How about someone who believes marriage is only between one man and one woman?
How about someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?
How about someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred?
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five questions above that you find particularly repugnant – one that you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in conversation with such a person, how could you ethically respond to the statement of such a point of view? Keep in mind that you are expressing a value opinion, which requires ideological reasoning, so you may want to review Chapter 13.

As you form your response, keep in mind the following; these are things you need to think about but not necessarily to write about in your initial post:

Reflect if you are using System-1 or System-2 thinking? Are your responses tinged with cognitive bias?
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman?
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between not believing in human contribution to climate change and not believing in the Holocaust?

When the People You Love Don’t Think Like You

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

Introduction
Facione & Gittens (2016) state, “Strong critical thinking about complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect those with whom we disagree” (p. 344). The authors of your text ask us to take seriously the points of view of those with whom we disagree.

Should I respect the point of view of a misogynist – a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women?
Should I respect the point of view of a racist?
How about someone who believes marriage is only between one man and one woman?
How about someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?
How about someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred?
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five questions above that you find particularly repugnant – one that you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in conversation with such a person, how could you ethically respond to the statement of such a point of view? Keep in mind that you are expressing a value opinion, which requires ideological reasoning, so you may want to review Chapter 13.

As you form your response, keep in mind the following; these are things you need to think about but not necessarily to write about in your initial post:

Reflect if you are using System-1 or System-2 thinking? Are your responses tinged with cognitive bias?
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman?
Do you think there is a qualitative difference between not believing in human contribution to climate change and not believing in the Holocaust?

The central arguments for virtue ethics (Aristotle), deontology (Kant), and utilitarianism (Mill).

Posted on | by Brian Leakey

Explain the central arguments for virtue ethics (Aristotle), deontology (Kant), and utilitarianism
(Mill).
Apply each of the theories to a scenario to “test” the feasibility of their normativity.
Formulate objections to (Aristotle), deontology (Kant), and utilitarianism (Mill) and consider
possible solutions.