Tag: Academic writing

question
a) What are the benefits of studying philosophy?
b) Can one be happy if one goes through life without questioning anything ? What do you think?
c) define what is philosophy?
d) identify the branches of philosophy?
e) explain the importance of studying philosophy?
f) explain what is philosophy of education?
g) relate the Malaysian Philosophy of education to educational practice?

Match the statements to the philosopher that said/believed that statement. Question 3 options: 6 Set out to doubt everything he could doubt. 5 Human beings have intelligence – which is the ability to read our experience and bring to light what is intelligible within it. 6 Believes that the things we experience have substance behind them, and the substance behind our sensations is matter, and the substance behind our reflections is mind. 2 Universal truth is something we abstract from our experiences. 6 This philosopher believes we must trace an idea to its corresponding impression of experience to determine the true content of that idea. 6 Every simple idea corresponds to a simple impression that resembles it. 3 Suggested that our minds rightly organize the experiences of cause and effect. 6 Was awakened from his intellectual slumber by David Hume’s philosophy. 1 Opposed the Sophists who believed that truth was relative. 5 Affirms that by using our intelligence or intellect, we can know that there is truth. 1. Socrates (469-399 BC) 2. Plato (circa 427-347 BC) 3. Aristotle (384-322 BC) 4. St. Augustine (354-430 AD) 5. Thomas Aquinas (circa 1225-1274 AD) 6. Rene Descartes (1596-1650 AD) 7. John Locke (1632-1704 AD) 8. David Hume (1711-1776 AD) 9. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 AD)

Read one of the essays by an APUS faculty, staff, or student found in the Week 4 Lessons, Readings & Resources.
– Write about the critical thinking process in this essay, the argument, and how it practically related to the profession in-question.
– Did the essay present a good thesis and argument? Did the evidence support thesis? Did the essay demonstrate objectivity, accuracy, currency, and credibility while also using sound thinking?
– Incorporate what you learned from the Week 3 and 4 Lessons, textbooks, and Readings and Resources.

The Liar’s Puzzle
“Interesting puzzle, the VanDorn case,” Sergeant McGuffy remarked to his lieutenant one day after it was all over. “The way I reconstruct the crime, the innocent people were so excited when they first talked to us, they each got one fact wrong. But, the killer wanted to confuse our trail – and so coolly lied from beginning to end.”
Knowing this much can you figure out who is the guilty one?
Egmont VanDorn has been found dead in his apartment. From the beginning, it is pretty clear to the police that this was no accident. Before they can be separated, the four young people who found the body – Arnold, Betsy, Charles and Daisy – eagerly begin to tell their story.
“If, as the police say, Egmont was injured between four and five,” said Daisy, “that must let us all out. We were all together having dinner for at least two hours before we came over here.”
“But we all arrived at seven,” Charles pointed out.
“Arnold said that it was six o’clock at the time, just before we opened the door. Didn’t you Arnold?” said Daisy.
“I said it was just seven on the nose,” said Arnold. “Sorry, honey.”
“I have no idea what he said or what time we got here,” declared Betsy. “The thing I remember is the gas in the hall. We rang the doorbell, and no one came and no one came, and then I smelled the gas. My heart turned over, I thought to myself, he’s dead. I just know he’s dead.”
“Don’t dramatize yourself,” said Daisy coolly. “There is no way that you could have smelled the gas before we opened the door. The place was locked up, and sealed too, tighter than a drum. We’d still be in the hall if Eggy hadn’t given me a key last week.”
“There was gas in the hall, all right,” said Charles. “I smelled it before we opened the door. You seemed to take forever getting your key out. When you finally got the door opened, the gas just streamed out.”
“That was a pretty dangerous thing you did, Charles,” said Arnold, “turning on the lights the way you did. Didn’t it occur to you that a spark at the light switch could have blown us all up.”
“The lights were already on, Arnold,” Charles replied.
“For my part, I’m sorry about pulling him out of the oven – tampering with the evidence and all that,” said Arnold. “Murder never crossed my mind. Locked room, you know. All I could think of was that maybe he was alive and we could still save him.”
“I don’t believe this,” said Daisy. “You didn’t pull him out of the oven. I did. You ran and opened the window. Very good move, too, I thought at the time.”
“I opened the window!” cried Betsy. “I was dizzy from the fumes, and I knew I needed to do something fast.”
“The only things you opened were the door to the liquor cabinet and a bottle of Scotch, Betsy.” Charles laughed at her. “And I thought they were good moves.”
“That was Arnold who got out the Scotch,” said Betsy. “Don’t you remember our sitting there after you called the police, and Arnold passing out the glasses?”
“It couldn’t have been me. Must have been you,” said Arnold. “I’ve never been here before, I didn’t even know where he kept the stuff. Charles, what did you do?”
“Do you know what? I don’t think I did anything. I remember quite clearly, walking over here with you after that long dinner we had together, and then seeing poor Eggy’s feet through the door. But after that, I don’t think I did a thing, except stand there gasping.”
Who did it?

1. What features of feminist ethics do you find most plausible? Why?
2. Do you think moral principles such as justice and rights have a place in any good moral theory? Why or why not?
3. What part do you think emotions should play in morality?
4. Do you believe there are innate differences in the ways men and women deliberate about moral issues? Or do you think any differences are the result of cultural influences? Explain. (Ethical Frameworks Inventory [EFI] relevant)
5. Do you believe there are situations in which impartiality is important in moral reasoning? If not, why not? If so, give an example.
6. Suppose you have an opportunity to either (1) send $800 to Africa to save a dozen people from starvation or (2) give the money to your little sister to buy books for college. Which would you do? Why?
7. What is the attitude of feminist ethics toward moral principles? (Ethical Frameworks Inventory [EFI] relevant) Compare it with Kant’s view.
8. Which person would serve best as a moral exemplar: one who does the right thing out of purely rational motivation or one who does the right thing out of love? Explain your answer.
9. How do you think a rule-utilitarian would explain the obligations of a parent to a child? What about a Kantian? A virtue theorist? How do their responses compare with that of the ethics of care?
10. How does feminist ethics differ from Kant’s categorical Imperative? Explain your answer.
11. According to your text, to what do the terms “public life” refer? (Ethical Frameworks Inventory [EFI] relevant)
12. Alison M. Jaggar noted that western moral theory is said to embody values that are “masculine”. Explain what she means by that.
13. What is Feminine Ethics / Ethics of Care? What are its basic tenets and to whom are its origins attributed? (Ethical Frameworks Inventory [EFI] relevant)
14. Alison Jaggar poses four (4) “Minimum Conditions of Adequacy” for feminist ethics; what are they and briefly explain each.
a.
b.
c.
d.
15. Whereas justice protects equality and freedom, care fosters _____________ and ____________. (Ethical Frameworks Inventory [EFI] relevant)
Please answer it more detailed, thank you!

What do you think about flopping in basketball and diving in soccer? Is it morally acceptable to intentionally present the appearance of a foul in order to deceive the referee, get a favorable call, and thereby gain an advantage over one’s opponent? Defenders of the practice have suggested that it is, in fact, acceptable and have supported it by using some of the following arguments.
1. It is part of the game. Everyone does it.
2. It keeps the playing field level. Because opponents are doing it, I need to do it too- just to keep the game fair.
3. It usually does not cause much harm. Better teams still win.
4. It is a skill that can be (and is) practiced. People who “sell” apparent fouls well should be rewarded fro it, just as players are rewarded for passing accurately or displaying other skills.
How solid are these arguments in terms of utilitarian thinking on one hand and Kantian ethics on the other? In terms of utilitarian logic, does flopping promote the greatest good for the greatest number? Remember, this logic does not refer to the greatest good only for oneself. Furthermore, if diving does promote the greatest good, what kind of goods would those be?
In terms of Kantian ethics and deontological thinking, can flopping be universalized? In other words, if everyone flopped regularly, would this phenomenon undo the advantage gained currently by a few athletes who flop only occasionally? Furthermore, does diving violate the rights of one’s opponent? Does it place the official or referee in the role of serving as a means to one’s own competitive ends? Is diving a form of lying to an official?

Question 1 1pts The following deductive argument is: All musicians are millionaires. All millionaires play tennis. So, all musicians play tennis. O valid (& invalid Question 2 1pts The following non-deductive argument is: 90% of humans live to be over 100 years of age. So, my landlord will probably live to be over 100 years of age. () strong QO weak Question 3 1pts The following deductive argument is: If Ronald is capable of love, then Ronald has a soul. But Ronald is not capable of love. Therefore Ronald does not have asoul. O valid (O invalid Question 4 1pts The following non-deductive argument is: In The Declaration of Independence it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Clearly, this shows that a creator exists. O strong () weak Question 5 1 pts The following non-deductive argument is: I had my flu shot on Friday. | got the flu the next day. So obviously the flu shot gives you the flu. (O strong () weak
[ | Question 6 1 pts Just because you attack someone’s character, that does not mean that you have committed the ad hominem fallacy. O True () False Question 7 1 pts Suppose that Mary testifies that David was passing out negative flyers about her. If | argue that we shouldn’t believe Mary because she hates David, | have not committed the ad hominem fallacy. ) True () False Question 8 1 pts The following ad hominem argument commits the ad hominem fallacy. Dan argued that | should wear a helmet when | go skiing, because statistics show that | am less likely to injure myself. But I’ve seen Dan ski many times without a helmet. He’s such a hypocrite, so | can ignore what he said. ) True () False Question 9 1 pts The following argument is: You say that you are opposed to guaranteed health care for every U.S. citizen. But if you think about it carefully, perhaps you should change your mind, given that you are a strong believer in equal opportunity for all our citizens. Nobody has a decent opportunity to achieve success if they can’t get decent health care. () an ad hominem argument that is not an ad hominem fallacy () an ad hominem fallacy (©) neither an ad hominem argument nor an ad hominem fallacy Question 10 1 pts In a situation where one person says that the moon landing actually occurred and another person says it never did, the burden of proof belongs to: () The person whao says that the moon landing actually occurred () The person who says that the moon landing never occurred

According to the Talking About Ethics textbook, nihilism maintains that: Group of answer choices Morality is absolute, but cannot be known Morality is an illusion and was made up to protect weak individuals Morality is culturally determined Morality is absolute and applicable to all.

For each of the following passages do three things: (1) name and (2) define the fallacies on display and (3) provide a brief discussion of the problem of reasoning in this particular manner in this specific case. Since Rock Hudson and Liberace were homosexual, and since homosexuality is an unfortunate perversion with deep psychological causes, it seems obvious that they should have been institutionalized in asylums which specialize in sexually based mental illness rather than allowed to run around practicing their particular perversions at will.

Explain the spinach test. Why is Korsgaard’s joke funny? Why is an analogous joke about believing that the earth revolves around the sun not funny? Finally, explain what this shows about the objectivity of morality, according to Enoch. Do you agree with his assessment? Why or why not?