Please kindly read and follow the instructions very carefully as this worth a very high percentage of my final grade.

Instructions before you write.

First, choose your author. I chose “Estranged Labour”. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/m…

Second, select one of the arguments that your author presents. For example, you could choose one of the social contract arguments from Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau; you could choose the argument against censorship from Mill, or the argument for women’s equality from Wollstonecraft, or the argument that capitalism dehumanizes workers, or the argument that women or African-Americans bear a special burden in society from Beauvoir or DuBois.

Next, try to formulate the question that the author you have chosen is trying to answer. If you know what the author’s conclusion is, you should be able to state explicitly (maybe even more explicitly that the author ever did) a question that the argument seems to be trying to answer. The question might be: on what is the legitimacy of the sovereign (or the government) based? Or, what is the most rational form of social contract? Or, does capitalism dehumanize workers? Or, should women be granted the same rights as men? And so on.

Decide your own view concerning your chosen argument. Try to write out your own view in a single sentence, called a thesis statement. This thesis statement should be a direct and clear answer to the question you have just formulated. You may find that you agree with one of our authors. That’s fine; you will therefore be backing them up, adding your support to their argument. You may also chose to disagree with one of our authors, in which case you should try to provide a clear alternative answer to the question.

Only now should you begin writing your paper.

Once you begin writing:

Paragraph One: Introduce the topic, your chosen author, and your main thesis. What question do you take yourself to be answering? With what author will you be engaging primarily? What is that author’s main view concerning the question you are discussing? And what view will you be taking on the question?

Paragraph Two and Three (and perhaps Four): The argument from your chosen author (with which you will later agree or disagree). Paragraph Four or Five: Consider an objection to your author’s view. If you disagree with your author, then this objection should be your own. If you agree with your author, then this objection should be from another author or from an imagined objector

Paragraph Five or Six: Imagine a reply from the original author (or from yourself, if you agree with the original author).

Last Paragraph or Two: Evaluate the debate and explain your own view. Why do you agree or disagree with the original author? What are the reasons you have for agreeing or disagreeing with the chosen author? Which argument is stronger?

This will likely be at least six or seven paragraphs. Remember, though: I am more concerned that you demonstrate progress toward the course goals (the spirit of the assignment, one might say) than if you follow the letter of the assignment.

1. (a) Identify and describe three different (unique) potential social and ethical concerns (not mentioned in our text) arising as a result of converging technologies. (b) Defend your answer. Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (knowledge)

1. Evaluate the arguments that were examined for and against future research in nanotechnology. Given the potential advantages and disadvantages of future development in this area, which side’s arguments do you find more convincing? Do the criteria provided by Weckert for when research in a particular area should and should not be allowed offer us any guidelines for research in nanotechnology? Which kinds of ethical guidelines need to be built into research and development in this field? Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (comprehension)

1. In their goal of designing “moral machines,” Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen argue that we do not need to develop artificial moral agents that have full moral agency. They believe that machines need to have only functional morality to be able to accomplish their objective of building moral machines. (a) What do Wallach and Allen mean by “functional morality” and how is it different from full moral agency? (b) Do you agree with their claim that questions about whether AMs can be full moral agents actually distract from the larger goal of researchers in machine ethics who aim to build machines that are capable of “acting appropriately in morally charged situations?” Explain. Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (comprehension)

These are 2-3 page commentaries on reading assignments, and you need to read Ch1 and Ch2. In them you can raise questions, analyze arguments, or simply point out something that you found interesting about the text. I uploaded the article, please read Ch1 and Ch2 first and then write the reflection paper of it. Please deliver on time with high quality and no plagiarism.

Write a well detailed essay of 250 words or more, analyzing the passage by Nadine Strossen, titled ” Why Censoring Pornography Would Not Reduce Discrimination or Violence against Women” (pg. 136). Elaborate and write about your views on the passage along with reading the other pages that I will upload in a document. Also in two separate paragraphs, choose two moral theories that relates to this topic an explain why. When making reference, it should look like (Strossen in Timmons, page #).More details in document.