Ethical Boundaries and Dual Relationship
Hi.. Me again… Please see attached for directions. Must be no plagiarism and scholarly references only.
Hi.. Me again… Please see attached for directions. Must be no plagiarism and scholarly references only.
I NEED THIS IN 30 minutes TOPS
NEED A FAST WRITER WITH NO PLAGIARISM
LAST DAY OF CLASS AND I FORGOT ABOUT THIS ESSAY
ONLY NEED 2 pages and 2 references
PLEASE NO PLAGIARISM AT ALL
SEND WITH A TURNITIN REPORT
Instructions:
Please respond to either prompt #1 or prompt #2 in two or three typed double-spaced pages.
Prompts:
1. Spinoza argues for a strong version of determinism called “necessitarianism.” Carefully explain what necessitarianism is and what Spinoza’s argument for it is. How does Leibniz’s distinction between necessity ex hypothesi (i.e. hypothetical necessity) and absolute necessity (DM 13) help him avoid this difficulty, and how does Leibniz’s claim that God chooses this world because it’s the best seem to threaten his strategy for avoiding necessitarianism?
2. Descartes argues for substance dualism, an ontology according to which there are two kinds of substances and a plurality of individual substances of each kind. Carefully and thoroughly explain Spinoza’s argument against the possibility of this ontology in Ip5 of the Ethics. How does Leibniz’s metaphysics avoid this problem, even though he thinks that all created substances are simple, immaterial, perceiving beings?
It is anticipated that the initial discussion response should be in the range of 250-300 words. Response posts must demonstrate topic knowledge and scholarly engagement with peers. This is not the only criteria utilized for evaluation; substantive content is imperative. All questions in the topic must be addressed. Please proofread your response carefully for grammar and spelling. Do not upload any attachments. All responses need to be supported by a minimum of one scholarly resource. Journals and websites must be cited appropriately. Citation and reference must adhere to APA format.
Students are expected to initially address the discussion question by Wednesday of each week. Participation in the discussion forums is expected with a minimum total of three (3) substantive postings (this includes your initial posting and posting to two peers) on three (3) different days per week. Substantive means that you add something new to the discussion, you aren’t just agreeing. This is also a time to ask questions or offer information surrounding the topic addressed by your peers. Personal experience is appropriate for a substantive discussion and should be correlated to the literature.
The topic is about: “Sex Under Pressure: Jerks, Boorish Behavior, and Gender Hierarchy” by Scott A. Anderson
Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.
Respond to two people, Kindra and Gabriel by comparing your assessment tool to theirs. 2 citations 2, references.
Kindra’s post : Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology
Assessment tools are used frequently in mental health for a variety of reasons. These important tools can be used to screen for the presence of mental health disorders, aid in formulating diagnoses, and to assess for severity of mental health symptoms (Psychological Assessment Tools for Mental Health, 2020).
I found this to be an interesting and useful assessment tool used to essentially evaluate the severity of depressive symptoms (“Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology”, 2020). There is a 30-item inventory, and the one in which this discussion post will focus on is the 16-item inventory, or otherwise known as the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology. This assessment tool can also be used to screen for depression, but the main purpose is to assess severity according to criteria put forth by the American Psychiatry Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders –5th edition to aid in diagnosis of major depressive disorder (“Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology”, 2020). This inventory assesses nine different criteria for depression.
The central question at the heart of Natalie Zemon Davis’s The Return of Martin Guerre is focused on identity: what capacity did peasants like Bertrande and Martin have to live life according to their sense of self? Davis suggests that each of the three main figures (Arnaud, Bertrande and Martin) had an idea of the kind of life they’d like to live and then used what was available to make that happen. They sought opportunity, took advantage of chance, and deceived those around them. Robert Finlay suggests, in argument with Davis, that such calculation should not be attributed to Bertrande. That as a woman alive in the late Middle Ages, Bertrande would not have though about questions of identity as Davis suggests.
In a short essay (2-3 pages) compare and contrast the arguments that Davis and Finlay make about Bertrande’s involvement in the deception. What does Davis argue about Betrande’s role? How does Finlay refute that? What’s Davis’s response to the refutation? Finally, using evidence from the book and articles, make an argument about your position.
I have attached the material needed to answer the question.
Please answer all of the following questions by the due date. Please answer in 2-4 sentences for each question. Make sure all of your answers are on ONE file before submitting. All answers need to be in your own words, not the words of the lecture or any websites.
1) These are the first deaths in the Peloponnesian War. Why do you think that Pericles would choose to praise the city in his speech, rather than the individual men and their deeds?
2) Pericles lists a number of praiseworthy attributes of Athens. Which do you think could be said by a patriotic American about the United States? Explain.
3) Pericles uses “we” in his speech when discussing the opportunities and privileges available to Athenians. Who is excluded by definition in this “we”?
4) Evaluate the “comfort” given to parents and brothers of the deceased. What purpose might this “comfort” serve in Athens’ ongoing war with Sparta?
5) Where in the past did the US tend to ignore, or even ignore today, some important groups within our fighting forces? (Hint: are all US soldiers white American male citizens?)
You must first explain the author’s argument then give a step by step argument explaining why you think the argument is plausible or implausible. If you defend the argument you must explain a possible objection (problem) and explain why the author would be able to respond to it. If you attack the argument you must also explain a possible objection and explain why the author’s argument cannot respond to the objection.
Note: You may also create a ‘middle of the road’ position by showing that the author can respond to part of, but not all of, the objection.
Do not draw from secondary sources. This is your opportunity to DO philosophy. Use only the sources we have covered in class and your own insight. Be sure to cite all quotations in parentheses.
Your paper should follow this general outline:
1.An introductory paragraph explaining what you plan to do in the essay. Make sure you include a thesis statement in this paragraph.
2. In the next paragraph(s) clearly explaining the author’s argument. Simply stating the argument is not thorough enough. The use of examples may be helpful.
R1
Why should a person be moral?
The question of morality is one the greatest questions that many people asks today. Some feel that it is good to be moral, whereas others feels that they should not be just.According to Plato’s story of the ring of Gyges, justice is always self-centered (Dorbolo, 2002).The story states that people engage in moral actions because they want to gain a goodreputation. Justice is, therefore, practiced involuntary by individuals because they have no power to be unjust. This review, therefore, talks about why a person should be moral, and where it is always in a person’s best interest to behave morally.
A person should be moral because being just earns him/her some good reputation. When an individual act morally, he/she is liked by other people, and perceived as a good person, in contrary to being immoral. From the Plato’s story of the ring of Gyges, laws of mutual covenant to being either moral or immoral arise from the outcomes of the two events. In our case, Gyges gets influenced by the desire to have power and rule (Dorbolo, 2002). With the help of the ring and the queen, he overthrows the king. Gyges acts immoral, though the outcomes favor him. By acting immoral, heruins his reputation. Rather than doing this act, he could have used ethical ways to gain power. People should, therefore, be moral to gain a good reputation.
homeworkforyouhelper.com Provides Assignment help for guidance only. These papers are not to be submitted as it is. These papers are
intended to be used for research and reference purposes
Phone
+1 (505)-806-8755
Email:
support@homeworkforyouhelper.com