Elisabeth of Bohemias Criticism of Descartes and Dualism Theory

/in /by

 Elisabeth of Bohemias Criticism of Descartes and Dualism Theory

1. W4 DiscussionHi,

welcome to this week discussion!

What is due?

Please choose one topic (see below) and post at least one reflection and two comments to your peers’ reflections.

Why?

This assignment is meant to assess your capacity to understand and reflect autonomously on the contents that you studied, and your capacity to engage with different opinions and views in a respectful and fruitful way, collaborating with your peers for an inclusive learning environment.

How?

Please write:

1) One post on the chosen prompt, 100 to 200 words

2) At least two comments on your peers’ posts, 50 to 100 words each. One of the comments can be your reply to a comment you received. Comments can be on any topic, not necessarily the prompt you have chosen.

Please be sure that your posts are on topic, and your comments are respectful and constructive. See the rubric for details.

IMPORTANT: This is a group discussion; be sure that you post in your group, not in the general discussion. Only if you post in your group your submission will be graded.

PROMPTS

1) Do you think that Elisabeth of Bohemia’s criticism of Descartes is convincing? Why?

2) What is your position regarding the “hard problem” of consciousness? Do you think science will be able to explain how the physical brain produces conscious experience? Why yes, why no?

3) Do you think that Ryle’s criticism of Descartes is convincing? Why?

4) If you watched the movie Blade Runner, share your thoughts on how it relates to the topics of this week.

2. reading summary 200-250words

Happiness and Financial Freedom

/in /by

Happiness and Financial Freedom

In the Ancient Greek world (the world of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, often regarded as the birthplace of philosophy) a “symposium” was a banquet held after a meal, an “after party” of sorts that usually included drinking, dancing, recitals and engaging conversations on the topics of the day.

For our purposes in this course, the Symposium discussions will not involve dancing, recitals or a banquet, but they will provide food for thought on current ethical issues and direct application of the ethical theory discussed in each of these weeks.

It is almost impossible these days to turn on the news or log onto social media without encountering a controversy that cries out for ethical discussion. For these Symposium discussions, your instructor will choose a topic of current ethical interest and a resource associated with it for you to read or watch. Your task is to consider how the ethical theory of the week might be used to examine, understand or evaluate the issue.

This week, you will consider how virtue ethics applies to a controversy, dilemma, event, or scenario selected by your instructor. It is a chance for you to discuss together the ethical issues and questions that it raises, your own response to those, and whether that aligns with or does not align with a virtue ethics approach. The aim is not to simply assert your own view or to denigrate other views, but to identify, evaluate, and discuss the moral reasoning involved in addressing the chosen issue.

Your posts should remain focused on the ethical considerations, and at some point in your contribution you must specifically address the way a virtue ethicist would approach this issue by explaining and evaluating that approach.

If you have a position, you should strive to provide reasons in defense of that position.

QUESTION FOR FORUM TWO, WEEK FOUR

To respond, hit ‘Reply’ ABOVE this note, not below it!

As usual, this is a long introduction; let me summarize in advance:

Here is what we are asking for this round:

For your chosen theme (one of the following: a) happiness; b) education and training; c) ethical practice; d) friendship; e) the attainment of ‘full development’ as a person), HOW DOES CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY HELP US OR HINDER US IN REALIZING THAT THEME?

Now for the introductory notes to the Forum:

For this Forum’s discussions, please read the Guidance for this week and my own Lecture on Aristotle, above. Although Aristotle does write on what we would call social issues, those are mainly in the context of his Politics, rather than the Ethics. The Ethics is largely concerned with what we might call self-development and self-fulfillment, i.e., becoming a fully ethical person. Yet we can bring Aristotle’s ideas to bear on social issues if we first get clear about those central concepts. Remember that, for Kant, it was ‘humanity’ that was the focus of his ethical theories.

For Aristotle, practical wisdom is the central issue, which is the result of a lifetime of the practice of excellence and of virtuous behavior, guided by the aim of a flourishing life and a practice of the Doctrine of the Mean; by the development of good habits and solid practices of deliberation and judgment, enhanced by friendship, and supported by a good — i.e., flourishing and healthy — city or community. Society does have a role in the development of the individual for Aristotle; one isn’t solely on ‘one’s own’.

Thus, we could take any of the following ideas:

1) Happiness or flourishing (NOT the same thing as ‘feeling good’, but a fulfilled or satisfied existence) as the goal of a human life

2) The development of good habits through practice and training (which is the responsibility both of family and of society)

3) Guidance by way of the Doctrine of the Mean and seeking balance in one’s decisions and behavior

4) The role of friendship in self-discovery and the heightening of self-knowledge (and thus of one’s own form of excellence, i.e., virtue)

5) Practical wisdom (‘phronesis’ in Greek, if you want to look it up) as the result of a lifetime of the practice of excellence in virtue and in all one’s concerns in life

Let me suggest a question for each area. FOR THE FORUM, YOU CAN TAKE ONE QUESTION BELOW AND DEVELOP IT FOR YOUR INITIAL POST.

I) To what extent is happiness (not as a ‘good feeling’, but as a flourishing life, in the Greek sense) possible in a society determined by economic factors, as ours is (‘capitalism’), including the struggle to survive and work, the growing inequality in our society and in Western societies generally –

II) What is the role of education in helping people to achieve a happy or flourishing life? Is there very much in our own educational system that is oriented toward such a goal? (For example, is it oriented toward physical health, caring for oneself and for others, mental health and well-being, techniques for survival and success, for self-development… or is it oriented mainly toward becoming ‘ready for the job market’? What do you think Aristotle would say about our current modes of education?

III) What techniques or practices (like those suggested in the ‘Doctrine of the Mean’ or of choosing the best middle path) can lead to a more fulfilled and happier life? Do people today have time for such practices? For a modern note, what might practices like mindfulness and meditation contribute to poise, calm, and even happiness? (One could find other examples of ‘practice’ of course.)

IV) Does our society encourage the experience of friendship or does it discourage it? Are we in such a rush, so busy, so preoccupied with making a living that we don’t have time, as adults, for friendship and developing enjoyable social relationships? Is ‘networking’ the same as friendship, in short!? What can we do to develop our own friendships and experience of friendship further?

V) What is maturity? (“Practical wisdom”) What does mature, practical judgment mean for our place and role in life; how is it exhibited in work and in our relationships? “Fulfillment” for Aristotle is not selfish self-aggrandizement; it is (just as the acorn becomes an oak), “growing” into what it means to be human, of which maturity is at least a part. What does it mean for our contemporary society, in work, in relationships, and elsewhere?

Again, to summarize, here is what we are asking for this round:

For your chosen theme (one of the following: a) happiness; b) education and training; c) ethical practice; d) friendship; e) the attainment of ‘full development’ as a person), HOW DOES CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY HELP US OR HINDER US IN REALIZING THAT THEME?

That is the one question, really, you see… I look forward to seeing what you have to say about these issues! Again, just choose one for your initial post, but try to respond to others who have a different topic than yours, simply to make for interesting conversations….

(400 words)

https://ashford.instructure.com/courses/78043/page…

Consequentialist & Non Consequentialist Theories Approaches

/in /by

 Consequentialist & Non Consequentialist Theories Approaches

INITIAL POST :

Consider two types moral reasoning: Consequentialist and Non-Consequentialist approaches (and the specific theories involved).

  • Which of these theories, if any, do you find most reasonable, and why?
  • Provide a clear example to demonstrate your thinking.

2 responses: In responses to at least two peers, check their work. Were their explanations and examples clear and accurate? Identify any problems/errors in their logic or explain why you agree with their rationale. Make sure your responses are substantive and contribute extra to the discussion.

Professors example:

So, let’s consider a hypothetical situation…

You’ve got an acquaintance at school. Not a close friend, but someone you’ve taken classes with before. And in those classes, this person has generally done as well or better than you. They’re a responsible, capable student.

But one term, this student disappears for a few weeks at the end of the term. You see them right before you go into take your final exam, and the student says they had to leave the country to care for a sick relative. They asked the professor for an extension, but the professor refused, and now they’re totally unprepared for the final and about to fail the class.

Except there’s a quirk in the testing room. From this student’s seat, they can look up at the light fixtures and see a reflection of your desk a few rows away. So, they can copy off your exam with no chance of you getting caught (just accept this as part of the hypothetical). Why the student told you this before cheating, I’m not sure, but now you know their plan.

So…what’s the right thing to do? Let them copy? Report to the professor? Just move seats (if you do, someone else will sit in your seat and they’ll probably copy off of them)?

Now, here’s the important part. It’s not your answer that we’re after this week. It’s your reasons. The big values that you used to arrive at the specific judgment about this case. For example, you might make the following argument:

P: It will help them a lot if they pass

P: Nobody will get in any trouble

C: It’s good to let them copy

That’s an example of a Consequentialist argument. Your focused on the outcomes of the decision. Specifically, it’s a Utilitarian argument, because the big principle required to make that argument work is the premise: the right action is the one that creates that maximized happiness for all involved.

But you could arrive at the same conclusion for entirely different reasons. You might say something like this:

P: To report the person is to snitch

P: You have a duty never to snitch

C: You should let them copy or switch seats

This argument isn’t really about outcomes anymore. It invokes a duty – a moral rule that must be followed no matter what. That’s a Deontological approach.

Obviously, I think there are logical problems with both of those arguments! In the first case, I think there may well be people harmed by cheating, especially if we consider what would happen if everyone did it. In the second, is the duty not to snitch really one you can apply consistently? Would you not report a car theft or a murder? And if your “no snitch” duty only applies some of the time, how do you decide when?

So, read up on the different moral perspectives in the book. The prompt mentions four, but there are more! Then, talk about which ones make the most (or event the least) sense to you and try to apply them to some hypotheticals. I look forward to hearing your ideas 😉

The book used : Moore, B. N., & Parker, R. (2016). Critical Thinking (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill E

I have a link to the book VIA google drive if u need it

also I will provide 2 students works as examples and so u can reply to them

 

Ethical Dilemma

/in /by

Ethical Dilemma

First, carefully read the ethical dilemma passages. Select an ethical dilemma to address and then tell your classmates whether you think a Utilitarian, Kantian, or virtue ethics approach to this dilemma is most appropriate (be sure to say why). Then, deploy your chosen approach as you argue for a conclusion. Be sure to support your conclusion with clearly-stated reasoning. Try your best to demonstrate practical knowledge of your chosen ethical approach

Environmental Ethics Intrinsic Values

/in /by

Environmental Ethics Intrinsic Values

For this forum, choose one of the following topics to respond to for your initial post. When you respond to your peers please respond to a learner who has posted a contrary view on the topic you selected and then respond to a learner who has posted on the topic you did not select.

Topic A: Environmental Ethics

Look up the term Environmental Ethics at http://plato.stanford.edu/, then answer the following questions: Do you think that a book, a plant, or a building can be said to have a good of its own? Can things be done in its best interest? Does it have interests? Explain your answers and whether you think that this is a good reason to think of that as having intrinsic value (CO5).

Topic B: Self-Evident Intuitions

Westermarck writes, “…a theory which leads to an examination of the psychological and historical origin of people’s moral opinions should be more useful than a theory which postulates moral truths enunciated by self-evident intuitions that are unchangeable” (CO5). Agree or disagree and give your reasons.

Final Reflection:

And finally, please reflect on the following:

  • How will you include ethics in your present or future career?
  • How will you talk about ethics as a career competency?

Lying Is Wrong & Moral Judgments Beliefs and Attitudes

/in /by

 Lying Is Wrong & Moral Judgments Beliefs and Attitudes

In this Text Analysis try to give an answer to the questions below:

  • According to subjectivism, what is meant by saying that “lying is wrong”?
  • Why does Driver reject subjectivism?
  • In what ways, if any, do moral judgments differ from descriptive ones?
  • Do you suppose that those who believe moral judgments are a matter of personal preference would say the same about non-moral normative claims, such as “Susan is a good swimmer”?
  • Note: The article should have 300+ words (without quotations of text).

Ethical Absolutism Comparative

/in /by

Ethical Absolutism Comparative

Explain the difference between Ethical absolutism and Ethical relativism? Give an example of each. Would you say there are no absolute moral laws at all? Why or why not?

Philosophy Theory of Pragmatism

/in /by

Philosophy Theory of Pragmatism

Define the theory of Pragmatism and name at least two philosophers who helped found and promote it? What distinguishes pragmatic thinking from that of other views of reality such as Idealism or Materialism? Is all pragmatism the same? Show one way in which one pragmatist differed from another.

Philosophical Perspective of Aristotle and Socrates

/in /by

Philosophical Perspective of Aristotle and Socrates

Instructions:

Write six (and only six) pages on one of the following essay topics.

As a general rule, approximately four pages should be careful and sympathetic exposition of the relevant positions or arguments. Approximately two pages, at least, should reflect your critical or reflective engagement with the relevant positions or arguments. Exposition and critical engagement can be intermingled. But, as a rule, first write four pages of exposition. Then write at least two pages of critical discussion. Do not neglect either task; doing both well is essential for the assignment.

Use helpful examples and apt quotations. Carefully organize the flow of ideas. Above all, strive for clarity.

1. Immediately after Socrates’ leaky jar analogy, Socrates and Callicles disagree

over what makes a person’s life good. Present at least two of Socrates’ arguments against Callicles’ position, being sure to carefully formulate them and situate your reconstruction with reference to the text. Give reasons why you think each argument does or does not succeed. Pose and answer potential objections.

2. Using an example, explain why Ryle believes there is a fundamental difference between “knowing how” and “knowing that.” Explain Plato’s view that moral knowledge is knowledge that. Explain Aristotle’s view that moral knowledge is instead a matter of know how. Give reasons for either Plato’s or Aristotle’s view, considering objections and offering replies.

3. Plato and Aristotle accept what Parfit calls an “objective list” view of the good life for a person. Explain that position and explain how both experientialism and desire-based theories differ from it and from each other in view of Parfit’s and Nozick’s discussions. Make a case using one or more examples for one of the views in view of problems you develop for the others.

Aristotle View of Knowledge and Evaluating Plato Objections

/in /by

Aristotle View of Knowledge and Evaluating Plato Objections

Write six (and only six) pages on one of the following essay topics.

As a general rule, approximately four pages should be careful and sympathetic exposition of the relevant positions or arguments. Approximately two pages, at least, should reflect your critical or reflective engagement with the relevant positions or arguments. Exposition and critical engagement can be intermingled. But, as a rule, first write four pages of exposition. Then write at least two pages of critical discussion. Do not neglect either task; doing both well is essential for the assignment.

Use helpful examples and apt quotations. Carefully organize the flow of ideas. Above all, strive for clarity.

1. Immediately after Socrates’ leaky jar analogy, Socrates and Callicles disagree

over what makes a person’s life good. Present at least two of Socrates’ arguments against Callicles’ position, being sure to carefully formulate them and situate your reconstruction with reference to the text. Give reasons why you think each argument does or does not succeed. Pose and answer potential objections.

2. Using an example, explain why Ryle believes there is a fundamental difference between “knowing how” and “knowing that.” Explain Plato’s view that moral knowledge is knowledge that. Explain Aristotle’s view that moral knowledge is instead a matter of know how. Give reasons for either Plato’s or Aristotle’s view, considering objections and offering replies.

3. Plato and Aristotle accept what Parfit calls an “objective list” view of the good life for a person. Explain that position and explain how both experientialism and desire-based theories differ from it and from each other in view of Parfit’s and Nozick’s discussions. Make a case using one or more examples for one of the views in view of problems you develop for the others.

Class reading only