Crisis Of Belief study questions

Crisis of Belief 2.14.2023

Study question 1 is due 2.23 @ 23:59.

Study questions require: (1) A length of at least 750 words, excluding the prompts; (2) Three citations of assigned or suggested materials via parenthetical citations; (3) A reference page (“Works Cited” page) providing information about works cited. APA format must be used for citations and references; (4) No citations of, or references to, outside sources and Power Points ( for this assignment, you can cite PowerPoints on Part A); (5) A brief, one-page outline of your answers. The outline should be submitted before the study questions answers.

***

A. (35 points) The following three arguments will be considered in the course. Identify their premises and conclusions. If you agree with the argument, explain why it is sound; if you disagree with the argument, explain why it is invalid or unsound.

I. 1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad. 2. If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. 3. It is easily within our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.  4. Therefore, we should do everything in our power to prevent others from dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.

II. 1. In some societies, infanticide is thought to be morally acceptable.

2. In other societies, such as our own, infanticide is thought to be morally odious.

3. Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right or wrong; it is merely a matter of opinion that varies from culture to culture. 

III. 1. Either scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy, or non-scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy. 2. Scientists do not have the necessary skills to determine federal government COVID policy. 3. Therefore, non-scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy.  

B. (35 points) Disagreement among peers is a significant problem facing human beings. Discuss peer disagreement by presenting a case of peer disagreement (real or a thought experiment) and the three main ways philosophers would analyze that situation. Explain which approach seems best to you.

C. (30 points) Kevin Vallier believes he has a solution to US political disagreement. Consider Vallier’s solution in two stages. First, how does Vallier believe US citizens should treat one another? Should we be mean and attempt to eliminate our opponents? Second, how does trust and neutral policies play into encouraging the open society, where political disagreement is no longer a threat to society? After presenting Vallier’s solution, briefly present your opinion on whether you think Vallier’s solution works.   

*****

Uniqueness thesis and meaningful disagreements in science (Underdetermination of theory by evidence)

Vallier on contemporary US politics, carrots, and sticks

What’s Vallier’s answer? What’s the Open Society?