English $ philosophy

Milan2053

PHILOSOPHYASSIGNMENTS.docx

Home >Social Science homework help >Philosophy homework help >English $ philosophy

Introducing Philosophy: A Text with Integrated Readings (virdocs.com)

Assignment #1

Who Are You?

Who Are You?

Watch the video below on personhood and the one on arguments against personal identity, and then answer these questions: Which of the theories about personal identity do you find the most plausible/convincing and why? Which of the arguments against personal identity do you find most plausible/convincing and why? For each answer, explain the theory and offer specific reasons for your position.

Make sure to follow the instructions given in Unit 1 in the Discussion Forums: Protocol and Grading Criteria folder for making specific references to texts, videos, and podcasts; posts that do not make references according to these instructions will not receive full credit

Link for the video;

https://youtu.be/GxM9BZeRrUI

https://youtu.be/17WiQ_tNld4

Assignment #2

Personal Identity and Genetic Modification

Personal Identity and Genetic Modification

In Chapter 6, you read about problems of self/personal identity, the difficulties in answering the question ‘who am I?’ Recent developments in genetic technology are making issues of personal identity more complicated than they have ever been. In the very near future, we may be able to create designer people; personal identity, though we do not even agree on what that is, may be malleable in ways previously only possible in fiction. Watch the Ted Talk “The Ethical Dilemma of Designer Babies” and then answer the following:

What are the two points made by Paul Knoepfler that resonated with you most? (this might mean scared you the most, intrigued you the most, and the like). Do you agree with Knoepfler that, at least for now, we should ban the genetic modification of humans? Why or why not? And, if you could genetically modify yourself, alter your personal identity in some way, would you do it?! Explain.

Link;

https://youtu.be/nOHbn8Q1fBM

assignment #3

The Mind-Body Problem

After reading Chapter 5 and watching the video below on the mind-body problem, do the following:

· explain your understanding of the mind-body problem

· explain which view of the mind most agrees with your understanding of ‘mind.’ Are you a dualist? A materialist? Explain why; defend your position with reasons. In your response, make sure to explain the view you most agree with; in other words, if you say you agree with dualism, explain what the dualist view is, as well as why you agree with that view. Your response must make specific reference to the video as well as to one of the assigned readings from Chapter 5 in our text.

https://youtu.be/3SJROTXnmus

Assignment #4

Saudi Arabia recently granted the status of citizenship to a robot, Sophia. Read Meet Sophia, the Robot Citizen That Said It Would 'Destroy Humans' (businessinsider.com) about Sophia and watch the video below to see her speak to a live audience. Given recent advancements in the development of sophisticated AI, what conditions would be necessary for you to consider such AI to be 'persons'? If you would not consider them persons under any conditions, explain why you would not. In your answer, include specific reference to one or both of the excerpts from John R. Searle on pgs. 355-356 of our text. How does he view the idea of AI as persons/potential persons?

NB: Often in this thread, students write comments such as 'AI will never be human' or 'no, I do not and will not ever consider AI to be human.' BUT!!! Note that we are discussing whether AI should be considered persons, not humans. Clearly, to be human means to have human DNA etc., so, AI cannot be human. Make sure to focus your comments on the potential personhood of AI.

https://youtu.be/S5t6K9iwcdw

assignment #5

Do We Have Free Will?

[Before completing this thread, make sure you have read section C in Chapter 7.]

In System of Nature by Baron d’Holbach (p. 446 in our text), d’Holbach presents the argument known as hard determinism, that free will doesn’t exist, that it is an illusion. For this discussion, give a 3-4 sentence summary of his argument that we do not have free will, and then give your response to his argument. Also, watch the video below in which philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris presents a thought experiment to show that free will doesn’t exist, and then describe your experience with and response to this thought experiment. Does Harris convince you of his position? Why or why not?

Finally, if you think you have free will, how can you defend your position? Often in this discussion, students make claims such as “I have free will because I make choices” or “I have free will because I can do whatever I want.” But such responses commit the fallacy of begging the question. Essentially, such claims say ‘I have free will because I have free will.’ In your response, try to avoid committing this fallacy.

https://youtu.be/UwjD4hfrDsg

ASSIGNMENT #6

Moral Responsibility and Determinism

As you know from your reading in Chapter 7, particularly Section C, a good deal of evidence suggests we do not have free will, that determinism is true (make sure to distinguish between fate, which involves supernatural forces, and determinism, which does not; for this discussion, we are NOT referring to fate, the idea that supernatural forces control our lives). If determinism is true, then questions regarding moral responsibility take on new significance: how can we be morally responsible for our actions if we do not have free will? how might our evaluation of our own actions and the actions of others be affected? If people cannot do other than what they do, should they be praised and blamed for their actions? Watch the video below on moral luck, another complication related to questions of praise and blame, and then give your response to the 3 questions above. Your response should include specific references to the video as well as at least one of the readings in Section C of Chapter 7.

https://youtu.be/DpDSPVv8lUE

ASSIGNMENT 7

Epistemic Responsibility

Epistemic Responsibility

Chapter 3 of our text discusses the branch of philosophy called epistemology, “the study of human knowledge—how we get it, what it is, whether we have it, or why we don’t” (191). But another significant question is: are we morally responsible for our relationship to knowledge, or more specifically, truth? Many of the current problems in our society are directly related to the belief in and spread of false information, and while philosophical questions might often seem abstract and removed from daily life, sadly, people are being injured and murdered as a result of people spreading false information: how people act in relation to what they believe can literally have deadly consequences.

Read the article “ How Do We Get to Herd Immunity for Fake News? ”, watch the below video, and then do/answer the following:

· Choose a quote (must be a complete sentence) from the article that caught your attention and discuss why it did, specifically, how it relates to our relationship with truth.

· Summarize W.K. Clifford’s argument (discussed in the video) with regard to epistemic responsibility (the example about the shipowner is NOT his argument; it is an example meant to illustrate the argument), and then respond to his argument: do you agree or disagree with Clifford? Give reasons and perhaps examples to defend your response.

The article given above is from The New York Times. Non-subscribers are limited to the number of articles they can read, but the Dallas College Library provides full access to The New York Times

https://youtu.be/AYkhlXronNk

ASSIGNMENT 8

Would You Want to Live in the Matrix?

The film The Matrix is in large part based on Descartes’ Meditations, specifically the evil genius argument, and Plato’s allegory of the cave (video below). In The Matrix, one character, Cypher, wants to return to the matrix (a computer simulated reality), knowing full well that nothing he experiences there will be ‘real’ (see Agent Smith and Cypher video below).

First, by making specific references to the excerpts from Descartes' Meditations in Section A of Chapter 3, explain your understanding of Descartes' dream argument and his evil demon/genius argument by giving a brief explanation of each.

Then, in thinking of how you value your experiences, specifically, what you value about them, answer the following: Does it matter to you if something 'really' happened? Or, if you experience something as real, is that all that matters? If, at the end of your life, you were to find out that all of your experiences had been a computer simulation, would that change the way you value the ‘experiences’ you had? Explain why or why not.

https://youtu.be/69F7GhASOdM

https://youtu.be/Z7BuQFUhsRM

ASSIGNMENT 9

Obligations toward Others

In Section C of Chapter 8, you read about egoism and altruism. Peter Singer, who appears in the video below, is a contemporary utilitarian (utilitarians favor an altruistic view) who argues that we should use our disposable income to help others, including the poor in countries other than our own. Tara Smith, whom you read in Chapter 8, discusses egoism, a view that opposes altruism. After watching the video below and reading the Smith text in Chapter 8, respond to the following questions: What is one point from the video that resonated with you and why? What is one point from the Smith reading that resonated with you and why? Explain your stance toward both egoism and altruism. Be specific; provide reasons and examples for your position(s).

https://youtu.be/IZgItfi4eJ4

ASSIGNMENT 10

Moral Relativism

In Section B of Chapter 8, you read about moral relativism (also called moral subjectivism). After reading the text and watching the video below, describe what you understand the moral relativist position to be, explain any problems you see with regard to accepting moral relativism, and then discuss at least 2 specific points from the Gilbert Harman reading in our text that you either agree or disagree with; explain why. Finally, ARE you a moral relativist? Or do you reject moral relativism? Defend your position.

NB: Often in this discussion students discuss cultural relativism, a specific kind of moral relativism, but for this thread, we are discussing moral relativism in general rather than cultural relativism.

https://youtu.be/MzravIHX2aI

ASSIGNMENT 11

The Trolley Problem

Watch the below video version of the trolley problem, a well-known moral dilemma analyzed from a utilitarian perspective.

The first version of the problem is sometimes called the “switch dilemma.” This is based upon the idea of a runaway trolley which is moving down the tracks toward five people who will be killed if it the trolley continues on its present course. You are a bystander and can save these five people by pulling a switch and diverting the trolley onto a different set of tracks. The added problem is that this switch will place the trolley on a different track that has only one person on it; however, if you pull the switch that person will be killed. Is it morally permissible to divert the trolley and prevent five deaths at the cost of one? Most people say it is, regardless of culture, gender, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

Next we have what is sometimes called the “footbridge dilemma.” In this case, the trolley is again headed for five people. However, you are now standing on a footbridge over the tracks. Leaning over the side of the bridge is a very fat man (fat enough to stop the trolley). You are standing next to him on the footbridge and realize that the only way to stop the trolley and save the five people is to push this man off the footbridge and onto the tracks. Is that morally permissible? Most people say it is not, regardless of culture, gender, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

Answer the following: What is your own moral analysis of these two cases? Provide reasons to justify your position(s). If you agree with the majority of people regarding these two cases, then what makes it acceptable to sacrifice one person to save five others in the switch dilemma but not in the footbridge case? If you disagree with the majority of people regarding these cases, what explanation do you offer?

NB: In this thread, students often say what they would or wouldn’t do, could or couldn’t do, and then explain their feelings related to their choice (e.g. ‘I would pull the lever in the first scenario, but I could never push the man off the bridge because I would feel too guilty.’ Or ‘I would push the lever because I wouldn’t have to touch anybody, but I couldn’t push the man off the bridge because I wouldn’t want to directly murder someone.’) But a moral analysis is an analysis about why an action might be moral or immoral, with reasons. While we of course have emotional responses in considering what to do, such responses do not reason about the morality of an action. So, in your response, do not answer the question ‘how would you feel about each scenario?’ but rather ‘what would be the morally right action in each scenario?’

To avoid simply saying what you would or wouldn't do, could or couldn't do, perhaps begin with something along the lines of 'the morally right action in the first scenario is to do x because'....(give your justification for what you claim is the morally right action), and 'the morally right action in the second scenario is to do x because'...(and again give your justification for what you claim is the morally right action).

https://youtu.be/Fs0E69krO_Q

https://youtu.be/DtRhrfhP5b4

ASSIGNMENT 12

The Categorical Imperative

The Categorical Imperative

Watch the below Crash Course Philosophy video on Kant's categorical imperative.

Then, demonstrate your understanding of Kant’s categorical imperative by considering the following scenarios. In your post, do the following:

State the maxim that would be created in each situation (*see note below!)

Explain how you believe a good Kantian would respond based on the maxim. Include reasons for your answers; in other words, instead of simply saying 'a Kantian would respond thusly' explain WHY you think a Kantian would respond that way. Your response must make reference to aspects of Kant' theory as justification for your response.

· Scenario 1: You witness a coworker stealing from your place of employment, but you do not report the incident because the coworker is a close friend of your boss.

· Scenario 2: You lie to a friend about your dislike of her choice of outfit to avoid hurting her feelings.

* Pgs. 549-551 of our text specifically discuss how a maxim would be reached in 4 example scenarios. A maxim is a general principle derived from a specific situation, and it is expressed as a complete sentence. As an example, were I late to a meeting and wondering if it would be ethical for me to speed from a Kantian perspective, the maxim I would derive from this specific scenario, my speeding to get to a meeting, would be a general, universal statement: everyone should speed, or, it would be morally right for everyone to speed. Then, I would reason about this general, universal statement to decide whether it would be moral for me to speed. Formulate a maxim for each of the above scenarios as a complete statement expressing a universal action. Here are some more examples of maxims generated from moral dilemmas, as students often seem unsure of how to generate a maxim:

Moral dilemma: You want to cheat on your taxes because you are having a rough time financially after losing your job due to the pandemic.

Maxim: Everyone experiencing financial difficulty should cheat on their taxes.

Moral dilemma: You want to speed to a job interview to avoid being late.

Maxim: Everyone should speed when late to a job interview.

Moral dilemma: You want to share confidential information told to you by a friend with another friend.

Maxim: Everyone should share confidential information.

NB: The second part of the prompt says “Explain how you believe a good Kantian would respond based on the maxim. Include reasons for your answers; in other words, instead of simply saying 'a Kantian would respond thusly' explain WHY you think a Kantian would respond that way. Your response must make reference to aspects of Kant' theory as justification for your response.”

Despite that notation, historically, many students miss the mark on this one by simply saying what they would do in each situation. But the prompt is meant to have you think like a Kantian, so, the question is NOT ‘what would you do and why’ but ‘what would a Kantian do and why. Below are 2 examples from a previous semester with different scenarios, this one being “You are experiencing symptoms that could indicate you have Covid-19, but you go to a friend's birthday party regardless.” The first response DOES describe reasoning like a Kantian (this means giving reasons from Kant’s ethics to explain how a Kantian would respond), and the other does NOT give such reasoning; it says going to the party would be wrong because one could spread symptoms. Though this is true, there is nothing in that explanation that has anything to do with Kant’s ethics.

Student 1: “Scenario 1: “According to Kant’s Principle of Universalizability, an act is morally acceptable if and only if, its maxim is universalizable” [page77]. “Kant thought that an action’s rightness depends on its maxim. For Kant, the morality of our actions has nothing to do with results. It has everything to do with our intentions and reasons for action, those that are contained in the principles we live by” [page78]. A Kantian would think- if everyone experiencing symptoms of Covid-19 can go to a friend’s birthday party – this will lead everyone getting infected with Covid-19 just because of one person’s behavior. Always imagine from the other side, what if we were on the other end. Imagine if this person had only the symptoms of covid-19 and not the actual disease. But if he went to the party and another person thinking just like him comes there with Covid-19, he is sure to contract the disease. Therefore, as this maxim is not universalizable, this act is immoral.”

Student 2: “In this situation a good Kantian should not go to the party because it is not the right thing to do to go to a party when you have symptoms that indicate Covid-19 because, you could be giving the virus to more people by doing so thus putting more people in health risk.”

Your response/reasoning must be specifically described with reference to Kant’s ethics.

https://youtu.be/8bIys6JoEDw

ASSIGNMENT 13

At the beginning of the course, you read two pieces about the value of studying, or doing, philosophy (Bertrand Russell’s essay “The Value of Philosophy” and Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s article “Why Study Philosophy? To Challenge Your Own Point of View’”). Now that you are finishing a course in philosophy, read the article “Why We Should Require All Students to Take 2 Philosophy Courses” and answer the following: What reasons does Howard Gardner, the author of the article, offer for his argument that everyone should be required to take philosophy courses? Do you agree with his argument? Why or why not? And regardless of whether you agree that philosophy should be required, what have you gained/learned from taking a course in philosophy?