Include a presentation in .pptx form about all details about Buddhism. If applicable use Living Philosophy: A Historical Introduction to Philosophical Ideas by Lewis Vaughn 3rd edition as a reference apply and answer any buddism philosophies background and questions. References of other presentations will be listed below. Keep me updated on the work please!
Defend a position on an issue that reasonable people currently disagree about. 3 pages minimum of two sources representing different positions on the issue. For this essay, find an issue that you want to write about. The point of the essay is to defend your own position on the issue. A minimum of two sources are required, one that agrees with you and one that defends a different point of view.
“Proof that God Exists/Does Not Exist,” 500 words. You are asked to do FOUR things in this paper –
the structure is crucial. First, explain in detail a (philosophical, reasoned) argument for the existence
of God; this can be one of the argument we cover in class or one you find/create on your own.
Second, critique it; argue why it is right or why it is wrong. Third, argue your side; explain and justify
your own position, connecting it to your critique. Fourth, put YOUR argument for the existence or
nonexistence of God into premise-and-conclusion form – this is a necessary final step of the paper.
We have to read this book called Political Philosophy: Fourth Edition by Adam Smith. We have to write an argumentative essay about the topic above (ill add the page 129 to the instructions). So since the book cost money and I don’t think you’ll be able to get a free copy of it online I am fine with citing anything you use from the book after you are done with the essay. If you do want to cite other websites or anything they have to be legit website like galileo but if you just want to stick to the book you can. I have trouble writing about philosophy because I just do not understand it, so thank for being able to help me on this.
THIS IS THE PAGE WE MUST WRITE ABOUT:
Furthermore, the liberal state may itself be regarded as inimical to a more particularistic or localized form of community. This will happen whenever that state’s commitment to individual freedom and autonomy requires it to interfere with a community’s own preferred way of doing things. Should members of a religion be permitted to raise their children as they wish, protecting them from the spiritually impoverished and grotesquely sexualized mass culture? Or is the state justified in protecting the autonomy of its (future) citizens by requiring that they be educated in such a way that they are genuinely (not just formally) free to leave that community if they wish? Can a cultural group – say the Francophone community in Quebec – deny individuals living within ‘its’ city the freedom to advertise their businesses in English? Can Native American communities collectively decide to prevent their individual members from selling land to outsiders? Putting it in general terms, should we tolerate groups that regard the survival and flourishing of a particular culture as more important than individual autonomy? Or should we uphold the rights of all citizens to revise and question traditional cultural practices? For those whose primary focus is on the value of religious, ethnic, linguistic or cultural communities, the liberal state may look more like the enemy than the embodiment of ‘community’.
Similar issues arise when we consider attempts by the liberal state to inculcate its preferred shared values in its citizens, educating children to be tolerant, to value individual liberty, and to treat with mutual respect others who have different views about how to live their lives. Attempts by the British government to require schools to promote what the then Prime Minister David Cameron called ‘muscular liberalism’ have been controversial partly because they seem aimed particularly at Muslims, partly because the ideas promoted have been officially designated as ‘British values’. For some, that attempt to claim as ‘British’ what are in fact civic values appropriate to all liberal polities is confused and politically counterproductive. (More on this in the next section.) But the main problem does not depend on any confusion. However the values in question are described, parents who do not subscribe to the liberal vision of politics may object to the state’s demands that their children be educated to respect those whose practices – such as homosexuality, or ridiculing religion – the parents themselves find abhorrent. They may experience those demands, made in the name of liberal community, precisely as failures to respect the community that matters most to them.
Communitarian arguments in political philosophy have focused on the moral and political significance of groups or collectives. They pose deep challenges to views conventionally associated with liberalism. But it would be wrong to think that liberals deny that significance altogether. One fruit of the communitarian critique has been an increased sensitivity to the way in which individual well-being depends on group-level factors, such as culture. The Canadian philosopher Will Kymlicka (b. 1962), for example, has argued that the very autonomy that liberals care so much about depends upon cultural membership, on individuals being brought up within a reasonably rich and secure cultural structure. Someone raised within a community that is withering away before her eyes lacks meaningful options and will be unable to make informed and reflective judgements about how she is to live her life. On this view, liberals have reason to help minority groups, such as the Inuit or French Canadians, protect their community’s way of life where they face an unfair struggle against the dominant culture.
On the one hand, then, liberals are concerned to protect individuals from too much community – from practices that stifle the individual’s freedom to choose for herself how she lives her life. On the other hand, liberals may acknowledge the importance of cultural self-preservation and accord minority groups collective rights against the majority where that is required by their commitment to individual autonomy. The multicultural nature of the advanced democracies poses deep challenges to the liberal framework, challenges that I have no more than sketched out here. Freeing liberalism from communitarian misunderstanding and misrepresentation allows us to see more clearly the force and significance of those challenges, and to confront what is genuinely valuable in communitarian thinking.
Write a 2500-word critical position essay on one of the topics given below. Your assignment should be double spaced. Make certain that your documentation is complete and that you take every effort to acknowledge intellectual indebtedness.
Base question: Choose a philosopher from one of the two traditions and explain what he takes to be the good life. How does he defend his view? Then, choose a philosopher from the other tradition and explain how he would criticize the first. Give reasons for why you would side with one philosopher over the other.
* Confucius and Budhism
Critical Position Essay:
The Critical Position Essay (Assignment 4)
Again, the Assignment 4 essay builds on the skills developed in the previous ones. Here, you will not only criticize one philosopher, you will take a position on who has the stronger position. In Assignment 3, you needed only compare philosophical positions and arguments. Here, you will criticize, by finding a weakness in a philosopher’s argument. The significance of getting good at critical expositions can be illustrated by reflecting on what happens and what matters in a court of law. Just like a judge, you expect the prosecution and defence lawyers to develop arguments that you will judge for strength and weakness. There are principles and procedures that each lawyer must follow, otherwise their arguments can be rejected outright. In this assignment, you take a position on which philosopher’s view is better or stronger, like a judge would do to prosecution and defence lawyers. Since we are studying some of the greatest thinkers in human history, it would be prudent to treat the differences between these thinkers like the differences between the positions of two very good lawyers; neither position is going to be open to dismissal, out of hand. None of these thinkers, like good lawyers, are going to make obvious blunders. As a judge, then, you need to determine which is the stronger and which the weaker position or argument.
How do you do this? It may help, for those who have difficulty with the idea of an argument and of defending a position, to re-visit the example of the court case. Court cases are decided on the basis of the best argument, at least in principle. Each lawyer’s responsibility is to build the best argument possible and to undermine the arguments of the opponent. Indeed, the very idea of legal proceeding is closely related to the trial of Socrates, as many lawyers who read the Trial and Death recognize. Once you understand that you are to develop an argument, you see why simply expressing an opinion is completely inadequate. If a judge were to pronounce, “I believe the prosecution is right,” without giving a justification, that judge would not last long. She would be declared incompetent. To be considered competent, the judge (and lawyers) must herself argue why she thinks one lawyer’s argument is stronger than the opposing argument. She may conclude that the prosecution’s argument takes the facts better into account, because it tells a more coherent story about how they all fit together, because the defence lawyer may have had to ignore certain pieces of evidence to make her argument. Or perhaps, the judge may side with the defence because her appeal to principle is more compelling. The prosecution may have charged you with first degree murder, in which case he would have had to demonstrate that you intended to kill the victim. All the evidence suggests that you in fact killed the victim, but there is only weak evidence that you did it intentionally. So, the judge would be justified in concluding that you were innocent of the crime, as charged.
Similarly, after expositing each philosopher’s arguments or positions on a topic, you could argue for one over the other on the grounds that one takes better account of the facts (e.g., has a better accurate of human nature). You could also argue that one philosopher makes a mistake or commits an error in logic (e.g., contradicts himself). To illustrate the first sort of criticism, if you continue on in philosophy, you will encounter two very different thinkers—Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes argues that man’s life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. He enters into relationships (compacts or contracts) with others to protect himself and his property from harm. Rousseau believes that humans have a natural sympathy for one another, because they are inherently good, and can enter into a social contract as much for the positive values (e.g., the virtues, such as honour and courage) that are made possible, as for protection. Hobbes argues that in return for protection each member of society forfeits his/her freedom and autonomy. The monarch (or leviathan) rules absolutely. Rousseau, in contrast argues that there was a stage when humans lived in the prime of civilization, freely exercising their intelligence to the benefit of all. It is only later when mistrust and jealousies emerged, for example, that civilization declined into Hobbes’ state. Where Hobbes argues for complete subservience of citizens to the state, Rousseau argues to some extent at least for a return to a former golden age of man where citizens are optimally free from a ruler. Who has the better argument?
The essay for the final assignment should be constructed by first gathering information (like evidence) on what a philosopher is saying about an issue. You gather evidence about what a philosopher thinks by referring to the text (as you did in Assignments 1 and 2). The text is like the body of evidence a lawyer uses. You then need to put this evidence together into an explanation of how the philosopher arrives at his conclusions. You are also going to criticize one of the philosophers you exposit, so you need to construct the explanation in a way that is relevant to your criticism. You do not explain everything the philosopher has to say, but need to identify what is central and supportive of his position on a specific topic. Part of the skill in writing the explanation or exposition, then, is in picking out sections of the text that are relevant to your essay topic. Further, since you are comparing two philosophers who do not agree entirely with one another, you already have the beginning of a criticism. You do not have to come up with a criticism alone. You can choose one philosopher as your fellow critic to find a weakness in another philosopher’s position or argument.
For instance, after describing the positions of, say Socrates and Confucius, you will see that both of them believe that citizens must obey the state. But by comparing their reasons for their position, you will also come to see differences in what they think our responsibility to the state is. Socrates believes that we must act as gadflies, continually stinging the state with criticism and evaluating it and its members’ beliefs, claims and actions. Confucius, in contrast, believes that we must obey the state, as we are to obey our parents in acts of filial piety. It appears that there is no room or tolerance for critically challenging the state in Confucius. Now, you can begin to answer the question, “Who has the stronger position?” You can begin answering this question in the same way as is illustrated throughout the Study Guide, by identifying questionable assumptions the philosopher you wish to criticize makes or finding a flaw in reasoning.
You can find clues concerning where to look for criticisms by examining the arguments of the other philosopher you choose to examine. If you choose to criticize Confucius, you can use Socrates’ arguments, for instance, to argue that having gadflies in society is vital to the strength and well-being of the state, since they help ensure that the state constantly corrects its mistakes. If the state’s mistakes are not corrected, the state could fall into ruin. At this point, you should add something from your own thought, such as an analogy. You could say, for instance, that ignoring the fact that the state is operating on the basis of an error would be like a mechanic ignoring a problem (e.g., faulty brakes) with a customer’s vehicle. If the mechanic is responsible for making a customer’s vehicle safe by pointing out problems with her vehicle, then the citizen is responsible for pointing out problems with how the state is operating.
Alternatively, you can choose to criticize Socrates using Confucius’s views. You could utilize passages where he focuses on the idea of order and how having an orderly society is crucial for everyone’s benefit. You could argue with Confucius that criticism of the state, especially the way Socrates criticizes, would undermine the stability of the state, by making it uncertain of itself and dividing its members against one another. Socratic criticism undermines the order of the state and should not, therefore, be allowed.
So, here you have two examples of how Assignment 4 can be written. You need develop a more detailed account of their positions, of course, but this skeleton of an essay should help you identify what you need to do in the essay and how to structure it.
To make your essay stronger, you can go one step further. If you realize that the philosopher you are criticizing can reply to the other in defence of his position, you are demonstrating greater competence. Like the prosecution lawyer who presents an argument, anticipating what the defence lawyer will argue in response, you should recognize that the philosopher you criticize could very well have a reply ready for you. But, then, like a good defence lawyer who anticipates the prosecution’s reply, you can explain why the philosopher’s reply is not sufficiently strong to change your mind. For instance, say you choose to criticize Socrates, using Confucius’ argument that being a gadfly undermines the order of the state. If you realize that Socrates could come back with a reply and respond to it, you demonstrate greater depth of understanding. You could for instance, anticipate Socrates replying that the state must serve the Good, so that if it constantly falls into error and thereby fails to serve the Good, it would be better for it to de-stabilize. His reply drives the issue deeper. Now, if you can show how Confucius or you can respond in turn, you have taken the discussion yet another level deeper. Say for instance, you see that Confucius could reply in turn by saying that we should never undermine the stability of the state, even if it makes mistakes, because we owe our existence and security to it. Undermine the order of the state and we undermine our own existence. This response would be a pretty powerful reply on your part. It would be even more powerful if you then draw on Socrates’ own statements to that effect, when he explained to his friends why he owed his existence to the state. This back and forth process of explaining how each philosopher could criticize the other could end here and it would make an excellent essay.
You and your friends Janet and Michael have just been offered a big summer internship working for a large multinational company based in New York City. Congrats!
However, your internships are an international assignment, having you work at one of their large offices in the Middle East. While working in a foreign country is intimidating, the pay is incredibly lucrative, paying you twice as much as what you’d get for doing the same work in the United States. In addition, the company will pay for all your housing, travel, and other relocation costs.
The company did say that you could instead do an internship at their offices in New York City. The pay would be one half of what you’d make from the international internship. Furthermore, your costs of housing, travel, and relocation to New York City would only be partially covered.
Initially, Janet, Michael, and you are all excited about the prospect of the Middle East internship. However, today Michael has brought some news to you and Janet.
“I was just talking to Jason,” says Michael. “He did this internship last summer, and I found out some disturbing things.” Michael goes on to explain that while the foreign country’s government may be fairly described as a benevolent dictatorship that takes very good financial care of its citizens and the workers from the United States and Europe, there is also state-sanctioned and culturally-approved discrimination against women, LGBTQIA+, and the low-income foreign workers from Southeast Asia.
Michael concludes by saying, “I’ve already asked the company to switch me to the internship in New York City. I can’t voluntarily work in a country that allows that kind of discrimination. I was hoping that you two would join me in New York City this summer.”
“No way,” responds Janet flatly. “I also spoke to Jason, and he was clear that any discrimination only happens to people who are not American or not European. So I will personally have nothing to worry about.”
Michael starts to get heated yelling, “Are you kidding me!? You are willing to sell your soul to some vile country for some extra money?”
“Sell my soul?!” Janet roars, “It is their country, their rules. They get to decide what’s right for them. Who are you to judge them? So decline the job, that’s on you. Don’t force your morals on me, or anyone else for that matter.”
Question: Should you accept the international internship in the Middle East?
Explain and justify your answer to this question by doing the following three tasks:
Construct a four-sentence paper.
Sentence one should simply state the position, of either Janet or Michael (pick one), that you are arguing against.
Sentence two should then state your position on this issue along with your reason(s) justifying it. That is, this summarizes your answer to the question.
Sentence three presents a criticism that either Janet or Michael (whoever you are arguing against) might give to reject your position.
Finally, sentence four summarizes your response to that criticism.
Make sure that each sentence is (a) correctly numbered and (b) actually a sentence.
Turn sentence two of your four-sentence paper into a full paragraph (or paragraphs if needed), where you fully explain and justify your answer to the question.
Turn sentence four of your four-sentence paper into a full paragraph (or paragraphs if needed), where you fully justify why the criticism of your position from sentence three is mistaken.
Please use APA in-text citations, along with a reference section at the end of your answer, for any sources that you draw upon in responding to this problem. This includes the required course texts.
PLEASE OPEN THE ATTACHED FILE
*Yes, I do agree that healthcare should be free for all*
Bernie Sanders has called for “Medicaid for All”. Do you agree with universal health care? Do you think health care is a right? If so, how do you propose to pay for it? How do you propose to contain costs?
Be mindful to develop your post within the context of the assigned readings.
Be mindful to have a thesis statement. Your thesis should indicate whether you agree with a single-payer system, as advocated by Daniels and Buchanan, or whether you think it is impossible to provide reasonable healthcare to all while still constraining costs, as Engelhardt argues.
There is a choice of one of the 4 topics given
1. Explicate Aristotle’s definition of virtue. No matter the direction in which you decide to
take your essay, it should include some discussion of the following points: (a) how we have
arrived at virtue as a topic and why is a definition necessary; (b) the parts of an Aristotelian
definition, and their role in defining virtue; (c) how Aristotle illustrates and supports his
definition. Note: this is an explication (unfolding); this means that you do not need to have or defend a thesis
(position). Rather, the organizing principle is Aristotle’s definition itself, which you are to explain.
2. Virtuous action is a matter of habit, according to Aristotle. Write an essay exploring
Aristotle’s conception of habit, character, and—crucially—how, why, and to what extent he
thinks we are responsible for our characters. Note: this essay will be wider-ranging than (1), above,
and should cover relevant passages from at least Books II and III of the Nicomachean Ethics.
3. Aristotle writes about the virtue of courage in both Books II and III. Write an essay on
Aristotelian courage with some discussion of at least (but not limited to) the following
points: (a) how courage fits Aristotle’s definition of virtue; (b) how his analysis of courage
in Book III is similar to or different from his discussion of it in Book II; (c) how Aristotle’s
conception of courage seems similar to or different from a modern conception of courage.
Note: be especially careful, in addressing (c), not simply to assume that “our” conception of courage is more
correct or advanced than Aristotle’s, or that what you think is the modern conception isn’t in fact one of the
several forms of pseudo-courage.
4. Aristotle writes about the virtue of temperance in both Books II and III. Write an essay
on Aristotelian temperance with some discussion of at least (but not limited to) the
following points: (a) how temperance fits Aristotle’s definition of virtue; (b) how his
analysis of temperance in Book III is similar to or different from his discussion of it in Book
II; (c) how or why temperance (or something like it) remains central to “happiness”.
*Prior paper is attatched on files*
In the final paper, students are tasked with the job of taking one of their prior short papers, expanding on this project, and reaching a conclusive judgment about a specific ethical case study.
This paper should accomplish the following objectives:
1) A solid revision of your original case study assignment, resolving the shortcoming s of the original project. This can include a more robust account of the case study, refinement of the theoretical approach, and/or more careful appreciation of how to apply the theory to the case
2) A new theoretical discussion which both describes an additional ethical theory, and brings this into conversation with the original case study
3) A penultimate section in which students provide clear judgments about why one ethical approach is able to provide a more substantive, complete, or useful reading of the case study. This section should demonstrate a high-level and sophisticated account of the strengths a limits of each of these ethical approaches, and why the chosen case study allows us to better understand the conflict between these ethical theories
In addition to the final paper, students will be tasked with creating a short (~10min) presentation giving their classmates understanding of what was studied, how it was analyzed, and what conclusions were drawn. While there are no formal time minimums, for the sake of the class presentations will be cutoff if they exceed 15 minutes. This presentation will account for 25% of the grade for the final assignment.
4 parts to the short essay! read each part and answer carefully. Living Philosophy: A Historical Introduction to Philosophical Ideas, Vaughn, Third Edition,2021