WordPress.com



QuestionsConsidering what you have learned about the presocratics and your understanding of science, in what respect do you think the presocratics contributed to science? What are some important differences and similarities between the concepts of modern science and those of the presocratics? What are the advantages/disadvantages of approaching social and moral issues with a philosophic mind? What are 5 examples of social and scientific changes or advancements that were directly generated by philosophical inquiry? According to Democritus the world is a vacuum containing an infinite number of atoms that can never be created or destroyed. On the basis of what argument did Democritus arrived at this conclusion and in what respect did it contribute to the advancement of scientific discoveries?Besides the obvious contribution to mathematics, explain in what other respects the philosophical ideas of Pythagoras influenced our modern understanding of reality.According to Bertrand Russell, who is the “practical man” and why must we free ourselves from the prejudices of the "practical man"? Give some examples of social aspects generated by practical man’s thinking.With what type of questions does philosophy deal? Describe the main five branches of philosophy and give examples of the type of questions to which each branch is concerned.Paper Apology: Describe your reaction to the events in the dialogue by Plato The Apology. Make sure you address the following questions: Here Socrates is charged of impiety. In your view, do you agree with the Jury’s decision? Is Socrates guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens with his anti-democratic message? Is philosophy a dangerous discipline? Why does Socrates refuse to pay a fine and accept the death penalty? Does this indicate that Socrates is crazy or a man of immense integrity?Paper Trolley: There is a trolley coming down the tracks and ahead, there are five people tied to the tracks and one person on a sidetrack who?are unable to move. The trolley will continue run and will kill the five people. There is nothing you can do to rescue the five people?except?that there is a lever.If you pull the lever, the train will be directed to the sidetrack, which has only one?person tied to it. Discuss your choices. Choose an option. And give a good argument to support your choice.Paper Trolley 2: Consider now a similar situation. However, in this situation you are standing on a bridge above the train tracks and you can see the train coming. There is a man standing next to you, who is so enormous and heavy that if he places himself in front of the oncoming train, the train will hit and kill him but the train will stop. What are your choices in this situation? What makes this situation similar or different from the first? What is a good argument to support your choice?Paper Knowledge: There are two different ways to know things: First, you know things prior to any experience. For example, how do you know that all triangles have three sides? How do you know that all bachelors are unmarried men? Clearly you do not require experience to know that those statements are true. That is to say, it is self evident that (by definition) all triangles have three sides because that is how we define the term “triangle.” And it is by definition that all bachelors are unmarried men. Second, there are things that you know only through experience. For example, if I tell you that Joe is wearing red socks, or that some bachelors are happy, you cannot possibly know whether these statements are true or false just by thinking about them. You know that triangles have three sides by thinking about the word “triangle” and its meaning. However, thinking about Joe and red socks does not lead you to the notion that Joe is wearing red socks. In other words, there is a class of facts that you could never know unless you have experience of them. Considering the foregoing distinction, explain how you know the following: Earth rotates on its axis. The sun will rise tomorrow. Earth is 93 million miles away from the sun. If I let go of the pencil I’m holding in my hand, assuming there is nothing obstructing its fall, the pencil will land on the floor.Paper Matric: Consider the following predicament, which is similar to that portrayed in the 1999 science fiction action film The Matrix: You are the science project of a high school being from an advanced civilization. You were abducted and your brain removed and suspended in a fluid inside a vat. All your feelings, thoughts, emotions, sensations, desires—in short, all your mental contents—are simulated by a computer. Just like in the film, your life seems normal to you, but in reality is just a simulation. Everything you think that you know is not true. Considering this predicament, is it possible for you to have true knowledge of anything? Or are you destined to be forever the victim of a grand delusion perpetrated by the computer that stimulates your brain? What can you know for sure? Paper Matrix 2: Considering again the above predicament, could you at least know whether you are human or an AI? What are the salient differences between an AI and a human? Paper Matrix 3: Once again, in a predicament such as the one previously described, your entire life is a computer simulation; but you are not aware of it. You are a moral person and respect others. Now assume that somehow you were informed about this predicament you are in, would you have the same moral obligations toward other. Discuss the difference and reasons why one’s moral obligations change depending on whether you interact with other people or a simulation. (Hint: For example, theft and murder are recognized as immoral acts because they violate others’ rights and cause suffering. But if the others are simulated, would murder and theft still be wrong? Is there a sense in which those acts would ultimately wrong yourself?)Paper Mind-Body: Write a thorough explanation of the following: address the mind-body problem. Discuss why the mind-body problem is a problem. A problem for whom? Make sure to discuss the nature of consciousness, intentionality, subjectivity, and mental causation. Finally, you should dedicate at least a paragraph to indicate the mind-body problem’s social, legal, and moral implications. Paper Morality: Consider the following predicament: A very, very large man is leading a group of explorers out of a cave when he gets stuck in the mouth of the cave and in a very short time high tide will be upon the explorers, and unless the large man is promptly unstuck, the group will be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. But fortunately (such as it is), someone has with him a stick of dynamite. Either they use the dynamite and blast the poor innocent large man out of the mouth of the cave or everyone else drowns. Either one dies or many die. If the group does not use the stick, the large man will be rescued in due course. Consider further another version of this story where the large man, whose head is in the cave, will drown with them; yet another version has it that instead of a large man it is a large pregnant woman obstructing the cave. If you were part of the group, what solution would you suggest in each scenario? What are the differences, morally speaking, among the various scenarios? Discuss what makes this case morally difficult. Paper Morality 2: Considering what you have learned about deontological ethics, consequentialist ethics, and virtue ethics, how would each of these 3 theories recommend approaching the difficult question of what to do about the large man (or pregnant woman) stuck in the mouth of the cave? What are the significant differences in approaches? What are the relevant similarities among them?Paper Morality 3: Dax Cowart (born 1947) is a former US Air Force pilot who served in the Vietnam War. In 1973, Dax was disfigured as a result of a propane gas explosion. He lost his hands and eye, suffered significant hearing loss, and his burns were over most of his body. Dax was in a constant excruciating pain due to the deep burns. He pleaded that he be allowed to die, but the doctors at that time did not honor his pleads even though the American Medical Association had endorsed a competent patient's right to discontinue prolonged life-saving treatments. Dax said the doctors thought that he eventually would change his mind and want to live, and that it would be the best outcome for him in the long run. Dax disagreed and still to this day continues to believe that the doctors wronged him. Dax graduated from Texas Tech University in 1986 with a law degree, and established his own legal practice. Do you think the doctors acted wrongly in denying Dax to be allowed to die? If you think they did, what exactly is wrong with the doctors’ decision? If you think they acted morally, why do you think so? Do you agree or disagree that Dax had the right to decide for his own life—and especially decide whether to refuse treatment?Paper Morality Gyges: In the reading Gyges' Ring and Socrates' Dilemma, you have learned about one of the hardest questions in human history, “Why be moral?” Glaucon argues that no one—not even the most upright person—would refuse to live a perfectly unjust life. By perfectly unjust life he suggests doing whatever one pleases without ever being caught and punished. As I suggested in my own example, imagine that you possessed a remote control that freezes time. You could take any amount of money from banks, kill or hurt people you dislike, and more. The amazing thing about it is that after perpetrating whichever action you like, you unfreeze time and no one will ever know what you have done. In fact, while you practice injustice, you gain a good reputation whereby people think you are a high minded, honest, and great individual. In a 1000-word paper (approximately 4-5 pages) explain why or why not you would use such a remote. If you never had to suffer, you were never punished, and had a great reputation, what exactly would make it morally wrong for you to use the remote that freezes time? Upload as a word document. Use any style, MLA, APA, or Chicago.Paper Science/God: Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic and math; consequently, we must accept (trust?) that logic and mathematics express many truths, despite not being able in principle to ascertain those truths. Notions such as there are other minds other than my own?or the external world is real are rational beliefs, but they cannot be scientifically proven. Ethical beliefs and values are not scientifically provable. Aesthetic judgments, too, cannot be shown by science because the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven. Furthermore, science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is infused with assumptions that must be accepted but cannot be proven. For example, the special theory of relativity relies on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between points A and B. But such a notion cannot be proven. We simply have to presuppose that notion in order to hold to the theory. From the foregoing considerations, discuss in what respects belief in God and belief in a god differ from our understanding of science. Paper God/Science: Is science more rational than religious belief? Do you think they are in the same need of rational justification? Or do you think that we should not expect religious belief to be rationally justified? In other words, assuming that scientific truths are rationally justified and religious belief is not. Is this a serious problem for religious belief? Paper Knowledge/Faith: Imagine you travelled to a far away galaxy and landed on a planet where the inhabitants do not have the concept of God. How would you prove to them that God exists? Would it matter whether you could formulate logical arguments? Paper Knowledge: Consider the following scenario: Farmer Joe is concerned about his cow, Daisy. In fact, he is so concerned that when his wife tells him that Daisy is happily grazing on the field, Farmer Joe wants to see for himself. He doesn't want merely to have a 99 percent probability that Daisy is safe, he wants to be able to say that he knows that Daisy is safe. Farmer Joe then goes out to the field and, standing by the gate, sees in the distance, behind some trees, a white and black shape that he recognizes as his Daisy. He goes back home and tells his wife that he knows that Daisy is safe on the field. Yet, at this point, does Farmer Joe really know it? Discuss why or why not you think that Farmer Joe has knowledge or his cow’s whereabouts. What do you think is required of Joe to be able to say that he knows that Daisy is on the field?Paper Knowledge 2: Suppose now that Joe’s wife goes to the field and there she finds Daisy, having a nap behind a bush, and not in the place that Farmer Joe saw Daisy. She also sees a large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a bush where Joe claimed to have seen Daisy. Daisy is in the field, as Farmer Joe thought. However, was he right to say that he knew she was? Now stretch your imagination: When scientists conduct experiments and find certain “truths” about the world, would you say that these scientists are in a similar (or the same) epistemic uncertainty as Farmer Joe? Explain.Paper Knowledge Descartes: In the reading selection, we have seen that Descartes contemplated the possibility of being deceived by an evil genius that there is a world with people and bodies, etc., when in reality he [Descartes] is the only thing that exists. In fact, Descartes even contemplates that it would be possible to be deceived into believing that he is a physical body when in reality he is just a thinking thing. Do you think this argument proves that a mind can exist without the physical body? Explain your reasoning. Paper Descartes: Descartes argues that because he thinks, (he wonders, he has conscious experience) he must exist as a thinking self. Hume answers that Descartes is not even entitled to this. Why is the existence of the self not in question? In other words, Hume argues that to say that there is such a thing as the “self” we must have an impression of it. But when we introspect, we find a multitude of thoughts, feelings, sensations, and more, but not a discernible “self” that we can point to. It is logically possible, Hume suggests, that instead of selves in the world there might be bundles of perceptions, i.e., a concentration of mental experiences without any specific essence. Do you agree with Hume? Explain. Moreover, how do you think Descartes would respond to Hume’s suggestion?Paper Abortion: By now you have realized that abortion is not a simple black-or-white issue. However, those in favor of abortion, the so-called pro-choice, argue that the question of the morality of abortion rests on the question of whether a fetus is a person. On the other hand, the so-called pro-life argue that abortion destroy a human life, and thus it is an immoral act. First, explain the difference between a person and a human being. Why is this difference relevant in the discussion of abortion? Do you regard the human/person distinction relevant in the discussion or do you think there are more important factors to consider. Which ones?Paper Abortion 2: Two principal considerations in the discussion of the morality of abortion are, (1) The status of the fetus, and (2) The rights of a woman. Regarding (2), the predominant view is that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body, and therefore she has the right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. However, does having the right to something give us automatic moral permission? In other words, do you find it sensible to argue that if I have a right to do X, it follows that doing X is morally warranted? Paper Rights/Moral Responsibility: How do you explain the relationship between having the right to something and moral responsibility? Can you list a few examples of acts or practices that people perform within their rights and yet these practices or acts are morally questionable? Explain your answer.Paper Abortion Case: Mary is an unmarried, eighteen-year-old, eight-week pregnant young woman. She now lives independently while going to college. She is an adoptee given back to foster care, and then abused in that system. She works 30 hours per week as a waitress in a local diner, while also earning a 4.0 GPA in school, ranking in the top 10% of her class. She has a full-ride scholarship for pre-med undergraduate studies at a prestigious university. She wants to be a doctor.Mary has absolutely no family support, and her former boyfriend, who impregnated her, vanished quietly upon learning of the pregnancy. Mary is very determined to have a career as a doctor, but she is scared, lost, uninsured, and says that she doesn’t want to be pregnant or a mom—perhaps later, but not now! She rejects the adoption option, based on her own experience growing up, and contemplates abortion as a solution. She is seeking moral guidance. Since she is an atheist and, as such, distrusts the help and advice of religious authorities, she wants to talk to a wise moral philosopher.Mary’s classmate informed her that you are a philosophical counselor. Evaluate the pros and cons of an abortion for Mary. Also, make sure to explain to Mary the different approaches to a case like hers that a utilitarian, a deontologist, and a virtue ethicist would take. Upload as a word document. Use any writing style you prefer.Paper Animals: Regarding the status of the fetus, the question is whether a fetus is a person. For many this is an important question because if the fetus is a person, then it is immoral to kill it; if it isn’t, then abortion is morally permissible. Regarding the rights of the pregnant woman, it is argued that the morality of abortion stems from whether a woman can make any decision she wishes about her own body, including whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Having considered these points, what are the similarities and differences between the questions of abortion and animal ethics? What is the connection between personhood and rights? Do you think some animals are moral persons? If not, do you agree that some animals have at least the right to life. On what principle can that right be based?Paper Don Marquis: In the lecture on abortion, we studied Don Marquis’s argument against abortion. According to Marquis, personhood is not a relevant factor for determining the morality of abortion. Rather, he proposes the Future Like Ours argument. State the FLO argument, and explain how it can be applied toward the morality of eating animals.Paper Speciesism: What’s speciesism? Do you find this concept compelling? Do you agree or disagree that raising animals for food is an act of speciesism? Watch PETA’s video “If Aliens Ate Human Meat: Zarnaps for the Ethical Treatment of Humans,” which you may find at the following address: . Once you have watched the video, write a response paper.Instructions: Watch the video “If Aliens Ate Humans” and write and address the following questions: What is the point of the video?/What is its message? On what ethical grounds does the video base its message?Which of the ethical systems or principle that you studied in Unit 3 does the video make use of to support its argument?Do you agree or disagree with the message and its delivery style? Why/why not?If you disagree, how would you convey the same message? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download