Category: Philosophy

You must cite at least two reliable sources, preferably academic in nature. Since web addresses change constantly, you can find
the website by googling its name. Be careful of satire websites or fake news. Some good websites include the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Philosopher’s Imprint, and the numerous electronic databases
that the school library carries. Possible sources include books, journal articles, magazines, databases, Websites, videos,
dictionaries, encyclopedias, and almanacs. Electronic databases such as JSTOR also contain numerous academic articles and are
usually accessible through the college website. When possible, try to cite from recent sources. Make sure you evaluate your
online sources for trustworthiness and credibility.
• Papers should either be in Microsoft Word format (.doc) or Adobe PDF.
• Four-to-six pages, double-spaced, Times New Roman font, 12-point, one-inch margins.
• MLA or Chicago system of citation.
• Include a cover page that contains the title of the paper, your name, my name, the date, and the class (e.g., PHIL 1301.710 or MW
10:10 AM).
• Include a short outline of the main points of your paper and include it after the title page.
• You are allowed to write in the first person (use the word “I.”).  

You should rewrite sentences that I have marked as unclear, this may
require breaking them into multiple paragraphs, changing the phrasing,
or being more precise in your wording.
o Take “In reply to Rowlands’ argument, I would say that…” and
break the claim into multiple sentences, remind your reader what
the author has claimed or what you have already discussed:
“According to Rowlands, the “right to belief” is not a default
or moral right based on the fact that we are human beings.
Instead, the right to belief is an entitlement, which means that
we must be committed to defending ourselves when challenged or
criticized. However, I would argue that Rowlands fails to…”
– Assume your readers have not done the reading – you should take
multiple sentences to define any technical or non-ordinary term, such as
“objective” “hedonism” “intrinsic” and so on. Give me examples for
all the important ideas and explain how the example relates.
o For example, “According to the hedonist, the experience of
pleasure is the only intrinsic good. An intrinsic good is
something that is good for its own sake, not for what it brings
about. If you are happy then that is itself good, there is nothing
else that you need in order to have “goodness.” Conversely, if
you have money this is merely an instrumental good, valuable
because of what it brings about. If you spent money on something
that made you happy, then that happiness would be intrinsically
valuable, and explain why the money is valuable as well.”
– Remove sentences and/or entire passages that are repetitive or
irrelevant, as a writer/philosopher I have come to understand and
appreciate how often I have to write stuff that I do not use in the
final draft or at all – but actually writing it is necessary for me to
“Work out” what I really want to say. Not everything you write down is
useful, even though it took time and effort. Trust me, its normal!
– Add examples and provide further clarification for your readers – for
every term or idea give me an example (real or fictional) and explain to
your readers how it relates to the topic – pretend your readers do not
know anything, even if it seems repetitive. Be as specific as possible
– instead of referring to “arguments” “claims” and the like tell me
exactly what you or the author thinks – “I will tell you why I
disagree” replace with “I disagree because…”
– Re-organize paragraphs so the ideas fit and flow better – take time to
just
think about the main or most important ideas in the paper – how do
they relate to each other? Are they like dominos that fall down in a
particular order? Is it a “shotgun” approach that provides a bunch of
different problems? Is it a “narrative” where each part builds into a
story?
– Remove sentences and/or entire passages that are repetitive or
irrelevant, as a writer/philosopher I have come to understand and
appreciate how often I have to write stuff that I do not use in the
final draft or at all – but actually writing it is necessary for me to
“Work out” what I really want to say. Not everything you write down is
I have already wrote 2 pages of work I just need someone to add on to it to make it at least 1,000 words. I have sent a rough draft about susan wolf and Hunter s Thompson

(Part 1): 6 short answer questions AND
(Part 2): one take-home essay. The exam will cover material from the midterm to the end of the course.
Part 1 – Choose 6 out of the 7 philosophical concepts to answer. Each answer should roughly be around 350-500 words. Do not use quotes in your answer. I am evaluating your knowledge of the material. Enumerate your answers accordingly so I know which question you are answering. Double-space your answers. (60 points)
Characterize Saranillio’s response to reframe Filipino allyship with Native Hawaiians OR Roshanravanʻs concept of the third racial space.
Explain either Bardwell-Jones’ notion of “world-travelling” or “home-making”
Explain the difference between the savage/civilized binary in Kauanuiʻs work. How might this lead to a paradox in sovereignty?
Define settler colonialism and one example of a move to innocence made by settlers.
Characterize 1 example of colonial mentality from Davidʻs work AND 1 indigenous concept that can be used to address colonial mentality.
According to Ahmed, what is diversity work? And what is the job of a diversity worker?
Explain the concept of “race traitor” from Baileyʻs work OR Sullivan-Clarkeʻs concept of settler allyship responsibilities.
Part 2 – Take Home questions: (100 points)
Please choose ONE of the following essay questions. The essay should consist of 3-5 pages. Cite accordingly (Author, p. #) i.e. (Callicott, 28). Please follow the standard format of essays (1 inch margins, double-space, 12 point font).  Answers to the essays will be graded on (1) the degree of familiarity with and in depth understanding of the details of the readings as evidenced in your answers; (2) quality of philosophical argument and degree to which you consider the opposing viewpoint to your own; (3) clarity of organization and expression.
Histories of colonization play a role in the formation of our identity. Utilizing at least two authors from the last half of the course (Tuck&Yang, David, Saranillio, Kauanui, Clarke-Sullivan), articulate the tension colonization has had on identity and how one can develop a strategy of decolonization. In your response, consider how authors you have chosen provide a reasonable account of “choice” plays a role in decolonization.
There were many strategies we covered in the last section of the course that addresses issues of cross-cultural solidarity. Defend one strategy from Ahmed, Roshranravan, Bardwell-Jones, Saranillio, Bailey or Sullivan-Clarke. Choose at least one author (from the list above) to help support your argument. In what ways does the strategy aim to develop cross-cultural, cross-racial solidarities in order to transform communities?
ONLY CITE/REFRENCE FROM THE ATTACHED SOURCES

It is of primary importance that you carefully read each part of the instructions, so you understand what to do. I have tried my best to make it very clear. Note: You will be taking either Nozick’s position or Rawls’ position in your essay. And you will need to grasp and discuss in detail their arguments in the essay. You need to be clear on this. It is not a “write anything you want/feel” essay. It is, in part, checking your ability to read arguments; and then grasp, and articulate your reasoning on this issue, using two opposing viewpoints that have stood the test of time, and are worth considering.
I cannot overemphasize this: I expect you to have read the relevant chapters, watched the PP presentations, and to have read the online article noted in the instructions. I expect you to follow the instructions I have given. If you do not do so, the result will be catastrophic for your grade on the assignment.
The instructions for the essay are found in 3 separate documents in this week’s Module. Take one at a time, and make sure you read, understand, and follow the instructions as I’ve given them. Please ask if you need further clarifications.
you need the book: JUSTICE
WHAT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO?
MICHAEL I SANDEL for the essay.

Write a reconstruction and analysis of this Plato’s single sentence “So you can see that plain condemnation of Love reveals lust for power in the rulers and cowardice in the ruled, while indiscriminate disapproval testifies to general dullness and stupidity. ” (page 208) in the context of pages 202-212 of the attached book. Rely on the previous semester example in files.
When preparing your analysis and reconstruction, keep in mind the following questions your writing should address (your assessment will be based on how well you address these questions in your writing):
why is this particular line confusing?
why does it seem to be significant to the author’s ideas?
how can this particular line be connected to both the larger aim of the author, as well as related parts within the same work?
how can you contextualize this particular line in order to make clearer its position within the author’s line of inquiry?
how can you break down its sense: what might it mean? how might we understand it?
what is to be gained by analyzing this particular line’s assumptions, implicit import and the logical consequences that follow from it?
how does a better understanding of this particular line illuminate the work as a whole?
In the process, be sure to accurate quote and cite your source. And please avoid the use of superfluous adjectives, generalizations and presumptions that typically get in the way of such writing. There is here no need for you to present yourself as though you are an expert, as though you know more than you do in fact know. Please also avoid using other sources or building the paper around the usual introduction:body paragraph:conclusion structure.

The Self-Reflection Project is divided into two parts. Completing Part 2 requires reviewing the instructions provided by the professor (please see files) and relating to Part 1. 
Part 1 has already been submitted, and feedback from the teacher has been received. I have attached both the electronic version of Part 1 which I submitted; and the photo version of Part 1, which includes the teacher’s feedback. The scorecard is part of Part 1, provided here for your reference.(scorecard was also attached below)
Our philosophy course revolves largely around intellectual virtues, and I believe that when writing Part 2, it should also relate to virtues. (There is a table in the attached image file listing all the virtues, with the “Golden Mean” column indicating the virtues we endorse.)
Before you start with Part 2, please accordance with the teacher’s requirements, and after reviewing the content and comments of Part 1. 
Thank you so much.

Make sure to structure this paper with an into/summary of views/argument/objection/response to objection/conclusion; make sure at least 40% or so of the paper is argument and responding to the objection. 
My main argument is that Behaviorism is better than cognitive psycology make sure to use Skinner (the pdf) to explain part of my reason to why I align with his ideology better. Also make sure to defend my argument and consider what the other side would say!

I have wrote 4 pages paper about the following topic: You might consider Benedict in light of Rachels’s argument that there is less moral disagreement than it seems (Rachels, 5-6), or Rachels’s argument that all cultures must have some values in common (Rachels, 7), or some other argument for moral objectivism from Rachels, King, or Aquinas. Who makes the stronger case, and why?
My professor got back to me and put some notes in my paper. I will be attaching the pdf that he gave my where you can find both my paper and his comments. Some of the comments are just about non-proper citations. I will attach the article that I used so that you can cite properly. My professor want the citations to be in the following way: (name of the author, page number where you took the information from). Therefore, I would like to correct for all the remarks that my professor gave me and also add information that you find relevant from the articles so that to enhance the quality of my essay.

Building on the kind of work you did on the midterm essay, this final essay asks you to analyze not a single argument, but to stage a debate. In other words, having tried your hand at rigorously analyzing one position on a particular issue or question, I’m now asking you to consider how two philosophers might engage in a debate on an issue they both address.
As in the midterm, I want you to focus on getting the arguments you’re covering right.
Again, I want you to focus on exegesis: identifying motivations for and significance of a topic, understanding the thesis being offered, and analyzing the argument offered in support of that thesis. For each perspective, I want you to focus on a specific text, rather than trying to summarize the philosopher’s view on the issue across all of their work.
In this assignment I want you to go further, however, by not just offering two different perspectives on a philosophical issue. I want you to offer some sense of reflection on the differing positions.
Some examples of how you might intelligently reflect on an issue where there is a disagreement:
1. What are the similarities in the approaches to the issue? What are the differences? What might be an insightful way to think about these differences and similarities when it comes to thinking about the issue at stake?
2. Are they two schools of thought at least focusing on the same aspects of the issue at stake, or are they focusing on different aspects of an issue in order to make their claims?
3. Do you think it’s possible for a conversation to take place between the two schools of thought, and, if so, what might they have to say to one another?
4. If the focus of each philosopher differs from the other, does one seem more productive to getting to an answer? If so, why?
5. Does the language or terms used by the debating schools seem consistent? If so, what might that tell us about how the ancients dealt with this issue? If not, what might the shift in language signify?
6. Might we understand the disagreement between the two schools/thinkers because of broader differences in their philosophical outlooks on other important issues? If so, how?
7. Is there something that’s missing from both accounts that seems crucial to you? And if so, why do you think it might have been left out?
8. Does one of the sides seem more persuasive to you? If so, how would you articulate this philosophically?
The paper should be written in 12-point Times New Roman font or equivalent (one that has the same dimensions, takes up the same space as TNR), double-spaced, with one inch margins all around. The template offered in our classes is meant to guide you through that process, but I am open to different ways of dissecting and analyzing an argument if you would prefer. The assignment’s ultimate purpose is, again, to assess your engagement with the ideas of the course, as well as your writing skills.
Review of requirements
1. 8-10 double spaced pages in TNR 12-size font with one-inch margins all around.
2. Choice of single claim for each philosopher and its meaning or significance in philosophical text covered.
3. Exegesis of the argument made in favor of said claim, including different ‘steps’, for each text covered.
4. Intelligent reflection on the debate of choice.
5. Adequate use of textual support. (Use quotations to justify your interpretation), and cite them fully and properly.
6. Writing in clear, straightforward English.
Grading Rubric
Format
For full credit: paper follows guidelines laid out in item #1 above exactly. (8 full pages at least, right font, right margins, double-spaced, etc.)
Proper organization
Sequence of ideas is logically ordered and flows naturally, sections and paragraphs are well organized, paper has a strong introduction, a strong conclusion, and a sensible body section.
Clarity
For full credit: paper is written in unburden some language that is clear, concise, and specific. Language helps the reader grasp the philosophical issues in simple and accessible terms. No unnecessary tangents happen.
Choice of Theses
For full credit: student shows understanding of the respective theses, and of their significance and implications for philosophers and everyone else.
Analysis of Argumentative Structures
For full credit: student provides a correct reconstruction of the chain of reasoning that the philosopher offered in support of their claim, or through which the claim becomes evident. In cases where linear arguments are not offered, the coherence of reasons given is explained. Student points out any possible logical flaws in the argumentation.
Reflective Comparison
For full credit: student provides a meaningful response to the debate that they’ve reconstructed. The response demonstrates that they’ve really understood the stakes of the debate and the two positions discussed. It also shows that the student has taken the time to really reflect on these issues in a philosophically sophisticated way.
Use of Textual Support
For full credit: Student uses quotations to support their interpretation of what claim is being made and of how the argument unfolds. Each quotation is properly elaborated and interpreted in a way that advances the interpretation of the philosopher’s main claim and supporting argument. References are properly formatted.

For this essay, choose one of these prompts:
1) Engaging thoughtfully with multiple relevant readings, consider the ethics of factory farming and/or of using animals for food more generally. You should argue for a positive thesis — but one that is grounded in philosophical argument, not merely in personal thoughts/feelings. You should consider one serious objection to your position and engage with it thoughtfully and fairly. 2) Consider the various views about the moral standing of animals that we’ve covered. Engaging carefully with the relevant readings, argue for one of these views and consider one serious objection to it. For whichever one, please fully explain everything and constantly reference the book. I will send notes and can send pages from the textbooks too if needed for reference. The textbooks that we have done readings from are: (1) Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, ed. by Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III, 1st edition. and (2) The Animal Ethics Reader, ed. by Susan J. Armstrong and Richard G. Botzler, 3rd edition. Please cite these with references and flesh out an amazing essay! Also please cite them so that I can go through and check. Thank you so much! Let me know if there are any questions! Also, please don’t cite any outside sources. Just from the books!! Thank you!