Category: Philosophy

Prompt: How would you defend DuBois against charges of playing the race card? What is “the race card”? 
Counterarguemnet: Once you finish your page add a paragraph that counters the entirety of your argument within your page or after it.
Please find below the topics and some requirements for your essays. All essays should defend
a bold thesis and the thesis of your paper should be dedicated to addressing a specific problem and
should not take the form of any kind of commentary or impressionistic declaration. 
1. Explanation of Thesis Statement: Clarify the way how particular words are used if doing so
is important for understanding your thesis. Thesis: The concept, double consciousness illuminates the internal struggles experienced by African Americans, stemming from a feeling of two divergent identities. Beyond a simple metaphor, double consciousness is an authentic reality that is faced by many African Americans. William Edward Burghardt Du Bois, rather than playing the ‘race card,’ acknowledges the distinctive perspective that African Americans have within society.
2. Central Argument: Present strongest possible arguments to support your thesis statement.
For example, if you’re arguing against a view, you might try to show that it conflicts with
independently plausible claims (there’s something true that the view can’t account for). If
you’re arguing for a view, you might (a) show that it does a good job of accounting for thing
that need accounting for, and/or (b) show that an objection to it doesn’t work.
3. Objections Against Argument: Next, you should give two to three major objections that a
reader might make against your central arguments. So, if your central argument argues against
a particular theory or position, think “what would someone who support that theory or position
say in reply to me? How would they try to show that my argument is wrong?” (In your paper,
you would respond to these objections: arguing that the objections don’t work, and your central
objection stands.).
Please do not use postings or blogs on the Internet as major research
resources for this assignment. Your textbook and/ or powerpoints or scholarly journals
should be your main research sources. 

In this paper, you will read all of these short stories and pick one to write a paper relating to course themes.
For your paper, choose one of the following
a. Leo Tolstoy, “Master and Man” or “Death of Ivan Ilych”
b. Jeffrey Eugenides, “Asleep in the Lord” (New Yorker excerpt version)
c. Flannery O’Connor, “A Good Man is Hard to Find” or “Good Country
People”
d. Chekov, “Gooseberries”
e. David Foster Wallace, “Good People”
f. Tolkien, “Leaf by Niggle”
Your task, essentially, is to answer two questions:
(Q1) what is the story’s vision of the relationship, if any, between: ethics (ordinary goods and/or the good), religion, divine transcendence, and a (the?) good life?
and (Q2) how does this story assist in critical reflection on what is good and why?
There should be three parts to this paper:
(a) a succinct summary of the story, both plot and themes (approx. 25%);
(b) a critical analysis of the story in relation to course themes and readings (approx. 65%); basically: answering Q1 and Q2 above with assistance and critique from course authors; and
(c) whether or not it was a good story and why (approx. 10%).
You must explicitly reference scenes and characters from the story; direct quotations are appreciated. In explicitly tying back to course themes and readings, references to, and Chicago citations of, course readings are expected. Shoot for four (4) pages, give or take one page; 12 pt font, 1” margins.
Due: Thursday, May 30th (hard copy in class)
**Please use the course themes found in the lecture notes and use the authors discussed in lecture notes for the critical analysis and “answering Q1 and Q2 above with assistance and critique from course authors”
**I attached the short story to use when writing this paper, the assignment prompt, and the lecture notes

topic: Is it morally permissible to believe in God just because it is to your practical advantage to believe? Why or why not? What does the argument against believing in God without sufficient evidence look like? Is it plausible that God would look kindly on atheists and agnostics to because they refuse to believe without evidence? After all, aren’t they simply using God’s gift of reason to arrive at their decision?
sorry for the late notice I have an injury and have been in a lot of pain was in the hospital. really need help

I have included 2 papers of my own. I want you to read those and continue the topic with the Meaning of life from a woman’s perspective. I also included 2 articles from my course. You must find a way to relate those articles to women’s lives and meaning from a philosophical perspective. Still, please remember that you first read my papers and then write, as you have to continue in the dialect I have written from the start, which will bring the topic and make it detailed and exciting. I don’t want just basic information. If that, I will add a tip also. Please make sure the work is plagiarism-free. 

Week 3
Course Project: Issue Review
Assignment
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 6, 7
Lesson
Conducting Research (Purdue OWL)Links to an external site.
How to Search the LibraryLinks to an external site.
Library Workshop ArchiveLinks to an external site. (various videos about research and APA format)
Minimum of 6 scholarly sources
Introduction
This week you continue to work on your paper that addresses a current controversial issue. This paper is to be in the form of an argument. You have selected a topic and chosen issues related to that topic; this week, you will thoroughly research both sides of the issues you have chosen. Keep in mind that your paper must define the issue, present evidence on both sides of the issue, and then argue that one side is stronger and more persuasive than the other. Your paper must address at least three relevant aspects of the issue. More specific directions for each part of the paper will be found within the specific assignment in the weekly modules; the assignment this week is to research both the pro and con sides of the issues you have chosen to address.
Here is a brief breakdown of the project so that you can plan your time in the course:
Week Task
Week 1 Topic Selection
Week 3 Issue Review (both sides)
Week 5 Thesis & Annotated Bibliography (both sides)
Week 7 Argumentative Paper
Instructions
This week, you will conduct an issue review for your selected topic for your project. Present a brief report of your research on both sides of the issue. This should include the following:
Citation of your sources
Links to the sources where available
Brief descriiption of the content of each of the sources (50 to 80 words for each source)
Your research review should address at least three (3) aspects of the issue that is the subject of your paper and must present at least one pro and one con article review on each aspect. Sources should be scholarly or of very high substantive quality.
Click on the following link to view an example. The first aspect is written out completely, with APA citation and brief descriiption of content. The next two aspects should be completely written out by you in your report, including correct APA citation and brief descriiption of content.
Example Issue Review
Issue: Legalization of Prostitution
Aspect 1: Safety
Pro: Stern, S. W., (2019). Sex workers of the world unite. The American Scholar, pp. 40-54.
The author presents the case, largely though the words of sex-workers themselves, for de-criminalization and for allowing sex workers to control the conditions of their work—that is, to operate brothels themselves, choose their physicians, provide and receive benefits, and work outside brothels if they so choose – which will make them safer and less apt to be exploited.
Con: Der Spiegel Staff. (2013, May). How legalizing prostitution has failed. Der Spiegel Online. https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html
Staff writers report that since de-criminalization of prostitution in Germany in 2003, exploitation and human trafficking remain significant problems. According to one German law enforcement officer, Germany is a “center for the sexual exploitation of young women from Eastern Europe, as well as a sphere of activity for organized crime groups from around the world” (Germany’s Human Trafficking Problem section)
Aspect 2: SESTA/FOSTA
Pro: (APA citation to article supporting SESTA legislation; brief descriiption of content)
Con: (APA citation to article against SESTA legislation; brief descriiption of content)
Aspect 3: Economics
Pro: (APA citation to article showing better income/standard of living after de-criminalization; brief descriiption of content)
Con: (APA citation to article showing real economic benefit is to pimps, traffickers brief; descriiption of content)
Because the topics vary widely, the nature of your research will also vary. If you are writing about gene therapy, for example, you will have to support your points with scholarly medical opinion. You may need to review researching techniques. Visit the research links provided in the Required Resources section in this activity for more information.
Writing Requirements (APA format)
Length: 1-2 pages (not including title page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page
Grading
This activity will be graded using the W3 Course Project Grading Rubric.
Outcomes
CO 6: Apply principles of critical reasoning to political, educational, economic, and/or social issues.
CO 7: Create a fallacy-free argument that incorporates principles of ethical decision-making.
Due Date
By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
Rubric
W3 Course Project Grading Rubric – 75 pts
W3 Course Project Grading Rubric – 75 pts
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength
5 pts
Meets length requirement
0 pts
Does not meet length requirement
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTimeliness & Authority
10 pts
All sources reflect current state of the issue OR, if historical, significance is explained; all sources are authoritative, credible, and reliable and are scholarly.
8.5 pts
Most sources reflect current state of the issue OR if historical, significance is explained; all sources are authoritative, credible and reliable; are either scholarly or are highly substantive.
7.5 pts
Most sources reflect current state of the issue, but few are scholarly or highly substantive.
6 pts
Sources reflect the current state of the issue but are primarily from popular sources.
0 pts
Sources do not reflect the current state of the issue.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAspect 1 Pro
10 pts
Significant and substantial support to targeted aspect of issue
8.5 pts
Substantial support to targeted aspect of issue
7.5 pts
Some support to targeted aspect of issue
6 pts
On topic, but minimal support to targeted aspect of issue
0 pts
No support to targeted aspect of issue
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAspect 1 Con
10 pts
Opposition view is strongly stated and specifically related to targeted aspect of issue.
8.5 pts
Opposition view clearly stated and related to targeted aspect of issue.
7.5 pts
Opposition view mixed but some opposition to targeted aspect of issue.
6 pts
On topic, but minimal opposition targeted aspect of issue.
0 pts
No opposition to targeted aspect of issue.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAspect 2 Pro
10 pts
Significant and substantial support to targeted aspect of issue
8.5 pts
Substantial support to targeted aspect of issue
7.5 pts
Some support to targeted aspect of issue
6 pts
On topic, but minimal support to targeted aspect of issue
0 pts
No support to targeted aspect of issue
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAspect 2 Con
10 pts
Opposition view is strongly stated and specifically related to targeted aspect of issue.
8.5 pts
Opposition view clearly stated and related to targeted aspect of issue.
7.5 pts
Opposition view mixed but some opposition to targeted aspect of issue.
6 pts
On topic, but minimal opposition targeted aspect of issue.
0 pts
No opposition to targeted aspect of issue.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAspect 3 Pro
10 pts
Significant and substantial support to targeted aspect of issue
8.5 pts
Substantial support to targeted aspect of issue
7.5 pts
Some support to targeted aspect of issue
6 pts
On topic, but minimal support to targeted aspect of issue
0 pts
No support to targeted aspect of issue
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAspect 3 Con
10 pts
Opposition view is strongly stated and specifically related to targeted aspect of issue.
8.5 pts
Opposition view clearly stated and related to targeted aspect of issue.
7.5 pts
Opposition view mixed but some opposition to targeted aspect of issue.
6 pts
On topic, but minimal opposition targeted aspect of issue.
0 pts
No opposition to targeted aspect of issue.
10 p

Each journal entry is a paragraph on one of the assigned readings, and each entry discusses a different reading assignment. Each journal entry must include at least one quote from the reading assignment. Select a quote that makes a claim you have an opinion about, explain the quote in the context of the article it came from, and then express your opinion about it. For example, you may think the author is right, or wrong, or leaving out something important, etc. To receive full credit, you must express an opinion and give a reason for that opinion.
The goal of the journal entry is NOT to summarize the reading. Rather, the goal is to think about what the reading says, whether on the whole or in some specific part. For example, you could dispute an author’s interpretation of an example, critique a particular argument or conclusion, discuss how the author’s view applies — or fails to apply — to your own experience, relate the material to a TV show or movie, etc. What you think is up to you, but you must be sharing your own thoughts as opposed to just summarizing or saying generic things like “the author raises profound issues.”
Submit all four entries in a single document.

This paper is to be 5-7 pages in length, typed, double-spaced with a
minimum of four academic sources. You are to use MLA format for the citations and
bibliography. The paper must involve a debatable topic, in other words, do not choose a topic
that virtually everyone agrees with unless you are going to go against the grain. The paper should
spend no more than a page introducing the topic, articulating the thesis, and explaining
parameters of the subject. The body of the paper should be spent explicating both sides of the
debate thoroughly, citing along the way to add legitimacy to the positions being held. Both sides
should be represented fairly for the purpose of ensuring that any conclusion arrived at will be
based on the logic of the premises and not the bias of the author. The conclusion should briefly
summarize the findings and clearly state that which the evidence purports to be the case

Hello I need a TOK exhibition for my ib course. My question that I need to write about is      “How does culture affect knowledge?” we have to chose 3 items in our house to talk about and how they influence your perception of knowledge. All 3 of the items has to be someth-ing with my culture. I am from Turkey. Could you write about 3 objects from Turkish culture and how they affect me personally you can make that part up. Writing about each object should be 300 words each and the writing should have a introduction and conclusion.

Please write my tok exhibition with the prompt “Are some types of knowledge more useful than others “and use these 3 items “The bible”,”Day counter calender”,”School text book”
Please use all the attached links to help guide you through the question and make it personal

From the three groups of questions below, select three questions (but only one question
from each group.) For one question, please prepare a detailed essay, dealing with the
question as adequately as you can. For the other two, please prepare short-essay
answers (perhaps a page or two each.)
on Monday, May 20.
Group I.
1. “Ought” and “Is”
In the Treatise, Hume writes:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, . . . the author
proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning. . . when all of a
sudden I am surprised to find that, instead of the usual copulations of
propositions IS and IS NOT, I meet with no proposition that is not connected
with an OUGHT or OUGHT NOT. . . . This OUGHT or OUGHT NOT expresses
some new relation or affirmation. . . A reason should be given, for what seems
altogether inconceivable, how this now relation can be a deduction from others
which are entirely different from it.”
This remark, read as indicating a DIFFERENCE IN TYPE between facts and values,
has been pivotal in discussions of ethics ever since Hume’s times. It has been taken as
the basis for a rejection of “ethical naturalism” *”(roughly: an Aristotelean-style ethics),
or Utilitarianism, or even the view that there is no such a thing as ethical truth at all, a
view called ethical non-cognitivism.)
How do you think any two of the authors we have read throughout this course would
respond to this claim? Do you think their (probable) responses sound? (As always, why
or why not?)
2. Equality
Although this idea played no pronounced role in the ethical thinking of the ancients or
the mediaeval ethicists, it plays (in one way or another) big roles in (almost) every
ethical theory of modern times.
2
So what are some of the various roles that the idea of equality plays or can play in
ethical theory? What role(s) does the idea of equality play in any two of the philosophers
we have studied? Does ‘equality’ bear different meanings in these different cases?
3. Obligation
“It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only
obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”
Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
How might any two of the philosophers we’ve studied appraise and/or respond to that
claim? Why?
Group II:
4. Utility and Justice
A traditional criticism of utilitarianism is that it – ultimately – leaves no place for the
independent bindingness of such concepts as justice or rights. While utilitarians do
indeed regard justice as an important element of ethics, they ultimately reduce it to, and
thus make it subordinate to: utility. (Hume is particularly clear on this.)
The complaint is that – depending on how the cards fall – the utilitarian is committed to
rejecting the demands of justice or duty in the name of utility.
How might a utilitarian like Mill respond? How would you evaluate such a response?
5. A Genealogy of Morals?
Nietzsche has argued that in order to understand what morality is and how it works, it is
necessary to undertake a genealogy of morals, uncovering its sources in history and in
the human psyche. Seeking to simply “consider moral questions” directly, he thinks,
obscures their basic natures.
How might any two philosophers we’ve read (such as Aquinas, Hobbes, Kant, Mill,)
respond to Nietzsche?
Can you think of any philosophers we’ve read whose positions might approach being
amenable to Nietzsche’s view? If so, who and why so?
3
6. Natural Rights and Natural Law
The idea of natural law and natural rights pretty well permeates the western ethical
tradition (in one manner or another), yet it has opponents who have labeled it
“nonsense on stilts” (J. Bentham).
In what manner(s) do you think that one might legitimately go about arguing for and/or
against a theory of natural law/natural rights in the framework of 2024?
Group III.
7. Loyalty and duty
In Confucius’ Analects, we find the following passage:
The Governor of Shi told Confucius, “Our village has a man named
‘Straight Body.’ When his father stole a sheep, he testified against him.”
Confucius answered, “In our village those who are straight are quite
different. Fathers cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their
fathers. Straightness is to be found in such behavior.”
Do you agree with Confucius? Why or why not? How would you defend your view? How
might any two of the philosophers we have studied respond, and why?
8. Acting on Principle?
One major problem in Kant’s account of the categorical Imperative is the difficulty of
identifying, in any particular case, the specific relevant maxim to be applied.
As we began our course, in the Trolley Problem we looked at the plethora of
considerations (principles) one might appeal to when facing a moral question.
So, when considering any case where you think it appropriate (=right) to act according
to a principle:
How might you decide between the various descriptions of the case in question? And
thus between the various principles that might apply?
Example:
Assuming let’s say, that the principle is something like “Stealing is wrong” :
Is taking-food-to-feed-one’s-starving-family morally different from stealing per se?
Is stealing from a thief still morally objectionable?
Is it morally acceptable to steal from someone who has stolen from you?
4
A man trying to escape an attacker grabs a bicycle to flee. Did he steal it?
(In short, when – in what sorts of cases – is stealing ‘stealing’ in the sense of the
principle, and which not, and why?)
Do you think this sort of consideration tells against any philosopher who emphasis
acting on principle? How do you think Kant – or any other deontological ethicist – might
go about dealing with it?
9. Happiness
What IS happiness, anyway? How might any two of: Aristotle, Mill, Augustine, and
Nietzsche, or Rawls respond to that question? What (if any) are the ethical
consequences of taking one or another of the different views about it?
Does it MATTER, for ethics, what particular view of happiness one takes? (What might
any of the philosophers we’ve studied have to say about this?)