Discussion Post 3.1

Discussion Post 3.1

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Discussion Post 3.1

The theories of a number of scientists have focused on the development of the cognitive skills. The first one among them is the Jean Piaget’s, second on the list is Vygotsky, and the last one is Bandura. Here, we are going to demonstrate the applicability of the Piaget’s theory to teach a second grade student mathematic’s basic applications like addition and substraction and compare it with the other two theories. According to Piaget’s theory, mental development goes through preoperational stage (age 2-7), concerete operational stage (7-11), formal operational stage (12 and more). I, as a second grade teacher will demonstrate the following experiences for the students with the correspondant age members.

For Preoperational Stage: Children at the age of 2 to the first grade are beginning to understand the symbols and which object they represent specifically. Here, we are going to use the concept which can be easily translated into teaching strategy. This includes the connection between an object and a symbol that it will be representing. For example, seven apples or five pieces of chalk. CITATION Bar08 \l 1033 (Pope, 2008)

The Piaget’s theory us better in the terms of cognitive development, as Vygotsky theory states the role of the social interaction and development in the cognition. His ideas highlighted that community plays an outstanding role in the community development. Bandura’s throy states the role of development through Attention, Retention, Reprodcution and Motivation.

There are certain materials which can be incorporated into the classroom for a better cognitive development. However, there won’t be any need as there can be some materials already present can be used for the purpose like chalk, marker. Other materials might include certain types of legos and toys for the students.

For the Vygotsky theory, designing the classroom which utilizes the approach of group sitting, talks, and activities will stimulate the cognitive development. CITATION AKo04 \l 1033 (Kouzlin, 2004)

For the Bandura’s thepry, real plays incorporation in to the class room will help in the social learning behavior of the students. Other techniques include reinforcement through simulation and gamification.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY Kouzlin, A. (2004). Vygotsky’s theory in the classroom: Introduction. . European Journal of Psychology of Education .

Pope, B. B. (2008). Developmental Psychology: Incorporating Piaget's and Vygotsky's Theories in the Classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education , 59-67.

Discussion Social Contract

Discussion

Social Contract

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Discussion Social Contract

The area of philosophy is very broad and it comprises of various elements that define how a human should lead their lives morally and ethically. The subject of philosophy also entails the scope of society and informs a person how he or she should behave in a society so that there can be an equilibrium in social settings. The study of philosophy does not only bound an individual top follow specific rules and regulations but also guides a society or a community that how it should design its rules and regulations so that this equilibrium can be created and maintained.

In order to create this equilibrium or balance, philosophers have come up with the idea of the social contract. Social contract is a concept in moral and political philosophy that determines the legitimacy of authority of a government of a state over the people living in that state. It was first coined during the Age of Enlightenment. Social Contract Theory states that people live together in a society in accordance with some kind of agreement, which is based upon some policies, rules, and regulations. This social contract or agreement establishes or defines the behavioral patterns for individuals in terms of morals and politics. Some individuals think that if an individual leads their life according to the social contract, they can live their life morally by their own choice, no because a divine has ordered it.

The concept of social contract has also given birth to another theory known as “State of nature”. State of Nature is a theory that defines that what kind of lives people would have been leading before the societies came into being. This concept is used in both in moral and political philosophy, in addition to religion, social contract and international law.

Discussion Two

The planet's overpopulation every year is an increasingly important issue for our planet. Increase in the number of people at risk of social and ecological disaster. Dangerous trends are forcing experts to look for ways to solve this problem. A general explanation for the overpopulation of the earth is that in the event of a global demographic crisis, resources will run out and some of the population will have to face food, water or other important livelihoods.

Changes in the environment caused by global warming affect people's daily lives in many ways. The weakest are already the hardest hit by climate change. Climate change affects living, working life, people's daily activities, leisure, travel and consumption. Those with the least resources to adapt will be the hardest hit by climate change. Such groups include, for example, poor and marginalized people, the elderly, children and people with disabilities, and people living in areas with a one-sided and climate-sensitive business structure. With rising energy, the position of the low-income and poor, who are already often poor, will be worsened without the support of society.

The stratification system includes a number of objectives, objective, subjective, and subjective components, the most important of which is the social structure of society - a set of interacting social entities (communities, groups, classes, strata) that are objectively established in this society and the relationships between them. The social structure of society is heterogeneous, people are characterized by differences class, ethnic, professional, gender, age, territorial-settlement, etc. The society is perceived as something differentiated, consisting of a large number of social groups, communities, layers. The study of the social structure gives an idea not only about differentiation, but also about the integration of people, not only about what divides them into groups and layers, but also about what unites them into groups and layers. This information can and is used to regulate diverse social relations in the narrow sense of the word, that is, relations between social subjects, which (relations) have a unity of objective and subjective.

The first thing that I want to note here is the unfavorable geographical location of the country , and it is located on an island closer to the western part of the island of the same name Haiti, which borders another state, the Dominican Republic. poverty dates back to the time of Napoleon's rule, when the island of Haiti was a French colony. First-class sugar and coffee were mined on the island, France was buried in wealth. But in 1791, the slaves of the island of Haiti revolted, and achieved independence on their land.

Does God Exist

Name of Student

Name of Professor

Name of Class

Day Month Year

Does God Exist

Introduction

The existence of God is one of the most controversial and discussed topics, with no way out to some specific and defined conclusion. There are two dimensions of this argument; one dimension highlights the existence of materialistic objects and physical existence that can ensure the existence of God (Critcher, pp. 723-737). While the other side infers that worldly affairs and curriculums are solid proof of the existence of God (Critcher, pp. 723-737). An exegetical analysis highlights that there are more proofs that assert existence of God rather than the demand for evidence that can prove that God exists (Krajewski). All-natural phenomena, along with artificial phenomena such as man-created objects, are all a tribute to someone out there who is supreme and all-knowing, ensuring that God exists.

Discussion

The debate of the existence of God is central to all the departments of life that require some critical thinking. These areas are historical, natural phenomena, scientific observations, philosophy, and then critical human insights that are placed at the most basic stage of this pyramid. One of the greatest reasoning for the existence of God is Darwin’s Theory of evolution that highlights that man is the product of evolution that is guided by a gradual progression towards analytical thinking (Krajewski). The reasoning of the existence of God can be traced right from the birth of human beings. It is not humanly possible to come up with the same body structure as the one that is granted by God. None of the humans can create another human being that is alike. The way the solar system works, the movement of the sun and the Moon, changing of weather, shifting of day and night along with the modification of winds and atmosphere over time are all the examples of an entity that has some supreme control (Critcher, pp. 723-737). Human thinking asserts that there are some powerful resources behind different temperaments, questioning who gives happiness, who has the divine power, and who directs fate and restricts free will.

Along with these natural and critical arguments, there are strong philosophical arguments that assert that God exists. The philosophical discussion about the existence of God started with Plato and Aristotle. Although these arguments are now categorized in different departments, still their significance cannot be denied. Plato used archetypes and some eternal forums to define God. Although he was not fully acceptable to the idea of God, still he was convinced to some points that infer the presence of God, such as the concept of punishment and causes of different things (Critcher, pp. 723-737). According to Aristotle, God is passively responsible for different changes in this world because all the things in this world are seeking divine perfection. He asserted that God is an external and somewhat superior and highest being who has engaged perfectly in the contemplation of this world. He defines and declares God as an apex of being and knowledge (Critcher, pp. 723-737). According to Plotinus, God is an inevitable flow of divinity that is seen in the actions and visions of this world. He found God impersonal, who is beyond any description (Critcher, pp. 723-737). Plotinus has found attributes, i.e., truth and virtues to God. According to the philosopher, God is impersonal, and His attributes are beyond any description and analysis. The philosopher has associated a divine figure with God that highlights the supremacy of God.

There are a lot of Christian philosophers who have commented on the existence of God, such as Justin Martyr. According to him, man is nothing but a single entity who has to abide by limits and merits that are set by God. He also highlighted the concept of transience nature of life and life after death, which infers that there is someone who is going to address the facts and figures associated with every human action (Critcher, pp.723-737). Another Christina philosopher, Augustine, also defined God as an omniscient entity who is moral and omnipresent. He termed and defined God in terms of the creator of everything in this world. He asserted that everything in this world, time, space, and other elements that are either directly or indirectly affecting the world are controlled and regulated by someone who is all-knowing and who is well aware of the properties and constituents of the world (Critcher, pp. 723-737). The theme for God promoted by Augustine was parallel to that of Aristotle and Plato, highlighting the significance of beliefs in the highest sense. He asserts that God is one who is capable of blessing human life with prime height in terms of intellectual, and knowledge.

John Soutsos is a philosopher who believes in the existence of God, but his belief is guided by pantheism (Krajewski). He asserted Neo-Platonic thoughts that highlight that the world is created by God for some eternal patterns in his mind. He found God as a creator who created everything out of his own mind and in his own patterns of thought. So, he believed that “God is in all the things” (Critcher, pp. 723-737). This asserts that he has some extremist belief in God, which behooved him to say that all the objects, either natural or artificial, are a reflection of God. Thomas Aquinas also asserted a strong belief in God because he accepted both Aristotelian and Christian revelation. He found both revelation and reason as a prime source of knowledge of God, where he accepted the gradation of different forms and matters guided by God. He thinks that God is all pure, and he is all perfect; therefore, he is changeless, and he drives changes in the world (Krajewski).

Socrates is another philosopher who asserted the existence of God. According to him, God exists in all forms of the world. He is of the view that nothing in this world can transcend God, so nothing in this world is greater than His essence. There are no accidents in God because accidents are driven by something that is external. He also asserts that God is not knowable because he is not a product of some material while every mortal thing in this world is made of materials, in the same way, mortal things have some characteristics and species. In contrast, God is void of all these attributes, so he has no species and categorization (Critcher, pp. 723-737). There are other philosophers such as John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham who had a strong belief in God. Like other philosophers, they thought that God had proved His existence in this world, and its evidence can be seen in different parts and aspects of life such as life, death, evil, hood, happiness, sadness and how different things in the world are regulating and directing human conduct. (Critcher, pp. 723-737)

Conclusion

Believing that all things in this world affirm the existence of God, it is highlighted that all aspects and dimensions of this world signify the existence of God. Similarly, there are a lot of philosophers who believe in God, such as Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, Socrates, and some Christian philosophers. Although all the philosophers have a different vision of the presence of God, they associated and categorized God in terms of different attributes. Still, the collective ideology affirms the existence of God (Critcher, pp. 723-737). In a nutshell, it is asserted that God exists in different views, forms, and products of this world.

Work Cited

Critcher, C. R., & Lee, C. J. (2018). The feeling is believing: Inspiration encourages belief in God. Psychological science, 29(5), 723-737.

Krajewski, S., & Silvestre, R. S. (2019). Logic and the Concept of God.

DQ4

Philosophy

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Philosophy

Q1 Response:

In the article “Divided Minds and the Nature of Persons” the author Parfit discusses both bundle theory and ego theory. The difference between these two theories are as follows:

Ego theory:

According to this theory, a person is defined as a single unified subject of experiences and there is something in the world that is basic which is “you”. All mental events like memories, emotions and different sensations are not basic even our experiences are not basic. This theory also explains that there is an inner self who experiences all the changing events occurring in one's life and although this “Self” changes with time yet it still remains as a continuous entity subjected to a person’s actions and decisions.

Bundle theory:

According to this theory, a unified self is just an illusion although each of us is still considered as a unified conscious being. Furthermore, all the mental events are basic and a person is just a bundle that includes all the mental events collection.

Q2 Response:

Scientists approached Dennett for a secret mission to disarm a nuclear device but there was one constraint. As the mission was dangerous to his brain, not body he had to leave his brain Yorick behind in the lab while his body Hamlet would perform the mission. During the mission, Hamlet had been destroyed while Yorick is still present and needs a new body Fortinbras. In the lab where Yorick was present, Fortinbras learns about Hubert. Huberts is the exact copy of Yorick and both can interact with Fortinbras. Now here the question arises that where Dennett is exactly. The answer to this question is that our brain controls our body and all the experiences and memories and emotions we feel are all because of our brain. So wherever the brain is our body is also considered to be there. In the case mentioned although Hamlet is destroyed, it was in control of Yorick and Fortinbras is also in control of Yorick. So although Hamlet and Fortinbras are different bodies yet they share the same experiences, memories, and emotions as their brain Yorick is the same. So Dennett is still the same Dennett but with a different body.

Dworkin Article

9Y bjbj .9 9 8999 5999995JSSS9S9SSSZS0S S S99S9999955S9999999 999999999 

Dworkin Article

Your Name (First M. Last)

School or Institution Name (University at Place or Town, State)

Dworkin Article

According to Dworkin, paternalism was taken into account from a legal perspective during the 1970s. Also, he was of the view that in the 19th century, social or corporate paternalism was thought to be protecting the interests of the influential class. In many ways, paternalism was perceived as unethical as it was not purely intended to benefit everyone. In addition, legal Paternalism has been under a lot of criticism since World War II for being invasive and assertive. Furthermore, paternalism was considered a threat to the overall freedom of an individual. It was also found that paternalism was challenging the fundamental rights to equality of people. With time, the ethical demands attributed to paternalism have changed and adapted to the new concepts (Dworkin, 1972).

The right to equality is the most significant elements of ones life, and that is the reason why paternalism was deplorable because it was associated with offensive practices of patronizing and intrusion. In this context, unfair inequality was also attributed to the concept of paternalism that emerged. Initially, paternalism was originated from the intent to fix inequality of luck, which refers to the inequalities that do not come in the way by choice. For instance, there is often no merit to become a director of an organization when an individual is born in a highly affluent and well-educated family during the 19th century, or if ones father owns the organization. On the other hand, it is immensely hard to get this position when someone is from a working-class family or an orphan (Dworkin, 1972). This particular aspect can be called hard luck. In this regard, the rich and highly educated class considered providing the underprivileged class with free education because they were the ones who were suffering due to their undeserved bad luck.

Although the idea seemed to be ethical and in the benefit of the impoverished class, it was not straightforward as it appeared. The response by elite or influential class was not appropriate. The people were given financial grants for their condition, but they were treated as lower humans. Those who gave financial compensation to economically struggling class, they used the act of endowment to endorse their superiority in the society. The main purpose of paternalism was to show the authority over financially weak class by imposing laws on them that undermined their freedom. Moreover, Dworkin argues that a prisoner does not know that he will no longer be free if all the doors were locked. In this respect, the information delivered regarding the doors is more important to the prisoner than anything else, the same way that order of dishes is significant for customers in a cafeteria (Dworkin, 1972).

The paternalism did not fully go to the benefit of the poor community as by its nature it was not based on the true welfare of the working class. Paternalism was considered immoral because it attempted to deviate from its true letter and spirit. The industrialists during 19th century constructed social houses, healthcare centers, and schools for their workers, but in reality, they were more concerned about the productivity and the profits of their organizations than the actual welfare of their workers. The concept of multiplying profits, and doing acts that directly or indirectly benefit businesses are the hallmarks of the capitalist culture where all the policies and practices of the business owners revolve around maximizing their profits and increasing their influence.

The question arises as to what is the actual concept of paternalism which is different from legal or normal paternalism according to Dworkin According to him, if the welfare of an individual is directly intended, and as a result, a working class gets the real benefit without sacrificing their freedom, then it will be classed as moral paternalism. In other words, he meant that the change in the condition should guarantee happiness, but if the help comes with dictation and too many conditions, then it would be considered immoral paternity. Also, the concept of the paternalism should be based on equality. However, paternalism has been illegitimate as it targets a particular group or category of population. Those who oppose paternalism, they come up with the argument that it is against the right to autonomy or self-direction. Besides, liberals are of the opinion that authorities or the governments can be intrusive in individuals freedom or decision-making process if they are involved in any dubious activities or pose any threat to the state else freedom is the fundamental right to every individual. Therefore, immoral paternalism cannot be justified by any means.

In my opinion, Dworkin rightly called paternal legislation or paternalism illegitimate. However, for paternalism to be moral, it needs to meet three standards respecting individual autonomy, considering equality, and being ethically encouraged. All these principles are associated with behavioral paternalism. In this regard, the first standard is the most significant. Before making any laws in the name of welfare the personal freedom of the individual must be ensured. Also, the element of equality is also important because all the citizens irrespective of their class must not feel that they are facing any kind of discrimination or inequality by authorities or people at the helm. Sometimes laws are made by a particular class to safeguard their own benefits, and that prove to be detrimental for whole society as it does not leave a good impact on all the citizens of the country, a particular class feels neglected. Similarly, there should be no hidden agenda by powerful individuals when they do some act of welfare for underprivileged class.

References

Dworkin, G. (1972). Paternalism. the Monist, 64-84.

PAGE

PAGE 5

PHILOSOPHY

PAGE 1

Running head PHILOSOPHY

p G y j q ./K

Gzvh@FhIhIHhIh9hthK-hVJhhNhj5hkhgJhgJhgJhbhKhBhQhhXhOPhuh3/hHhHHhHh2hhxVhh)mh)mh)mh.0pqrstuvwxyzagd)mgdagdy KacdfgdgdgJagdNNgdUngd)mgd4rv89HJKO6Zzvrnh-hhIh9hUKhhHhhQhQhmWhh)mh)mh)mh_h1lhAhshh2hu2hbhMhh2hwh9hqshhF5hZ 5hWhfhSh@FhgJhgJ)-kA/9 qZ_abdeghjh50JUh3jh3UhgJhgJhgJhNNh(hh4qh hvhUnhshh_h AhhNh-hG1hhhhhhAThlhMhid0hnpqrstzhgJhgchgc0JmHnHuh3hjh50JU h0JgqrsgdgJ hh hhhh9 0P1hp5/ s666666666vvvvvvvvv6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@Pp2( 0@Pp 0@Pp 0@Pp 0@Pp 0@Pp 0@Pp8XV 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@_HmH nH sH tH NN5NormaldCJ_HaJmH sH tH XAX5 Heading 1@a5KH JaJ BB5 Heading 2@a aJJJ5 Heading 3@5JaJBB5 Heading 4@

56aJ@@5 Heading 5@

6aJDAD

Default Paragraph FontRiR0Table Normal4 l4a(k (

0No List4@45Header

4 45Footer

.)@.5Page Number6U 65 HyperlinkBphC25Body Text Indent2BB25 Body TextxHRH5Title@aKHJaJ PKContent_Types.xmlN0EH-J@ULTB l,3rJBG7OVa(7IRpgLr85vuQ8CX6NJCFB..YTe55 _g -Yl6NPK6_rels/.relsj0Qv/C/(hO Chvxp_P1H0ORBdJE4bq_6LR70O,En7Lib/SePKkytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlM @w7c(EbCA7K

Y,

e.,H,lxIsQ ,jGW)E 8PKRtheme/theme/theme1.xmlYF/lMBql4F3 iCCiH/6MwFcd

4IsNXp xpop,

we.pC0pm 8MQoDBF1vtp.4IPaQ4qm0qnAy0bfULlRJ3TlNS)a)Cv.xys@oE@)xRe_-4PHI.rm3g--PP

Yu),j-BXRH8@I7E10(2O4kLEzqO2POuz_gx7svnB2,E3p9GQd H

xuv  0F,FKsO3wvfSVbsyX p5veuw 1z@ l,ib

IjZ29LZ15xl.(zmd@23ln-@iDtd6lB63yy@tHjpUyeXry3sFXI

O5YYS.7bdn671.

tn/w/t6PssL.JiN AI)t2Lmx(-ixQCJuWlQyI@

m2DBAR4 wnaQ

W0xBdT/.3-FbYLKK6HhfPQh)GBms_CZys

v@c)h7JicFS.NP

eI Q@cpaAV.9HdHVXAYrApxSL93U5U

NC(pu@d4)t9M4WP5flk_X-CwTB Y,

AoYezxTVOlp

/gTpJ

EG,

AozAryerb/Ch,Eoo.

YgJW____RVW/79AkWjZuk y_Zklc,bUvPK

theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0woo5

6Q

,.aic21hqm@RNdo7gK(MR(.1rJT8VAHubP8g/QAs(LPK-Content_Types.xmlPK-60_rels/.relsPK-kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-Rtheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-

theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK xml version1.0 encodingUTF-8 standaloneyes

aclrMap xmlnsahttp//schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main bg1lt1 tx1dk1 bg2lt2 tx2dk2 accent1accent1 accent2accent2 accent3accent3 accent4accent4 accent5accent5 accent6accent6 hlinkhlink folHlinkfolHlink/. 111ZZhg188@0( B S ZgpsZgpsZgpsdymW92 M3s0fl)sy 3/ 9K-60G1L2h2u2Z 5F55S)mGIgJUKOPQxVSBX_bgcidUnqs9xHHAQNVJ-AT2tKMWQ1l4qbI8q_ A)NN2sw@FkuAj5v(NA@@UnknownGAx Times New Roman5Symbol3.Cx ArialABCambria Math1hqq4PP3P P)2xxFull Title of Your Paper HereDeGeorgeMorningOh0 , LXd

p Full Title of Your Paper HereDeGeorgeNormalMorning3Microsoft Office Word@@@z@P.,0hp

SWORPSPFull Title of Your Paper HereTitle 

(,-./02345678Root Entry FZ1Table WordDocument.SummaryInformation()DocumentSummaryInformation81CompObjr F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q

Emotional Dependence

Emotional Dependence

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Emotional Dependence

Part I: Critical Analysis Process Questionnaire

Describe your topic in one sentence? (be specific and narrow down)

The refusal or reluctance to emotionally accept the adult role is known as emotional dependence.

Why did you select this topic?

The reason why I choose to analyze this topic critically is because it is becoming a concern in most of our societies as children and adult become emotionally dependent. Most of the children at an early age or adults for that fact do not get enough attention or love, which is why they have to depend on someone emotionally to feel cared for or important.

What have you heard about this topic that prompted your interest in it?

I have heard that there has been a recent and substantial rise in troubled children or adults in the appointments for psychotherapists. Moreover, there are some great articles based on emotional dependency that is becoming to catch some real attention and is the reason why it prompted my interest in this topic to start with.

How much time have you invested in formally researching this topic before?

I have invested much of my time researching my topic and finding useful information for me to analyze for my final documentation critically. I have taken most of my time from all my semesters into searching and reading different issues on this topic.

What do you intend to prove, or argue with support in your paper?

What I want to prove or argue with support in my paper is that children should become emotionally independent so that they can stay safe and secure from the hurdles they may face in practical life when they grow up.

Clearly state the argument and counter argument you will contrast in your paper?

The argument which I want to identify in my paper is that children should be given importance, appreciation, and love in their early childhood. However, being overprotective about children may lead them to become emotional dependant. The counter-argument to why becoming emotional independent is somewhat significant is so that children may have their own identity in the future and can be prepared to face any hurdle without looking at their parents for support.

How can you prove or support your argument in the best way possible?

I want to prove and support my argument by analyzing the current scenario that is revolving around our societies. The children and adult in our communities are troubled as they are either overprotected in childhood or left isolated which makes them emotionally dependant on someone.

What social and cultural influences may have influenced your point-of-view about this topic?

The social and cultural influences which influenced my point-of-view about this topic would rather be my own life as an example. I have seen a culture where my parents have been unsupportive and unappreciative for my efforts in life, which made me look for emotional dependency.

Do you have have a pre-disposition towards this topic already? (i.e. existing attitudes, beliefs, opinions?) if so, state that belief in one sentence.

Yes, I do have a predisposition towards this topic as I believe that every child should feel and get emotional dependence so that they can become a useful part of the community.

If you have an existing point-of-view on your topic, how did you reach the conclusion that you already have?

My existing point-of-view on this topic is the same argument which I intend to critically analyze. This helped me conclude my essay.

What people may have influenced your opinion of this subject?

The stereotypes in my society and my life with my parents have influenced my opinion on this subject.

What experience do you have in connection with this topic?

My own life and the research I did throughout my semesters provided me with enough experience in connection with this topic.

Have you ever studied the best arguments on all sides of this issue?

Yes, I have implicitly studied the best arguments on all sides of this issue and realized that not all sides are right, but the side that helps develop an emotional attachment to one's life is preferably a more important side to discuss.

What may be the strongest part of one side of argument?

The strongest part of the side which I argued in my essay is the one which defines emotional dependence as rather a subject issue. It focuses on the welfare aspect of a child's development and helps them become aware of the real problems faced in life. Too much dependency may lead to uncertainty and adults should be more emotionally independent to care for the more important people in their life.

What is the strongest part of the other side of argument?

The strongest part of the other side of the argument is that too much emotional dependence may develop self-esteem issues — moreover, addictive relationships which may cause damage to life in a longer run. There might also be rebellion, inability to cooperate, and passive aggression in all sorts of relationships.

Are you making an objective or subjective claim on your topic?

I intend to make an objective claim in my critical analysis essay as there are many factual matters which exist to support the argument I made in my essay. My personal life apart from the sources which I provide is evidence for an objective claim to my topic.

Are you making a deductive or inductive argument?

I am making a deductive argument in my essay by providing a guarantee for my conclusion. It would be expressed through strong support and premises that states the nature of the argument.

Part II: Critical Analysis Documentation

Introduction

Emotional dependence can simply be stated as a complex condition where one cannot comfortably live without another person. Children with too much emotional dependence for their parents develop fear and uncertainty when becoming independent eventually. There are three major types of emotional dependence (Carrasco, Suarez, & Gonzalez-Calderon, 2018). The first one is the family in which children grow fearful of separation. They also have difficulty in accepting someone in their life other than their family as they see everything as a threat. The second is the couple that is found as an underlying issue in today's society. It is a harmful relationship in which one becomes inseparably dependent on another person, a partner in this case. It develops insecurity in the person and makes them feel so helpless and doubtful. The third and last one is the social environment in which the person wants appreciation and acceptance. An emotional dependent person on the social environment frequently tries to overexert themselves to achieve approval. These people can not face confrontation and rejection as it is the worst thing that can happen to them. All of these major types of emotional dependence are an issue. It limits a person’s self-capability and self-esteem while being dependant on others at all times. The discussion of this essay will critically analyze this issue by providing an argument.

Discussion

Identification

There are plenty of arguments which can be critically analyzed for the topic of emotional dependence. The first significant argument which supports one position is the person's ability to become emotionally independent but somewhat dependent. Both adults and children are booking appointments for psychotherapies due to the social instability they went through all there lives. Children are our societies are left emotionally dependent on their parents. They grow up being emotionally dependent on their partner, and then the social environment afterward. Children should be made emotionally independent so that they can learn the most fundamental aspects of life. Moreover, they should be given the appreciation and love they deserve in life which would evolve their self-esteem and make them more accepting of other people other than the one closest to them. Emotional dependence makes a person develop approval, affection, and attention from their partner or parent to an unhealthy degree where it either becomes irritating or destructive. Parents should try to differentiate between being overprotective and affectionate. Giving children the space they need is good but providing them with everything spoils them eventually. It leaves them unprepared to face obstacles in life alone and learn from mistakes. It is imperative for parents to understand the needs and wants of their children to experience their effective growth and child development (Ying et al. 2018).

Through different research and articles, there are cases in which females are more emotionally dependent than men in a relationship. It might be due to the human nature of a male being a dominant and care taker of the female which makes them more emotionally attached to their partner. However, too much emotional dependence leads to a destructive relationship. Females with too much emotional dependence on males require their love, approval, attention, and affection at all times. Otherwise, they tend to become lonely and isolated. They can not think of a life without their partner which makes them establish inappropriate bonds with others. What matters is the quality of relationship and not how important it is to sustain it. Irrespective of this argument, it is highly important for the male partner to make the emotionally dependent person realize the harmful factors of such a condition. Only a partner in a relationship can help the other person overcome their infidelities and acquire a real long lasting relationship. Emotional dependence influence psychological well-being to a considerable extent. It makes them become doubtful and irrational about their choices and own worthwhile having a negative influence on their self-esteem and emotions. This intense structure develops a cycle of emotional emptiness, depression, and chronic dissatisfaction for the emotionally dependent person in a relationship.

The apparent psychological compensation of an insecure person is damaged due to many self-esteem issues and other characteristics aspects required in the social environment. An emotionally dependent person often goes an extra mile to achieve approval from someone or to please the other person to a considerable extent. They can not feel rejected, and they are scared to face things which might be bothering them the most in life. This situation which is analyzed in a society is often damaging and requires a person to become emotionally independent and not to rely on someone else to get through life. However, if no one is there to support or help change the behavior of an emotionally disturbed partner or friend, they may transit towards fear and anxiety. Therefore, it is critically important for a parent or a partner to make sure that there loved one is provided with enough appreciation and acceptance which does not exceed the emotional dependency limit where they become dependent to them instead of learning to become independent (Elsey et al. 2016). This course of action requires a substantive focus and commitment. It can not lay short at any step as every aspect of evolving a person from dependency to independence needs substantive attention and time. The goal is to maintain a relationship that is persistent and requires balanced effort rather than one person making more effort than the other.

Rebuttal

The aforementioned arguments help state the best counter-arguments on the other side of the issue. It critically analyzes the three stages of emotional dependence through discussing the relationship that has with ones ability to derive such influence from an external origin. A child’s development which is more emotionally independent focused would help them build constructive skills in life. Parents would also feel less stressed with fulfilling the needs of their children as they would be preparing them to become more independent (Perrone, Vickers, & Jackson, 2015). Any externalities that parents may dismantle constraint as barriers to support or connect for children to correspond with others apart from family effectively. It would provide children with self-confidence and other useful traits. It would also prepare children to face significant challenges without being scared and confused. When children would know and understand how important it is for them to become independent, they would no longer feel the need to think parents as their shelter at every step in life. They would rather see themselves as shelter. Children would also stay clear from developing any unhealthy psychological situation. Parents should play the role of being responsible and caring through appreciating their children’s efforts and giving them the love they require in an early age so that they do not develop insecurities or seek for emotional dependency when they grow up.

The main problem in our communities apart from troubled children are troubled adults and couples who come for therapies for all sorts of psychological issues. Emotional dependence of the couple affects the psychological well-being of both partners. The argument mentioned above about the harm this type of relationship can inflict is considerable to some extent. It is critical that the male, who is considerably responsible in a relationship makes the women, their partner emotionally independent. It can be done by providing them with enough time and love in which they feel protective and secure. It would help the females come out of loneliness and other insecurities. It would also not make the partner feel so helpless at all times. Giving entitlement and appreciation would make the emotional dependent person more independent. Moreover, this would also encourage them towards making themselves as protective shields against fear or suffering rather than holding someone else as a protective shield. This would encourage a more self-dependent and long-lasting relationship rather than having one which causes great distress. Even if the emotionally independent person loses their partner for some reason, they can easily survive on there own. It would save the person from adopting any psychological illnesses that can affect their wellbeing. It would also make them stronger and prosperous in practical life through understanding and implementing the characteristics of an independent person.

Just like the counter-arguments presented above based on family and couple, the social environment deems a somehow relative approach. Emotional dependence on the social environment is similarly an important topic to talk about as it recognizes and approves different signs in our environment. People who are emotionally dependent seem to panic if things are not going there way. What has been critically analyzed so far is that all the emotionally dependent particulars urge for appreciation and acceptance at every stage because they did not get any in early childhood. When stepping into a social environment, making them more visible is an essential step towards making them more independent. It would allow them to achieve the apparent psychological compensation through determining the very factors which analyze their perspective based on certain things. They should not be allowed to overexert themselves but rather appreciated for the effort they are doing. It would allow them to face confrontation and rejection at an early stage in life (Kidd, 2016). Building self-confidence from dependencies would be more robust in the future as it would relinquish one from getting out of their comfort zone to achieve something. They would have to learn to walk alone and improve there self-esteem so that they may face the real hurdles of life professionally. All of these important steps are necessary to become emotionally independent.

Conclusion

The aforementioned critical analysis on the topic of emotional dependence helped contrast some major environmental and social issues facing our societies. Through searching for enough credible sources based on this topic, and through my personal experience, I have come to acknowledge the fact that being emotionally independent is rather an important part of life. A person who is emotionally dependent tends to develop certain insecurities along with self-esteem issues which are never good in the long run. Arguing on the fact that becoming emotionally independent is rather a substantive and critical approach for every child and adult. The essay helped explore the psychological advantages it can have on a person. It helped identify the philosophical intuition of a child who is emotionally dependent and that of a couple who are facing a specific crisis. Through identifying the real problems, the essay has helped differentiate and identify the steps that are useful in approaching an emotionally independent approach. This statement of my position on this issue from the above research helped me present the most real arguments with facts. These represented a more convincing approach towards adopting an emotionally independent life rather then self-inflicting harm through being emotionally dependent. Every person starting from a parent to a partner can help their loved ones becoming emotionally independent.

References

Carrasco, M., Suarez, J., & Gonzalez-Calderon, M. (2018). Does emotional dependence and perceived parental acceptance predict children's psychological maladjustment? Family Relations, 67(5), 660-674. doi:10.1111/fare.12338

Elsey, J., Crowley, M., Mencl, W., Lacadie, C., Mayes, L., & Potenza, M. (2016). Relationships between impulsivity, anxiety, and risk-taking and the neural correlates of attention in adolescents. Developmental Neuropsychology, 41(1-2), 38-58. doi:10.1080/87565641.2016.1167212

Kidd, I. (2016). Intellectual humility, confidence, and argumentation. Topoi : An International Review of Philosophy,35(2), 395-402. doi:10.1007/s11245-015-9324-5

Perrone, L., Vickers, M., & Jackson, D. (2015). Financial independence as an alternative to work. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 27(3), 195-211. doi:10.1007/s10672-015-9262-9

Ying, L., Zhou, H., Yu, S., Chen, C., Jia, X., Wang, Y., & Lin, C. (2018). Parent-child communication and self-esteem mediate the relationship between interparental conflict and children's depressive symptoms. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44(6), 908-915. doi:10.1111/cch.12610

Empiricism And Rationalism Are Two Theoretical Approaches To Human Knowledge. Discuss Their Points Of Difference.

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Philosophy]

[Date]

Difference between Rationalism and Empiricism

Although there are some minute similarities, there is a lot of difference discovered between the points of empiricism and rationalism. When it comes to rationalism, it is considered to be the belief in deduction, reason, and ideas. On the other hand, when it comes to empiricism, it is considered to be the belief in sense perception and induction. It must be considered that as per empiricism, there are no innate ideas (Quarles et al., 2018). According to rationalism, the belief to innate ideas means to have the ideas before birth. The perfect example in such a scenario would be of through reincarnation. There is no doubt that Plato has explained in the best way by the theory of the forms. As per Plato, this is the place in which each person go and attain knowledge before he/she is taken back to the “visible world.” The matter of fact is that innate ideas tend to explain the reason behind some people is better than others while performing certain tasks naturally.

There is no doubt that the considering reason as the main source of knowledge is undoubtedly another clear distinction in terms of rationalism. Studies and research show that the belief of rationalists is that when it comes to five senses, they only tend to provide opinions, and there is no reason along with it. A perfect example in such a scenario would be in the argument of Descartes. He explained the way in which candle each candle has, to begin with, but after the candle is lit, it is seen to be melting along with losing its fragrance. The aftermath of this scenario results in the candle taking on an entirely different shape as compared to the shape it had in the beginning. The argument of Descartes undoubtedly tends to prove that the senses of an individual can be misleading, and they must not be trustworthy.

When it comes to the third characteristic of rationalism, it is simply the deduction which is for proving something with faith instead of reason. The beliefs of empiricist are different than the beliefs of a rationalist (Vanzo et al., 2016).. They consider sensory perception as the main source of knowledge. The ideas are divided into two parts. One is the complex and the other is simple. The matter of fact is that simple ideas are based solely on perception. Such ideas can vary from shape, size, to color, etc. Meanwhile, when it comes to complex ideas, they are formed with the combination of simple ideas. Apart from this, empiricists believe that the only to acquire ideas is by having experience. According to them, ideas cannot be acquitted through innate ideas.

The innate knowledge concept is rejected by empiricists (Quarles et al., 2018). The reason for that lies in the fact that for instance in a child had this knowledge then what would be the reason behind him/her not showing it? The question arises here to the reason why a child is required to learn to talk or walk. The last characteristic of empiricists is the induction which is considered to be the belief due to which only a few things can be proven conclusively. An example here would be of individuals who know of things with the help of their sense perception (Vanzo et al., 2016).. They identify that the color of dry erase board is white and the color of the chalkboard is green. However, it must be taken into consideration that without they cannot conclude that such perceptions tend to agree with the objects themselves.

The matter of fact is that there is undoubtedly no way for conclusively proving that the color of chalkboard will remain green once everyone has either stopped perceiving it or left the room. Another thing that must be taken into consideration is that with the help of medication and wax theory, it has been clearly illustrated by Descartes that he is a rationalist. As per the wax theory, it has been explained the ways in which someone is not able to rely on one's sense perception with the help of a candle as an example. The matter of fact is that when the candle is seen to be in its original state, there is no doubt that it tends to have a unique shape. After the candle is melted and burned down, it then has a clear complete different shape along with different characteristics.

The dispute between the empiricism and rationalism is seen to be taken place within the epistemology. There is a clear difference between the two of them. Rationalism has one more entity in, unlike empiricism (Vanzo et al., 2016). Rationalism is undoubtedly a viewpoint that in certain circumstances knowledge comes from intellectual reasoning (Zhang et al., 2017). On the other hand, when it comes to empiricism, it is simply the viewpoint that tends to describe that knowledge comes by using senses in order to observe the world. The major difference between the two of them is that rationalism is the knowledge which is derived from logic and reason unlike empiricism which is divided for either an experiment or experience.

There is no doubt that both experimental science and mathematics are the direction to knowledge. One thing that must be taken into consideration is that experimental science can never be seen producing certainty. On the other hand, genuine knowledge is undoubtedly certain. The reason for that is quite simple as it rational instead of empirical.

Work Cited

Quarles, Odysseus. "Empiricism and Rationalism in the Advancement of Astronomy." (2018).

Vanzo, Alberto. "Empiricism and rationalism in nineteenth-century histories of philosophy." Journal of the History of Ideas77.2 (2016): 253-282.

Zhang, Yan. "Behaviorism and Rationalism." 3rd International Conference on Arts, Design and Contemporary Education (ICADCE 2017). Atlantis Press, 2017.

Essay

Submitted by

Submitted to

Assignment

Date

Philosophy 2330: Science and Society

In my opinion, Bellarmino Foscarini's letter was a kind of manifesto, setting out the position of the Jesuits, not only and not so much in relation to Copernicans (although formally the letter dealt only with it), as much as science in general. It clearly outlines, through the rigid demarcation of theology, natural philosophy, and astronomy. The institutional framework of scientific discourse as they saw the intellectual elite of the Society of Jesus. As for Ballarino’s reasoning (at the end of the letter) about what was later called the principle of relativity of movement. He answered the question, and he simply accepted faith and stated that "clear experience shows that the Earth is motionless." (Finocchiaro14)

The Ballarino’s letter recorded two approaches to the exegesis of Holy Scripture. Proponents of the first approach (in particular, Ballarino himself) proceeded from the fact that since the Holy Spirit is the source of every word of the Bible, the whole sacred text embodies undeniable truth. Proponents of the second approach (for example, Foscarini) argued differently: although we accept everything that the Holy Scripture teaches as absolute truth, however, it is necessary to understand what it teaches, which the sacred text says.

Galileo’s observations should also have led him to conclude that the Tycho Brahe system is correct. Galileo was a strong supporter of the Copernican system. The fact that he decided not to exclude the argument against the heliocentric system does not seem surprising, although according to modern scientific standards he probably should have done it. The main idea of ​​Galileo's scientific work was the idea of ​​the world as an ordered system of bodies that move one relative to another in a homogeneous space devoid of privileged directions or points. For example, what is considered top or bottom, according to Galileo, depends on the chosen frame of reference. He caused a sensation in 1610 with his first major scientific publication "Sidereus Nuncius" (Message of the Stars). (Giedymin 179)He reported on the discoveries he had made with his telescope, including the moons of Jupiter. He also wrote several times clearly that he considered the Copernican worldview true. He had come to this conviction when he had watched the moons revolve around Jupiter. Just as well, the planets could orbit the sun, he thought; However, the Jupiter moons were not proof, and Galileo owed his life.

A specific feature of the Copernican revolution, which largely determines the constant interest of researchers on the part of it, is that Copernicus’s theory was assimilated by science, even though it did not have new empirical evidence in comparison with the Ptolemy system.

Work cited

Finocchiaro, Maurice A. "Galileo Affair." The Blackwell companion to science and

Christianity (2012): 14.

Giedymin, Jerzy. "Instrumentalism and its critique: a reappraisal." Essays in Memory of Imre

Lakatos. Springer, Dordrecht, 1976. 179-207.

Essay

Essay

Author Name

[Name of the Institution]

The central idea of Kitcher’s book is the theory that in a democratic society, science should occupy a place to serve the purposes of citizens. He is of the idea that the inclusion of science in a society can open up discussions and investigation on normative issues and can offer resolution through democracy. It is insufficient to simply carry out the research and publish the results rather it must also evaluate public opinions regarding technical issues and the role of science in policy-making decisions.

Philosophers and scientists often declare that the goal of science is to provide us with a wholistic true and complete story but according to Kitcher the idea of the whole and complete truth is not coherent. The reason for this idea is the diversity in perception among an infinity of languages and boundaries that people adopt to develop their epistemic basis. For each of these backgrounds, infinite true statements about the cosmos are present which suggests that even if the idea of ‘whole truth’ is coherent, it is beyond human comprehension ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"OWgCpT8Q","properties":{"formattedCitation":"\\super 1\\nosupersub{}","plainCitation":"1","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":270,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/5OlhLovK/items/5YF8VCRI"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/5OlhLovK/items/5YF8VCRI"],"itemData":{"id":270,"type":"book","title":"Science in a democratic society","publisher":"Prometheus Books","publisher-place":"Amherst, N.Y","number-of-pages":"270","source":"Library of Congress ISBN","event-place":"Amherst, N.Y","ISBN":"978-1-61614-407-4","call-number":"Q175.5 .K524 2011","language":"en","author":[{"family":"Kitcher","given":"Philip"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2011"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} 1. The domain of science is central to finding ‘significant truth’ because according to well-established parts of physics, many parts of the universe are hitherto undiscovered and inaccessible.

There are two famous views about deciding the agenda of science. One is through a democratic process by allowing everyone to decide through vote while the other agenda is allowing everyone to decide through a vote. Kitcher’s idea is based on a lack of scientific objective guidance that can be used to determine broader agendas of research. He believes that the fundamental theme in deciding what science is important is dependent on human values and the best mechanism for its implementation is democracy ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"p5cV7OOG","properties":{"formattedCitation":"\\super 2\\nosupersub{}","plainCitation":"2","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":267,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/5OlhLovK/items/FIFT5DT5"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/5OlhLovK/items/FIFT5DT5"],"itemData":{"id":267,"type":"book","title":"Philosophy and Engineering: Exploring Boundaries, Expanding Connections","publisher":"Springer","number-of-pages":"273","source":"Google Books","abstract":"This volume, the result of an ongoing bridge building effort among engineers and humanists, addresses a variety of philosophical, ethical, and policy issues emanating from engineering and technology. Interwoven through its chapters are two themes, often held in tension with one another: “Exploring Boundaries” and “Expanding Connections.” “Expanding Connections” highlights contributions that look to philosophy for insight into some of the challenges engineers face in working with policy makers, lay designers, and other members of the public. It also speaks to reflections included in this volume on the connections between fact and value, reason and emotion, engineering practice and the social good, and, of course, between engineering and philosophy. “Exploring Boundaries” highlights contributions that focus on some type of demarcation. Public policy sets a boundary between what is regulated from what is not, academic disciplines delimit themselves by their subjects and methods of inquiry, and professions approach problems with unique goals and by using concepts and language in particular ways that create potential obstacles to collaboration with other fields. These and other forms of boundary setting are also addressed in this volume. Contributors explore these two themes in a variety of specific contexts, including engineering epistemology, engineers’ social responsibilities, engineering and public policy-making, engineering innovation, and the affective dimensions of engineering work. The book also includes analyses of social and ethical issues with emerging technologies such as 3-D printing and its use in medical applications, as well as social robots. Initial versions of the invited papers included in this book were first presented at the 2014 meeting of the Forum on Philosophy, Engineering, and Technology (fPET), held at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. The volume furthers fPET’s intent of extending and developing the philosophy of engineering as an academic field, and encouraging conversation, promoting a sense of shared enterprise, and building community among philosophers and engineers across a diversity of cultural backgrounds and approaches to inquiry.","ISBN":"978-3-319-45193-0","note":"Google-Books-ID: FSWcDQAAQBAJ","title-short":"Philosophy and Engineering","language":"en","author":[{"family":"Michelfelder","given":"Diane P."},{"family":"Newberry","given":"Byron"},{"family":"Zhu","given":"Qin"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2016",11,26]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} 2. He supported the idea with the concept of ‘well-ordered science’ which includes members from all the portions of society to decide how science and research would benefit.

I agree with Kitcher’s idea that a complete truth can not be found through science and also we can not trust a section of the society to decide all the scientific implications and their effects n a society. In the United States, we shall strive to develop that mentality and masses must be allowed to interact and communicate with researchers and scientists to secure shared concerns and determine future aspects of science in a democratic way.

Reference List/Endnotes

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Kitcher P. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books; 2011.

2. Michelfelder DP, Newberry B, Zhu Q. Philosophy and Engineering: Exploring Boundaries, Expanding Connections. Springer; 2016.

Essay

Genetic Modification of Human Embryos

Student’s Name:

University Affiliations:

Professor’s Name:

Course Title:

Genetic Modification of Human Embryos

Ethical discussions related to genetic modification mostly center in the human germline since the edition of one’s germline means that is passed down to other generations. Genetic modification has been viewed as controversial and also necessary by some individuals. Vast arguments have risen over time where scientists are questioned on whether alteration of genes may affect other factors within the human system. In this argumentative essay, various points of view will be highlighted to discuss whether genetic modification of human embryos is morally permissible.

Modifying of genes can be inherently dangerous since it is hard to predict scientifically how the genome modification may affect the individual (Savulescu et al 2017). It is eminent that more research ought to be carried out before human embryos gene editing is approved universally. Denial of the ethics behind genetic modification can cost human lives. Bioethicists and some researchers have much concern about the guiding principles behind genome editing. A prediction is made that the practice may begin on a slippery slope since it is something new in science. There are arguments that the process should be selective to cure genetic ailments or for other healing purpose; the genetic modifiers should follow a moral imperative. Another ethical concern has been raised on whether genetic modification will be regulated by other countries who do not have experts of genome editing (Levy, 2015). There are different medical regulations used in other parts of the world and this may affect the means through which genetic modification is used. Some people worry whether it is probable to get an informed consent for genetic modification since the patients affected by the modifications are future generations or embryos (Savulescu et al 2017). However, a counterargument arises that parents have jurisdiction to make decisions that affect their children’s future. As it is with other modified technologies, there are concerns whether genetic modification will only be accessible to the privileged. This concern increases the disparities that are found in the healthcare sector and in other medical interventions. Genetic modification may create social classes that are defined by engineered genome editing.

Most people have their own religious and moral stands when it comes to genetic modification in embryos. There are different ethical considerations when it comes to the topic of genome editing. Guardians and scientists should be keen while making decisions related to genetic modification. These decisions should be logically and ethically thought about to ensure that the future of their children is not affected negatively.

References

Gyngell, C., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2017). The ethics of germline gene editing. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(4), 498-513.

Levy, N. (2015). Less blame, less crime? The practical implications of moral responsibility skepticism. Journal of Practical Ethics, 3(2).

Essay

Essay

Science and religion have conflicted since time immemorial. This is seen in conflicts such as the original theory where religion has its claim in the Adam and Eve theory and on the other hand science has the Evolution theory. These are just but an example of a long list of conflicts. However, many philosophers have come up with independent explanations for and against this conflict. At the same time, some philosophers believe that there exists a correlation between science and religion and that the two can cohabitate.

Alvin Platinga Argues that evolution theory is not religiously neutral. This means that there's an existing compatibility between the two. He explains that there's no real conflict between science and religion, rather it is just a mere superficial conflict and that the conflict is directed to the two groups rather than their theories. I think religion and science are two independent domains with different standards of explanations for each existing theory. For instance, when science explains that the origin of the universe was through the evolution theory, on the contrary religion gives a different explanation for the same. This is contrary to Platinga argument that these two can coexist and that the conflict is directed to an individual domain rather than their theories.

When the evolutionary biologist Dobzhansky said nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of science, he meant that evolution was the only answer to all scientific explanations. In my opinion, not every scientific action revolves around evolution. Thais don't disregard all those forces of nature whose explanation goes back to this theory but not everything. For instance, in the case of one willed to live, even if all the biological factors are for your survival, but you're not willing to live and make the decisions in your mind, no amount of nature can stop you. But again Dobzhansky was speaking concerning science and not given theology. Therefore, my theological views are not influenced by this statement as the two are in different scopes of explanations and views.

In my opinion, science does not discredit religion in any way. These are two different domains with independent theories and explanations each trying to explain their stand at their level of understanding. Science, on the one hand, has its theories based on observations and research. Religion, on the other hand, tries to explain things not directly observable and what science gives light but is unable to solve.

Works Cited: Alvin Platinga(Evolution and Religion)

Essay

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Essay

Introduction

The connection of virtue with political justice in the book ‘The Republic' by Plato, is a primary concept regarding individuals and society. He explored the idea of proper justice with reference to social and political justice. His philosophy related to politics is the greatest theoretical evidence for political life and is the core argument for Plato's theory. The Republic is the well-known and greatest work which is based on the question of political justice. He emphasized the best administrative practices in his book, the scope of political science and knowledge and the correct ways of evaluating the democratic and oligarchic form of governments. This book includes the relationship of political life with the philosophy as the virtue of justice, and further, the individual's virtue is related to political morality.

Thus, this study will explore the approaches through which Plato connected the virtue of justice to politics in the ideal state in his dialogue the Republic.

Discussion

. The Republic is the well-known and most significant work which is based on the question of political justice. He emphasized the best governmental practices in his book, the scope of political science and knowledge and the correct ways of evaluating the democratic and oligarchic form of governments. In his philosophical theories, Plato gave an important abode to the notion of justice. A Greek word "Dikaisyne" is used by Plato for justice, and it is related very closely with the words of 'righteousness' or 'morality,' thus it is included within the proper obligation to man. It is also in connection with the attitude of people regarding each other. Plato argued that the virtue of the soul is interrelated with the quality of justice, for setting aside the virtue of each individual the absurd yearning for tasting every desire and to acquire an egoistic gratification from every entity indulged them to the liberation of a distinct purpose for the common benefit (Pasquali, p.143).

Plato got extremely disappointed by the prevailing deteriorated circumstances of Athens. The democracy in Athens was over the edge of ruin and eventually accountable for the death of Secrets. To save Athens from devastation and decline, justice was the only remedy seen by Plato, as nothing disturbed him more than incompetence, ineffectiveness and political egoism in the affairs of the country, and it was widespread in his day Athens also particularly in exclusively and generally whole Greek realm (Allan, and Kirsch, np). Additionally, the obscure philosophy related to ethics of self-righteousness caused individualism to its extreme and also convinced the citizens of Athens for capturing the State and Federal officials in their own selfish interests, and this subsequently separated Athens into two distinct groups of hostile rich and poor people, which were either oppressed or oppressors. Apparently, the primary target of the argument raised by Plato was these two factors of excessive individualism and intrusion in others affair. This outbreak came into existence for constructing a supreme society in which the rule of justice is considered as supreme, ever since injustice only Plato found the solution for curing the societal evils.

Plato proved in his work of the Republic that justice is not dependent upon a coincidental convention and chance or onto the outward or the superficial forces. It is the natural instinct of humanity and is embedded in the soul due to the actual nature of humanity and can be seen in the natural environment. Rendering to the approach by Plato, he said that it is the inner character of man as it exists in the soul of the human being. Thus justice is considered a natural entity and is not related to the artificial or induced thing. Therefore, it is not born out of fear of the fragility and vulnerability, but it is due to the longing of the passion of humans for doing a duty agreeing to their nature. Consequently, justice is a type of specialty, as it is merely a determination for fulfilling one's duties towards self and society and not to interfere in the duties of others, and their livelihood. So it is taught through these teachings that every individual is determined to do his own task rightfully and without mingling with other people's duties (Velasquez, p.54). It is formed as the principle of the State’s bases that a person should only practice things that best conform to his nature. Thus, Plato considered the truth of justice as the belief of non-interference.

Conclusions

Consequently, the political concept is considered by Plato as the betterment and justice for the whole society, not just an individual or small group, where every component achieves its applicable functioning. Justice in a perfect country would be like the harmony of relationship in the overall world across all the states and countries. He was very much persuaded with the idea that a society fit for the survival is very organized and fair in its working. Justice is the sense of duties for the citizens of a country. For Plato, it is seen as part of human quality and pledge, which keeps society in unity and perfect bond. It is the virtue of justice which makes a society free of evil and socially moral. He further argued that the justice is the sole component of a society’s strength and power and is very much influential for the well-being of a society. Thus, justice is a virtue to politics in an ideal state.

Works Cited

Bloom, Allan, and Adam Kirsch. The Republic of Plato. Basic Books, 2016.

Pasquali, Francesca. Virtuous imbalance: Political philosophy between desirability and feasibility. Routledge, 2016.

Velasquez, Manuel. Philosophy: A text with readings. Cengage Learning, 2016.

Essay

Title page

Essay

The relationship between science and religion is conflicting because it gives origin to creationism vs. evolution. Religion and science intersect in different domains of life. Religion advocates the belief that God creates everything while science is focused on finding the logic behind everything. Technology and science are based on the concepts of wisdom which means that the human beings rely on their intelligence for inventing things. The conflict is apparent because science has started to follow non-Christian traditions. There are some prominent differences between two such as in religion the truth is revealed by Jesus. There is no need for searching truth while scientific faith is different. In science the scientists are focused on determining the truth behind the creation of this universe and the world CITATION Sta174 \l 1033 (Stanford, 2017). Science is about discovering new things and finding unknown facts. While in religion the believers accept the truth that is revealed in the Bible.

Science is not limited to the previous findings and the claims made in bible. This states that scientists often take a controversial role by finding things that are explained in religion from a different perspective. Science stresses more on reasoning while Christians limit their reasoning when it comes to the facts mentioned in bible. They accept the saying and teachings of Jesus without any logical reasoning. Science is purely based on experiments and observations CITATION Sta174 \l 1033 (Stanford, 2017). This indicates that in science the central idea is to identify the logic behind events. Scientists use personal experience while Christians rely on the events mentioned in the bible and experiences of Jesus. Scientist can deny the things mentioned in history if they are not proved by experiments. This reflects that the central different between science and religion is a distinct approach for assessing reality.

Reference

BIBLIOGRAPHY Stanford. (2017). Religion and Science . Retrieved 12 04, 2019, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

Essay

Psychology Question and Answer

Student’s name

Institution

Date

Q4: There are five different types of perspectives, which psychologists use to illustrate human behavior. These perspectives are biological approach, Psychodynamic Approach, Behavioral Approach, Cognitive Approach and Humanistic Approach. These perspectives are helpful in understanding the functionality of human brain and the social culture. Biological approach is applied by psychologist to understand thoughts, feelings and behavior of a person from a biological and physical point of view. It is believed to be as a consequence of physiology and genetic. According to Myers and Dewall (2015), the behavior of person can be inherited from parents and therefore, family background plays critical role in how an individual behavior. The Biological psychologists analyses the connection between brain, nerves and mental health of people.

The second perspective is behavioral approach, which is believed that external environment has a big impact on the behavior of people. It is believed that external environment is a great stimulus to the behavior and therefore, we learn most of the things from our surroundings. Another perspective is cognitive approach, which is frequent used by psychologists to analyze the way people act and behavior towards a certain change CITATION Mye15 \l 1033 (Myers & DeWall, 2015). It illustrates that the behavior of an individual is influenced by emotions and expectation and therefore, for psychologist to understand ones behavior he or she has to understand the emotional behavior of an individual.

The third perspective is known as humanistic approach, which is used by psychologists to analyze full potential of a person. Humanistic approach believes that a people are motivated so that they can realize their full potential. It is applied by psychologist to make patients feel good hence addressing a problem. The goal of humanistic approach is to make sure that a person can made to feel good or fulfill their needs and goals and therefore, the goal of humanistic approach is to offer a supportive environment for clients or patients.

Q5: The three important figures in the history of psychology are Sigmund Freud, Ivan Pavlov and Jean Piaget. These are some of the individuals who discovered some of the psychological theories or theories which are used in psychology. Sigmund Freud is highly recognized for his development of theory which is used to treat mental illness. He discovered and promoted psychodynamic Approach, which believes that several of our impulses are driven by sex CITATION Mye15 \l 1033 (Myers & DeWall, 2015). He also developed arguments or theories used to understand children. The Sigmund theories are still being used even together to address mental problem and to support child development. Another important figure is Jean Piaget. Jean Piaget developed and promoted the theory of cognitive development or cognitive approach, which is used to understand development of children or children’s intellectual growth.

The cognitive development is still being used even today to address the problem related to child development and therefore, the contribution of Jean Piaget in the development of various psychological theories are recognized since most of them are still being up to date. Jean Piaget theory suggests that children develop through four stages which include sensor motor, preoperational, concrete operational stage and the Formal operational stage. These stages are still applied by several psychologists to study and understand the behavior of children CITATION Mye15 \l 1033 (Myers & DeWall, 2015).

Ivan Pavlov is also one of the importance figures in the field of psychology. He contributed to the development of concept in psychology. The concept of being fed was discovered by Ivan Pavlov. He used a dog to illustrate how animals react to a new thing or towards a change. He therefore, participated in the development of curiosity with an unusually energy, which is regarded as instinct.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY Myers, D. G., & DeWall, N. (2015). Exploring Psychology, tenth edition . New York: Pearson.

Essay

98 bjbjmm .    42TTTTTTTTmoooooo8h-TTTTTTTV

V

V

TFTTmV

TmV

V

THC vm0

F J eTTV

TTTTTV

TTTTTTT The Untrue Aspect of Moral Nihilism

Student s name

University

Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.

Fulton J. Sheen

Moral nihilism that is also known as ethical nihilism is a dimension of meta-ethics that asserts the absence of morality. According to the underlying posit of moral nihilism, moral truths are fabricated, and they do not exist in real-life perspective, and therefore, no certain actions can be classified as right or wrong. Moral nihilism implies the extreme faade of moral skepticism and addresses cognitive and non-cognitive approaches. However, a myriad of philosophical propositions dejects the notion of moral nihilism altogether. The renowned philosophies of Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, and the philosophy of innate morals are convincing and viable reasons to affirm the falseness of moral nihilism.

In 1651, published Leviathan, written by Thomas Hobbes, presented arguments against the moral nihilism in a pretty persuasive manner. Hobbes delineated that in the absence of perceived moral framework, all the humanity will encapsulate by peril in a milieu of every individual in himself. In due course, Hobbes stressed that in order to rebuff the impacts of the law of the jungle it is indispensable to pursue a moral archetype. Prior to the devising of ethical social and legal models, people used to live in a hostile world that compelled them to obey a normal state of humanity, in which the rule of war and anarchy was superior to any morality. In order to tackle the unfathomable chaos, people developed laws and systems that underline the significance of mutual social conditions and the notion of common good through which all humans in the community are supposed to sacrifice egocentric inclinations to share the benevolence with all others.

Similarly, in 4th century Aristotles publication named Politics explicates that man is by nature a social animal, and in this regard, it is evident that an individual has to live with others till his demise. Therefore, being a social animal, all humans have to exert their endeavors to recognize the basic requirements of others to support the existence of society. Most of the behaviors that sustain and retain the societal benefits on the reciprocated level are implicitly or explicitly interconnected to morality in contrast, the nonexistence of moral aesthetics is hazardous for society. Again here comes the archetype of the common good that binds political, social, economic, and ethical benefits of the civilization and is an integral element of morality.

In this context, the philosophical ideologies of religions, including Buddhism, believe that human beings come into this world with some attributes at birth, and morality is one of them. Therefore, some people do not get affected by their surroundings, external attitudes, or behaviors of their parents because they are born with innate moral tendencies. However, several refutations are proposed to argue with inherited morals because it is studied that morality is something an individual develops over the life span and is not subject to be permeated from birth.

To put it briefly, the overall conception of moral nihilism is absurd both from a societal and philosophical prospect. The difference between good and bad is eternal, and the foundation of the universe is established on the same impression remember the idea of Yin and Yang. The universe is created in balance and relays the infusion of different opposite forces in its making and existence. Take the instance of black and white no one can rebuff the existence of these colors even if they are not apparent because they made the existence of other colors possible. The same formula implements on right and wrong, bad and good these forces always exist, co-exist, or surpass each other during the mundane rut of life. And phenomenally, such evident dimensions cannot be overlooked through any moral nihilism philosophy.

Reference

Aristotle. Politics. Oxford Clarendon Press 1999.

Hobbes T.Leviathan. S.l. Ancient Wisdom Publicatio 2019

Machan T. Individual Rights, the Common Good and the Environment. Int J Soc Econ.  199320(9)54-65. doi10.1108/03068299310044371

HJ qPQRkZE)hJIhJIBfHphq h BfHphq h8PNBfHphq ,h8PNh8PN6BfHphq h8PNh8PNBfHphq hfh8PN6h8PNh8PNh hye5hyehhW0h,hhghh5hh6hhh hgh5hg5HJh VXdagddagd dhagd dhagd dhagd5agdQR dhagdJI dhagdQmagd dagd dagdyedagdBJ)hQmhJIBfHphq U)hJIhJIBfHphq hJIBfHphq Moral Nihilism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy.  https//www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_nihilism.html. Published 2019.  Accessed November 8, 2019.

,1h/ @@@NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@DDefault Paragraph FontRi@RTable Normal4 l4a(k@(No ListB@BgNormal (Web)ddW@gStrong54U@4g Hyperlink phxOxAui_qtext_para u-ltr u-text-align--startdd-,4VX QR00000000000000000000000000000000000@004VX QR0

px0000x0 R000004y00 @0 @0 0@

-@JRX (Rds333333334 )Oza(1CJOJQJo(CJOJQJo(opppCJOJQJo(@@@CJOJQJo(CJOJQJo(CJOJQJo(CJOJQJo(CJOJQJo(PPPCJOJQJo(OzaG/E2G4gUmJ 3,coqB,5

9zHApEJI@LN8PNU.W_g7dyeflQmpstGwyHf9iyZnr4W0Bg7 mCAB@ Tp (@H@UnknownGx Times New Roman5Symbol3x Arial5 Cx Courier NewWingdings1hBCA@@42HP 2The Untrue Aspect of Moral NihilismUzmaUzmaOh0 DP

hpxThe Untrue Aspect of Moral NihilismUzmaNormalUzma65Microsoft Office Word@9@@ .,0hp

HOANG KHIEN@The Untrue Aspect of Moral NihilismTitle 

),-./1234567Root Entry F Data 1Table0WordDocument.SummaryInformation((DocumentSummaryInformation80CompObjq FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q

Essay 1

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Title: Moral Codes and Rules

The moral codes and rules are the basic things that allow us to make a decision based on what we think is right or wrong. Indeed, being merciful and being just are two codes that could sometimes be conflicting in nature but it can be easily justified which of these should be used. Coming to the situation of a thief stealing food from my house and being arrested. There was no harm being done by the thief. The thief wanted to fill his belly which is the right of every individual that is living on this earth. I would never be the one that would deny that right to anyone. In such a case I would be judging on the moral code of mercy.

There is no harm in the actions of a thief because he was doing it on the basis of survival. The situation has not violated the right of another person. In such a case where the decision may affect the other person, the need for being just is essential. If there was a situation in which I had to decide if one person gets priority over another, then I would definitely follow the principle of being just instead of mercy. But since this is an individual case and a matter of basic right of life and necessities, so I would let the matter go and set the thief free. Even though there might be a conflict among the two codes; of being merciful and being just but it is always the right of the victim to decide the outcome. It is my own judgment that this case should not lead to any punishment. Instead, just a small warning would suffice for the thief.

The main theories that I would use in order to resolve the conflict are “Utilitarianism” and “the virtue theory”. Both the theories clearly identify the best thing to do in such cases. The utilitarianism theory informs that the main object of morality is that the amount of happiness is maximized a result of our actions. The virtue theory states that the best thing to do in a situation is that of what a virtuous person would do. Both of these theories point to my decision regarding the matter. Based on the first theory, it is my happiness that I should forgive the thief in light of his petty crime. Secondly, I believe that if left to anyone in the world, the decision regarding such a case would be the same. So any virtuous person would give the decision in favor of the thief. It is not to say that any crime would be left unpunished. It is just decided on the basis of the merit of the case which in this case goes towards the favor of being merciful.

ESSAY 1

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

English

[Date]

Essay

Introduction

Philosophy has played a significant role in the determination of various aspects of life. It was considered as the fundamental unit of the all subjects that were going to be taught in the future because it laid there foundation. There were many philosophers that came in this world and gave their amazing hypothesis out of which few are still accepted but few of them got eradicated from time to time with the proceedings of the life and with the development of various other theories and their application process. But then there were few philosophers in the world who came and they were so determined about their work that they gave so accurate and on point readings and teachings that they are still being applicable after their death. Many centuries have gone but its applicability is still being managed in all the fields of life.

There was a time when the subject of philosophy gave the cream of philosophers who were recognized globally due to their work and their efforts and hard work that they used to pour in to give the best results to the people who have that immense faith on them they will not let them down in any way. Greatest philosophers were produced in the era of Alexander the great and at that time the people learned more about the world and logics of creating world and the elements of world and the realities of the world which were not exposed in front of the people. From time to time people started learning a new concept about life which opened their thinking process and helped them in determining various aspects of life. Those aspects are still being applicable and teachers all across the globe consider them as one of the amazing findings of that time which have helped them in enhancing their knowledge.

Discussion

There were many philosophers at that time who have come and conquered the world with their ultimate work. Many of them still have a significant place in the field of philosophy. In my opinion there were three great philosophers of the world who came and conquered the field of the philosophy with their unique and amazing concepts which are still applicable. The teacher student duo, Socrates and Aristotle are one of them whose teachings were so on point that today they are considered as the fathers of philosophy and then it was Karl Marx who is considered as the father of modern philosophy.

The teachings of Socrates were the basics of philosophy. The dilemma that occurred with the teachings of Socrates that occurred at that era of time was, there were lesser ways introduced to save and keep the record of all the teachings and many of the philosophers have suffered a lot that their golden teachings and their major contribution towards their subject finished with the end of their life. Socrates was a kind of philosopher that never believed in saving the teachings and he believed that they should be continued as there might be a chance that the teachings might get negated in the future era. Before his death he gave some golden rules of life that are still being applied and they are the core element of living a contented and happy life. His first golden rule was to pay all the debts before you are dead as it is your responsibility and after your death nobody will take this duty. The second thing he said was pay it and do not neglect it and the last and yet the most essential teaching that he gave to mankind was that never forget whatever happened in your life(Douglas, Intro to Philosophy).

His student also followed his footsteps and gained the faith of people at that time in the and gave some amazing concepts about the reality and of the world which later on served as the fundamental units of life in various subjects like metaphysics and the basic units of physics. He gave the unique concepts of the basic 5 elements out of which earth was made. He believed that the earth was made up of water, air, fire, soil and aether (Aristotle, 2019). He proved the basic 4 elements but when it came towards the vital experiment of aether he confessed that it was made up of a heavenly material which is not located on the earth physically but its existence is there. The other mortality concept that was given by him as that all men are mortal and all men are the men of God which restored their faith towards the existence of God.

After these 2 eminent philosophers of the time, the third philosopher who came and conquered the world with its modern thoughts were Karl Marx who gave the western approach towards the life and gave the new concepts to the people about capitalism, socialism, class differences and racial differences(Arendt, 2002). These teaching broaden up the conceptual reality of the people who used to exist at that time and gave them a new hope to look in to the matter and gave a new dimension to their life and provided them a chance to increase their living standards as per the requirement of the time.

Conclusion

With this we can conclude that that al the philosophers of the various eras gave the unique concepts about life earth and people that have helped them a lot in all the aspects of life. Not only that but it has broaden up their thinking and living process.

Work Cited

"Aristotle." En.wikipedia.org. N. p., 2019. Web. 3 Feb. 2019.

Douglas j. Soccio, Phil 1301 (introduction to philosophy).

Arendt, Hannah. "Karl Marx and the tradition of western political thought." Social Research: An International Quarterly 69.2 (2002): 273-319.

Essay 1a

Name

Instructor’s Name

Course Title and Code

Date

Why Abortion is Immoral - Don Marquis

In this essay, I will summarize an article which is entitled “Why Abortion is Immoral.” The article is written by Don Marquis and was published in the year 1989. The abortion debate is one of the most conflicting debates on society. There is a fair number of philosophers and critics who believe that abortion is morally wrong and there is an equally fair number of people who think that there is nothing wrong in abortion. Some of the philosophers consider the issue from the perspective of a fetus, while some other view it from the perspective of the mother to be while claiming that she should have the right to take whatever decision she wants. Marquis has the supported the debate of the immorality of abortion in his article, on the grounds that a fetus has a valued future like the adult human beings and killing the fetus means depriving it of that future, which is morally wrong.

One of the most important points of the anti-abortionist group, as explained by Marquis is that fetus is like a human being and killing a human being accounts as murder and is morally and ethically wrong. On the other hand, the supporters of abortion are of the view that the fetus does not hold the position or title of the human being. The fetus is not conscious, as well as does not have the ability to feel the pain, which can make the process of killing hurting and painful for it, as it is in the case of human beings (Marquis, 190).

The killing of the fetus is morally and ethically wrong on the grounds that it has potential and valued future like the human beings and killing the fetus would deprive it of that future. So, depriving the fetus of the potential, valued future is morally wrong, which implies that the practice of abortion is morally wrong. On the other hand, the supporters of the abortion debate claim that the fetus is only the collection of few living cells and it would not be right to say that it is equal to adult human beings. Presenting the claims that killing human cells which have the future is baseless because of the fact that the culture of cancer cells also have a future, however, it cannot be permitted to continue its existence (Marquis, 195).

There is another side of the claim that fetus has valued future like the adult human beings and it should not be deprived of that. In other words, killing the fetus or the human beings who do not have valued future ahead of them is not morally wrong. There is a number of human beings who are mentally ill and have lost their consciousness; therefore they do not have the valued future ahead of them. Moreover, there are a number of patients in hospital care, who have lost the hope of living, because of the worse condition of their physical organs. They also do not have the valued future ahead of them; however, it cannot be said that killing them does not have any moral pitfall (Marquis, 198).

The debate of abortion is conflicting because of the fact that one side regards the fetus as a potential human being, while the other sides regard it as the collection of a few human cells. On side thinks that killing human life is wrong, while the other thinks that there is nothing wrong in killing the arbitrary humane cells. The debate on abortion is solely dependent on the ethics of life and the status of a fetus. The fetus has the potential of developing into the adult human being, which cannot be denied, so it holds the status of a human being; therefore, it is morally and ethically wrong to kill the fetus.

Taking Life

The Embryo and Fetus - Peter Singer

In this essay, I will summarize the article “Taking Life, The Embryo and Fetus” by “Peter Singer.” The author has argued about the status of embryo or fetus. The anti-abortionists are of the view that the fetus is a child and a potential human being; therefore it has the right to live and should not be killed. On the other hand, the proponents of abortion are of the view that fetus cannot be considered a potential human being because it is still in the early process of fertilization and cannot be declared more than a fertilized egg. The fertilized egg is not self-conscious, like human beings and does not has the ability of feeling pain, which is another reason; it cannot be considered a human being. The author has described the conservative and liberal point of view regarding the status of the fetus, fetus as a sentient being, potential life and the issue of infanticide in his debate. The debate of abortion may depend upon the status of the fetus, being a potential human being or not, which highlights the final stance of it being moral or immoral.

The conservatives have the stance in the abortion debate that there is no significant line dividing the fetus and child. Human development is a gradual process, and the fetus is a human being. The fetus can only be declared as a fertilized egg at the clear point of division where it is not a potential child. The conservatives are of the view that the fetus should be protected as a child, or if you want it to declare as just the collection of human cells, then a child should be not given the high regard of a human being as well. The liberals are of the view that the embryo or fetus is not self-conscious like human beings. Moreover, it cannot feel the pain; therefore, there is no harm in killing it as it cannot be declared a potential human being (Singer, 160).

Sharing the stance about the fetus is sentient, the author has argued that fetus is a conscious being, though not self-conscious. He has argued that there is no way to find out if the fetus can feel the pain or not. However, we can base the argument on the development of mind and nervous system of the fetus. The mind of the fetus starts developing in the eighth week of conception and is fully developed till the eighteenth week. The fetus is conscious at that time and has the ability to know its boundaries and staying secure in them. Therefore, it is morally wrong to kill the fetus, as it is not just the collection of human cells (Singer, 165).

Sharing the stance about a fetus being a potential human life, the author has argued that the fetus has the consciousness, as well as well-developed brain and nervous system, which shows that it is a potential human being. These two points are enough to claim that the fetus is the potential human being, has the moral right of living and it is immoral to kill it. Moreover, in the case of infanticide, there is nothing wrong in the usage of contraception and controlling the birth (Singer, 170).

Fetus holds the status of potential human being, and it cannot be denied because there is no fine division between the status of the fetus and a developed child. In other cases like the killing of the fetus due to abnormal development or due to risk to the life of to-be-mother, or even in the case of aborting the baby, when it is conceived through rape, these are ethically different issues and even allowed to some extent. On the other hand, getting rid of a normally developing fetus is ethically and morally wrong, because it takes the right of living from a potential human being.

Works Cited

Marquis, Don. "Why abortion is immoral." The Journal of Philosophy 86.4 (1989): 183-202.

Singer, Peter. "Taking life: The embryo and the fetus." Practical Ethics (1993): 135-174.

Essay 2

Shawn

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Essay 2

Carl Cohen is a prominent professor of Philosophy and has published numerous essays based on moral and political philosophy. In his publication ‘Do animals have rights?’, he has argued that animals do not have rights ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"69JUySQ6","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Cohen)","plainCitation":"(Cohen)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":"zNstvigz/QgbpOFwd","uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/3WMHWLKB"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/3WMHWLKB"],"itemData":{"id":793,"type":"article-journal","abstract":"A right, unlike an interest, is a valid claim, or potential claim, made by a moral agent, under principles that govern both the claimant and the target of the claim. Animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in and has force within a human moral world.","container-title":"Ethics & Behavior","DOI":"10.1207/s15327019eb0702_1","ISSN":"1050-8422","issue":"2","note":"PMID: 11655133","page":"91-102","source":"Taylor and Francis+NEJM","title":"Do Animals Have Rights?","volume":"7","author":[{"family":"Cohen","given":"Carl"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1997",6,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Cohen). He claims this on the basis that Rights are given to those who can present moral claims against the other. He declines the argument which suggests that the practice of experimentation on the animal must be abolished. Moreover, he has is of the view that testing and experimentation must continue for the sake of advancement in technology. This must be done so that humans can find better and secure ways to save human life.

Cohen is of the view that animals do not possess the moral capacity and that is it is unique to humans only ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"z3fx7lV8","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Cohen)","plainCitation":"(Cohen)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":"zNstvigz/QgbpOFwd","uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/3WMHWLKB"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/3WMHWLKB"],"itemData":{"id":793,"type":"article-journal","abstract":"A right, unlike an interest, is a valid claim, or potential claim, made by a moral agent, under principles that govern both the claimant and the target of the claim. Animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in and has force within a human moral world.","container-title":"Ethics & Behavior","DOI":"10.1207/s15327019eb0702_1","ISSN":"1050-8422","issue":"2","note":"PMID: 11655133","page":"91-102","source":"Taylor and Francis+NEJM","title":"Do Animals Have Rights?","volume":"7","author":[{"family":"Cohen","given":"Carl"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1997",6,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Cohen). The moral capacity is the ability and freedom to form, analyze and judge the morals and values. The humans are civilized and can evaluate the behaviors, on the other hand, animals are unable to base their acts according to moral capacity. Animals cannot judge their actions and punish or form laws. Laws and regulations are made by humans only and only they can understand the necessity to follow it. It may be true that animals do not have a conscious like humans but they do follow nature’s law. For example, a lion does not harm or kill any animal unless it feels hungry or needs to protect itself. It is seen that animals like cats nurse the other species like puppies out of affection. Moreover, a mental challenge person does not act morally as any other healthy human do, yet the mentally challenged person is not excluded from the community. That person is also not considered equal as animals just because it lacks the quality which differentiates humans and animals.

According to Cohen, the human should continue to experiment on animals since it will reduce the number of fatalities and improve life quality ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"aaO96qEq","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Cohen)","plainCitation":"(Cohen)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":"zNstvigz/QgbpOFwd","uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/3WMHWLKB"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/3WMHWLKB"],"itemData":{"id":793,"type":"article-journal","abstract":"A right, unlike an interest, is a valid claim, or potential claim, made by a moral agent, under principles that govern both the claimant and the target of the claim. Animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in and has force within a human moral world.","container-title":"Ethics & Behavior","DOI":"10.1207/s15327019eb0702_1","ISSN":"1050-8422","issue":"2","note":"PMID: 11655133","page":"91-102","source":"Taylor and Francis+NEJM","title":"Do Animals Have Rights?","volume":"7","author":[{"family":"Cohen","given":"Carl"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1997",6,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Cohen). This shows that humans are superior species and their rights can suppress the rights of other species. However, it is very important to understand that animals play a significant role in sustaining the environment. They are part of the ecosystem, and their absence or decrease in number will hugely affect human life. They play their part in the maintenance of the natural environment of Earth. They predate upon plants and other animals due to which the population of other species is controlled. They pollinate several plants that enhance the vegetation. Without them, the balance of the ecosystem will be endangered.

It is also stated that humans have moral obligation therefore they have rights, but the animals have neither. As human is the most advanced species of the Earth, it has to duties to perform and obligations to fulfill. Humans have to work, fulfill other human rights and accomplish meaningful tasks, whereas, the animals do not perform these tasks. Indeed, animals do not live an intricate life but if one looks at a mother sparrow, looking for food so that she can feed her children, one would understand that animals do feel responsible for their duties just like humans. In addition to this, it is noteworthy that the laws are developed by humans yet the animals follow nature’s law. They reproduce, protect and feed children and build houses, and clean themselves, etc.

Cohen argues that animals do not possess rights because they cannot claim or defend them. He says so on the basis of his definition of rights that a right is a claim or probable claim one can make against another. So, he believes is that rights belong to only those who can claim an defend their rights and, in this way, only humans deserve to have the rights. However, it is evident that animals also show reflexes and respond to a human’s action. Animals do not claim their rights but do understand that they should not be bothered without a reason. They do not have a well-developed brain as of humans but they can sense and respond to the environment just like humans. Cohen suggests that animals do not have rights as they are not self-governing or morally autonomous like humans.

Thus, Cohen interprets that if the animals do not have the rights, a human cannot possibly violate which does not exist. As they cannot resist the actions of humans or defend themselves, it shows that they do not claim right. Without them being able to claim right, there is not significance concerning their rights. Nevertheless, every living being possesses the right to live and live in a secure environment. A dog, for example, suffering from pain should not be considered less than any human suffering from pain. Animal brains may not be as advanced but they feel pain and show emotions.

The requirement of animal testing is understood that humans cannot be directly given a treatment but testing is needed first. However, it is observed that animal testing is not even successful to be worth the suffering of an animal. In the case of many diseases, the experimentation on animals is of no use because the animals do not suffer from those diseases. Hence, it can be concluded that even if the experimentation is unavoidable, the conditions and consequences must be critically analyzed before. Any action which will put the animals in extreme danger or pain must be avoided. With advanced technology, new methods should be developed for scientific testing to minimize the practice of animal experimentation.

Works Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Cohen, Carl. “Do Animals Have Rights?” Ethics & Behavior, vol. 7, no. 2, June 1997, pp. 91–102. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1207/s15327019eb0702_1.