Mid-Term Exam

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Philosophy

Question 1: Part D

William James distinguishes between dogmatic and philosophic education. Define both kinds of education and give an example of each one. Which one about G.W. Foote argue against? In answering this question, explain G.W Foote’s arguments for questioning our beliefs.

Answer: William James quotes about dogmatic education as when one thinks about the ideas. He rejects the claims of others whether based upon the scientific connotations or the observable facts. In such an education, the ideas are sorted after being assertive. Such a search leads towards the new findings and disconnects the links between the human mindfulness and its relation with the expectations. William James writes about the philosophic education as the search about the belief on the basis of What, Who, How, etc. these What, Who and How’s are present in the facts about certain things which one study throughout his life. His mind predicts about the certainty of anything first at the basis of its knowledge present in his mind, and then on the basis of what he has seen additional to its existing knowledge. In such cases most often its observation is also based on the existing knowledge.

In order to more precisely guess about William James definitions of dogmatic and philosophic education, one needs to consider the following facts. For example, by the lenses of dogmatism, one needs to portray things as they have ever or in the present exists. Like one’s portrayal of the facts about any religious beliefs just on the basis of his facial expressions or the basis of how staunchly he or she is talking about any phenomena in order to convince others on his words. This is dogmatism. Whereas the philosophic education is when one urges others to his own point of views based on the existing knowledge in his or her mind. In such cases, the knowledge of scientific facts and literature guides the purpose, which is normally the part of the textbooks. According to the G. W Foote’s arguments presented in “It doesn’t pay to be religious”, it appears that he is against the dogmatism about the knowledge, which he thinks leads towards skepticism. G.W Foote argues that religious authorities appeals of their followers in an “ad Bellum” manner which is fraudulent ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"xcdiVkd2","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Foote)","plainCitation":"(Foote)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":83,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/NWL2W6BZ"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/NWL2W6BZ"],"itemData":{"id":83,"type":"article-journal","title":"What Was Christ? A Reply to John Stuart Mill","source":"Google Scholar","title-short":"What Was Christ?","author":[{"family":"Foote","given":"George William"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1887"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Foote). He is of the opinion that such beliefs are just fraudulent and nothing else.

Question 2: Part F

What are the parts of an argument and how does one critique an argument? What are two ways in which rationalism attacks the arguments of empiricism? Explain.

Answer: The arguments must always be taken as a part and as a continuation of any previous arguments. This division enables anyone to think about the argument more clearly. He divides the argument into sections and thinks about them more thoroughly and clearly. It also enables the one to think about it rationally and open up his mind about whether it is effective or ineffective. The argument analysis also follows a chronological approach, in which there is a relation of one aspect, with the previous aspect or with the aspect that is coming by. Following are three parts of an argument.

The Claim: it is the very first part of the argument, in which the speaker presents in front of the other person something new, which might not be in his mind before or he has not listened about it in the manner he is presenting. The claim is like an umbrella statement or a general statement, which still lacks interpretation.

The Reason: Reason is the part of an argument, where it has started the journey towards precision. It is now on part of the recipient to interpret it in the way he or she wants. This precision now does not require the consent of the one who has given the previous general statement or has made a claim. The reason is the part where it will be authenticated that why the particular aspect has been talked about.

The Evidence: This part involves Evidence. Normally the readers or the listeners believe in the speeches or the texts of others, but there are some which require some proofs. This proof might involve scientific reasoning or the evidence-based facts for the listeners.

The two ways in which rationalism attacks the arguments of empiricism are first the extent by which we are dependent on the experiences of ours just to have the knowledge of our surroundings and the second by our reach to the reality. These are two ways the dispute between the rationalism and empiricism is evident.

Question 3: Part H

What is Pragmatism? Give a definition and example of how it works? How do Ohiyesa critique William James’s Pragmatism? Explain.

Answer: In the philosophical connotations, the pragmatism is that movement where one claims that the ideology at hand is only true if it satisfies the situations. For example, at part of ideology, it is just not enough that it has the support of the individuals, but for this, it is also important that it goes through the situation calmly ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"jMAYqYnp","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(James)","plainCitation":"(James)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":85,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/24V2RLLN"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/24V2RLLN"],"itemData":{"id":85,"type":"book","title":"Some problems of philosophy","publisher":"Harvard University Press","volume":"7","source":"Google Scholar","author":[{"family":"James","given":"William"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1979"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (James). It sets as perfectly with the circumstances at hand. The philosophical connotations of pragmatism originated in the United States. Pragmatism is basically based on the presumption that ideology if it is true, will work accordingly and satisfactorily. It states that the meaning of the prepositions must be found in the practical connotations of accepting it. William Jones was the first person to use this term. He used this term when addressing the audience about Philosophical Conceptions. C. S Peirce and John Dewey have also worked on the pragmatism as a philosophy.

William James’s concept of Pragmatism is critiqued on in many ways. It is believed that William James doesn't have the concept of Meta-Physics, and to have the concept of pragmatism, an idea about the Metaphysics should have. Ohiyesa believes that pragmatism is opposed in each and any form by the Metaphysics. Many philosophers think that William James concept of Pragmatism is flawed for various reasons. For example, James had a narrow knowledge of Meta-Physics. His scholarly work revolved against the philosophy as a general form and he has always viewed pragmatism on the qualitative basis rather o the quantitative basis. He has also tried much time to include the scholarly findings of philosophy by not testing them on the quantitative scales of the Metaphysics, which is flawed. Although the pragmatism is some kind of support in a specific way to the Meta-Physics, their relation of idealism and pragmatism ought to involve convergence and not the contestation.

Question 4: Part L

Explaining the philosophy behind the story and the philosophical role of the characters?

Answer: The father has arrived in a situation when his children’s were not having a good time, rather, they were in conflict with each other. The father strictly took notice of the situation strictly and asked for them the reason for their conflict. Her daughter complained that his younger brother remains too disturbing towards her, whereas her brother complained that throughout their way towards home from school, she has remained strict with her and also had not shared the chocolate bar with him. The story if categorized on the philosophical understanding then it suggests that the cognitive philosophy of their father suggested him to offer them an exciting and a kind of rewarding activity. Which he does and offer them both that once they are done with their daily tasks he will take them out so they can have a good time together. His father is worried as he knows that these minimal continuance distortions are becoming a routine affair and that will to result good in any way for both of them. Finally, he takes them out.

What the philosophy in this story suggests us is that until anyone does not take hold of the situation by applying his or her cognitive philosophical attributes- it will keep on becoming a hurdle for him. He does so this practice with his children’s this time and him witnesses a kind of improvement in their attitudes. William James work on philosophy suggests that the cognitive abilities of any individual guide them properly about the situations that might result in the worse scenario in the future ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"CXv4CkcD","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(James)","plainCitation":"(James)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":85,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/24V2RLLN"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/s8f0QVnP/items/24V2RLLN"],"itemData":{"id":85,"type":"book","title":"Some problems of philosophy","publisher":"Harvard University Press","volume":"7","source":"Google Scholar","author":[{"family":"James","given":"William"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1979"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (James). To come up with these, he states that just analyzing the physical behavior when can make up his mind how to come up with the solutions to this problem. Such cognitive attributes then, makes one able to come up with the solutions of the difficult problems which arises in one’s individual or collective life.

Question 5: Part O

In the film Examined Life, we watched a segment about the philosophers and activists, Judith Butler and Sunaura Taylor. Butler and Taylor are presented as modern-day Pragmatist. Explain how they are Pragmatists and how they present pragmatism as an alternative to rationalism and empiricism.

Answer: The quoted line for Astor Taylor part in the examined life is “Philosophy is in the streets”. Once one has completely gone through this part of Taylor, he opines that according to Taylor, the philosophy is walking somewhere in the streets, in the attitudes and in the way of communication of the people. She believes that philosophy has many dimensions that are all visible. Once anyone is in the street. Their modern pragmatism is based on the notion that people have now seemed to put aside the philosophy and all its related definitions and are now in the pursuit of real happiness that comes after imagination about things. As the film is based on the primary views as to how the people behave with one another, how they look towards each other and what they perceive about each other, it suggests that, that everything is pragmatism unless when applies his or her cognitive philosophical abilities to judge the attitudes of others.

Pragmatism is totally different from rationalism and empiricism in many ways. Pragmatism involves one's thinking about things in a more qualitative manner and not in a more quantitative way. This suggests that being pragmatic is related to one’s own self, it has less to do with the cost-benefit analysis and more with their views about the external situation. Whereas the empiricism and the rationalism involve some heft understandings of the things based on reasoning. They are all quantitatively judged and has many things related to the cost-benefit analysis. In such situations, one goes towards believing in the internal instincts that are supposed to be true in such cases. Since pragmatism, empiricism and rationalism are all branches of philosophy but all these three has a totally different understanding of the things in hand. Thus this debate suggests that, due to the Philosophy’s internet connection with the metaphysics, it includes some cost-benefit analysis also, which are apparent in the cases of empiricism and rationalism.

Works Cited:

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Foote, George William. What Was Christ? A Reply to John Stuart Mill. 1887.

James, William. Some Problems of Philosophy. Vol. 7, Harvard University Press, 1979.

Midterm Essay

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Subject]

[Date]

Midterm Essay

While considering the staunch perspective of philosophy and considering the core values of the philosophy, we can understand various stigmas and their approach towards the rules of the life. There are many cases that occurs in the life where you have to decide between the good and the bad. This is the time when you need to take a strong and vital decision about all the aspects of the life. These decisions not only claim to be the rules for the fundamental principles of life but they also help the people to realize the fact that what are the good and the bad ways and which are to be adopted in the life for the further years.

Considering the case of Tecumseh, being one of the strongest military proctor of his time never wanted to be harsh or extra gentle with the people who were behind the bars for the reason of being convicted in various crimes and few of them who were the real culprits. He believed that prison should be a place where the people should face the punishment but that should help them in their future life. No extra or harsh behavior shall be done with them and that should be avoided as they are also human beings and they also face the similar situations.

Similarly, considering the case of Stoic perspective, this case should also be catered in the similar way. According to his principle, everything that is done in the excess is never good for the person. He proclaimed in his various readings that drinking too much, gambling too much, violence in the excess amount is never good for the person as it can have severe impact on the personality of the people. In the similar way, all these rules were also implemented by him for the prisoners that they should not be treated in the inhumane manner where their self-respect gets completely distorted and for them there is no way out beside to remain a criminal for all the time. This aspect can never make them a good citizen but by teaching them all the basic moral teachings and punishing them to a restricted amount where they can realize their mistake can be a healthy way to get rid of all the criminal activities.

According to the perspective of the virtue of prisoner composed by Laozi in the modes of the business and the effects that are generated regarding the private business owners, they are said to be the main people who can help the working strategy of the people to be dealt in the way where if they are convicted in some of the immoral activities, they should unfold it and smothery the process in the all ways where it can help the owners to avoid the hassle in the future. The Kantian maxim and the point of view, the role of the prisons in any aspect can never be finished whether it is of the business or by following the rules and regulation of the law be finished as it is for the betterment of the people and this can help people to remain right on track.

In my perspective the right teachings are given by the Kantian maxim that helps the man in all the aspects whether the kingdom is there or not or the rulers are prevailing their rule of law or not, they all can be highly helpful to the people and can always remind them to stay on path. By keeping all these factors alive in the memory, everyone can recall it during the troublesome time and can get out of it easily, without any hindrance.

Module 11 & Case Study

Name

Professor name

Subject

July 18, 2019

Part A

Position on the case

I think it is ethical to let Cervando die because keeping him alive will only prolong his suffering and pain. There are very limited, in fact no chances of his recovery and he may die in few days according to Dr. Magel. The condition of the boy is critical as his body has severe burns and lungs are also damaged badly. In the present scenario keeping him alive will be of no good.

Reason

Deliberate termination of life is involve issues related to euthanasia. Utilitarian theory of ethics can be used for determining the implications of euthanasia in present scenario. According to utilitarian approach it is ethical to choose the course of action that leads to the advantage for the maximum number of people. It will be ethical to give euthanasia to Cervando because it will lead to the best interest of greater number. Keeping him alive will add financial pressure on his mother because the treatment involve huge money. However, the chances of recovery are limited. The doctor has also suggested that gaining health status and reuniting to normal is not possible in this case. The theory of utilitarianism states that the decision is ethical that is based on the outcomes. The argument is also justified on the basis of voluntary euthanasia stating that, “choice is a fundamental democratic principle” CITATION Phi092 \l 1033 (Pecorino). Every patient has a right to choose if he wants to prolong illness or not. By giving drugs to the boy, he will get rid of the unnecessary pain. The argument can also be justified by identifying the nature of euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is ethical because the doctors will not take life of the patient to die deliberately but only allow them to die. This means that the doctors will only refrain from giving prescribed drugs that could prolong life of the patient.

Flaws of other position

Opponents of euthanasia states that it is unethical to kill anyone irrespective of their condition. Their argument is supported by Natural Laws claiming that only God can take lives of humans. Natural law states that “people cannot live moral lives unless they follow God’s moral teachings” CITATION Phi092 \l 1033 (Pecorino). According to this philosophy it is always unethical to kill human beings willingly. They also claim that non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia is unethical.

Criticism

The criticism made by the opponents is invalid because the argument has not differentiated between active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia can be used for patients who are undergoing severe pain and the chances of regaining health are minimal. Voluntary euthanasia involve direct consent of the person so

Rebuttal

I think it is ethical to administer voluntary euthanasia that will involve consent of the patient’s mother. The argument can also be justified by stating that the selected course of action is based on passive euthanasia that means that the death is not caused deliberately but the patient is just allowed to die.

Part B

Material concerning case

HYPERLINK "https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/landmark-ruling-supreme-court-says-passive-euthanasia-is-permissible-with-riders/articleshow/63228770.cms" https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/landmark-ruling-supreme-court-says-passive-euthanasia-is-permissible-with-riders/articleshow/63228770.cms

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6156117/

http://theconversation.com/how-does-assisting-with-suicide-affect-physicians-87570

https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/rgWwzDMlkvm4bkuKohMS1M/The-euthanasia-debate-which-side-is-your-doctor-on.html

Viewpoints

The popular case of Aruna Shanbaug of 2011 caused Supreme Court to declare passive euthanasia as permissible and ethical. The patient was undergoing severe illness and doctors predicted death without any hope of recovery. The court allowed to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. The decision was made on the basis of living will indicating that the patient has the right to choose euthanasia or life. The court stated that it is important to consider the consent of the patient before choosing euthanasia. This also reflects that active euthanasia was not supported by the court CITATION ET18 \l 1033 (ET). The case analysis indicates that it is not appropriate to give drugs when

The source highlights views of physicians associated with the use of active and passive euthanasia. Most of the doctors believe that it is ethical to administer passive euthanasia. The views of the doctors reveals that many patients undergoing severe health conditions are unable to get rid of pain because hospitals restrict doctors for using the option of euthanasia. However, according to them it is better to let patient die by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. This is because sometimes treatments only prolong disease and suffering. The doctors also suggests that taking consent from the patient will not make passive euthanasia unethical. This will also allow hospitals to save resources for the larger population CITATION Ale184 \l 1033 (Castillo and Castillo).

Kenneth R Stevens a doctor at Oregon Health and Science University claims that hospitals must allow passive euthanasia in critical situations where treatment is only adding to the suffering. Death With Dignity Act allow doctors to withdraw life-sustaining treatment or medications when patients have given consent. Stevens states that legalizing passive and voluntary euthanasia will save hospitals for its misuse CITATION Ron181 \l 1033 (Pies). Passive euthanasia is ethical when it involve consent of the patient. The views of Stevens states that it is the right of the patient to choose passive euthanasia or to prolong illness.

Ramakanta Panda, the chairman at Mumbai’s Asian Heart Institute speaks in favor of passive euthanasia. Panda states that it is the right of the patient who is suffering from disease to choose death or life. Sometimes restrictions on passive euthanasia restrict doctors to withdraw medications even when the patients are willing for that. Panda claims that it is ethical to administer passive euthanasia when it involve consent of the patient CITATION Kav14 \l 1033 (Devgan).

Work Cited

BIBLIOGRAPHY Castillo, Alejandro Gutierrez and Javier Gutierrez Castillo. "Active and Passive Euthanasia: Current Opinion of Mexican Medical Students." Cureus 10.7 (2018).

ET. Landmark ruliing: Supreme court says passive euthanasia is permissible. 2018. 18 07 2019 <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/landmark-ruling-supreme-court-says-passive-euthanasia-is-permissible-with-riders/articleshow/63228770.cms>.

Devgan, Kavita. The euthanasia debate: which side is your doctor on? 2014. 18 07 2019 <https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/rgWwzDMlkvm4bkuKohMS1M/The-euthanasia-debate-which-side-is-your-doctor-on.html>.

Pecorino, Philip A. Medical Ethics . The City University of New York , 2009.

Pies, Ronald W. How does assisting with suicide affect physicians? 2018. 18 07 2019 <http://theconversation.com/how-does-assisting-with-suicide-affect-physicians-87570>.

Module 12

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of Instructor]

[Philosophy]

[Date]

Module 12

There is a greater risk of complications in the pregnancy of postmenopausal women. It may create poor outcomes which include a high rate of death due to cesarian sections, gestational hypertension may result in high blood pressure. Most of the postmenopausal women are excluded from AMA because of the history of women with hypertensive, cardiovascular diseases, independent of age and lower pregnancy-related disease.

According to the opinion of the ASRM ethics committee, it is very common to raise children by their grandparents and if it is acceptable to have parents at that age then postmenopausal women are at the same age. It is prejudicial to stop premenopausal women to raise her child at that age because an individual has right to make a reproductive choice irrespective of their age or life expectancy and there is no restrictions should be placed on people. It is discriminatory to stop old women who have the desire to become a parent at a later age.

Postmenopausal women reproduction should not be restricted until there is a strong justification to do so. Through IVF there is an opportunity for patients to take advanced reproductive techniques used by a reproductive endocrinologist who is more selective to take extra precautions for the older postmenopausal women health during pregnancy and childbirth. A special consideration that should be needed that legal sole guardian should be responsible for the child until child adulthood.

Patients reproductive potential can also be affected by the social aspect. The life expectancy of a patient is first and foremost important thing. A woman of the latest reproductive age may die before her child reached at the age of 18 and leave her child without any caretaker or financial support.

Before pregnancy maternal health should be carefully evaluated that what will be the life expectancy of the postmenopausal women who are going to have a child at the age of 55 or above.

Work Cited

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Utilitarianism.htm

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_12_Genetics/CONTENTS.htm

Module 13/1

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Philosophy: Module 13/1

Question 1

According to natural law theorists, donating organs to other individuals is considered to be altruistic. In lieu of this, consenting to donate organs is considered a part of obligatory altruism i.e. the moral duty to help others. However, presumed consent and the natural law that supports supererogatory altruism states that it is not morally required to go above and beyond one’s duty. Thus, presuming a deceased individual’s consent on this principle will not be altruistic, but utilitarian.

Question 2

Volunteering and personally consenting to donate one’s organs after death is a utilitarian choice. However, natural law theorists consider that to be supererogatory altruism and are of the opinion that offering money or buying organs from families of deceased organ donors would compensate for the shortage of organs required. Thus it can be regarded as altruistic by nature.

Question 3

While Rawlsian does not apply neatly to human health and wellbeing, at the same time the theory speaks of justice and equality. In those terms, we can define that it is the right of every individual that is a part of society to be physically adept. Thus, if a disability keeps them from being on equal footing with everyone else in society, they should be given the means to do so, even if this involves organ transplant from non-human transspecies.

Question 4

Organs being traded on the black market are either taken from unsuspecting individuals or those people that are stricken by poverty. On the other hand, these organs are usually purchased by well to do individuals that do not consider anything above their own self-interests. Thus, under the ethical principle of an egoist, medical institutions should obtain organs from the black market.

Question 5

The utilitarian principle places the good of all mankind way above one’s personal interests. Thus, under this principle, obtaining organs from brain-damaged patients, once that cannot live a fulfilling life and would have to suffer in one way or another if their life continues in the present vegetative state, then donating their organs for the greater good is ideal.

Module 13/2

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Philosophy: Module 13/2

Part 1

Yes, lifestyle should definitely be considered during the allocation of life-saving resources. At present, there is already a scarcity of organs available as opposed to the organs needed. People requiring the allocation of such life-saving resources have to wait for years on the donor lists, with many dying before it is their turn to obtain an organ. Thus, under the normative ethical relativism, which decides the moral standpoint based on the situation, choosing to transplant already scarce organs into individuals afflicted with alcoholism and drug abuse, with their present being as a result of such addiction is downright wrong.

Part 2

Normative ethical relativism is perfectly applicable on the situation being presented. The liver would definitely not improve the quality of life of someone with a drinking problem. Despite being the sole care-taker of two young boys, the odds are not in his favor.

According to ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"aLfE1uqn","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Zhu et al.)","plainCitation":"(Zhu et al.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":657,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/0omESN17/items/SKIFCQ44"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/0omESN17/items/SKIFCQ44"],"itemData":{"id":657,"type":"article-journal","title":"Contemporary policies regarding alcohol and marijuana use among liver transplant programs in the United States","container-title":"Transplantation","page":"433-439","volume":"102","issue":"3","author":[{"family":"Zhu","given":"Jiaming"},{"family":"Chen","given":"Ping-Yu"},{"family":"Frankel","given":"Marla"},{"family":"Selby","given":"Robert Rick"},{"family":"Fong","given":"Tse-Ling"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2018"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} Zhu et al., someone afflicted with the need behavior when they suffer from an alcohol-related end-stage disease, giving them a liver would have a detrimental effect of cost-effectiveness.

The alternative of the stance that is giving the liver to the man for the sake of his boys does have altruistic principles associated with it. However, there is no guaranteeing that the man will be able to completely give up drinking following the liver transplant.

The biggest criticism to my position is the fact that the man has to care for two young boys who have lost their mother. No child should have to grow without two parents and every life is worth saving.

Given this situation, who would you consider is a better candidate for the liver, one that has two young children to look after but he is not suffering for any need-based ailment that has hurt his body. Or, one that may revert back to his old ways and would once again become a part of the donor list. No child should have to grow without both parents, however, there is no guaranteeing that the boys’ parent is going to change.

Works Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Zhu, Jiaming, et al. “Contemporary Policies Regarding Alcohol and Marijuana Use among Liver Transplant Programs in the United States.” Transplantation, vol. 102, no. 3, 2018, pp. 433–39.

Module 14

Student name

Submitted by

Assignment

Date

Part b

The documentary “Sicko” is directed by Micheal Moore in 2007. He is also producer and writer of this documentary. This film is related to all those individuals having health insurance in USA and following American dream. The documentary contains a lot of different stories and why insurance companies rejected them for example, some due to underweight ,other due to obesity etc. in 2006, when Michael Moore asked people to share their health insurance related stories then he got more than 25000 response in one week.

According to Nixon, he want to have every American do have health care facility. But the biggest change occurred during the Henry Clinton era when he took over the charge of health care system. Her universal health facility says health care does not matter who you are , where you work etc. but they faced a lot of criticism from opposition. This documentary also raises another important question that why USA is on 37th number in the world in terms of health care just above to Slovenia ( which is under developed country).

Conversely, in the health or social field we lack a real research on the values ​​and the actions that could result from it, in order to satisfy the expectations of the individuals other than by the observation of the difference between what is desired and what who exist. Opinions and behaviors are rarely observed or studied, though they could be a democratic gateway for the evolution and future of care or social protection systems, as any business in a market economy would. For indeed, to better understand the deep springs of social dynamics is not to "lose one's soul” but constitutes a real public health issue.

According to the ethical egoism that is the opposite of altruism. Egoism as a moral and ethical principle, which is grounded on a positioning in the direction of one’s own requirements and desires and ignoring the interests of others. This is same that I have found in this documentary. American health care industry is based on the principal of ethical egoism where mostly individuals are ignored.

Work cited

Moore, Micheal. “Sicko.” Vimeo, 28 July 2007, vimeo.com/76646445.

Module 5

Medical Ethics and Nursing

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

Medical Ethics and Nursing

1 Reading Comprehension

A) Following are some of the responsibilities

Taking care of the recipients

Mitigating the negative effect on the health of the caretaker.

Carrying out the intervention to ensure care purpose is being served

Making sure that the appropriate information is being provided to the healthcare recipients

B)Doctors need to make sure that they are taking care of the patient autonomy and the confidentiality considerations that are needed to be looked at. Furthermore, they also need to establish trusting relationships and allow the conflict of the duties to cloud their healthcare judgement. Then there has to be an apparent respect towards the human rights as well.

C)The most important role that the nurses are expected to perform is that they should be delivering the quality care. Furthermore, they should let the patient know about the apparent risks that are faced with the options and choices at the particular moment of time.

2Critical Thinking

D)When one talks about the way healthcare delivery process is being carried out. The most important thing is to make sure that the all the stakeholders that are involved in the decision making. The idea is to make sure that from doctors to nurses to every other staff that is part of the healthcare delivery process, the only way the better results for the benefit of the people is that how right balance is going to be achieved. For instance, in most of the cases where chronic illnesses are involved, the first process is to ensure that the patient history and the statistics are being collected in the right manner. And then afterwards, it is imperative that the post treatment rationalization has to be provided by the nurses. So, all in all, it is a collaborative process where all the stakeholders are supposed to be involved.

Reference

Medical Ethics. Online Textbook. written and edited. by. Philip A. Pecorino

Moral Theory

Your Name

Instructor Name

Course Number

Date

Title: Social Contract Theory

Introduction

Human beings are social animals; they live in societies because they cannot live in isolation due to human needs, which are natural and inbuilt. Social Contract Theory was originated during the 18th century, which was the Age of Enlightenment. According to the Social Contract Theory, in societies, people live together in groups within a framework of agreements that create political and moral rules of behavior. The main idea, which Social Contract Theory states is that rules and agreements allow people to live in peace, and govern our behaviors. Without these agreements, it would not be possible to live in peace. In societies where there are no agreements and rules, people follow their own rules and act accordingly.

People in the early ages lived a life according to the nature of the state, and there were no appropriate rules and regulations to regulate society. People were oppressed by those who had authority and faced difficulties. To overcome these oppressions and hardships by the upper class, people started to protect their properties and lives. People formed unions and pacts to secure their lives and properties. The first pact was the pactum unions, which was to ensure the security of life and property. This created harmony and respect among people, and they started to live in peace. The second pactum was to encourage people to unite and surrender their freedom to the authorities and rulers since this authority guarantees the security of their life and property ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"c3IYRGMc","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Laskar)","plainCitation":"(Laskar)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":476,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/F0XOCTdk/items/Z7TLGSN3"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/F0XOCTdk/items/Z7TLGSN3"],"itemData":{"id":476,"type":"article-journal","title":"Summary of Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau","container-title":"SSRN Electronic Journal","source":"ResearchGate","abstract":"This paper provides a small summary of Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. It discusses what is the social contract theory and the reason. Then the paper points out the State of Nature according to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. It also put forth the differences of opinion of these jurists of the State of Nature with regard to social contract and lastly the critical apprehension of the theory of social contract given by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.","DOI":"10.2139/ssrn.2410525","journalAbbreviation":"SSRN Electronic Journal","author":[{"family":"Laskar","given":"Manzoor"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2013",4,4]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Laskar).

Evaluation of what is ethically right or wrong and a condition that is considered good and bad is the part of ethical judgments. However, there can be human biases which could be the reason for the change in decision-making. Ethical judgments encourage rational decisions and do not let human feelings and emotions make an impact on our decisions ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"l01GWakc","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(MacKinnon and Fiala)","plainCitation":"(MacKinnon and Fiala)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":"180WYYN2/2212ZBnW","uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/smYQhi21/items/PC6DZZTY"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/smYQhi21/items/PC6DZZTY"],"itemData":{"id":250,"type":"book","title":"Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Concise Edition","publisher":"Cengage Learning","number-of-pages":"385","source":"Google Books","abstract":"ETHICS: THEORY AND CONTEMPORARY ISSUES, 8E CONCISE presents the major areas of ethical theory through an engaging collection of contemporary moral debates. First, readers are introduced to such ethical subjects as religion and global ethics, utilitarianism and deontology, natural law ethics, virtue ethics, non-Western paradigms, feminist ethics, and care ethics. Then, these and other ethical concepts provide the framework for in-depth discussions on moral dilemmas such as euthanasia, sexual morality, economic justice, animal ethics, war, violence, and globalization. Plus, this edition brings the debate up-to-date with detailed discussions of timely moral topics such as same-sex marriage, structural racism, factory farming, pacifism, and global distributive justice.Important Notice: Media content referenced within the product description or the product text may not be available in the ebook version.","ISBN":"978-1-305-54482-6","note":"Google-Books-ID: YYbCBAAAQBAJ","title-short":"Ethics","language":"en","author":[{"family":"MacKinnon","given":"Barbara"},{"family":"Fiala","given":"Andrew"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2015",1,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (MacKinnon and Fiala). Human biases can be reduced by rational and objective thinking regarding a subject and an expected outcome.

Based on rational thinking, Social Contract Theory is valid and true, because it subjects people living in societies to live according to the law and order to avoid conflicts and oppression. Human beings look for a safe environment and a secure life without being disturbed by other forces in a state. Sometimes, living under someone else's rule can become difficult because human desires can make people act differently, and they go beyond the limitations to fulfill their needs.

The Social Contract Theory is true because it allows people to live according to law and rules, and these should be followed. To maintain peace, and to resolve the conflicts in the societies by giving the authority of decision making to one ruler or a representative. The authority will ensure the people living in society, a secured life, and a right to have a property on their own. When people decide to live united, and with harmony then, they allow their representative to rule over them, and the authority given to one individual is the absolute theory. However, when people allow an individual then, it means that they stop living in a state of nature, and they start living a life according to the Social Contract Theory.

Social Contract Theory supports the rule of one individual to maintain peace, and provide security to people and their properties, however, this theory is rejected by the Natural Law Theory.

The Natural Law Theory suggests that morality and law are naturally inter-connected ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"4jMMBTCH","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Dimock)","plainCitation":"(Dimock)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":"180WYYN2/FPwlcQcM","uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/smYQhi21/items/CWJ4PRI5"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/smYQhi21/items/CWJ4PRI5"],"itemData":{"id":253,"type":"article-journal","title":"The Natural Law Theory of St. Thomas Aquinas","source":"ResearchGate","abstract":"In this essay I present the core of St. Thomas Aquinas’s theory of law. The aim is to introduce students both to the details of Aquinas’s particular theory of law, as well as to the features of his view that define what has come to be known as “the natural law” conception of law more generally. Though the essay is for the most part non-critical, some of the more important implications of the natural law position are raised for further thought and to pave the way for the study of alternative views which have been developed in the subsequent history of the philosophy of law.One brief note about the structure of the essay will complete my introductory remarks: The essay tries to present as much of Aquinas’s theory in his own words as possible. Material taken directly from Aquinas appears in bold type throughout, with the origin of the quotation given in parentheses following the text. Unless otherwise noted, the material is taken from Aquinas’s Summa Theologica; the translation from Latin is that of the Fathers of the English Dominican Province.","author":[{"family":"Dimock","given":"Susan"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1999",1,1]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Dimock). Before getting into the discussion of Natural Law Theory, it is important to understand the law and Natural Law. Law is the set of rules, and actions commanded by the authorities and those who have the legal power. The theorists of Natural Law suggest that the laws are defined by mortality, and this cannot be defined by any individual, king or any government. So, individuals are guided by the state of nature, which we have, and figure out the laws to follow and act according to the laws. During the life stages of an individual, it is considered that, whatever happens, it is because of the natural law. Based on this consideration, individuals seek happiness and a satisfying life. While, unnatural and immoral actions are those actions, which stop other individuals from living happily. However, the laws are meant to be made for a purpose, if these laws stop, and prevent an individual from living a peaceful and happy lie then they are considered immoral.

Natural Law Theory and the Social Contract theory when compared, there are enormous changes that exist between, these two theories. Social Contract Theory, encourages the rule of an individual over the other people who allowed him/her to rule over them by giving the authority. This theory also suggests that the authority given by the people to one individual ruler will ensure the security of life, and property. When people feel threatened by other individuals and then there is the chance of a conflict between them, so to avoid such conflicts there has to be a ruler. However, the Natural Law Theory suggests that the laws and the authority is defined by morality not by the rule of one person and government.

Human beings desire to live independently because they cannot be bound to certain laws, agreements, regulations, and formalities. If an individual is commanded to follow the rules by a single person and he/she is not willing to follow the rules, then it becomes difficult to understand the situation. The Natural Law Theory suggests that morality is the source that decides the authority, not by the common people, rulers, and kings. While, the Social Contract Theory, allows a supreme authority by an individual, and kings to rule over the people by surrendering their own lives, and their properties. Social Contract Theory limits the rules of the public to only one authority and that can be a king or the government, which assures for their security of lives, and resources, and properties.

The Social Contract Theory was made to control the oppressions, and threats to the security of lives, and property. Therefore, people agreed to allow one supreme authority to provide security to their lives and properties. However, at that time, people were not treated well; there was a class system and people were oppressed. People become barbarians in their lust for power, and there was no security of people and resources. Therefore, the Social Contract theory helps the oppressed people to enjoy the security provided by the individual authority, and they can live in peace.

Natural Theory encourages the freedom of individuals in societies and allows them to live according to their desires. The freedom given to people may cause conflicts among people, groups, and the natural patterns of society. Hence, these natural patterns of the society are disturbed because of the unrest in society and the war for power.

Works Cited

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Dimock, Susan. The Natural Law Theory of St. Thomas Aquinas. Jan. 1999.

Laskar, Manzoor. "Summary of Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau." SSRN Electronic Journal, Apr. 2013. ResearchGate, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2410525.

MacKinnon, Barbara, and Andrew Fiala. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Concise Edition. Cengage Learning, 2015.

My Observation

My Observation

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

My Observation

ESSAY 1

Write a 150-word Observation by telling us about your answer to this ethics question:

You are a Commissioner on the County Board, elected to decide how county tax money shall be spent. The county can make one big expenditure, on a new building, during the next ten years. Your county needs a new middle school for the kids, and a new jail for the prisoners. The old jail is falling apart, and probably has big security problems. The old school is falling apart, and probably is getting unsafe for the children in it.

Problem: You can’t build both. They cost the same amount of money. You can only pick one.

Tell us which one you would vote for, and WHY.  Be sure to use utilitarian reasons for your answer.

The idea behind any morally wrong or right action depends upon its outcomes. However, sometimes a person has to choose between two actions that are constructing good outcomes. In that case, a person has to compare the results of both of the actions. By giving the value to the outcomes, an individual will choose one action. Likewise, from the above-given options, I will choose to build a school. As education plays a greater role in building the future of a nation. Building a school is making the future brighter for generations of generations. As per the Utilitarian theory, moral standards demand more positive things in the world that make life better. School in comparison to prison is more constructive. It helps in development and also promotes happiness in the society. People will feel better to see new schools whereas building a prison is like adding pain and unhappiness to society.

ESSAY 2

2. Write a 150 word Observation by telling us about your perception of the respect for human rights in other countries. Do you view the world as mostly unable to respect human rights, across too many countries around the world?  Describe your perspective on global rights today, and your list of human rights that appear to be ignored most frequently in too many countries.

Human rights are the basic rights of an individual, given to him or her at birth regardless of class, gender, religion, origin, and language. Every individual has the right to live freely and express his or her opinions independently. Likewise, the United Nations plays an essential role in the provision of Human Rights throughout the world, under the International Human Rights Law. As a result, many countries around the globe are making progress in ensuring human rights within their boundaries. Still, there are some areas where people and communities are suffering because of human rights abuses. At the same time, some countries have restricted the freedom of expression. People are not allowed to speak openly. There are illegal detentions and unfair trails across the countries. Women and children are suffering from oppression. Many people have been displaced from their homes and countries. Violation and killings are common nowadays, terrorism is taking away the right to live from people.

My Observation

My Observation

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

My Observation

ASYA PROC 11 offers a strong opinion on the fact that Ashley bought the car after knowing that it was a stolen car. Besides selfishness, it is true that this kind of action encourages thieves to steal more. When a person knows that stolen item will get sold, it is a truth that no one dislikes profit and money with small effort rather than working hard.

ALIJAH GE 11 said it right that everyone nowadays has the problem of transportation but it does not mean you buy a stolen car to justify your problem. It is not an ethical way to solve the problem. It is definitely an immoral fact that after knowing that his friend has stolen the car, still, she bought it for her personal benefit.

ISATA YOKIE 11 discussed the ethical principle which teaches us to promote mutual interest rather than self-interest. However, Ashley preferred self-interest by ignoring the feelings, sentiments, and problem of the family whose car was stolen and she just bought it as it can solve her problem. She should definitely think about the family before making her decision.

Gloria 12 used utilitarian principle which teaches us to contribute towards happiness in the long run. However, she missed the strong point that act should be based on the mutual interest that means action should bring the betterment for most of the people. You can mix happiness with interest because most of the time people have a different opinion and they find happiness in a different things. However, mutual interest sometimes may not give equal happiness but it is always beneficial in the long term.

JACQUELINE MCALO 12 opinion is perfectly valid as investing in education will bring higher outcome rather than investing in jails. Education is beneficial for people and by education crime rate can be reduced which means the community will not need jails in the future. However, she raised a valid point that investors prefer publicity on the profit of the community and invest money where it not actually needed.

JUBILEE STANTON was more afraid from the criminals and ignored the importance of education. She missed the point that education is the only source to lower the crime rate. That is why she wants to prefer investment towards jails.

My Observation

[Jeane Gbaye]

[Name of Instructor]

[Philosophy]

[2/7/2019]

Essay 1

I consider Individual autonomy as a significant determinant of the democratic process. For every individual to act its role in the country, they have to be individually independent, and income definitely reflects how autonomous an individual is. Therefore economic equality to an extent determines the success of political equality because it gives them the agency to use their political voice. However, I certainly don't see such a democracy in the American political system. In fact, I believe that it is torn between the struggle between the rich and the poor. The successful political campaign run by Donald Trump and his party for Election 2016 clearly shows how the powerful and rich people use their wealth for their political objectives and limits the political rights of people other than the elite to a significant level. Moreover, the unrests and the political protests against his government and his decisions are clear examples that he doesn't represent all of the Americans. Therefore I believe there is a huge struggle of rich and poor to attain a certain level of democracy in America.

Essay 2

In my opinion yes! I believe such as Christians and Muslims are able to be about as moral as each other. I think the purpose of every religion is to teach morality. Every religion has different ways to teach their followers to differentiate between right and wrong. Morality is the basis of every religion that is to teach the followers to live in accordance with the will of God, and the will of God is morality which is the same in every religion. It is also a fact that there is a lot of difference in the teachings of a different religion. If we define religion, its someone devotion towards the teaching of a particular religion and no religion, in my opinion, teaches hatred and immorality. Nowadays to everyone their own religion seems the best and the only correct path to morality. This very thinking in itself leads to immoral actions. In my opinion, all religion has the same objective but a different way to reach the goal.

My Observation

Human Rights My Observation

Name

Institution

Human Rights

My Observation In the recent research according to the World report in 2019 is that the government of the United States is moving to violate necessary human rights compared to other countries in the world. In my view, some of the laws and regulations that are being implemented by the government of the United States are violating human rights. For instance, the issue of anti-immigration policies is one of the ways that has undermined the rights of the population in the United States. The threatened insurance program denies the community the right to quality healthcare in the country. Violation of the healthcare human rights especially in women in the United States is again ethics that focus on recommending and defending the rights of the citizens.

Other countries like the United Kingdom, Italy and others have open immigration which means that human rights are respected through free immigration. In my opinion, other countries are in respect of human rights than the United States. In this perspective, the government of the United States should consider learning from other countries on how to respect human rights. The government can consider benchmarking with other countries on how to show respect to the citizens.

My Observation

PLS PUT EACH RESPONSE BELOW EACH STUDENTS WORK. I SENT YOU 6 STUDENTS WORK. FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT YOU HAVE TO READ EACH STUDENT WORK AND RESPONSE TO WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.

IMARI BRANDO5

My observation

Top of Form

In my opinion, believers in different religions can be as moral and as average as each other. Although both groups have different beliefs, there is no set correct or incorrect way to do things. If there are different standards and different fundamentals, how can we say one’s more moral than the other? Even though no one more superior than the other, religion makes a huge difference. Religion gives a sense of identity to individuals. These contrasting views place these individuals in separate lanes, which makes it absurd to place superiority.

Bottom of Form

My Response:

I agree to the fact that all religions provide sense of morality and framework of ethics to its followers. This is the aspect that makes all religions very similar to each other. But I don’t think the one should confuse arrogance with sense of pride. In my opinion, every religion makes its true followers humbler and open minded to other cultures and religions.

GIFTY ADA5

My Observation

Top of Form

People in different religions may have different beliefs but would be about as moral as each other because each believer in any religion thinks and act morally based on what is agreeable to the deity or the god they serve. For instance, Christians act morally based on the divine principles of Jesus Christ and Muslims base theirs on what is agreeable to the principles of Muhammad. Muslims give alms and support the development of communities to enhance the welfare of individuals and the society, the same way Christians also are involved in building schools, providing health care services to the communities. Religion doesn’t make a difference because what is morally acceptable by Christians is just about the same  as Muslims based on what the gods deem as holy and therefore morally acceptable, both religions also believe that their deity needs to be gratified by doing what they say regardless which has moral value to some extent.

My Response:

I think that all Abrahamic religions are more or less similar to each other in terms of their morals, ethics and humanitarian beliefs. They are different just in terms of their prayers and beliefs regarding God. All these religions believe in creating better society by implementing the humanitarian principals. And I agree to the fact that concept of acceptable and inacceptable are different according to each religion’s individual concepts.

KAYLYN LON5

The Observation

Top of Form

In reference to the difference in beliefs, I believe that morally they are all equal. Regardless of religion belief, when it comes to morals each religion can easily distinct whats right and whats wrong. A difference may reside in terms of something being morally right within one religious belief, yet deemed to be wrong within another religion. However, all religions depend heavily on what they believe in and will always do what is morally correct within their religion. With an open mind religions could not be blinded by their beliefs to convince their selves that they are better than another religion, yet they could use that mindset to see that religions are connected by their similar respect of morals. Mutual respect and understanding comes a long way when referring to religion, but with more understanding there will be less competition of what a person should believe in once they realize that similar morals are the make up of all their religions.

My Response:

I think the point stated about the mutual respect is really important between the followers of any religion as it makes believers of different religions live in peace and harmony within the community. Sadly, many followers of different religions start to consider themselves superior to others, which is really wrong, and they very against the concept of morality, that every religion teaches.

JUBILEE STANTON 

The Observation

Top of Form

Many people will give up little to nothing for much bigger things. If it were up to me i would give up my life for my justice and a peaceful society, we have to fight for peace and what we want our children to be able to have. We can not live or stay in a a community with our people going crazy and living in a crazy mess. and for this i will give my life to push for everyone to have a mind. i will push and fight for what we need as a whole; i would encourage many people to do the same if we have any fight in us i want all to fight for a full justice filled community.  Now keep in mind that many don't have to fight but just putting out words is part of the fight just; standing on your own feet and understanding is a fight in it self giving up your old ways is a sacrifice we can all put our own in to place.

My Response:

This post has raised an important point regarding achieving the higher purpose in community. It is essential that we humans strive for peace justice and equality of rights. Even if we believe that our fight won’t benefit us in our small lives, still we should struggle for what is right and important as it will help the future generations to live in a peaceful time, that we always dreamed of. I think we should always standup for what we think is right.

OLASUMBO OLAGOKE6

The Observation:

Top of Form

There are many noble ideas to die for; freedom is one that is very essential to human spirit! What is freedom? According to online dictionary, freedom is the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Just imagine if we don’t have a freedom of speech and press, it means that many musicians can’t sing, many Journalist can’t practice, there will be no Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, YouTube, and even internet. Imagine if we don’t have freedom of assembly and religion, it means that there will be no political protect, conferences, church going, public crusade and so on. And just imagine if we don’t have a freedom to bear arms! It means that we can’t protect and defend ourselves.  I am a lover of freedom. And I can do anything to protect it. Freedom didn’t come for free, some people sacrificed for it.  Freedom is something that generation to generation should continue to fight for and defend. I don’t pray that we one day have a rogue or tyrant as the head of our government who will want to take our freedoms away from us, that will be a day from hell. It will be the day that I exercise my right to bear arms and it will be against that government.  Freedom shall never die from the land of the free!

My Response:

This post discusses an important human right, freedom. I think freedom is essential to live a happy, peaceful and satisfied life. It helps us make the right choices, that we think are suitable for us. But I don’t think that all government regulations are bad. Freedom without responsibility and law, will make world turn into chaotic place. I think there is a very thin line between freedom and protection. Buying arms, as free human is not a good idea. No one should get freedom to buy any arm and mess up with the peace situation.

GLORIA THOMAS6

The Observation:

Top of Form

This is a great question. I have thought about this many times when I think about some of the people who have come before us and have fought and sacrificed their lives in search of equality. I have seen the hurt and pain that people of color went through to enter restaurants, to vote, to ride buses, and to go to schools. I would sacrifice my life to be respected and treated as an equal to all people. As an African American and a women. I would have signed up to walk the street arm and arm with activists. I would have gone into schools where I wasn’t wanted or accepted and sat in the back of buses and at lunch counters. In order to leave your house you have to think I am actually scarifying my life for a better good. Back then doing these things or if you participated in these things there was a good chance you could be beaten or killed. Losing their lives in search of equality. I am courageous enough and I feel so strongly about race equality and women rights and having the right to vote that I would have join the crusade for equality. 

My Response:

This post discusses the importance of equal rights, and how thousands of people have fought for acquiring the basic rights, that are simple as going to school. This made me realize that we often who have done any struggle to get the basic rights, often take this right for granted. No doubt that these basic rights shape our lives to be better and to create an impact.

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

My Observation

Name

Instructors’ Name

Course Title and Code

Date

My Observation

Essay 1

Write a 150 word Observation by telling us what you think about my friend Caryn:

I have this friend; let's call her Caryn, who told me this:

"I went to hotel in LA, and thought it wasn't a good hotel. I went to a travel advice website and submitted a review that said that this hotel was terrible. A day later, I was contacted by the hotel. The hotel manager saw my review, and looked up my email address in their reservation system. He offered my $500 to delete my review. I took the money."

Tell us whether you think that Caryn’s decision to take the $500 would pass Kant’s Categorical Imperative test. You have to figure out her maxim behind her decision to agree to this deal. Then tell us the anonymous version of that maxim. Then test that maxim – what would happen if everyone acted from that same maxim that she did?

Hint - How many people doing just what Caryn has done would it take until people stop trusting what people say on travel advice websites?

Observation

Caryn’s decision to take the $500 would not pass Kant’s Categorical Imperative test because it does not represent the absolute condition which should be fulfilled in any case. Caryn is acting according to her maxim of getting compensation from the travel websites or hotels. The anonymous version of the maxim is that people would start speaking ill about the services on their websites and would get the money as the compensation for taking their review back or even sharing positive feedbacks. If everyone acts in the same way as Caryn, the people will try to earn money through such means or the travel websites would not allow the people to share their reviews. Even if only ten to twenty people act in the same way as Caryn, people will stop trusting what others say on travel advice websites. They would not believe the reviews but trust their own experience.

Essay 2

Write a 150 word Observation by telling us about your answer to this ethics question:

Ashley has a good friend, who will sell her a car at a very low price. The price is low not just because they are friends, but really because the car was stolen last year. The friend wasn't the thief, who stole the car, but the car has now become the friend's car and the car also has a new title (also illegally accomplished already). If Ashley agrees to buy the car, she gets the clean title and Ashley cannot be linked to the theft, too. Ashley does agree to buy the car from her friend.

For the purposes of this Observation, assume that neither Ashley nor her friend will get in trouble for participating in this deal. They will never get caught. Focus on the ethical question, not the worry about the law. The ethical question is: Did Ashley does something morally wrong here?

Could Ashley’s purchase of the stolen car pass the Categorical Imperative test?

Put another way; would everyone doing what she did be something that could be part of the Kingdom of Ends?

If she did do something immoral, put into your own clear words exactly why her decision is immoral. Or, maybe you think Ashley isn't morally wrong here -- but give reasons why it is OK, despite what the other students against Ashley's decision would say. Observation

Ashley has done an immoral act by purchasing the stolen car, although it cannot be proven as stolen and Ashley can also not be associated with the theft of the car. Ashley’s purchase of the stolen car cannot pass the Categorical Imperative test because she is not following the absolute condition which needs to be fulfilled in any case. She is only acting according to her maxim which may not be beneficial for other people of the society. Putting the scenario in the other way, everyone doing what she did would not be something that could be part of the Kingdom of Ends. It is because the situation would give rise to other unfavorable conditions, instead of fulfilling the purpose of Ashley. She has done an immoral act in the way that being aware of the fact that it is stolen and the owner would have been searching for it while bearing the loss; she should not accept it just because she would not be blamed for it. I do not think Ashley's decision is ok because she can also become the victim of the scenario and feel miserable.

My Observation

My Observation

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the institution]

[Date]

My Observation

Essay 1 Response

This world is full of challenges and troubles for those who want to see happiness and peace around them. There are not many things that motivate me to die because I believe that what I can do being alive, I may not be able to do the same while I am dead. But like every other person in the world, I also have certain principles that I have set for myself and will also die for them. I cannot comprise on dignity and integrity of myself and my loved ones and to restore them, I might as well kill myself just to keep the integrity and dignity alive. In my eyes, it is better to die than to damage the integrity and dignity that took years to earn. For me, self-worth along with morality principles are very important and I have very strong moral principles. I am saying that from the personal experience I had a few days back. I was feeling miserable and felt like damaging the trust others had put on me. Due to this, I came to realize that I cannot compromise at this point when my dignity and integrity is at stake.

Essay 2 Response

Well, many people misperceive me to be someone who does not have empathy for others and is here in the world to serve myself. But this is not the case, although sometimes I also began to question my intentions I always surprise myself when I try to extend my hand to help others even though I dislike them from the core of my heart. When it comes to helping others, I reach out and try to understand them no matter how much complicated the situation is. Considering someone selfish only because he is not in a state to help you out is the general practice in our world lately. Most of the times I am feeling so depressed and miserable that I forget to pay attention to the people around me and in return they label me to be heartless and selfish. We always take other person’s efforts for granted and never really appreciate their help even if they were not mentally stable enough to take care of themselves. Biased beliefs like that make the bitter reality for people and they start finding truth in anything they perceive. I will once again give an example of my depressive modes, I suffered the perceived judgments passed on me and ultimately I got even more depressed. It is like they are not ready to view the situation from my eyes and the issues I am facing currently.

My Observation

Response 1

I totally agree because the internet is a great source of spreading false news and generating senseless propaganda. As the internet gives a broad and influencing platform for people to use their freedom of speech, people use this freedom for negative purposes and use it for several senseless reasons. Honestly, we don’t know if the politician who is being accused of several misconducts on the internet, is the same person in reality or not. False news affect strongly on the minds of people, and they change their perception about politics just because of them.

Response 2

Yes, the internet is shaking the roots of politics and democracy in our society. I agree that people are not the same as they appear to be on social media platforms. We do not know if the person who is popular and star on social media is actually capable of leadership skills or not. The Internet has opened a doorway to a modern kind of hypocrisy. People are losing the power of expressing their own point of view as it is affected by the influences of others’ opinions.

Response 3

The main objective of democracy is to bring people peace, equality and a place where they can live with freedom. Today this powerful concept is being misused by those who are in power to govern. They are failing to provide basic human rights in society just for the sake of more power and money.

Response 4

Morality is without a doubt essential for civilized societies. It is true that the rules of our society are making rich richer, and poor poorest. Americans talk about equality and rights all the time and believe that democracy is the most significant source in fulfilling this cause, but the point is people have started molding the true meaning of democracy into their own ways. The democracy that we have today has lost its true meaning.

My Observation

I HAVE SENT YOU 2 ESSAY EACH OF THEM REQUIRES 150 WORD EACH. PLS PUT EACH RESPONSE BELOW EACH ESSAY.

Essay 1

Write a 150 word Observation by telling us about something that you find people believing about the world just because they really, really want to believe it. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong – the philosophical question is this: Do they have enough information to back up that belief? Tell us about something that you hear people saying about the world, but you realise how they couldn't really justify it.

There are many things in today’s world which are believed by the people because they really want to believe it without much evidence. The reason is that somehow they want to console and relax about the existence of a particular thing. For example, most of the people believe in karma, that means if you do good, good will come to you and if you do bad, bad will happen to you. Although there is not enough evidence in this idea, and no research has been done, not enough studies have been conducted to support this idea, but even the majority of people believe in this idea because it relaxes their mind. When someone does any harm to them, then they find refuge in this notion that even if they do not have the potential to take revenge, karma will play its role and something bad will happen to the person. By thinking that they become relaxed.

Essay 2

Write a 150 word Observation by telling us about

One experience you can personally recall that made you feel like you were nothing but a physical body – what you were doing that kept you completely focused on ‘you’ as a body moving in space and interacting with other bodies.

The one experience that made me feel like Human beings are nothing but a physical body was when my friend was suffering from cancer. At that time all he was complaining about was his pain in the body he was unable to focus on anything. Although the doctors used to tell him to divert his mind on something else the physical pain that we were going through was so intense that we were unable to do that. He used to cry out of that pain. I used to wonder that if we are a combination of body, soul and mind then how come my friend is only complaining and feeling the physical pain. Why cannot his mind and soul intervene and relax him out of the pain? So at that time, my belief became stronger that we are an only physical body.

One experience you can personally recall that made you feel like you were only a mental being – what you were doing that kept you completely focused on your inner mental life as consciousness and made you feel like you had nobody at all.

The one experience that forced me to think that we are mental being rather than physical was when I had a fracture last year. My doctors told me after a month that I have completely recovered from the fracture. But my mind was not ready to accept the fact and even after complete recovery I was taking support from wheelchair to do all the chores. Everyone around me was trying to convince me that I was physically fit and don't need the, but my mind was not ready to accept that, and even after recovery I was unable to walk on my own. But after a few counselling sessions,, my psychologists convinced me that I am physically fit now and by time and again repeating that to myself I was finally able to walk on my own.

Be sure to tell us about both kinds of experiences you have personally had.

My Essay

My Personal Philosophy

Philosophy

[Name of the Writer]

[Name of the Institution]

My Philosophy

Metaphysics

Reality is like a game with many new levels embedded in piles of illusion. Two of the most important ways to get into reality are

To identify all the illusions that surround our reality to get into the roots of the reality or

To tune ourselves for reality through rationalism and eventually reality will always find its way to reveal itself.

Our task is not complete here, if we can get to the reality by doing these measures, we just initiate from the first level of the reality and most likely the first level of reality might be the smallest part of next level of reality. When we are able to get to the highest level of reality, we would be able to get to the primary source of reality with one form.

For example substance according to me in itself is nothing more than qualities collection like the taste, odor, and color, etc. which are potentialities of material and nothing more. Also, the soul is a reality of matter of finer kind.

Everything in these rules in one level or another follow some general rules of reality and tends to follow it until we go to some other level of reality. For example, we know that in this macro realistic world everything tends to move from some higher potential to lower potential to make everything to move to a certain equilibrium condition. Like charges move from higher potential to lower potential, water flows from higher to lower potential, pressure goes from some higher to lower potential, particles tend to move from some higher to lower potential, so all in all everything in this universe tends to behave in the way nature wants it to move and the only way possible to move away from natural tendency is by the help of some external source or primary source to bend laws. So in general, there is commonness in things and this commonness accounts for moving towards the level of reality because by these sheer laws we can get to the roots of reality.

We can only get advancement in life if we act in accordance with the nature of reality. Innovations which we think as made by us are just submitting our will to the divine laws of naturalistic tendencies. For example, we make things in this world just by using the pre occurrence natural phenomena's. Like to get charges stored, we know that we have to act in accordance with nature's law by using the phenomenon of equilibrium. We can only make useful things when we surrender ourselves to prime mover laws and regulations.

Self-Identity

Most of the times our mental states are analyzed in our life at any moment by some of the experience we have in our life.  The problem that we face in defining the self-identity is the use of our traditional way with initiating a discussion with our own case. In our life, we are subjected to multiple experiences but the main thing that is in root with identity remain forever. My question is that can our experiences remain permanently as our physical appearance, or they are quality related to our substantial material. My answer is in negation, I, however, cannot assume that our ego is above and over to the experience we get in our life but I can say by surety that ego works due to our inner experiences. Ego is disciplined and formed by the experiences we have in our life. Our conscious experience is in a self-concentration state with which our life does not associate itself with actions having any bearable effects on our present action and it accommodates itself with the demand of the occasion. Thus we can say of the consciousness as the principle of organizing mode specific to our behavior which differs in essential to external mechanized sources. Self-identity is identity possessed by an individual as a person or a self. Structural similarity is preserved from one moment to the other whether an individual is a conscious self, a living organism or inanimate thing.

The sameness in conscious recognition is in addition to personal identity. It is said by different empiricist that a person is known to be one and person similar to its earlier version if it can be shown that character and memory is in its continuous mode. They term this as an identifying criterion. So their criteria cannot suffice since it negates lack of bodily persons while these criteria takeout possibility of bodily person. This performance criteria also stop us from checking claims of memory from which we can access character.

Purely bodily criteria since fail in explaining different concepts and aspects of a person, other notions are used by philosophers in explanation of personal identity. Human conscious unity is the main building block of human personality. Action is basically the system of the act making body and mind as a unique thing in action.

My Epistemology

In my view, the knowledge that makes its way through our mind is because of the presence of the material world. Our senses perceive it and make its observation describing it in more in immaterial form. Immaterial forms reception is only preparation through the material from which the divine world provides us.

Most of our data come from our senses and we perceive thing around us on the basis of our senses. Although it can be said that senses can account for faulty observations if sensory organs are not in a proper working environment. We can only know things if we takeout all our preconceived thoughts because mind or reason being the controlling organ for all our senses can always win the fight if it is in pre conceptive nature. Human being has a unique capability in this world because they have a dual nature. One is of "higher world" which we can also say as an immaterial world that is the intellect of celestial and "lower world" which is a world of material and decay because human beings possess a physical body. So a human being comes into happiness when it stays into equilibrium between material and immaterial world. Human being has the ability to think but also due to differences in their personalities, the act of thinking differs from one another. So when human being thinks through the use of sensory organs to decode the nature's knowledge, personal beliefs and preconceived notion to use in defining the knowledge. So it is a property of different human beings discussion that shapes the way knowledge of this world comes to coming generations.

There are two ways to get knowledge

Through rational thinking

Through our senses

We cannot in its entirety rule out the possibility of one over the other because they both being used in equilateral makes our knowledge complete. Although the rationalism is the superior way and above our sensory perceptions. Also, our intellect is divided into theoretical and practical intellect. So in my thinking, it is difficult for us to make a distinction between knowledge that makes its way through sensory perceptions and rationalism because sensory perceptions build our experiences and our experiences make our mind to respond to the kind of observation we take. It is difficult for us to be unbiased until or unless collective thinking paves its way for some middle ground.

My Position On Evidentialism Or Non-Evidentialism

Name

Instructor Name

Subject

Date

My Position on Evidentialism or Non-Evidentialism

Evidentialism is a belief in the religious philosophy and it is subjected to the availability of evidence to believe in a thing because it cannot be done otherwise. This belief was put forward by W.K. Clifford in 1876 in his essay The Ethics of Belief and he made an argument that evidence is a prerequisite for believing in anything. His this believe contradicted the earlier religious moral philosophies that highly believed in religious principles and teachings without any evidence. Clifford’s argument suggests that he does not believe in abstractness and instead insists on the concreteness of things in general. He also happened to be a member of metaphysical society and in the Victorian era, biblical criticism was emerging along with Darwin's theory of evolution. These incidents highly influenced many philosophers to question the relation between religion and morals. Moreover, they suggested that this relationship is eroding the core of Victorian society or humanity in general. Clifford also shared this belief and proclaimed that evidentialism contrasts with moral values because it challenges religious views. He stated that science and scientific methods should be incorporated in the social sphere for the masses' social growth and achieving moral truth. He links this notion to the negative effects of ungrounded believes in a society. William James rejected Clifford’s idea and said that evidence cannot be provided in every scenario when it comes to life. Besides, sentiments are central to life because belief in a thing removes the traces of skepticism and uncertainties. Moreover, he did not deny the reason behind evidence altogether but he gave an example and proclaimed that in matters of heart, one cannot make decisions based on objective facts. According to my belief, Non-Evidentialism is a sounder belief than evidentialism based on subjective opinion, beliefs, and moral values.

Subjective opinions are based on personal experiences and these experiences affect the thought process of individuals. on the other hand, one has to take prompt actions and skepticism delays the call of action. James's point makes sense that one cannot wait for evidence if the situation demands a prompt response because he focuses more on "will to believe". Moreover, subjective opinions do not necessarily need evidence because they stem from beliefs. I believe that things are both abstract and concrete. For instance, natural order, spirituality, and divinity are such things that cannot be seen with a naked eye but one believes in it because they appear true to him. Similarly, objective opinion can be formed easily because in that scenario one generally follows the rules of the group. Unlike evidentialists believe, pragmatism is an alien reason to non-evidentialists because they cannot reject the significance of subjective observations. In both religious and social avenues, when a moral cause is at stake people cannot wait for the right reason to address the cause. In non-evidentialist philosophy, morality and logic overpower evidence. Moreover, objective opinions can be at a risk too and this fact cannot be eliminated just because a large number of people choose to wait for a justification. Besides, subjective opinion ensures a person’s own free will to choose whatever side he wants to without the pressure of any external force. Also, religion is a matter of personal choice and it does not need any kind of justification to follow a certain religion or faith. the maxim of objectiveness loses its credibility over here. This is a tool employed to criticize believers and offer an extensive critique of religion and religious practices.

Belief plays an integral role in non-evidentialist philosophy because it addresses the question of God and his existence. One cannot view God but still believe in him and his presence through the power of belief. Agnostics rejects this idea because God cannot possess a human form or cannot give concrete evidence of his presence but he is everywhere and controls everything in this world. Through the power of belief, one wants to accept or reject things and this may not involve reason or logic at times. For instance, in daily lives, people make decisions based on the power of belief and their free will. Besides, prayer is another important aspect that shows believe in God and his divine plans. Belief and faith go side by side, people show faith in something because they believe in it. Reasoning affects the belief as well but it has its link with a heart more because at times reason fails too. moreover, God is a divine force and no one can deny his presence whether they believe in him or not because he provides for all human beings and controls the system of this world. Belief in God is a more internal matter as it involves both faith and beliefs. Spirituality is a great example of connecting with God without sensory experience. One cannot rely on reason in such matters but he has to show true faith and believe wholeheartedly. Moreover, if a person stops trying because he cannot see any concrete evidence, he will waste more time because divine signs are everywhere for people to see and take inspiration from. James suggests that one cannot avoid risk if he delays action by waiting for evidence or a solid reason to believe in something, instead he asserts that if one truly believes in a cause, it involves risks nonetheless but one cannot do without it. For an evidentialist school of thought, religion does not exist and they offer their criticism by calling it by a hypothetical version of the truth. The connection of faith is with what appears true to the heart and not mind because religion will always manifest itself as hypothetical for a non-believer or agnostic because they do not see any value in faith and talk about morality.

Morality shares proximity with both subjective opinion and power of belief because it requires prompt action in times of injustices and if one will wait for evidence or justifications, injustices will prevail in that society. Moral actions do not wait for evidence because they directly affect humanity and the human cause. Clifford's argument that religious teachings and morality are not interlinked seem irrelevant because religion makes a clear distinction between what is moral and what is not. Moral rules cannot be made on skepticism because no one can afford indecisiveness and one have to do without it. In this regard too, evidentialism and its maxim of being certain to action cannot be trusted. Evidentialist doctrine cannot be adopted for a longer period because things occur in abstract order too. Had it been for evidence, no one would have witnessed the age of Enlightenment or revolutions because people put their faith and acted on moral causes at once. Morality in a time of injustice and chaos becomes a responsibility and necessity in saving human values from collapse. In religious claims, it becomes the moral responsibility of a follower to act as advised by the divine orders. Similarly, in society, a ruler or law administrative authorities do not necessarily find evidence and in such a situation, moral values play a role and act as a decisive factor.

Evidentialism is a philosophy nonetheless but it does not count as a morally driven philosophy because it denies the role of subjective opinions. It also rejects the role of faith and power of belief in the life of a religious follower or any social worker. Besides, it confuses morality with religion because according to Clifford religion corrupts moral values but this is not the case because religion gives a sense of moral acts and immoral acts when evidence cannot be provided. Based on my religious beliefs and informed moral sense, I support the idea of non-evidentialism.