Analyzing Reasoning on Both Sides

This final writing assignment allows you to present an analysis of the best reasoning on each side of your issue. In the process, you will get to demonstrate some of the key skills you have learned during this course. In particular, you will demonstrate the ability to create high-quality arguments on both sides of an issue, to support your reasoning with scholarly sources, and to provide a fair analysis of the strength of the reasoning on each side. Make sure to incorporate any relevant feedback you got from the instructor on your previous writing assignments.For an example of how to complete this paper, take a look at the paper.

Your paper must include the following sections, clearly labeled:

• Introduction
  • Introduce readers to your topic; include a brief preview of

Write an essay of about 750 words, double-spaced, Time New Roman 12. 

Structure your essay in response to all the questions in the same sequence. 

(please read all the attached files)

This essay is not looking for your opinion, but please justify your argument. 

Assignment Instructions

Goal: Students will create a detailed outline of your Philosophical Essay due in two weeks.

Details:

You will pick one of the following topics only to do your paper on:

• 1.  According to Socrates, must one heed popular opinion about moral matters?  Does Socrates accept the fairness of the laws under which he was tried and convicted?  Would Socrates have been wrong to escape?
• 
  
• 2. Consider the following philosophical puzzle: If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? (1) How is this philosophical puzzle an epistemological problem? And (2) how would John Locke answer it?
• 
  
• 3. Evaluate the movie, The Matrix, in terms of the philosophical issues raised with (1) skepticism and (2) the mind-body problem. Exp

Read Chapters 2, 10, 22, and 23 in Exploring Ethics ("Morality and Moral  Philosophy", by William Frankena; "The Nature of Moral Disagreement",  by Charles L. Stevenson; "Famine, Affluence and Morality" by Peter  Singer; and "A Reply to Singer", by Travis Timmerman; pages, 2-5, 71-77,  151-165 in Cahn, fifth edition) . 

Then write a one page summary of  Singer's article, highlighting his argument (if you can formalize it,  great, if not, don't worry), his main points in support of his premises,  the objections he considers, and how he responds to those. Then  explain, and comment briefly, on Timmerman's response (another full  paragraph).

"attached all required reading"

 Peggy McIntosh stated, "White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, assurances, tools, maps, guides, codebooks, passports, visas, clothes, compass, emergency gear, and blank checks. (Harvey & Allard, 2014, p29). 

Others see advantages to success rooted in dominant culture privilege rather than white privilege.  In other words, the more a person adopts the societal and business norms of the dominant culture, the more likely they are to succeed, no matter their heritage.     

To which (or both) of these theories do you subscribe and why?

Christian servant leaders profess to serve those whom they lead through love and the moral obligation to promote the greater good of others. What leadership behaviors would you expect from a Christian servant leader and how might those behaviors differ from someone who is not a servant leader. Also, although servant leadership is often associated with the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ, do you believe servant leadership is compatible with other religions or worldviews? Why or why not? 

Assignment Instructions

Goal: The goal of this assignment is to get the student started on the Final Paper, with feedback from the Instructor.

Course Objectives:  Create a framework for developing ones own ethical and moral philosophy.

Description: This assignment is a proposal for the Final Paper with an annotated "bibliography." 

This proposal should include an ethical topic that you will critique with one of our main ethical theories (see below).  The proposal and annotated bibliography together should be about 350 words.  The bibliography should include a list of a minimum of three academic resources you will use to begin your research on the topic.  One of them can be an encyclopedia article (  or ) One should be an academically, peer-reviewed journal

1. n this section, introduce the problem. Explain Platos rules regarding poetic censorship. What does he want to censor and why? What needs to be removed from poetry and why? What kind of poetry is acceptable? What are his rules for good poetry?
2. In this section, choose a passage from the Iliad that we have read in class and rewrite it using Platos rules for good poetry. This section should include the original passage as a reference.
3. A conclusion that contains 3 differing reflections, that reflects on Platos rules, how they transform poetry. Each reflection should answer the following questions:
   1. Is Plato right to censor poetry? Are his reasons good/valid reasons?
   2. Will eliminating the aspects of poetry that Plato wants to eliminate help to create his perfect society? Why/why not?
   3. Do we perhaps want/need poetry to show us the things that Plato wants to eliminate? Why/why not?

Final presentation

- statement about the topic

- talk about how it is connected to your main academic discipline (or the one that primarily informs the paper)

- comment on which particular theories, concepts, methods, research, perspectives of your discipline

- how you tied in one or more other disciplines in your discussion, either directly or by implication

- it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate the interdisciplinarity and integrative component of your article

- some excerpts from your paper that illustrate all of the above

- 7 to 9 minutes for presentation; Use of PowerPoint or overhead projector permissible.

Article should be between 650 to 900 words. Strict limit on both ends. Please give word count. 

The purpose of this activity is for you explore how much bullshit you encounter. To do so, you will need to build a bullshit inventory (BSI) that captures all of the bullshit that you encounter over the duration of 10-14 days. The idea is to make note of each bit of bullshit that you see, read, or hear, and to record some information about it. This activity is open-ended and Id like you to be creative. You might consider tracking things like:

Bullshit that is forced upon you

Bullshit that is merely exposed to you

Bullshit that you produce yourself

Bullshit that you debunk or try to debunk

To complete this activity, youll have to determine and describe some key parameters such as:

Concept Definition: What constitutes bullshit in your mind? For example, does a deliberate lie count? Does the bullshitter have to be aware that he or she is bullshitting? And so forth.

Measurement Definition: How are you