Category: Philosophy

Understanding Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Values and Principles

Before college, I had no idea what ethics was, but I often heard the word “ethical” used in daily conversation. To me, ethics was a synonym for fair/just, and I really did not know what ethics was even remotely about. Obviously, that interpretation was extremely vague and did not capture the complexity of ethics. Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala, in their book, Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, explain, “We tend to think of ethics as the set of values or principals held by individuals or groups,” which helps to simplify the branch of philosophy.

Within the study of ethics are ethical frameworks, which analyze how people determine what is good and bad, right or wrong, and form opinions on polarizing topics. Two ethical frameworks that I will be comparing and contrasting are deontology and utilitarianism to examine the effectiveness of each when addressing contemporary issues in society. Both frameworks analyze the relationship between intent, actions, and outcomes.

Deontological Ethics: Principles Over Outcomes

Deontology is the ethical theory that “focuses on right actions and right intentions while downplaying the importance of the goods or benefits that are produced by these actions.” Doing the right thing is a person’s responsibility, and the idea of the right thing relies on the motives behind an act. Also, deontology stresses the idea of a universal moral code to which everyone has a duty to adhere. For an action to be considered ethical, it must apply to everyone. If it does not, then the action cannot be deemed ethical.

A strength of this ethical framework is that it sets a universal standard of ethical obligations that are not contradicted when turned into a maximum. An easy example is the classic question of whether you should lie to protect someone. When one evaluates the act of lying through the lens of the deontology framework, the ethical answer would be ‘no.’ This is because if lying to help someone becomes a universally accepted principle, there would be very little truth left in the world. If one applies this theory of thinking to every ethical problem, it creates an obvious answer of whether or not the act is ethical, no matter the outcome.

Another strength of this framework is that it looks at all human beings as equal. The framework creates objective guidelines for making moral decisions that every human being is to follow, with no acceptions. That is helpful because it gives value to moral absolutes that do not change. Lastly, a strength of deontology is that it focuses on one’s own actions and intentions instead of looking at the results or “external circumstances that we cannot control”. People should not be held accountable or praised for things that are not in their control. That way of thinking puts more value on the person’s thoughts and reasoning for their action than the other person’s perception.

A weakness of deontology is that there are no set limits on what can be reasonably universalized. What is reasonable or morally okay to one person may not be the same for others. Also, not all things that are universalized could not be moral and, at the same time, not contradict the previous set of guidelines of deontological ethics. Another weakness of Kant’s approach is that it takes emotions and humanness out of morality. Morality does have some ties to personal behaviors and perceptions, so completely disregarding emotion is difficult in practice. A person whose intentions were moral had to use his or her own judgment to come to that conclusion. So, not acknowledging human emotion when considering something to be ethical is not valid.

Utilitarianism Ethics: The Pursuit of Maximum Happiness

Next, utilitarianism is the ethical framework that focuses on the happiness of people and uses that as the measurement of morality. Utilitarian ethics believes that “actions are morally better or worse depending on whether they produce pleasure or pain or, more abstractly, on how they affect human well-being and happiness. This framework is pretty straightforward compared to deontology because it is based on a single principle, happiness. Since the idea of creating a happier life is common for most people, a system that’s the sole focus is maximizing that happiness is extremely inviting.

A strength of utilitarianism is that it is a form of consequentialism which is the idea that “focuses on the consequences of actions.” This is a strength because it is natural for human beings to weigh the consequences of specific actions and make the choice to do them. Determining ethical behavior through the lens of utilitarianism is easy and somewhat natural because the thought process used is common sense to most people.

That being said, it is easy to demonstrate this framework in real life because it is human nature to believe this way of thinking is fair/ just. Another strength of this ethical framework is that it makes people think beyond their own personal point of view. It is easy to judge an action based on how it will affect you, but your actions do not solely affect your life most of the time. When making an ethical decision, “everyone affected by some action is to be counted equally. We ourselves hold no privileged place, so our own happiness counts no more than that of others.”

In contrast, utilitarianism calculates the amount of happiness an action could create using different variables like intensity or duration, which is very complex, and “no one can consider all of the variables that utilitarianism requires us to consider.” This weakness is important to think about because one can never know all the consequences of a specific action, thus meaning the choice may not always be as clear as it is presented to be. In this case, the person who is deciding between the possible actions will be inclined to choose the results that, in their opinion, would generate the most happiness.

Another weakness is that the ethical framework can be used as an excuse for unjust actions for the sake of the happiness of others. A good example from the book that was used to criticize utilitarian ethics is, “Or could we not justify on utilitarian grounds the killing of some individuals for the sake of the good of a greater number, perhaps in the name of population control.” The amount of happiness or evilness an action creates is not the only reason why it is morally wrong or right. There are certain actions that are just wrong, and utilitarianism ignores that as long as the outcome is positive for the majority of people. The end justifying the means is a dangerous way to think because it undermines rules and regulations that keep society in order.

Comparing Deontology and Utilitarianism: Contrasts and Common Ground

However, these two frameworks dramatically differ in the process used to determine whether or not an action is ethical. Deontology focuses on the intentions behind an action and the action itself to ensure it is good or proper. In other words, the framework “emphasizes the right over the good.” The good is the results that are produced by the said action. In contrast, Utilitarian ethics only focus on happiness or good that results from an action. Similarly, both deontology and utilitarian ethics look beyond the personal point of view when determining an action’s morality.

Utilitarianism believes the ethical option is the one that produces the most “happiness or pleasure of all who are affected by an action or practice that is to be considered.” So, when making an ethical decision, the person must look at things from others’ points of view. Also, deontological ethics heavily enforce duty and moral standards, which are things everyone must live by. To consider an action to be ethical,” it must be something that I can consistently will or accept that all others do.” Both frameworks, when evaluating principles and actions, do not judge them from a personal point of view and think about the greater good. Since these frameworks’ methods of determining an action or principle are ethical, they tend to differ in opinion on real-world issues.

Ethics in Real-world Scenarios: Navigating Complex Moral Challenges

Therefore, after analyzing both utilitarian and deontological ethics, I have come to the conclusion that deontological ethics is the most helpful in working through real-world issues. Deontological ethics holds every human being as equal and holds everyone accountable to the same duties and moral standards. To me, it is the easiest to work through and makes the most sense because there will always be a “justified” reason as to why someone should not follow the rules or break laws, but that does not make it right. For instance, the act of abortion is unethical from a deontology standpoint because it is wrong to end a life. Though I am Pro-Choice, I do still agree with the fact that abortion is not a moral act no matter what, but it should be a woman’s choice to deal with that decision.

Another example would be theft; a poor person stole expensive medicine in order to live. Though the company would not take a hard hit, it is still wrong to steal, no matter why or how it will affect others. It may seem harsh, but with no order of things and a universal code of moral conduct, I believe the world would fall apart. Also, it is unfair to pick and choose whose justification is better, and it is like comparing struggles; no matter who wins, both are still struggling. This ideology reminds me of the old saying, “Do unto others as you would want to be done to you.” If you do not believe it is right for someone else to do it, you should not be doing it.

References:

1. MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. Cengage Learning.

Navigating Belief and Evidence: William Clifford’s Perspective on Rational Belief in ‘The Ethics of Belief’

William Clifford is one of the great mathematicians and is remembered as an intellectual and authority in science. While other scientists were worried that a collapse in religion would lead to morality and society desecration, Clifford was willing to embrace the uncertain territory that science failed to explain. While embracing certain morality codes, Clifford defended his lecture “The Ethics of Belief” that he delivered in London’s Metaphysical Society in 1876 (Christian). This was in an effort to promote discussion between religion and scientific beliefs.

In his article, Clifford argues that it is wrong to believe in God without the evidence that God exists (Clifford). In the first part of the paper, Clifford gives an example of a person who believes in something without having sufficient evidence. In the example he gives, he describes a shipowner who sends out a ship that he knows and believes to be seaworthy. He, however, encounters several doubts, given that the shop was overhauled and repairing the ship would cost him. However, he put his trust in the ship, given that it had already gone through many voyages and returned safely each time. However, the ship did not make it to shore this time around, even after convincing himself the ship would be fine (Clifford).

Examining the Impact of Personal Beliefs: Clifford’s Critique on the Role of Belief and Evidence

Clifford insists that the shipowner was morally responsible for the deaths of the people on the ship. His failure is completely clear, given that he had the fact that the ship might not make it for another voyage. He let himself be guided by beliefs instead of the facts. His actions, however, were not wrong because of the results of the voyage. Even if the ship had survived the voyage, the shipowner would still be liable for his actions.

The lecture is divided into three sections, including the duty of inquiry, the weight of authority, and the limits of inference (Clifford). Each of these sections describes in detail the reasons why actions should not be based purely on beliefs, how beliefs affect other people in society, and the manner in which beliefs are passed on from one person to the community without regard for truth or evidence.

Due to this, Clifford brings up several premises of the various argument, including (Clifford):

• When one’s beliefs have a huge effect on others, it is wrong to act on insufficient evidence.
• One’s beliefs will always have an impact on others.
• It is wrong to believe in insufficient evidence.

Interconnected Beliefs: Unpacking Clifford’s Premises on the Societal Impact of Personal Beliefs

The first premise states that in a case where our beliefs affect other people, it is wrong to make decisions without evidence. Clifford’s reason for this premise is due to the social function of belief. He stated that beliefs often prompt the decisions of our will, not just for ourselves but also for humanity. Social function often binds men together, and people often rely on what other people believe in to make decisions. The passengers that boarded the ship, for example, made their decision to board the ship based on the decision that the shipowner made to set it off for sail, despite his doubts.

The second premise insists that beliefs have effects on other people. Clifford believes that there is no belief that is held by one man and that the belief of one man eventually affects the entire humankind. This has been shown to be true in institutions like religion, where the belief of one man had a domino effect on the rest of society. It does not matter how insignificant the belief might be or how ‘unimportant’ the believer seems (Christian). Beliefs have never been a private matter, and they are even handed over through generations.

Clifford is well aware of the effects of beliefs in society, as well as the collection of socially held beliefs. His second premise, however, is a bit weak, given that he does not give a reason to think that all beliefs, even insignificant ones, affect other people. He simply states this. However, in my opinion, this is not completely true.

My Argument

There are beliefs that we hold that are socially held, and any change could affect the rest of the community’s beliefs. However, there are other beliefs that an individual holds that do not particularly affect society. An example is a belief that I may have right now that I will get a certain amount of cash within a week’s time. This belief could be held by evidence, for example, the timely delivery of a certain amount of work within the weeks’ time, which is a surety. It could also be simply wishful thinking. Either way, this belief does not affect society in any way, and neither will it have an effect on humanity.

One could dream up circumstances that may show a domino effect from the belief that I am expecting pay within a week. For example, a close friend could be in severe debt and could be facing jail time due to dues owed within a significant amount of time. I, however, could tell them that I am receiving pay and that I could lend most of that pay to the friend. This could lead to a friend being kept out of jail, which could lead people to be more generous with their friends. This could lead to one belief changing the decisions of others, and in this case, it includes the decisions of both the friend and the debt collectors.

Another reason to doubt the second premise is that, at times, people keep their beliefs to themselves (Christian). If someone kept an unjustified belief to themselves, there is a chance that it may not affect anyone within the society. This, however, does not take away its surety as my own belief. This belief, however, may lead me to act in different ways that may affect another person. However, if one is careful with their actions, one person’s belief does not necessarily affect others.

Evaluating Clifford’s Call for Objective Beliefs: Balancing Evidence and Subjectivity in Knowledge and Morality

In the first premise, Clifford believes that to act, one must have sufficient evidence to support their actions. The historical beliefs in society, however, are not based on sufficient evidence. Sufficient evidence could also be incredibly subjective, and for some, it may imply sufficiently reasonable. For example, if one person trusts the other person, they are justified in believing in each other even though lies may be involved.

Knowledge is also a socially generated product, and the rules of holding beliefs become more of social rules. For example, society will treat a certain expert a certain way simply because they are experts in it. It does not matter whether they have encountered the same problem before and solved it. In today’s society, your resume and track record speak for itself. This is a far cry from Clifford’s slogan that one should not act on one’s beliefs but rather on the evidence presented.

Clifford’s essay is meant to be a moral rejection of being subjective and a concept that holds that knowledge and truth are limited to self-experience. Subjectivism holds that truth can be found within oneself, one’s experiences, or other means that are extremely personal (Christian). This could include experiences like clarity through prayer, meditation, self-reasoning, or simply self-belief. Clifford insists instead that objectivism is much more superior, and it is the only concept that can hold true. This includes concepts like scientific evidence and mathematics. Clifford was extremely fond of objectivist ethics and said that any decision based on subjectivism is immoral.

Reconsidering Clifford’s Premises: Challenges to the Notion of Insufficient Evidence as Harmful and Unquestionable Morality

The first premise is also questionable, given that Clifford insists that acting on a certain belief without sufficient self-evidence could be harmful to the people who rely on the decisions made. However, insufficient evidence is not always harmful. At times, it could be extremely helpful. Within marriage, for example, spouses trust each other to be faithful and to cover their responsibilities. This is not supported by any past evidence but rather a self-belief in the other person. Insisting that a child believes in herself or himself is also important in self-growth and self-confidence. This is often done by encouraging the child on certain issues regarding themselves, including praising them and providing them with words of affirmation. It is important to ensure limits on overpraising children. However, the results of encouraging confidence, self-belief, and trust are not always bad. Hence, the premise is false.

However, apart from the circumstances that reject the second premise, as shown above, Clifford’s perceptions have a loophole in them. Clifford has not provided sufficient evidence to verify his concept of morality. His hypotheses, therefore, are in violation of his own moral conduct by claiming that his positions are true without being verifiable. He failed to clarify the contradictions that were brought upon him and given that his arguments begin unraveling, it is only prudent that his arguments are rejected. Without rejecting his philosophy, we would be acting immorally.

In conclusion, I believe that Clifford’s argument does not establish that actions without proper and reasonable evidence are wrong. This, however, does not dismiss the fact that actions that affect others should always be weighed heavily against the resulting consequences that may occur, given the evidence that is available. His thought process may be in the right place, but his arguments do not hold.

References:

1. Clifford, W. K. (1877). The Ethics of Belief. Contemporary Review, 29(1), 289-309.

Please write for me a reading response paper for this chapter:
Week 10 (July 10th) Sex
Halwani: “Sexual Perversion and Sexual Fantasy”

TOPIC:
You are to take ANY ONE of the paragraph topics (the questions/scenarios that you responded to for your paragraph assignments) from PARAGRAPHS 1-3 ONLY (I will include the paragraphs I did below) and write an extended response to any one of them, making use of the ideas from AT LEAST TWO readings/Lessons and citing TWO external sources, according to the following instructions and guidelines. You can use what you wrote in your original response to the topic however you want or you can start over, it’s up to you.
If you plan on using any type of AI on your assignment (which includes Grammarly), read the Syllabus for instructions on how to use it properly.
FAILURE TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THE TOPIC BELOW WILL RESULT IN A SCORE OF 0. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SIMPLY WRITE WHATEVER YOU WANT ON WHAT WE READ. THIS TOPIC IS HERE TO HELP YOU LEARN.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Papers are to be NO MORE THAN 600-800 WORDS and turned in right here on Canvas.  Remember to draw on arguments and examples used in class and from the readings. Make sure to cite any quotations or references to other works (IN A WAY THAT I CAN TRACE YOUR SOURCE). ANY form of plagiarism will result in an F and appropriate reporting. Don’t do it. If you’re unsure what constitutes plagiarism, look it up or refer to this web page for more information: Information on Plagiarism and Academic HonestyLinks to an external site.. If you are thinking of cheating, please just talk to me before you do it and we could work something out so that you don’t cheat.
You are to cite AT LEAST 2 SOURCES obtained from outside this course. While I want you to go out and use more sources, keep in mind that you do only need 2 external sources. This paper is NOT meant to be a complex research paper, but more of an analysis on the topic. However, this research is meant to help you in your analysis, which is part of the reason I am requiring that you do it. Wikipedia is not an ideal source, but you may use it appropriately as a source, mostly for factual descriptions. However, you should always try to approach Wikipedia as a great place to start some research, but it’s best left there. An easy place to begin is by looking at the articles cited in the course readings. You can also locate sources using the Internet (ie, Google Search, Google Scholar, philpapers.org, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc.), your own books (I wish!), or any of the numerous research engines available to you through the GWC Library (http://www.goldenwestcollege.edu/library/Links to an external site. ), like the EBSCOHost (and other) Databases (http://www.goldenwestcollege.edu/library/databases.htmlLinks to an external site.), especially the Religion and Philosophy Collection and Academic Search Premier. You can even talk with real-life people! Talk with me or a librarian if you need any help finding sources.
Paper tips/guidelines: The most important thing to do is back up your arguments with good reasons. Create a clear thesis in your paper and make clear, reasoned arguments supporting your thesis. Try to keep your thoughts on point and just say what needs to be said – don’t add “fluff” unless it helps get your point across.
Example of a thesis statement: “I agree with Socrates that Philosophers should rule us.”  If you want to add more, then put your strongest and most important reason into it as well, such as by saying, “I agree with Socrates that Philosophers should rule us because they are so amazingly brilliant and kind.” These would be reasonable thesis statements in response to a question like, “Do you agree with Socrates that Philosophers should be rulers? Why or why not?” THEN you would go on to elaborate in good detail giving good reasons supporting your thesis statement.
Part of your grade will be based on how well you recognize the important philosophical aspects of the topic presented in light of what we have read and discussed in the course. You should first identify these aspects – doing so will help you organize your thoughts and make your arguments. When you proofread your work (and you should do this) you should always think that the person grading it will be constantly asking “Why?” and you should be sure you have answers to these “Why?” questions. If you need more help, read your paper aloud to a friend (seriously, despite how bad of an idea this sounds) – you’ll get some good feedback and notice problems for yourself.
Make sure you CONNECT all of your ideas to each other and always be sure that everything you say leads back to your thesis. If something you are saying doesn’t help you make your case, then you should probably leave it out.
Remember that this is only supposed to be a 600- to 800-word assignment (NO, works cited DO NOT count in this limit), so only present what is necessary for making your arguments. Be sure to properly cite any references. The most important things to accomplish in this paper are making your position and arguments clear and well-reasoned. While you will state your opinions, you must be sure to back them up with arguments. An argument is NOT simply stating something – you must say WHY it supports what you say it does.
Example of a very simple successful paper format: State your thesis. Say why you like it. Give your reasons that support your thesis and then support these reasons clearly using relevant sources. Keep it on point and use the best arguments and counterarguments you can. If you’re unsure how to structure or start your assignment, try this format.
https://www.goldenwestcollege.edu/library/index.html

Academic Honesty

Below the file “IntroductiontoPhilosophyReader2020.pdf” , Please ONLY USE CHAPTERS 1-10. from the reading

PLEASE COMPLETE THE ‘VALUE SYSTEMS EXERCISE’ BEFORE WRITING THIS PAPER.  
The ‘Value Systems Exercise’ document is attached.  List your top 10 values at the beginning of your first 
paper.  
Click on the ‘Paper 1’ document above for more details on how you will use this list of values to formulate your belief paper.
MLA FORMAT Essay Format: 2-3 pgs, title, name, date, double-spaced, 12 point font

Essay question: When, if ever, does general societal pressure undermine consent?
I was adivsed to use Dougherty’s paper to argue and answer the question and say how his argument is wrong. Also make sure to include Mollie Gerver’s view on this (make sure to use week 4 slides on this). Make sure to definitely include both the essential readings that I have added. For overall instructions and guidelines use Week 11 slides. I will add more useful readings later.
Here is one good structure for your essays, though I will suggest others in the lectures:
1. In the introduction (1 paragraph) present the general thesis you want to defend. A thesis is just a very concise general answer which you will then defend in the rest of the essay. For example, if an essay question is “Do surprise parties violate property rights because people haven’t given valid consent to you throwing them a party in their homes?” then thesis can be “Surprise parties always violate property rights” or “Surprise parties violate property rights when the person would not have consented to the party had they know ahead of time” Or “Surprise parties violate property rights when the person does not retroactively endorse having been subject to a surprise party.” This introduction should also present the general structure of your essay, which is typically 1-2 arguments in defence of your thesis, followed by a potential objection and then response (more on that next).
2. In the rest of the essay, you should present reasons that the thesis is correct. One good way to do this is to present one or two core arguments in support of your thesis. An argument often requires defending a general principle, and then showing why the principle implies that your thesis is correct. For example, if you were to defend the thesis “Surprise parties always violate property rights” you could first defend the principle of property rights, and the principle that such rights are always violated whenever entering a person’s house without their explicit and prior consent. This defence of a general principle needn’t (and perhaps shouldn’t) directly address the topic of the surprise party, but just defend the principle in general in 1-3 paragraphs. You then show that this principle is clearly violated if someone throws a surprise party, and therefore surprise parties violate property rights. This should take another 1-3 paragraphs.
3. After presenting one or two arguments in support of your thesis, a good essay will present 2-3 potential objections to one or both of your arguments. A good idea is to devote 1-3 paragraphs explaining each objection, followed by 1-3 paragraphs of your response. For example, if your core argument is that property rights should always be respected, and this requires a person’s consent before entering their property, the objection could be that a person does give consent to you entering their house if they give “hypothetical consent”: they would have consented to you entering had you asked them beforehand.
4. Finally, the essay should explain why the objection fails, and so your thesis stands. For example, you might respond to the objection above by arguing that giving hypothetical consent is not enough: a person must actually give consent before entering their home is morally permissible. You could also present two responses to your objection, rather than one: For example, you could defend the claim that a person must give actual consent rather than just hypothetical consent and, even if that’s not true, surprise parties don’t even involve hypothetical consent, because most people would not have consented to a surprise party if you asked them ahead of time! This part of the essay could be 2-3 paragraphs, but there are no strict rules. The goal is to ensure you truly respond to the objection.

Do you agree with John Harris that the Survival Lottery should be implemented, or not? If you do agree with him, why? What do you think the best objection to his view is?

Argumentative Essay Guidelines, Suggestions, and Topics
An argumentative essay requires you to write a rational, well-evidenced, solid defense of your claim. You will be required to write no more than four to six (4-6) typed and double-spaced pages on your selected topic. Your topic must come from any of the following topics or be a topic which I have approved. In some case you may have to narrow the topics to complete the assignment. Chapter 13 of Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction (our text) discusses in detail the requirements of writing an argumentative essay and we will say more about this in class. However, the following is a general outline of the steps you should consider when writing an argument. A sample argumentative essay is provided in Critical Thinking beginning on page 414.
Topic: Do we need more gun control laws?
Before you write:
Know yourself
Know your audience
Choose and narrow your topic
Write a sentence that expresses your claim
Gather ideas: brainstorm and research
Organize your ideas
Writing the First Draft:
Provide an interesting opening
Include a thesis statement
Develop your body paragraphs
Provide a satisfying conclusion
After the Rough Draft (if you choose to write one):
Read what you have written and revise
Consider what you have not written and revise
Show your work
Edit your work
Hand it in
You will be evaluated on:
Spelling and Grammar – You will be deducted points for spelling and grammar
errors.
Attributing Sources – students must properly cite sources. We will discuss this issue
further in class.
Quality of Sources – the stronger and more credible your sources, the higher your
grade for this part of the assignment. Hint: Wikipedia is not a strong source.
Quality of Final Product – better papers (e.g. well written, well researched, well
argued) receive better scores.
Strength of Analysis/Argument – your argument should be logical, use reliable
(reasonable) evidence that is relevant and sufficient to establish the conclusion. You
need to do research to meet this objective.
essay rubric:
Final Paper Rubric: Your essay will be evaluated on these five (5) elements.  Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns
Critical Elements (25 points): Exemplary (100%):  Includes all of the main elements and requirements and cites ample appropriate support to illustrate each element
Proficient (85%):  Includes most of the main elements and requirements and cites appropriate support to illustrate each element
Needs Improvement (55%):  Includes some of the main elements and requirements
Not Evident (0%):  Does not include any of the main elements and requirements
Inquiry and Analysis (20 points): Exemplary (100%):  Explores multiple reasons and offers in-depth analysis of evidence to make informed conclusions about the issue
Proficient (85%):  Explores some reasons and offers somewhat in-depth analysis of evidence to make informed conclusions about the issue
Needs Improvement (55%):  Explores minimal reasons and offers minimal analysis of evidence to make informed conclusions about the issue
Not Evident (0%):  Does not explore reasons and analysis of evidence and does not make informed conclusions about the issue
Critical Thinking (20): Exemplary (100%):  Demonstrates comprehensive exploration of issues and ideas before accepting or forming an opinion or conclusion
Proficient (85%):  Demonstrates moderate exploration of issues and ideas before accepting or forming an opinion or conclusion
Needs Improvement (55%):  Demonstrates minimal exploration of issues and ideas before accepting or forming an opinion or conclusion
Not Evident (0%):  Does not demonstrate exploration of issues and ideas before accepting or forming an opinion or conclusion
Objection and Response (20): Exemplary (100%):  Incorporates and fully develops a strong objection; offers a strong and novel response to that objection
Proficient (85%):  Incorporates and moderately develops an objection; offers an adequate response to that objection
Needs Improvement (55%):  Incorporates but does not fully develop an objection; responds somewhat to that objection
Not Evident (0%):  Does not incorporate a full objection; does not respond to that objection
Writing (Mechanics/Citations) (15): Exemplary (100%):  No errors related to organization, grammar and style, and citations
Proficient (85%):  Minor errors related to organization, grammar and style, and citations
Needs Improvement (55%):  Some errors related to organization, grammar and style, and citations
Not Evident (0%):  Major errors related to organization, grammar and style, and citations

Assignment Goals and Objectives
This assignment is designed to test your ability to explain AND apply the theories you’ve been learning in our course. To succeed on this assignment you should be able to:
Explain the central arguments from the following: Kant and Mill.
Apply each of the theories to a scenario to “test” the feasibility of their normativity.
Formulate objections to each, and consider possible solutions.
Before you begin answering the questions you need to do some honest self-reflection and ask yourself if you understand the material well enough to explain it and apply it.
Assignment Instructions
Do not use material from any outside (i.e., secondary) sources, and do not use quotes from the primary source material longer than several words; I want to read what you have to say about the text. When you do quote the text, however, be sure to enlist the appropriate punctuation.
As a reminder, be sure to construct grammatical sentences that:
As a reminder, be sure to construct grammatical sentences that:
give a clear and concise description of the case at hand or the central problem each thinker addresses.
introduce and describe the relevant philosophical concepts.
give a thorough, philosophical explication of the relevant aspects of each thinker’s arguments. (Remember the tips on how to successfully analyze a text.)
present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand or to the question posed.
present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand or answer to the question posed.
present an argument of your own regarding the moral status of the solution(s) to the case at hand or answer to the question posed. Be sure your argument does not replace the explication instructions above.
Assignment Question
Consider the following scenario: A burning building, relatively structurally sound, is engulfed in flames, with 4 small children trapped inside. There are two people who must decide how to respond to the situation: Abuela — an 80-year-old misanthropic, pyrophobic, Luddite, who saw her mother burn to death in a fire when she was younger. She’s in relatively good health, although she uses a cane. She has a cell phone for emergencies, but she hates it. Domingo Ash — a 30-year, world-renowned firefighter who is on his way back from the latest firefighting championships. He has all his gear with him but is tired from the demands of the recent championships and, to be honest, a bit burned out from relentless firefighting.
What is the moral action for Abuela to take? What is the moral action for Domingo to take?
Explain, thoroughly, the relevant aspects of the two thinkers’ theories. In other words, what is (morally) at stake in this scenario for Kant and Mill?
Explain how both Abuela and Domingo Ash should respond to the situation of the burning building. Would one or both of your thinkers require both Abuela and Domingo Ash to do the same thing? Why or why not?
Make an argument for which of the two thinkers you analyzed provides the best moral guidance and why?

You are to write a ‘missive’ or a very brief essay discussing your thoughts on the meaning of material life, meaning human made and human modified objects that aid and regulate human existence.  The purpose of this exercise is for you to share your thoughts on whatever subject within the idea of material culture that you see fit. The essay can be philosophical, a close discussion of an object or material phenomenon (say, for example, plastic particulate in everything).  The only condition of the essay is that it be 200 words exactly (not 199, not 201, not any number of words save 200).  A word must accompany your essay and the assignment title, course information, your name and student number must not be included in the word count. 
I’ve attached the course outline, you can refer to week 1 course materials