PHI 2010 SFCC Better Schooling Health Care & Legal Assistance Because of Money Essay I will attach all the info I have some points I want to make
This is an 800 word thesis defense paper.
ONLY three sources can be used
There are several different topics to write about. I will let you decide, however, I think chapter7 and 8 would be the easiest, You can choose which ever you would like.
This is not a research a paper this is a logical argument paper.
Do not worry about the response to the formal post that will be posted when the others start to post. Pressler How to Write Formal Post and Response Rev 2 Nov 2017 1
How to Write a Formal Post and Response in a Philosophy Class.
The discipline of philosophy has its own expectations for papers. These are different from the
expectations for papers in other disciplines, and particularly different from the expectations for
papers in English. As someone who holds advanced degrees in both philosophy and English, I
am very aware of these differing expectations. What follows will introduce you to the particular
style and format expected of you when you are writing a paper in the discipline of philosophy.
How to write the formal post.
To begin with, you should answer the question you have chosen using analysis and synthesis. As
you prepare to write, analyze the arguments and counterarguments of the philosophers on the
topic. Understand how each argument proceeds, step by step, to its conclusion. Understand how
the argument applies to the examples given. All of this should be written down before you begin
to draft your paper. Then, as you draft, synthesize material from your notes, your textbook, the
handouts and other online materials, yours’ and other students’ discussion board posts, and (if
this is a face-to-face class) your instructor’s lectures and discussions . Shape the material, but
don’t give your own opinion unless the question specifically calls for it. (It usually won’t.)
Your post can be thoughtful and exploratory. Do not feel you have to settle the question once and
for all.
However, do be clear. A good philosophy paper is written in a very straightforward style.
Let your discussions be both concise and complete. Define your terms. Use transitions, each
time you take a step in your argument, to let your readers know what step you are taking, and
why.
Avoid rhetorical questions. They don’t advance an argument; in fact, they are really an attempt
to dodge argument.
In fact, avoid rhetorical flourishes and so-called vivid writing altogether. Philosophers will
suspect that you don’t really have an argument, and are trying to cover up your lack with empty
rhetoric. Since Socrates, philosophers have condemned that maneuver.
Don’t bother with the standard five-paragraph essay introduction. If you begin your post
with some version of “Throughout human history, people have wondered…” you are just
wasting space and time,
Instead, state at the beginning, and with as much clarity as possible, what it is you intend to
do.
•
If you are examining a concept, begin with a definition of the concept – taken from
your textbook, not the dictionary! Dictionary definitions record common usage in a
particular place and time. However, in philosophy, there is often a need to clarify
common usage, so use the philosophical definitions in your post.
Pressler How to Write Formal Post and Response Rev 2 Nov 2017 2
•
•
•
•
If you are discussing a philosophical theory, begin with a statement like “Rationalists
believe that…” and then tell us as much of their theory as is relevant to your own thesis.
(You don’t have to tell us everything.)
It is also acceptable to list the steps of your argument, or the points you intend to
cover, in the first paragraph: An actual example: “In this book, I try to show five things.
First… second… third… fourth… fifth…”
Students, these are actual examples, taken from conference papers read by celebrated
philosophers, for which I was in the audience.
There is an old joke about philosophical writing: If a philosophy professor were to write
a murder mystery, it would begin “In this book, I will show why the butler did it.” Keep
this joke in mind as you write your posts.
Use of outside sources.
Your textbook and my handouts are the main sources for the formal post. You may also use
the Philosophy Pages and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (But do not use the Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is an inferior resource.)
If (and only if) I give prior permission, you may use the off-site materials I have linked to,
in my handouts, or elsewhere on this D2L site. Any materials you use, including the textbook
and handouts, must be cited in MLA style and a Works Cited page must be provided.
Do not use any other outside sources. Use of unapproved outside sources will be considered
plagiarism and the plagiarism policy will be invoked.
How to write the formal response.
Pre-writing is necessary for a successful response. Begin by determining whether the post is
clearly enough written to be understandable, and whether it fulfilled the terms of the assignment.
Then focus on the arguments presented. Your task is to evaluate how well the post succeeded at
presenting those arguments. Don’t say whether or not you agreed with them – that’s irrelevant.
Respond as a supportive but fair-minded evaluator. Use your critical thinking when you evaluate
the arguments. Construct counterexamples and counterarguments to test the arguments in the
posts. Probe the definitions. Bring in additional material from the texts, handouts, or class
discussion if relevant to your critique. Add comments about mechanics, grammar, and style if
they are needed, but do not make these the focus of the post. Make suggestions for improvement,
but be sure to point out the strengths of the post as well.
You may use the “Grading Rubric for Formal Posts” as your guide to preparing your response,
but do not copy its wording word-for-word.
I will comment on and grade your response also. Your grades will be private (only you and I will
see them), but my comments will be posted to the D2L course discussion board and visible to all
students in the class.
Pressler PHI 2010 Formal Posts Rev 2 Nov 20171
PHI 2010: Introduction to Philosophy
Instructions and topics for the formal discussion board post.
Instructions for the formal response.
Please also read the handout titled “How to Write the Formal Post and Response,”
which explains the style of writing used in philosophy papers.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FORMAL POST (15 points):
1. Overview: You will select one of the topics given below in this handout. All topics are
pre-selected by me. They are taken from Units 2 and 3 of the course, excluding Chapters
3 and 10. You must write on one of the topics I have pre-selected to receive credit for this
assignment. If you want to write on your own topic, you must receive permission from
me in advance, but be aware that I am very unlikely to give it.
You will write a formal thesis defense paper of at least 800 words on the topic you select,
using MLA manuscript and citation style, and post it to the discussion board by the due
date posted in the assignment calendar. Your post must have a Works Cited list.
2. Genre. The formal post is what is called a “thesis defense” paper. A thesis defense paper
is very similar to an argument paper, but with one important difference. A thesis defense
paper presents definitions and logical arguments, rather than data and evidence, to
support its claim.
3. Sources: This is not a research paper. Your focus is on logical argument, not data.
Therefore, the only sources you will need for this paper are the arguments of the
philosophers we have studied in class. Your written sources are: your textbook (The Big
Questions), the chapter handouts, and the two web sources mentioned in the syllabus, the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and The Philosophy Pages.
Supplemental materials (websites, videos) in the Content section can be used if you ask
my permission first and cite the material correctly. No other sources may be used.
Use of unapproved outside sources will be considered plagiarism and the plagiarism
policy will be invoked.
4. Topic. You must write your formal post on one of the topics listed below. The choice is
up to you. All topics are taken from Units 2 and 3 of this course, Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 9 only. No topics from other chapters, including Chapter 3, may be used for the
formal post.
All of the topics ask you to summarize the steps of a philosophical argument, contrast
two philosophers’ arguments, or apply a philosophical concept to a case or situation.
Pressler PHI 2010 Formal Posts Rev 2 Nov 20172
5. Tone, style, length, format, citation style. Your post should be formally written. Your
definitions and analysis should be clear, cogent, and precise. Give both arguments and
counterarguments for the position you choose. It is, however, acceptable to be somewhat
exploratory in your treatment of the topic. Do not feel you have to settle the question
once and for all!
Your post will synthesize material from your textbook, the handouts, and class lectures
and discussion with your own reasoning. But note that your paper will rely mainly on this
course material rather than your own opinions or viewpoint.
Your post must be a minimum of 800 words long. College-level English must be used
throughout.
Any paraphrases, summaries, or direct quotations from any source must be cited using
the MLA style of in-text citation. Be sure to provide a Works Cited List.
6. Plagiarism warning: Any formal post closely copied from the textbook, handouts,
another student’s post, or an internet source will receive 0 points, and the post will be
treated as an infraction of the course plagiarism policy (see the syllabus). A second
offense will result in suspension from the course with the grade of “F.”
7. Grading scale. Posts will be graded according to the “”Grading Rubric for Formal Posts”
on this website.
For additional information on format, grammar, and mechanics, and for examples and tips on
appropriate styles of writing philosophy papers, see Appendix A in The Big Questions, and/or the
“General Requirements for Written Work,” and the “Grading Rubric for Formal Posts” on this
website.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FORMAL RESPONSE (5 points):
Overview: You will make a formally written critical response or critique) to another student’s
formal post. You must respond to a post on a chapter different from the chapter on which wrote
your own formal post. Your response must be a minimum of 300 words long. Again, your
response may be longer than the minimum.
To earn credit, your response must substantially address the student’s Formal Post in at least
two objectively written paragraphs. Feel free to propose counterexamples or point out problems
in reasoning, but stick to the argument; don’t get personal. College-level English must be used
throughout. Confusingly worded, ungrammatical, contradictory, disorganized, or poorly spelled
responses will receive a zero-point “F.”
No points will be awarded for “I agree / I disagree” responses. Abusively written responses
will be removed, and students guilty of online abusiveness or bullying will be treated in the same
manner as persistently disruptive students in a face-to-face class, per the Code of Conduct in the
Student Handbook. The course plagiarism policy applies to Formal Responses also.
Pressler PHI 2010 Formal Posts Rev 2 Nov 20173
For a guide to my expectations for content and style, see “How to Write a Formal Post and
Response in a Philosophy Class.”
TOPICS FOR THE FORMAL POST (CHOOSE ONLY ONE)
Chapter 4: “The Nature of Reality.”
One question; six different options.
Summing up Chapter 4, Solomon and Higgins write that philosophers have two underlying
assumptions about ultimate reality. First, “that what is ultimately real is that which endures
through change”; second, “that reality is somehow a unity” (140).
To write this post, first, in your own words, define and explain what philosophers mean by
“reality.” This section of the post should be about a paragraph long (five or six sentences).
Next, choose one of the following six philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, or
Hegel. In two or three thoughtful, clearly written paragraphs, describe this philosopher’s
ontology, or view of what is most real.
Use the following questions as prompts to help you draft your post:
•
•
•
•
What does this philosopher believe to be ultimately real? Why?
What arguments does this philosopher use in support of his ontology?
According to this philosopher, how does what is ultimately real endure through change?
Is this philosopher a monist or a pluralist? Or do those terms not apply?
Chapter 5: “The Search for Truth.”
Two questions.
1. Define, then compare and contrast the concepts of empirical and necessary truth, giving
examples of each. Then discuss the differences between the ways rationalists and
empiricists understand necessary truth. For example: there are statements that rationalists,
but not empiricists, believe to be necessary truths. What kinds of statements are these?
What is their function? What is the reason rationalists and empiricists evaluate them
differently?
2. Compare and contrast two of the three theories of truth we have studied: the
correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic theories of truth. Use the following
questions as prompts to help you draft your post. (You do not have to cover all these
topics in your essay.)
•
•
•
What does each theory of truth use for its test of truth?
What, according to each theory of truth, makes a statement true?
What, according to each theory of truth, makes a statement false?
Pressler PHI 2010 Formal Posts Rev 2 Nov 20174
•
•
•
Which kinds of true statement does each theory explain particularly well? Can you
give examples?
Which kinds of true statement does each theory have trouble explaining? Can you
give examples?
Overall, what strengths and weaknesses does each theory of truth have?
Chapter #6: “Self.”
Two questions.
1. What is the self, the human person? Philosophers have had different answers to that
question. Choose one of the following six philosophers: Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant,
Hegel, or Sartre. Then discuss this philosopher’s understanding of the relationships
between:
• Self (mind) and body / physical world.
• Self and identity, consciousness, memory, and/or emotion;
• Self and other people, society, or history.
A tip: You may have to look at other chapters, particularly chapters 7, 8, and 9, to write a
complete answer to this question.
2. Explain, in detail, one of the following explanations of the mind-body relationship, as
discussed in chapter 6 and the handout:
•
•
•
behaviorism
identity theory
functionalism
Use the following questions as prompts to help you draft your post:
•
•
•
•
Which aspects of the mind-body relationship does it explain particularly well? Can you
give examples?
Which aspects of the mind-body relationship does it have trouble explaining? Can you
give examples?
What objections or counter-examples can be offered to the position?
Overall, how successful is the position? What problems or questions about the mind-body
relationship, if any, does it leave unsolved?
Chapter #7: “Freedom.”
1. Discuss in detail one of the following positions on free will:
•
•
David Hume and John Stuart Mill’s compatibilism or soft determinism.
Kant’s reconciliation of hard determinism and libertarianism.
Pressler PHI 2010 Formal Posts Rev 2 Nov 20175
•
Sartre’s “radical freedom.”
Use the following questions as prompts to help you draft your post:
•
•
•
•
•
What kinds of human decisions and/or actions does the position explain well?
Are there any common decisions and/or actions the position does a poor or unconvincing
job of explaining?
What objections or counter-examples can be offered to the position?
Overall, how successful is the position at explaining or accounting for human free will?
Does the position give a good account of what we ordinarily mean by “free will”?
2. [This question draws on material from the handout for Chapter 7.] Aristotle said that an
individual is not acting freely if her/his action is caused by “external compulsion.” Explain what
Aristotle meant by “external compulsion,” giving examples both of unfree human actions
resulting from external compulsion, and of “intermediate cases.” Then speculate on whether
there is such a thing as an “internal compulsion.” The following questions may help you draft
your post:
•
•
•
•
What sort of thing would an “internal compulsion” be, if “internal compulsions” existed?
Can you think of an example of an “internal compulsion”?
How would an internal compulsion act on a person? What kinds of things might it make a
person do?
What would the person affected say about her own actions?
Would she realize her action is produced by an internal compulsion? Or might she think
she is acting “of her own free will”?
Be sure to distinguish between compulsions and causes, reasons, or influences in your
discussion. Most philosophers would say they are not the same thing.[Why? Is having a reason to
do something the same as having a compulsion to do it? Is being influenced to do something the
same thing as being caused to do it?]
Chapter 8: “Morality and the Good Life.”
One question only. If you were scheduled to be the next victim of a cannibal, what could you
say to the cannibal to prove that eating you would be morally wrong? Consider the following
case (below). Then, using one of the ethical theories we have studied, make an argument that the
others in the lifeboat would be doing something morally wrong if they ate you. Or, alternatively,
use oneof the ethical theories we have studied to make an argument that eating you would be
morally acceptable in the circumstances, or even the right thing to do.
The case:
You and six others have been drifting in an open lifeboat for weeks. You have no
food or water left, and all efforts to catch fish or seabirds for food have failed.
Everyone will die soon unless food can be provided somehow, and everyone is
getting too weak and sick even to try to get food. Since you are the weakest and
Pressler PHI 2010 Formal Posts Rev 2 Nov 20176
sickest person in the boat, you are told that, according to the “Custom of the Sea,”
you will be killed and eaten so the rest may have a chance of survival. (NB: There
really was a “Custom of the Sea.”).)
Chapter 9: “Justice and the Good Society.”
One question only. Is it just that people should receive better schooling, better health care,
and/or better legal aissistance only because they have more money than others?
To answer this post successfully:
1. You must define your terms. “Justice” is defined in several ways in Chapter 9. Use
these definitions; make it clear to the reader what you mean by “justice”; don’t assume
you and your reader share the same definition.
2. Use the arguments of at least two of the political philosophers in Chapter 9. This post
must be constructed out of the course material. This is not an “in my opinion”
assignment. Posts that make little or no reference to the definitions and philosophers of
justice we have studied will not receive a passing grade.
3. One set of arguments should defend one side of the argument; the other, the other side.
Make sure the two sets of arguments connect with each other; use one set of arguments to
provide objections and counter-examples to the other
4. You cannot use illogical or fallacious reasoning. Rhetorical questions cannot be
premises in arguments. Keep your tone moderate.
5. Hints: Philosophers with helpful definitions of justice include Rawls, Marx, and Nozick
(for Nozick, see the handout). You could also consider “communitarian” (Hegel) and
“libertarian” (Mill) arguments. It’s a bit more of a stretch, but you can make Aristotle or
Locke work also. As for Hobbes’s definition of justice — well, it would be interesting to
apply it here! (Think about it…) Don’t forget about the definitions of “negative” and
“positive freedom” from Chapter 7. Don’t confuse “justice” with “equality,” and be sure
to review the “four kinds of equality” analyzed in Chapter 9. They could come in handy
as you write your answer.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment