Category: Philosophy

Please rewrite the words highlighted in red in this essay (located in files). I have attached comments from my instructor regarding changes I should make to the text highlighted in red. If it dosen’t seem clear, she seems to think that the text in red dosen’t follow the rest of the essay, like there is no new information backing up what was said previously in the essay.  She also is saying that there is many paragraphs that seem to repeat the same idea or sentence.  Our claim is that abortion is better for the society as a whole, ethically speaking. I have attached the two sources I used (About Philosophy Textbook & Thomson source), if needed, to read and add some useful information to the make the essay better. 
Files: 
PNG’s and JPG- showing teachers feedback 
Essay 2 Draft (docx.)- The essay shown in full, with the red text highlighted
About Philosophy & Thomson- sources I used for the paper 

Every student in Phil. class is required to write a philosophy paper, minimum 1000 word count. The title page must include your total word count for your entire paper. This includes the entire content of your paper, from title page to cited source page.  It is to be double spaced, 12 font Times New Roman, MLA format, minimum two sources. The book and the notes can be used as sources, also academic journals, websites etc. Title page and works cited page required.
Grading Rubrics: You will be graded on the following: paper outline, format, and bibliographical entries; which is your ability to illustrate an understanding of the topics and themes chosen for study, including explanation of issues, and lastly, the conclusions and outcomes which speak of student’s logical and reflective insights from the data and information that you have studied.
Topic Selection: Explain and summarize Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. Do you think it is a valid ethical system? Why or why not?

Please write for me a 
Short Reading Response (~200-250 words) for this reading :
Week 6 – Malebranche’s Project June 13th
Search After Truth, Book Two, 2.1-2.3.2, pp 87-172
Use this link to access the reading: 
https://archive.org/details/CambridgeTextsInTheHistoryOfPhilosophyNicolasMalebrancheThomasM.LennonPaulJ.Olsc/page/n138/mode/1up

Overall choose one writer the rest are helpful links: choose either Warren, marquis, Thomson
————-
Surgical Abortion: https://www.webmd.com/women/abortion-procedures#1
Pill Abortion: https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-20225/mifeprex-oral/details
Fetal Development: https://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development
Fetal Heartbeat: https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html
Fetal Pain: https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
CDC Data on When Abortions Occur: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
Health of the Mother that could lead to abortion:
Preeclampsia: https://www.webmd.com/baby/preeclampsia-eclampsia#1
Fetal Anomalies that could lead to abortion:
Anencephaly, Hydrocephalus, Tay Sachs, Harlequin Ichthyosis, Acromelic Frontonasal Dysostosis, Intrauterine Fetal Demise https://news.yahoo.com/we-are-not-monsters-parents-go-public-about-lateterm-abortions-161058824.html  
Roe VS. Wade: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
14th amendment due process clause
Precedent for Roe VS Wade: 
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Podcasts and Links about the History of Roe and Post-Roe World:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/podcasts/the-daily/roe-wade-abortion-norma-mccorvey.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/podcasts/the-daily/roe-wade-abortion.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/podcasts/the-daily/roe-wade-abortion-supreme-court.html
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe#
—————————
Choose one: Warren, marquis, Thomson
https://youtu.be/OXFKLpPV1CY?si＝7_QcOcIUMDH24lUM Warren 
https://youtu.be/VjL4V1ScZ0A?si＝lTmXDxVGFiuoXHns marquis 
https://youtu.be/vnkj8gdud_0?si＝zTrm9Ft-nQhZPScy Thomson

Overall choose one: Warren, marquis, Thomson
https://youtu.be/OXFKLpPV1CY?si＝7_QcOcIUMDH24lUM Warren 
https://youtu.be/VjL4V1ScZ0A?si＝lTmXDxVGFiuoXHns marquis 
https://youtu.be/vnkj8gdud_0?si＝zTrm9Ft-nQhZPScy Thomson
The rest are helpful links:
Surgical Abortion: https://www.webmd.com/women/abortion-procedures#1
Pill Abortion: https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-20225/mifeprex-oral/details
Fetal Development: https://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-fetal-development
Fetal Heartbeat: https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html
Fetal Pain: https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html
CDC Data on When Abortions Occur: https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
Health of the Mother that could lead to abortion:
Preeclampsia: https://www.webmd.com/baby/preeclampsia-eclampsia#1
Fetal Anomalies that could lead to abortion:
Anencephaly, Hydrocephalus, Tay Sachs, Harlequin Ichthyosis, Acromelic Frontonasal Dysostosis, Intrauterine Fetal Demise https://news.yahoo.com/we-are-not-monsters-parents-go-public-about-lateterm-abortions-161058824.html  
Roe VS. Wade: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113
14th amendment due process clause: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Precedent for Roe VS Wade: 
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/262/390
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/268/510
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/381/479
Podcasts and Links about the History of Roe and Post-Roe World:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/podcasts/the-daily/roe-wade-abortion-norma-mccorvey.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/podcasts/the-daily/roe-wade-abortion.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/podcasts/the-daily/roe-wade-abortion-supreme-court.html
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe#

Every student in Phil. class is required to write a philosophy paper, minimum 1000 word count plagiarism free. The title page must include your total word count for your entire paper. This includes the entire content of your paper, from title page to cited source page.  It is to be double spaced, 12 font Times New Roman, MLA format, minimum two sources. The book and the notes can be used as sources, also academic journals, websites etc. Title page and works cited page required.
Grading Rubrics: You will be graded on the following: paper outline, format, and bibliographical entries; which is your ability to illustrate an understanding of the topics and themes chosen for study, including explanation of issues, and lastly, the conclusions and outcomes which speak of student’s logical and reflective insights from the data and information that you have studied.  All quoted and gleaned material must be encased in quotations or if over 4 sentences must be indented.  Your quoted material must also be referenced to your citation page. Otherwise it will be considered plagiarized material.  DO NOT make this mistake.
Topic Selection: Explain and summarize Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. Do you think it is a valid ethical system? Why or why not?

Part 1: State your preferred mix of ontological and epistemological views (e.g., Rationalist Platonic Realist, Empiricist Berkeley Idealist, Russellian Rationalist Realist, Kantian Rationalist Nominalism, etc.) Explain your position by giving a brief description of the ontological and epistemological categories you prefer.
Part 2: Reply to yourself with what you take to be the best argument against your own view.
The goal of this discussion board is for you to discuss and consider for yourself the difficulties associated with every possible combination of these epistemological and ontological categories.
Sample Post for Part 1: 
Russellian Rationalist Realist. Realism about universals and particulars seems plausible because both seem to me to be mind-independent. I was convinced by the arguments Russell gave for realism about universals (and against Kant) and I was already a realist about particulars (even though I was impressed by Berkeley). Rationalist because some general synthetic truths appear to be known independently of experience but I agree with Russell that particulars cannot be known without specific experiences. I know there are a number of objections to these views and I will address the best of those in my subsequent replies for part 2.
Sample Post for Part 2:
There are at least two serious objections to the combination I prefer:
Realism of the sort I endorse entails that relations among universals are mind-independent facts. Since pure mathematics, geometry, and logic concern such relations, then it follows that the truths of those disciplines are discovered rather than invented. This makes an explanation of the historical practice of those disciplines difficult in some areas since it appears that mathematicians are often trying out various systems that they construct rather than discover.
The second objection is that Rationalism entails that my a priori knowledge is not purely a matter of definition and experience but requires some specifically non-experiential knowledge of universals and this seems to require some special faculty of knowledge that is not easily explained. Russell gives his theory of acquaintance, which is a very interesting theory. But it entails that I am acquainted with the fundamental logical facts of the universe. I’m not sure that is required to understand basic arithmetic.
If I were to give an example reply to my own objections here is how I would start.
Mathematics (e.g., arithmetical truths such as 2+2=4) and logical principles (such as the law of identity) are indeed discovered and not invented. It appears they are invented because we came up with the names for these truths and in these examples the truths are so obvious. However, it is clear that the discovery of, e.g., the Pythagorean theorem, systematizes knowledge in such a way that can be discovered across cultures and independently.  
Now this reply to my objection is open to a number of objections…but that is the point of the discussion board: to continue the discussion. Enjoy
My advice for this assignment: it can be this simple or you can add more detail but make sure it is clear which categories best describe your preferred view at this point with reference to the definitions and arguments given so far. 
20

Format: Double-spaced, one-inch margins, professional 12-point font. You may use the style-sheet specific to your academic discipline, though I prefer footnoting to in-text parenthetical citation. You should include page numbers directing your reader to the precise location whence you have drawn your ideas. Remember that consultation of outside resources is prohibited. Use only the assigned texts and class discussions as your source material.
No other resources are to be used for this assignment. Penalties for doing so will be an automatic failing grade for the paper.
PROMPT- 
Please compose a paper of 3 pages (minimum) that addresses the following:
An Egoist, an Ethical Relativist, an Absolutist, and a Situationalist1 walk into a bar, each one looking for an evening where a lively exchange of ideas will settle the question, “How are we to shape the best society, given human nature, that will enhance and encourage the best parts of humankind while providing checks and regulations on the worst parts?” Give an account of how that conversation might go, being sure to explain what each position entails and how it differs from the other three viewpoints. Ultimately, you should bring the reflection to a close by discussing your own viewpoint and how/if it has changed through the course of this exercise.

Your formal prompt is:
Does Markey accurately and productively respond to Hobbes’ argument
regarding fat shaming and obesity? If so, what makes her argument
successful? If not, what prevents her argument from being successful?

This week we will explore chapter 6, looking at the topic of human research in the medical world. Many questions regarding the moral principle of justice are critical in this topic. You are to read case 2 on pages 255 – 256. As you read the case, look for key issues, think objectively, and consider the repercussions.Your response to the question should be original, thoughtful, and reference the material to support your point.
What are your thoughts about this case?
What moral principles are relevant to deciding what to do?