Category: Philosophy

This week, you will complete your argumentative paper. Following the directions in assigned textbook reading on how write an argumentative essay on the issue you chose in Week 1. Be sure your essay contains the following:
An opening paragraph that states a clear thesis that is focused, plausible, and arguable and that gives direction and purpose to the paper
A fair-minded, balanced, and objective development of the pros and cons of the issue in a well-organized sequence of ideas, free of mechanical errors
Credible, reliable, and authoritative evidence in support of the points made
A strong conclusion that summarizes your views, reminds the audience of the issue and its importance, and shows in brief that you have successfully defended your thesis
W7 Course Project Grading Rubric – 185 pts
W7 Course Project Grading Rubric – 185 pts
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength
5 pts
Meets length requirement
0 pts
Does not meet length requirement
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose & Focus
10 pts
The writer has made insightful and mature decisions about focus, organization, and content to communicate clearly and effectively. The purpose and focus of the writing are clear to the reader and the organization and content are well chosen, sophisticated, and/or persuasive. Has a highly developed, defendable thesis that provides focus and direction to the essay.
8.5 pts
The writer has made good decisions about focus, organization, and content to communicate clearly and effectively. The purpose and focus of the writing are clear to the reader and the organization and content achieve the purpose as well. Has a clear recognizable thesis that provides focus and direction to the essay.
7.5 pts
The writer’s decisions about focus, organization, or content sometimes interfere with clear, effective communication. The purpose of the writing is not fully achieved. Thesis is unclear OR is not focused
6 pts
The writer’s decisions about focus, organization, or content interfere with communication. The purpose of the writing is not achieved. Lacks a clear thesis
0 pts
Completely unfocused and/or disorganized. Purpose of writing is not achieved. No recognizable thesis
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuality of Research/Evidence
40 pts
Sources are scholarly or of very high substantive quality where subject matter requires and no scholarly reference will serve the purpose, but all are current, authoritative, and relevant to topic.
34 pts
Most sources are scholarly or of very high substantive quality where subject matter requires; but all are current, authoritative and relevant to topic.
30 pts
Sources are mostly substantive, even where subject matter does not require. All are relevant to the topic. One source outside of current range.
24 pts
Sources are substantive, even though scholarly sources are available and relevaant. Only one scholarly source. All are relevant to the topic. More than one source outside of current range.
0 pts
Popular sources only and are not, therefore, authoritative, OR sources are not current, OR sources are not relevant
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReasoning
45 pts
Substantial and well-reasoned development of ideas. All key assumptions are made explicit. Credible evidence is germane, and accurately analyzed and fair- mindedly interpreted. Displays strong critical thinking skills and habits of mind.
38.25 pts
Offers solid reasoning. Most key assumptions are recognized or made explicit. Most inferences are accurate, most examples are on point.
33.75 pts
Offers some supporting evidence. The case includes some examples that are too general, not interpreted, or not clearly relevant to thesis.
27 pts
Offers simplistic, underdeveloped, circular, or irrelevant arguments.
0 pts
Includes fallacies, exaggerations, faulty reasoning, factual errors, biased statements, etc.
45 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization
30 pts
Sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs flow smoothly and coherently throughout the paper. The writer shows clear effort to assist the reader in following the logic of the ideas expressed. Develops a complete reasoning pathway that contains logical follow through, considers multiple points of view,and examines assumptions.
25.5 pts
Sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs make the writer’s points coherent and easy to follow. Develops a logical reasoning pathway with minor gaps or leaps while addressing other points of view.
22.5 pts
Sentence structure and/ or word choice sometimes interfere with clarity and coherence. Needs to improve sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs to make the writing easy to follow May contain some gaps in reasoning pathway; deals minimally with other points of view.
18 pts
Ineffective sentence structure, word choice, transitions, and/ or sequencing of ideas make reading and understanding difficult. Contains gaps and/or leaps in development and does not examine other points of view.
0 pts
Disorganized; little or no sequencing of ideas; awkward and ineffective sentence structure; reading and understanding extremely difficult Undeveloped and/or does not examine other points of view.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic Tone
20 pts
Maintains objective and professional tone; uses professional vocabulary. The use of words, sentences, and punctuation creates a distinct and engaging voice, tone, and level of formality appropriate to audience, purpose, and genre.
17 pts
Uses objective and professional vocabulary. The use of words, sentences, and punctuation creates a consistent voice, tone, and level of formality appropriate to audience, purpose, and genre.
15 pts
Some informality in vocabulary. The use of words, sentences, and punctuation creates an inconsistent voice, tone, or formality level that is occasionally inappropriate to the situation.
12 pts
The use of words, sentences, and punctuation shows a lack of awareness of the voice, tone, and formality level expected in academic writing.
0 pts
Informal; uses slang or colloquialisms; fails to achieve tone and level of formality expected in academic writing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting: Punctuation, Spelling, Capitalization
5 pts
Virtually free of punctuation, spelling, or capitalization errors.
4 pts
Occasional punctuation, spelling, or capitalization errors.
3 pts
Many punctuation, spelling, or capitalization errors. Interfere with meaning in some places.
2 pts
Punctuation, spelling, or capitalization errors that hinder communication.
0 pts
Severe punctuation, spelling and capitalization errors.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting: Sentence Structure
10 pts
Sentence structure is complex and powerful. The writer has used vivid, purposefully crafted, and varied sentence styles and lengths.
8.5 pts
Sentences are effective and varied in style and length.
7.5 pts
Sentences show limited variety in sentence style and length.
6 pts
Sentence structure is simple, without variety in sentence style and length.
0 pts
Sentence structures are awkward and/or unclear, impeding the clarity and flow of ideas.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting: Word Choice
10 pts
The writer displays a broad range of vocabulary, with effective, accurate, and contextually appropriate word usage.
8.5 pts
The writer displays a satisfactory range of vocabulary and accurate and appropriate word usage.
7.5 pts
The writer displays some varied word choice but language is mostly vague and needs more accuracy to properly convey ideas. Some errors of diction and usage are evident but do not interfere significantly with readability.
6 pts
The writer displays a limited range of vocabulary. Errors of diction and usage are evident and begin to interfere significantly with readability.
0 pts
Limited vocabulary. Diction and syntax errors are evident and impede a clear reading of the text.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Format
10 pts
Intext and reference citations in correct APA format with no errors.
8.5 pts
Intext and reference citations in correct APA format with only occasional minor error.
7.5 pts
Interfere with meaning in some places. Some major errors in APA format for intext, reference citations.
6 pts
The writer does not use APA format, presentation, or style (citations) for the assignment or APA formatting has many major errors.
0 pts
No intext citations to sources and/or no list of references in APA format
10 pts

the essay question – Explain the critique of standpoint theory
outlined in Cora Diamond’s “Knowing Tornadoes and Other Things.” Is her
critique convincing
resource related is below 

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.