Philosophy Essay

Write an essay in which you review the course material. The essay must consist of an introduction, conclusion, and at least five body paragraphs( 3 reading (chapters) and each reading need 5 or more paragraph )and with each body paragraph containing a different quotation or reference, e.g., (Schopenhauer, p. 87), to support or illustrate your work. Your aim is to offer a thoughtful and critical analysis of questions, themes, lines of reasoning, and conclusions. You may draw on your previous work for the course i will post with each reading my previous work). For reading 1 available online or in numerous anthologies. for reading 2 and 3 i will upload for material, chapter. READING 1 Judith Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion” (no longer available in the Create Packet but available in numerous anthologies or online). MY PREVIOUS WORK: The provisional designation of Thompson’s stance on abortion is that emphasis ought to be accorded reasoning, rather than the conventional dispositions of what is agreed by consensus(Thomson, 2010). To this effect, the statement “ I propose, then, that we grant for the sake of argument the premise that a human embryo is a person” is fronted. It is an alternative way of reasoning that seeks to analyze biomedical ethics based on objective, logic, and general awareness. 2. Describe the initial version of the “violinist analogy.” ANSWER: All persons have a right to life; you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right of life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. 3. What ethical question is Thomson raising with the violinist analogy? The major ethical question is on if disconnecting the violinist will morally justify his death. For a normative philosophy, analogies are the building blocks. To this effect, the analogy of the unconscious violinist the ethical question of morality and the inherent justification of death. The designation of fetal rights is what fuels the ethics of abortion. Whether the fetus has the right to life are the two antagonistic moral questions raise by Judith Thompson. The right to life is thus considered to be of the right to be killed unjustly, and not the right not to be killed(Thomson, 2010). The reasoning strategy employed in the article by Judith Thompson is that abortions ought to be analyzed not through emotions or the previous existing assumptions, but from an independent individual perspective. The permissibility of abortion is thus based on thought. The moral inclination of death of the fetus ought to be substantiated by the reasoning that a person may kill an innocent person in a bid to defend themselves. However, there should never arise an occasion whereby it is two innocent people pitted against each other on who should die. 4. What “emendation” to the right to life does Thomson suggest from her initial use of the two brothers whom were given a box of chocolates for Christmas? ANSWER: The older boy is under no obligation to share the chocolate with his younger brother. 5. What is the recurring argumentative (reasoning) tactic employed in the article? ANSWER: She helps all readers (men or women) to come to understanding of the issue and choice needed to be made/right to have. READING 2. Read James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” from his The Elements of Moral Philosophy in the Create Packet, Dr. Herman E.Stark , Ethics PHL 102. (I will upoaded p.14-24) PREVIOUS WORK : 1. What practice with respect to old people did the explorer Knud Rasmussen find amongst the Eskimos? The Eskimos had a very different way of treating older people. At times when the older people were feeble to the point that there were no longer productive to their family and also to the society, they were taken to snow and left there to die. 2. Define cultural relativism This principle is stating that one’s beliefs, as well as activities, should be considered regarding that individual’s traditions. Cultural relativism dares our collective notion in fair-mindedness as well as the universality of moral truth. It suggests that there exists no universal truth in the world of ethics, and there are only different cultural codes. Besides, an individual’s code holds no special status since it is merely one among many. Therefore, there is no objective truth in ethics only different cultural codes i.e. if ethical judgements are beliefs, then it is so common supposing that they are correct provided they are true. 3. Present in premise/conclusion form the cultural differences argument Cultural relativism is a premise concerning morality. In the beginning, cultural relativism seems a bit plausible, but later after subjecting it to rational analysis, it no longer appeals as likely. For example, in Eskimo societies when their elderly can no longer be independent they are brought out to the snow a left to die, which is obviosly not ethically exceptable in America. This proves cultural relativism is not a sound premise. Relativist argues from the fact concerning the differences among the cultural outlooks towards the conclusion regarding morality status. Hence practices of different cultures are not objectively correct but are merely matters of opinion in which different cultures have different ways of doing things. Consequently, objective truth about morality doesn’t hold any ground, as everything, be it right or wrong, is a matter of opinion. Cultural relativism is sometimes applicable to cultures that does not mean they are objectively ethical in American society. 4. Present in premise/conclusion form the analogical argument (hint: the shape of the earth) offered by Rachels that shows the invalidity of the cultural differences argument Cultural differences argument is not sound since the conclusion never follows the premise. In some cases, the assumption is valid, but the conclusion still wouldn’t follow it. The conclusion is more concerned about what really is the case, while the premise concentrates on what people believe. A fundamental mistake that the cultural difference argument makes is attempting to give a substantive conclusion regarding a particular subject basing the fact on people disagreeing about that matter. Rachels makes the argument taht cultural relativism is not valid because of the example of the earth being round. Some cultures believe the earth is flat which is false. This proves cultural differences are not always to be believed as true or ethical because we know the earth is actually round. 5. List three implausible consequences of cultural relativism. First, we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior. Secondly, we could decide whether actions are right or wrong jus by consulting the standards of our society. Thirdly, the idea of moral progress is called into doubt. READING 3. Read Arthur Schopenhauer’s “On the Suffering of the World” in his Essays and Aphorisms (I will uploaded). Although Schopenhauer is a noteworthy philosopher for a number of reasons, e.g., his critique of Kant’s ethics, his philosophical use of Eastern ethical and religious traditions, his nuanced views on death and suicide, his pre–Darwinian sense of evolutionary mechanisms in nature, his discovery of the unconscious, and his solution to “the riddle of the universe” (i.e., that the full range of the world of experience can be unified in terms of the underlying reality, world will), we will pursue just one line of his thought. This line, which R.J. Hollingdale calls “the hinge of his [Schopenhauer’s] philosophy” (Introduction, p. 22 i will uploaded), takes Schopenhauer’s worldview as its premise and his overall ethical stance as its conclusion. 1. Restate in positive terms the opening idea of the essay, i.e., to what “immediate and direct purpose” is our existence most suited? According to Schopenhauer, existence is intrinsically valueless. This is because life is filled with boredom and dissatisfaction. The opening idea of the essay that immediate and direct purpose is most suited in the aspect that as humans, we desire to live for a specific purpose. People ought to have the will to live. The statement cannot be resisted since people have the ultimate value and, therefore, the need to have a purpose to live. Our existence on earth is for a purpose, and every aspect of life should not lose value. 2. Schopenhauer observes that everyone, in times of misfortune, can look around and find others in even greater misfortune; what point does Schopenhauer make from the fact that everyone can do this? Schopenhauer observes that at a time of misfortune, everyone looks around and finds others in greater misfortune. The point that Schopenhauer was depicting was based on his observation of Buddhism and integrating it into western culture. In Buddhism, Dukkha shows how affliction is for all personalities who are connected to things in one way or another. The point that Schopenhauer was making was that every person goes through a difficult time in life. Sometimes what seems to be a difficult moment may not be to others. Schopenhauer showed that every person has a different kind of affliction, which causes unhappiness in one way or another. 3. Summarize Schopenhauer’s view on the relation between suffering and happiness, and use an example to illustrate his characterization of the relation in terms of “positive” and “negative.” Schopenhauer’s view on the relationship between suffering and happiness showed that he was not a happy person. Arthur Schopenhauer points out and explains that we cannot be happy. He, however, notes that people can always observe the rules to keep pain at bay. Schopenhauer points out that humans should not be focusing on happiness since that target can ever be achieved. He noted that people ought to manage life well to manage unnecessary suffering. Arthur also points out that people should avoid being jealous as that contributes to unhappiness. Schopenhauer uses the pendulum metaphor to show that happiness is fairly negative as opposed to a positive observable fact. An example is when he claims that there is no guarantee that someone can get what he or she wants since it could result in boredom and discontentment that would eventually create unhappiness. 4. Schopenhauer counsels that when you order your expectations of life according to the nature of things, i.e., according to the conviction that the world really ought not (a) to be expected, then you will no longer regard the calamities, sufferings, torments, and miseries of life as (b)as something irregular but (c) will find them in order, knowing that each person is being punished. 5. What ethical attitudes or virtues are implicated by Schopenhauer’s conclusion that the most appropriate form of address between man and man is not “monsieur, sir” but “fellow sufferer, compagnon de misères”? There are different virtues or ethical attitudes implicated by Schopenhauer’s conclusion. He states that people ought to address one another as a sufferer colleague. This is to means that every person on earth is a fellow human who is going through a different kind of suffering. Schopenhauer intimates that every person is exposed to suffering all his or her life on earth. Since every person is exposed to suffering, Schopenhauer urges people to treat each other with kindness and humility. The fact that every person is suffering in his or her way shows that the struggle is not on specific people and, therefore, the need to treat each other with kindness. Schopenhauer urges people to hold the virtues of kindness and humility with high regard. This is because people treating each other with kindness helps appreciate the suffering that we are all going through. If one has a chance to help, there is a need to do so with kindness. Schopenhauer notes that people go through comparable suffering for that reason and, therefore, the need to coexist in lenience and charity. Read Arthur Schopenhauer’s “On the Suffering of the World” in his Essays and Aphorisms (the second course text). Although Schopenhauer is a noteworthy philosopher for a number of reasons, e.g., his critique of Kant’s ethics, his philosophical use of Eastern ethical and religious traditions, his nuanced views on death and suicide, his pre–Darwinian sense of evolutionary mechanisms in nature, his discovery of the unconscious, and his solution to “the riddle of the universe” (i.e., that the full range of the world of experience can be unified in terms of the underlying reality, world will), we will pursue just one line of his thought. This line, which R.J. Hollingdale calls “the hinge of his [Schopenhauer’s] philosophy” (Introduction, p. 22), takes Schopenhauer’s worldview as its premise and his overall ethical stance as its conclusion.