Discussion 1
Question :
Most people do not come to belief after a process of reasoning, they are born to it, accepting it as a given within the context of their family, religious institution, and society. In Philosophy of Religion one of the primary focuses of study is the existence of God. In this discussion use the resources in this module to lay out a philosophical argument either for or against the existence of God. Acknowledge the concepts and philosophers which provide the source of your premises. Cite the location of the information you use in constructing your argument. Be prepared to defend your arguments.
If you refer to information from the text, identify the location in parenthesis (MLA Intext Citation). In your replies, either support your fellow student's answers or kindly refute them. Analyze reasoning, point out strong or weak premises or reasons, as well as fallacies in your analysis. Philosophy is built upon successful written and spoken communication.
Discussion 2
Question 1 :
The central question in the Mind-Body Problem is whether the Mind and Body exist separately (Dualism) or if they are of the same material substance (Materialistic Monism) or non-material (Idealistic Monism). The crucial question in Dualism is how does the non-material Mind interact with the Material Body. What is your solution to the Mind-Body Problem? If your solution is dualistic, what is your solution to the problem of Mind-Body interaction? Refer to and cite information from the unit readings and links to support your premises.
Question 2 :
The topic in this chapter, Freedom and Determinism, has been at least implied in our previous explorations. Underlying our resolution of this problem are our positions on Epistemology and Metaphysics. Your position on this problem will determine your position in Ethics (including Political Philosophy), which we will explore more fully subsequently. Consider the reading in this module in your discussion.
Answer these questions:
1. Are your actions due to your free will or are they predetermined? Lay out your arguments for your position. Use the material you've studied thus far in this course to support your arguments. Is your position closest to causal determinism, hard determinism, soft determinism (compatibilism), or indeterminism?
2. Give your conclusion to the first question. What ethical responsibilities do you have? Support your conclusions.
3. What does your position imply in regards to your responsibilities to local and global societies?
Discussion 3
Question 1:
Ethics (Moral Philosophy or Axiology) is the branch of philosophy, built upon Epistemology and Metaphysics, which explores the question of what "ought" we to do. Ethics includes social and political philosophy, as well as aesthetics (the study of beauty). In daily ethical decisions most often we use choices we have learned from family, religious, and cultural influences. In more complex situations, when we encounter problems for which we have no experience, it's not so easy. Using the theories of ethics presented in this module, how would you resolve this ethical dilemma? Include in your response how this issue might be addressed according to either utilitarianism or Kantian ethics. Cite correctly the information in this module, or any other sources you used.
You are on the transplant committee at a major regional not-for-profit hospital. A lung has become available for transplant. It has become clear that you hold the deciding vote in choosing among these transplant candidates. Who would you choose?
• Candidate 1: A three-year-old female with complications from end-stage cystic fibrosis. She could live six to twelve months longer. There is, however, no guarantee when another lung will become available.
• Candidate 2: A seventy-year-old male suffering from an opportunistic lung infection contracted while visiting an orphanage in another country which he supports generously. The infection is resisting treatment and it is questionable whether he will survive another month. He is also a major contributor to this hospital, leading a campaign to build a new pediatric cancer treatment wing.
• Candidate 3: A thirty-five-year-old female suffers severe lung trauma from an automobile accident two days ago which also involved her four children, whom she's raising alone. The lungs are irreparable but she could survive several months with therapeutic care. She will not be able to function outside the hospital while awaiting transplant. The children suffered minor injuries but require homecare to be released from the hospital. There are no relatives or friends who can help.
• Candidate 4: A forty-five-year old male is in end-stage lung cancer. He is a life-long smoker. He is a local hero, having recently retired from a long career with the local major league sports team. He has donated much of his time participating in charity functions for area charities. He will not survive the next forty-eight hours without a transplant.
The prognosis for all is good with a transplant.
There is no idea when another lung will be available.
Discussion 4
Question 1:
This module is on Social Philosophy, a branch of Ethics. How ought we to conduct ourselves in a social order? In today's charged political climate it is undoubtedly one of the most controversial and contentious areas of philosophy. Participation in this discussion, as in them all, requires complete objectivity.
What positive rights exist for citizens of our country, whether they are presently constitutional or not? For each right you must carefully present your argument. What implication for governance does each right suggest? Be prepared to defend your reasoning and to counter-argue the reasoning of others.
Any position is accepted, but reason must be free of fallacies, especially those of the ad hominem variety. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and will incur heavy deductions.
Discussion 5
Question 1:
This module is on Political Philosophy, a branch of Ethics. How ought we to conduct ourselves in a social order? In today's charged political climate, it is undoubtedly one of the most controversial and contentious areas of philosophy. Participation in this discussion, as in them all, requires complete objectivity.
Carefully construct the ideal form of governance using the theories and principles discussed in this and the previous modules. Be prepared to defend your arguments. Provide counterarguments to your classmates ideal government utilizing good philosophical analysis.
Any position is accepted, but reason must be free of fallacies, especially those of the ad hominem variety. Personal attacks will not be tolerated and will incur heavy deductions.
Discussion 6
Question 1:
Aesthetics, the Philosophy of Beauty (including Art), is a branch of Ethics. Usually what is consider beautiful is considered a matter of taste. At least as far back before Plato (and including him), philosophers held there is more to beauty than individual or social approval. It is, obviously, an on-going debate.
Name one object (non-person) you consider beautiful (if not the most beautiful). Analyze the reasons why this object is beautiful. Utilize as many theories and concepts as you can from this module to support your position. Be prepared to defend your arguments and provide counterarguments to other's.