8 parts. each part has optional questions. choose one in each part. each one sho

8 parts. each part has optional questions. choose one in each part. each one should roughly be a half of page. part 1- Choose one
Discuss what makes Thales’ method of knowing distinctly philosophical as opposed to mythology and religion. Also, why do you feel his approach may have been seen as radical?
Pick any of the Pre-Socratic philosophers other than Thales and discuss what you feel are his more interesting theories. Be sure to provide some history for this person as well. It would be wise to use Curd’s article for this choice.
Curd, Patricia, “Presocratic Philosophy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy edited by Edward N Zalta 4 April 2016. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presocratics/
part 2 choose 1
Based on Plato’s dialogue, Apology, assess the charge leveled against Socrates of corrupting the youth of Athens. (a) Do you think Socrates corrupted the youth of Athens? If so, why? If not, why not? (b) Summarize and critically evaluate Socrates’ defense on this particular accusation – was his defense convincing to you or not? Why or why not?
Based on Plato’s dialogue, Apology, (a) in what sense does Socrates claim to be wise? (b) Summarize and evaluate the value of the Socratic Method and Socratic wisdom and whether this method and attitude are valuable for a democratic society such as ours.
In the Apology, Socrates repeatedly claims that only execution will stop him from doing philosophy (see 29c-d, 30c, and 34e). However, he does offer to pay a fine, one that Plato and others greatly increased (38b). (a) Why do you believe he would be sentenced to death, and (b) what moral principle does Socrates draw upon in defending his stand on never stopping what he was doing?
part 3 choose 1
Why doesn’t Descartes simply determine what’s real by looking around him and using his sense experience? What is the reason he felt he needed to adopt radical skepticism, and do you feel he is successful? Be sure to use passages from the Meditations or his Discourse on Method to support your assertions.
In Meditation II, Descartes states, “I am; I exist – this is certain.” Explain why Descartes claims that his knowledge about this cannot be doubted. Can you think of a refutation, or does it make good sense? Why does he have to prove we have immaterial minds? Keep in mind he also concludes that anything he “clearly and distinctly perceives” is something he cannot doubt (See last paragraphs of Meditation VI).
In Meditation V, Descartes proffers an ontological argument for God’s existence. Assess that argument and determine if you find it convincing. Then discuss if this argument is enough for him to claim in the last paragraph of Meditation VI, “For from the fact that God is not a deceiver it follows that in cases like these I am completely free from error.” Also, discuss just what “cases” he means.
part 4 choose 1
What exactly is Empiricism? Please provide specific examples to support your answer.
Do you believe Locke’s primary and secondary qualities adequately explain reality as it was understood in the late 1600s? Can you think of something that exists that has no primary or secondary qualities or both?
Why do Empiricists believe there are limits to the knowledge of reality?
part 5 choose 1
With reference to Pike’s article, how could it be said that Divine Omniscience challenges the idea that humans have free will?
With reference to Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the existence of God, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of his argument as well as his response to Gaunilo.
Evaluate Aquinas’ argument(s) for God’s existence from efficient causality and/or from motion and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.
part 6 choose 1
How does medieval philosophy build on ancient ethical traditions and transform moral philosophy in light of the Christian religion? Considering the debates between natural law theorists and divine command theorists in the Middle Ages, does medieval ethics still fall victim to the Euthyphro Dilemma?
Evaluate the modern effort to remove the question of God from moral philosophy. Was this a positive development overall, and in the absence of God, do we have sufficient reasons to feel obligated to live according to moral principles? Provide reasons, keeping your discussion in conversation with specific philosophers discussed in this week’s lessons.
Moral relativism and emotivism represent modern efforts to resolve debates over how to ground and explain morality under the impact of trends towards secularization of moral philosophy and the encounter with a diversity of moral traditions and cultures across the world. On the face of it, these traditions seem to provide explanations of where our morality comes from, in our feelings about moral questions or in the relativity of our experience or our cultural contexts, but are these really logically plausible and practicable theories to guide our decisions about right and wrong in everyday life? Explain, keeping your discussion in conversation with specific philosophers discussed this week.
part 7 choose 1
Jeremy Bentham argued that when we think about whether someone/something ought to count morally that ” The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” a.) Why would it make sense for a utilitarian like Bentham to make such a statement? b.) Do you think that he’s right about the ability to suffer as what we ought to look at when we’re thinking about whether someone/something counts morally? c.) If we took this seriously what would it mean for our treatment of non-human animals?
Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy is extremely strict about what we ought and ought not do. So strict that he argued that it is always and everywhere wrong to lie. a.) Explain why Kant thought that lying was always wrong using the categorical imperative as a guide. b.) Explain whether you think Kant was right or wrong about this lying business and make sure to use clear examples to help your explanation along. If he was wrong, what’s an example of when it’s morally ok to lie, and if he was right, what’s an example where it looks ok to lie but it really isn’t ok?
Both phenomenology and existentialism sought to respond to the impasse created by the debate between deontology and utilitarianism by offering a new account or a ‘third way’ between the two. Compare and contrast the existentialist and phenomenological attempts to produce a new moral theory beyond utilitarianism and beyond Kant. Do any of these theories represent plausible alternatives? Why or why not?
part 8 choose 1
Discuss and evaluate the reasons Socrates gives for not escaping jail even though he had ample opportunity to do so. What is the nature of the “social contract” here that Socrates is following?
How could it be said that the Social Contract Theory produces an orderly society without needing to legislate a particular version of “morality” and what counts as the “good life”? How does the Social Contract avoid problems associated with the Divine Command Theory of morality for a constitutional liberal democracy such as ours in the United States of America?
Discuss John Rawls’ idea of the “Veil of Ignorance” and evaluate how it is said to establish a fair distribution of wealth. What is the purpose of the “veil” and what is it supposed to accomplish?