Recall from Monday’s reading and class discussion that Bradley Hooker thinks that a plausible approach to Rule Consequentialism (1) should endorse some kind of rule about preventing disasters/serious harms due to noncompliance, but (2) shouldn’t be too demanding (i.e., it shouldn’t require us to donate ALL of our discretionary income to effective charities, like Peter Singer’s act consequentialism demands of us). The reason why Hooker would reject a rule that says something like “donate all your discretionary income to charity when doing so is necessary to prevent disaster/serious harm due to non-compliance” is that he thinks there is a high “maintenance cost” of sustaining people’s commitment to that kind of rule and teaching it to the young. He thinks, due to human selfishness, this kind of rule could be successfully taught to and sustained in people only at great cost.

So, his argument looks something like this:

P1) Rules that have a high maintenance cost aren’t part of the optimific set.

P2) A super demanding rule about aiding those in need (e.g., donate all your discretionary income to charity when doing so is necessary to prevent disaster/serious harm due to non-compliance) has a high maintenance cost.

C) A super demanding rule about aiding those in need isn’t part of the optimific set.

In your discussion post, I would like you to do a few things (and you must answer all questions to receive any credit):

(1) Do you personally agree with P2 of Hooker’s argument? Why or why not? How might someone object to P2?

Write a 10001200 word personal reflection essay with APA formatting and clear section headings that are based on bold instructions and read the attached instructions and rubrics and please do not use AI at all becuase the instrutctor uses an AI tool to detect AI writing and i need this assginemnt done on the 15th of february 2026

Write a 10001200 word personal reflection essay with APA formatting and clear section headings that are based on bold instructions and read the attached instructions and rubrics and please do not use AI at all becuase the instrutctor uses an AI tool to detect AI writing and i need this assginemnt done on the 15th of february 2026

Show how the allegory of the cave illustrates both Plato’s theory of knowledge and his view of the importance of philosophy. Please understand that each part of the cave’s analogy corresponds exactly with the elements of Plato’s theory of knowledge. The cave also highlights the ability of philosophy to transform humans into creatures of enlightened freedom.

Please provide a brief understanding of Plato’s rationalism as described through the allegory of the cave.

This writing assignment requires each student to provide approximately a 400-450 words essay which should be based upon the student’s own thoughts and words about their understanding of the philosophical issues. The assignment must be completed and submitted online

Discussion Prompt

(Sign right, wrong, it depends)

Please pick one of the following questions to answer for the forum this week:

• 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 the 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.

Discussion Guidelines

• Three posts minimum.
• The initial forum response is due by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. EST and should be a substantive response to the Discussion prompt.
• For peer replies, respond to at least two (2) of your classmates by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. EST and give meaningful replies that advance the Discussion.

Before you post, please thoroughly edit your writing to ensure it is professional and academic. For more details about how the initial post and peer replies are graded, see and the linked .

This Discussion aligns with the following:

Rubrics

• RAMP LD Discussion V.4 Rubric [APR 2025]

reply to:

David Watkins posted Feb 9, 2026 3:23 PM

Good morning class and Dr. Cervantez,

I chose to answer the first question.

When I look at medieval ethics, what stands out to me is how much is builds on ancient philosophy while reshaping it around Christianity. Medieval thinkers didnt throw out Aristotle or Plato; they leaned heavily on ideas like virtue, reason, and purpose, but tried to reinterpret them in a world where God wasnt optional. Ethics had to line up with Christian belief, whether if fit neatly or not.

Natural law theorists, especially Thomas Aquinas, argue that moral truths are built into the structure of reality. Humans can use reason to discover what is good because God designed the world with a rational moral order. That feels close to Aristotle, just grounded in in a Christian framework. Morality isnt arbitrary here; its something we can reason our way toward.

Divine command theorists take a different approach. For them, moral rules are right because God commands them. That puts Gods authority front and center, but it also raises concerns for me. If something is good only because God wills it, then morality starts to feel less stable. This is where I keep thinking abut Euthyphro and its dilemma: does God command what is good, or is it good because God commands it?

What complicates all of this is the historical context. Medieval philosophers werent working in a safe or neutral environment. Straying too far from God-centered thinking could lead to serious consequences such as loss of status, imprisonment, torture, or worse. Knowing that makes me hesitant to say these debates were always pursued with complete freedom. Its possible that some arguments about Gods nature, Gods will, and morality were framed carefully; not to just solve philosophical problems, but to preserve ones life, reputation, or standing in society.

So while medieval ethics clearly builds on ancient philosophy and tries to address the Euthyphro Dilemma, Im not sure it fully escapes it. The solutions offered may reflect genuine insight, but may also reflect the boundaries of what could safely be said.

To what extent do you think medieval arguments about Gods word and moral authority were shaped, intentionally or not, by the need to protect the philosophers life, status, and ability to keep doing philosophy at all?

Have a great day.

There is a missing discussion to reply to i will update later.

Be sure to review the prior to participating in the discussions. You’ll want to review the provided rubric for each discussion prior to posting as well. If you need assistance working in the discussions, review this 2-minute video on .

We strive for academic integrity in all aspects of education, and you are expected to uphold these standards when creating and submitting your discussion. View the for more information on what that means at APUS.

Note the rubric full credit with peer replies: “The student substantively responds to peers/instructor with more than the minimum of two replies”

Ideally, you will submit at least 1 follow up post, if applicable. That is to acknowledge someone’s input on your post. EX: “Thanks for your reply, I agree/disagree with you about….” This is to try to build a conversation rather than just a series of comments.

It is also logistically impossible to have a discussion if we all rely on others to respond to our own posts. So, the best work will include:

1 initial post on the topic

2 replies to other people’s posts

1 follow up/acknowledgement to a comment (this can be shorter).

Discussion Prompt:

For this forum, choose one of the following topics to respond to for your initial post.

Topic A: Morality Without God?

• Watch the two videos by Stephen Darwall on God and Morality. He covers a lot of ground in these, so just pick out a point or two that he makes and present your interpretation of the ideas.
• Or, you may refer directly to Crash Course and/or the textbook and lesson material to give your impression of Divine Command Theory.

Topic B: Natural Law

• With reference to the videos and readings presented about Natural Law, present an argument for the notion that there is a natural law humans can follow to determine the right things to do in most cases or that such a law does not exist or is exaggerated.
• There is some discussion of medical ethics in the material tied to the Doctrine of Double Effect and you may consider these alternatively.

Please be sure to tie your responses directly to the material in the lesson, readings, and videos provided and cite them directly.

Peer Reply Guidance:

When replying to peers, focus on advancing the discussion by engaging with their ideas and providing strong evidence from the readings, videos, or research. For a contrary view, respectfully challenge or expand their points with examples or questions that deepen the conversation. For a different topic, connect it to your own, share new insights, or highlight overlaps to keep the discussion thoughtful and engaging. See the .

This discussion aligns with the following:

• Course Objective:

Rubrics

• RAMP LD Discussion Rubric v.5

reply to:

• Grant Farley posted Feb 10, 2026 7:01 PM
• Good afternoon class,
• I will be using Topic A for my discussion.
• Divine Command Theory, as Hank Green defined it in Crash Course, is that it is “the belief that what’s moral, and what’s immoral – is commanded by the divine.” This is a very popular view among many people today. It gives them the answers to morality because it comes from the mouth and direction of God, or the Divine.
• I found Hank’s thought bubble section posing the idea that God, or something appearing to be God, comes and essentially flips the Ten Commandments on its head and commands humankind to do those instead. As it is in connection with the first horn of the Euthyphro problem, which affirms that actions are right because God commands them. I found that hypothetical problem lacking, and this is most certainly due to the fact that I come from a Protestant background. Because of this, I grew up with the idea that God is unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). In the idea that God could not command evil without contradicting His essential goodness.
• Which is why I found William Lane Craig’s and Robert Adams’ answer to be a more fulfilling answer to the dilemma, showing “equivalence between our moral obligations and the commands of a loving God,” as discussed in the textbook. This answer, or Modified Divine Command Theory, avoids arbitrariness since it relies on the nature of God, rather than simply the commands themselves. Overall, this version of DCT offers a more coherent, as well as a theologically satisfying foundation for ethics.
• 0 Unread
• 0
• Unread
• 0 Replies
• 0
• Replies
• 1 Views
• 1
• Views

Week 2 Natural Law Discussion

• Contains unread posts
• Saben Schnebelt posted Feb 10, 2026 4:21 PM
• appy Tuesday Class hope you all are having a good start to your week.
• For this weeks discussion I chose to discuss Topic B:
• With reference to the videos and readings presented about Natural Law, present an argument for the notion that there is a natural law humans can follow to determine the right things to do in most cases or that such a law does not exist or is exaggerated.
• I read through the readings, and watched the videos multiple times and was able to pick up different points each new time. In my interpretation, Natural Law is an exaggeration and humans decide the implications they chose with no outside factors impacting the way we rationalize. The readings state that natural law, is the way humans live in order to achieve a good life. In the eyes of Aristotle, we are in charge of creating out own happiness during the life that we live, and it is not capable for everyone to attain. Based on this theory humans find ways to flourish through rationalization, and not outside factors.
• Aquinas Natural Law Theory, Aquinas argues that God has created all things with a final end, or ultimate goal, built into their nature. Aquinas adds, this process is guided by Gods intentions and purposes and, all human actions, when properly ordered, aim toward reunion with God. With the theory that God has created all things, and he guides all intentions, there is a major contradiction in the two theories. The rationalization under the Aquinas theory would be humans rationalizing in order to accomplish the intent of Gods plan.
• Aristotle believes that we rationalize through ourselves in order to achieve happiness with no outside factor, and Aquinas believes that we rationalize our activity based on the guidance of God. The theories contradict each other, as natural law cannot be both guided, and unguided.

Part 1:

Please pick one of the following questions to answer for the forum this week:

• Based on Plato’s dialogue, Apology assesses the charge leveled against Socrates for 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 accusation – was his defense convincing to you? 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 like 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 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?

Discussion Guidelines

• Three posts minimum.
• The initial forum response is due by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. EST and should be a substantive response to the Discussion prompt.
• For peer replies, respond to at least two (2) classmates by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. EST and give meaningful replies that advance the Discussion.

Before you post, please thoroughly edit your writing to ensure it is professional and academic. Please see and

This Discussion aligns with the following:

reply to:

Socrates Corruption – Anthony A.

• Contains unread posts
• Anthony Alaimo posted Feb 10, 2026 9:43 PM
• Hello class,
• I would like to discuss the acquisitions of Socrate being accused of corrupting Athenian youth. I would disagree with the use of the word “corrupted.” I would use the word “enlighten.” I would say Socrates tried to enlighten the Athenian youth and push them into thinking for themselves and teaching them think outside the box. A prime example of this is when he is talking with the slave boy, Meno. Socrates asks him to double the area of a square. After Meno fails to do it, Socrates assists him and leads him to find the answer by turning the square on its side. Socrates knew the boy had it in him to solve this, Socrates was just the push to nudge him over to enlightenment. Corruption would entail malicious intent. Socrates just wanted the youth to expand their minds and question why things were the way that they were. I believe the court was not opposed to Socrates teachings and philosophies because if they didnt agree with it, they wouldve arrested Socrates sooner. I believe Socrates defense was very convincing to a modern-day audience. He displays what his true intent was and the things that followed were by peoples own choosing. Socrates also does a very good job at exposing the weakness of this accusation. We as the readers today may support his morally strong claims but it was not up to us to decide his fate. His defense from a political standpoint of that time was very flawed. He does not attempt to appease the court, and he stands very true to his beliefs which were unpopular at the time.
• -Anthony A.
• 1 Unread
• 1
• Unread
• 1 Replies
• 1
• Replies
• 1 Views
• 1
• Views
• View profile card for Princess Whyte
• Last post 42 minutes ago by Princess Whyte

Nissen Wk 2

• Contains unread posts
• Xavier Nissen posted Feb 10, 2026 2:50 PM
• Hello all,
• The execution of Socrates.
• Socrates was accused of impiety and the corruption of the youth. Many people use his sentencing and execution as an example of a corrupted democracy and mob mentality, being of an innocent person that is disliked by a majority of people and sentenced to death even though they are believed to be innocent. The Ancient Greeks invented democracy, however it was different from what we see in politics today. During the trial and execution of Socrates, democracy was more to serve what felt preserved the well being of the Athenians (University of Cambridge 2009). Socrates was unliked in Athens and had a reputation for making people seem less intelligent leading to embarrassment, so it is not difficult to see why he would face the accusations he did (Britannica). It is easy to think that Socrates would be found innocent of any crimes, forgetting the difference in Ancient Greek Democracy and modern democracy. With the mindset of a community looking out for the well-being of their overall well being and the poor reputation Socrates had, it is easy to see why he would face execution. Especially after he proposed his punishment should be meals provided to him at no cost, but paid for by the public.
• During the Apology, Socrates states if you now acquitted merejecting Anutos, who said that either I should not have been brought here to trial in the first place, or, now that I have, executing me is unavoidable (Plato 399 BC, 29c). This is Socrates calling out the pointless trial by saying he would only cease his philosophies if he were executed, and any other actions would be in vain. He does acknowledge that if he were not to be executed but rather acquitted then the Athenians would be going against a person named Anutos, who stated Socrates should not have been brought to trial in the first place, unless they had already intended to execute him (Plato 339 BC, 29c).
• References
• Plato. The Apology of Socrates. Translated by Cathal Woods and Ryan Pack, Accessed 10 Feb. 2026.
• Socrates Was Guilty as Charged | University of Cambridge. University of Cambridge, 8 June 2009, .
• Why Did Athens Condemn Socrates to Death? | Britannica. Britannica, . Accessed 10 Feb. 2026.

Part 2:

Instructions

Assignment Directions:

Not all Assignments need to be papers and Power Points. It can be beneficial to learn new systems and to explore your creativity.

Infographics are used to communicate complex ideas in a visually pleasing, yet simple to understand manner.

Evaluation, create an Infographic that communicates the information you want to convey about either Thales, a Pre-Socratic philosopher, or Socrates.

Imagine you are a recruiter for his school or his philosophy. Present some historical information about your philosopher, but also present information about theories you find interesting, accomplishments, snippets of any writing. Sell me on this philosopher. Present reasons I would want to have this philosopher as my teacher.

Submission Instructions:

• When creating your infographic, please consider the following:
• Use an Infographic program such as , , MS Publisher, or MS PowerPoint. For many of these, you will need an account for them to work properly (they will still be free). Do not pay for an account. If using PowerPoint, click on “New” and search themes for “Infographic.” There are several FREE templates to choose from.
• With PowerPoint, open the program, click on “New,” search for “infographic,” and choose an option with the word “infographic” in the title. If you choose to use a PPT presentation other than an infographic, limit it to 3 of 4 slides and try to make it look like an infographic.
• Here is an on how to use Piktochart
• Use copyright-free images (included in the Infographic program used).
• Include text to explain your argument and describe your position.
• Include data to support your argument.
• Include at least two sources in the infographic, including both references at the bottom and citations on the infographic where the referenced material was used.
• Post as either a PDF or a working link. Be sure the link works, as I cannot grade what I cannot open.
• Have fun with this Assignment, and be creative!
• If you need an alternative format, please contact your instructor immediately.
• For grading expectations, please see the Infographic rubric.

This Assignment aligns with the following:

• Course Objectives
• Learning Objectives