Bright Academic Experts

Category: Philosophy

  • reading and questions

    1. What is Holdier’s main argument? Why does he call it an “anthropocentric” argument?

    2. Look at the premises Holdier supplies for his argument under the last section, Speciesistic de facto Veganism. They are numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (#4 is a counterargument to his view, not support for it). Which premise do you think is the strongest? Why? Which premise do you think is the weakest? Why?

    3.Other philosophical arguments for veganism hold that any creature that experiences some form of consciousness should not be deprived (through killing) of that experience. This is because existence or consciousness has inherent value. Is this a good argument for veganism? How might it be expanded? What are some counter-arguments that may be proposed?

    a bit of background info. but we are working on Holdier’s

    This week we continue to apply critical, ethical thinking to real-world issues. Like environmental ethics, animal ethics has only seen its popularity grow in recent years. Animal ethicists spend their time thinking about the consequences of our interactions with the other creatures which inhabit the planet. Consumption of other animals along with their use as a means to an end (in science laboratories and manual labor) are both primary focus areas.

    Perhaps the most well-known philosopher working in this area is Peter Singer who has written and lectured extensively on these topics since the 1970s. Some of his ideas sparked protests when they were first released and a number of his arguments remain controversial to this day. His seminal work, Animal Liberation, is well worth reading and may even change the way you think about human beings’ interactions with other living organisms.

    Another contemporary philosopher working on these issues is A.G. Holdier (website: ). His approach to the argument is to frame it in what he calls an “anthropocentric” context.

    Please read Holdier’s, “Speciesistic Veganism: An Anthropocentric Argument” available here:


  • Philosophy Question

    Two Essays: Comparative and Analytic

    This assignment includes two short essays that deal with significant elements of this lesson. Each

    of these essays should be no less than 2 pages of writing. The essays should be headed

    separately by using the titles provided for each essay, but they should be completed as one

    document. Please include a page break between essays. Include your references in MLA at the

    bottom of each essay. Draw significantly from the reading materials and lecture.

    Read the essay prompts and address the topics in a manner that illustrates your awareness and

    understanding of the concepts involved. In other words, when you refer to an idea or concept,

    explain it; make sure that you utilize the technical terms related to the issues; err on the side of

    more explanation and clarification than less; do not think that the minimum word limit is all you can

    do (I will always reward extra effort!)

    Essay I: Comparative Essay on Hume and Buddhism

    In Buddhism, the term anatt or antman refers to their doctrine of no self. An early Buddhist text

    (around 1 BCE), called the Milindapanha, or “Milinda’s Questions,” contains a famous simile that is

    meant to help explain the Buddhist theory of anatta, no self. Read about the simile from the site

    provided here and answer the question. Please make note that there is a section of this site

    entitled The Chariot Simile that should be referred to directly in your response.

    After reading about chariot simile, compare it to what Hume says about the mind being like a

    theatre and explain how this is an image of the nature of the way impressions and memories are

    experienced. Both of these similes are meant to represent what the mind is like. Please explain

    how, for each case. How is Nagasenas answer that Then there is no chariot! similar to Humes

    claim that there is no self!?

    Essay II: Analytic Essay on Freuds Tripartite Psyche

    Give a summary of Freuds theory of the Psyche. Using what you have learned about the

    theories of the Self from Descartes, Locke and Hume, analyze how Freuds theory of the Psyche

    presents a problem for these traditional views of the Self. Address how Freuds theory

    challenges each theory specifically, not just as a whole. A complete answer will include a

    description of what each thinker understands the self to be like, and then conscientious

    reflection on how Freuds theory differs. Length- Graded assignments should be sufficient in length to

    address the question(s) or topic(s) completely. In this case, your

    essay should be a minimum of four complete pages of writing (this

    does not include heading). Submissions outside of the specified

    parameter will receive fewer points, and you may be required to

    resubmit assignments which are significantly below word limit or

    expectations Content

    Essays should include effective expression of ideas, supporting

    detail from the materials/readings provided and relevant examples

    for such ideas when appropriate.

    Essay should demonstrate insight into the topic and clear

    demonstration familiarity and comprehension of the readings and

    lecture.

    Hume Essay should address the following topics:

  • Description of the simile of the chariot and interpretation
  • Description of Humes theory of mind as a theatre and

    • connection to his epistemology (theory of ideas as

    impressions)

  • Relation of Buddhist anatta and Humes no self-argument

    • Freud Essay should address the following topics:

  • Accurately summarize Freuds theory of psyche
  • Include description of theories of self from Descartes, Locke,

    • and Hume

  • Include comparison of each theory to Freuds

    • Presentation – You are expected to demonstrate college-level

    writing skills, appropriate sentence structure, format, and grammar.

    Assignments which are marred by errors in grammar, punctuation,

  • Philosophy Question

    Morality and the Law. (I need 5 unique copies for this assignment mine and my other 2 classmates )

    Answer both of the following prompts. Your total response should be approximately 400600 words.

    Part 1 Descriptive: What is the relationship between morality and the law as we actually find it? Where do legal rules and moral principles overlap, and where do they come apart? Use at least two concrete examples one where the law and widely held moral views align, and one where they diverge (either something legal but widely considered immoral, or something illegal but widely considered morally permissible or even required).

    Part 2 Normative: What should the relationship between morality and the law be? Should the law try to enforce moral standards? All of them, or only some? If only some, what principle distinguishes the moral rules that deserve legal backing from those that don’t? Defend your position with a clear reason not just a statement of preference.

    A few guidelines:

    Your Part 1 examples will be stronger if they go beyond the obvious. Your Part 2 answer should directly engage a possible objection if someone disagreed with you, what would they likely say, and why are they wrong (or at least less right)?

  • Philosophy Question

    This week we discussed changes in political thinking brought on by the Renaissance and Reformation.

    Absolutism and the later Republicanism, very different philosophies that both emerged during the time. What are 2 key differences between these two political systems and how did the Enlightenment favor Republicanism? (Cite your text in the body of your essay and list your used sources, two required. (Your textbook and module sources are acceptable). No title page or abstract required. (min 500 words).

    No Ai is allowed please provide a turntin AI report

  • What is Psychology?

    Psychology is the scientific study of the human mind and behavior. It explores how we think, feel, act, and interact with others and the world around us.

    Key Areas of Focus

    – Cognitive Psychology: Examines mental processes like thinking, memory, attention, problem-solving, and language.

    – Developmental Psychology: Tracks how people grow and change physically, mentally, and socially across their lifespan (from infancy to old age).

    – Social Psychology: Looks at how we are influenced by othersincluding topics like conformity, prejudice, attraction, and group behavior.

    – Clinical Psychology: Focuses on diagnosing and treating mental health issues, emotional distress, and behavioral problems.

    – Personality Psychology: Investigates what makes each person unique, including traits, patterns of thought, and characteristic behaviors.

    Core Principles

    – Behavior and mental processes have biological, psychological, and social causes (the “biopsychosocial model”).

    – We actively process information and shape our own experiences, not just react to them.

    – Individual differences matterpeople respond differently to the same situation based on their unique backgrounds and traits.

    – Psychology uses scientific methods (like experiments, surveys, and observations) to test ideas and gather evidence.

  • Does free will truly exist, or are all human actions determi…

    The question of whether free will exists or whether all human actions are determined by prior causes has been central to philosophical inquiry for centuries. On the one hand, determinism, strongly associated with philosophers like Baruch Spinoza and David Hume, argues that every action is the inevitable result of preceding causes. Spinoza believed that human beings are part of nature and follow the same causal laws as everything else; thus, our sense of freedom is merely ignorance of the causes that determine us. For example, if a person becomes angry and reacts aggressively, determinism would explain this behavior as the outcome of past experiences, emotional conditioning, and biological tendenciesmeaning the person could not have acted otherwise under the same conditions. Similarly, Hume argued that human actions are governed by cause and effect, just like physical events, though he also tried to preserve a practical notion of freedom.

    In contrast, the theory of libertarian free will is defended by thinkers like Immanuel Kant and Jean-Paul Sartre, who emphasize human autonomy. Kant argued that while the physical world operates under causality, humans belong to a rational realm where they can act freely according to moral laws. For instance, when a person chooses to tell the truth despite facing personal loss, Kant would say this action reflects free will guided by duty and reason, not mere causation. Sartre takes this idea further by claiming that humans are condemned to be free, meaning we always have the responsibility to choose, even in difficult circumstances. For example, even under social pressure, choosing a career path or moral stance reflects an exercise of freedom, and individuals cannot escape responsibility by blaming circumstances.

    A middle position, known as compatibilism, is most clearly articulated by David Hume and later thinkers, who argue that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. According to this view, freedom does not mean the absence of causes but the ability to act according to ones own desires and intentions without external coercion. For example, if a person chooses to study for an exam because they genuinely want success, their action is considered freeeven though their motivation is shaped by past experiences and ambitions. However, if someone is forced at gunpoint to perform an action, it is not free, even if the action occurs within a causal chain. Thus, compatibilism preserves both the idea of causation and the practical need for moral responsibility.

    Modern scientific insights, particularly from neuroscience, have added complexity to this debate. Experiments suggest that brain processes involved in decision-making begin before conscious awareness, which seems to support determinism. However, philosophers argue that conscious reflection still plays a role in evaluating and possibly overriding impulses. For instance, a person may feel an immediate urge to act out of anger but can pause, reflect, and choose a more rational response. This reflective capacity indicates that even within causal influences, there is a space for self-control and deliberation.

    In conclusion, the debate between free will and determinism does not lead to a simple answer. Determinism highlights the powerful influence of prior causes, while libertarianism emphasizes human autonomy and responsibility. Compatibilism offers a balanced perspective by suggesting that freedom lies not in being uncaused, but in acting according to ones own rationally considered desires. Therefore, human beings may not be absolutely free, but they are not entirely bound eitherthey possess a form of limited, reflective freedom that allows them to shape their actions within the framework of causation.

  • The Nature of Reality: What Is Real?

    I am interested in understanding how philosophers define reality. What are the major perspectives on what is considered real, such as materialism and idealism? How do these views differ in explaining the existence of the physical world and human perception? Additionally, how can we determine whether something truly exists or is simply a product of the mind?

  • The impact of using social media platforms

    The impact must be study

  • Film Analysis on “Mickey 17.”

    I will attach the instructions but I need a 4-5 page analysis on the film Mikey 17 directed by Bong Joon-ho and specifically note the ethical moments, themes, and issues from the film. Use those specific moments as evidence in your analysis. Ethical questions about human life, identity, exploitation, and power. 0% AI and i want it in simple english/words.

  • Philosophy Question

    Topic 2 You encounter a tribe who do not reason as we do. Their senses and their memories are every bit as good as ours, but when they notice that all observed emeralds have been green, they conclude that the next emerald they encounter will not be green. In general, they follow a rule of counterinduction.

    All observed Fs have been G.
    Therefore, the next F we examine will not be G.

    You are deep in conversation with a counterinductivist when you are told that a new emerald has just come to light. The two of you are asked to predict its color. You say it will be green; the counterinductivist says the opposite. You point out that the examined emeralds have all been green. The counterinductivist says, I know. That gives us reason to think this one will be different. You say, But induction has almost always worked in the past. The counterinductivist says, Precisely. That gives us reason to think that it will fail in this case. You say, But your track record is terrible; almost all of your predictions have been wrong! And the counterinductivist replies, Exactly. That gives us reason to believe that this time well be right!

    Is the counterinductivist irrational (despite his maddening consistency)? If so, say why. If not, say why not. Start your paper off by explaining any key phrases (“induction” “counter induction”) . Then explain in your own words the question in the paper prompt (roughly first 1/3 of your paper). Then develop, and explain, your answer to the questions in italics. (second 1/3 of your paper). Finally, consider a worthy objection to your position. How would you respond to it? (Roughly the last 1/3 of your paper).