1. Address one of the Ethical Issues raised by Advertising and defend your own position with reference to course material. You’ll need to find an issue worth writing on – something debatable, about which you can develop your own argument. Arrington’s philosophically meaty article is a good source of questions. (Unit 8)
2. For example, is puffery ethical? – consider theorists who criticize and defend puffery, and argue your own position taking account of counter-arguments.
3. Or does advertising undermine autonomy or “create desires” in a sinister way? – consider what autonomy is, Galbraith and Hayek’s arguments, and defend your own position against counter-arguments.
4. You can also consider issues more briefly touched upon, like the ethics of advertising to children or teenagers, but in such cases you’d benefit from outside research.

READ NOTES BEFORE STARTING ESSAY.

I ATTACHED MY COURSE NOTES THAT YOU WILL NEED TO READ AND INCORPORATE INTO THE ESSAY, IF ITS NOT TIED INTO THE ESSAY I WILL BE RELEASING A LOWER %.

Discussion Prompt:

For this forum, choose one of the following topics to respond to for your initial post. When you respond to your peers please respond, if possible, to a learner who has posted a contrary view on the topic you selected and then, at a minimum respond to at least one learner who has posted on the topic you did not select.

Topic A: Is Lying Wrong?

For Kant, following universalizable rules and respecting autonomy are paramount. As such, there were very few rules that qualified, truthfulness was one. Certainly, no one likes to be lied to. An absolute duty to truthfulness is also supported by Kants claim that we ought never to use persons merely as means to an end. Contrasted with consequentialist approaches, Kants theory may seem too rigid and inflexible a little, white lie never hurt anyone, right? But it also accords with folk notions like honesty is the best policy. With reference to the readings/videos (especially Kants Axe), analyze Kant’s argument against lying. What does Kant get right/wrong with regard to always telling the truth?

Topic B: Kantian Autonomy and Self-Determination

See the section on and review the shaded box called On the Morality of Suicide in Chapter 6 in the textbook.

Is there a contradiction in suggesting that personal autonomy is morally paramount, but just not in the case of choosing when and how to die? Does this dilemma extend to other matters of self-determination, like drug use, or other risky behaviors?

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 thoughtfully with their ideas. Use examples from the readings or research to support your points and ask questions that encourage deeper thinking. If you disagree, explain why respectfully and consider how Kants ideas apply to real-world situations or other ethical issues.

This discussion aligns with the following:

• Course Objective:

Rubrics

• RAMP LD Discussion Rubric v.5

reply to:

• Daniel Wilkinson posted Mar 9, 2026 2:34 PM
• Happy Monday from Tennessee, hope everyone else’s weather this last weekend was better than here. It did however give me some time to get a jump start on this week’s topics.
• I actually did my project last week on the ethics of assisted suicide.
• For this week, I looked into the idea of Kantian autonomy and how it fits (or doesn’t fit) with assisted suicide. I can be a somewhat confusing topic because Kant talks a lot about how humans should be “ends in themselves” and not just tools for something else.
• In the Crash Course video it says that we have “absolute moral worth” because we are rational beings who can make our own choices. You would think that being autonomous means we get to choose everything about our own lives to include when and how it ends. But Kant would disagree, he says in the readings that if a person kills themselves, they are treating their own life like a “thing” instead of respecting their own dignity. He basically thinks you are using your own body as a means to stop pain, which violates his rules about never using people as tools. (Crash Course, 2016)
• I think there is a big contradiction, how can we be “morally paramount” and in charge of our own lives then be told we aren’t allowed to make the most personal decision there is? It feels as if Kant is giving us freedom and then taking it away.
• If we follow Kant, we are “slaves to our passions” if we do things that hurt our ability to think clearly. But if we are truly self-determined it feels like those should be our choices to make even if they are risky. (School of Life, 2015)
• -Dan
• References:
• “Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35. “YouTube, uploaded by Crash Course, 14 Nov 2016. .
• “Philosophy: Immanual Kant.” YouTube, uploaded by The School of Life, 13 Nov 2015. .
• 1 Unread
• 1
• Unread
• 1 Replies
• 1
• Replies
• 3 Views
• 3
• Views
• View profile card for Frederick Kiser
• Last post yesterday at 4:57 PM by Frederick Kiser

Week 6 Topic A

• Contains unread posts
• Frederick Kiser posted Mar 10, 2026 4:34 PM
• Hello Class,
• For this weeks discussion I went with Topic A, and whether lying is acceptable or not. I do agree that honesty is often the best policy, but not all the time. The truth is, it really does depend on the scenario. Kants argument against lying is grounded in his belief that morality must be based on universal principles and respect for rational autonomy. Because a lie cannot be universal without contradiction, Kant concludes that lying is always morally impermissible. As Andrew Chapman explains, Kant sees lying as a violation of the Categorical Imperative because it manipulates another persons ability to make rational choices.
• However, Kants axe exposes the tension in Kants theory. In a BBC Radio 4 video I found, the narrator describes the classic case, a situation we have ALL been in: a murderer comes to your door asking for the location of an innocent person. Kant still insists that lying is wrong, even here. His reasoning is that moral worth depends on acting from duty, not on predicting consequences we cannot fully control. If you lie and the victim is harmed anyway, Kant argues you bear responsibility for the lie; if you tell the truth and the victim is harmed, the wrongdoing lies solely with the murderer. This is what I mean when I say that honesty works in most cases, but not all. If a lie would save the life of one person or multiple, then that should be permissible.
• Now, Kant is right to emphasize the importance of honesty for moral relationships. The School of Lifes overview of Kant highlights that truthfulness protects the rational agency of others and prevents us from using people merely as tools for our gain. Kant also grounds morality in intention so that this helps maintain a stable moral framework that does not shift based on convenience or personal preference. However, Kants absolutism becomes difficult to defend in extreme cases. In Kants Axe example here shows that rigid adherence to truthfulness can lead to morally troubling outcomes. I found Kranaks notes in which many argue that context matters, and that protective deception may be morally justified when it prevents serious harm. Kants refusal to consider consequences at all makes his theory feel disconnected from the realworld when it comes to moral decisionmaking, where protecting innocent life is usually the higher priority above most other things.
• Kant helps us in understanding why honesty matters, he emphasizes on universal principles and respect for autonomy and provides a strong foundation for moral reasoning. However, Kant’s Axe scenario reveals that an absolute prohibition on lying can lead to worse consequences and worse outcomes. While honesty should remain the default in most circumstances, there are some cases where protecting others outweighs the duty to tell the truth.
• BBC Radio 4. 2014. Kants Axe. YouTube. .
• Chapman, Andrew. 2014. Deontology: Kantian Ethics. 1000Word Philosophy. .
• Kranak, John. 2019. Kantian Deontology. Rebus Community. .
• The School of Life. 2015. PHILOSOPHY: Immanuel Kant. YouTube.

Make Sure you watch videos Directions Write a detailed and reflective essay that demonstrates your engagement with the course material and your ability to synthesize ideas. Your essay should address the following: 1. Theme or Thinker: Which theme or philosopher did you enjoy learning about most, and why? Be as detailed as possible. 2. Challenges: Which ideas challenged you the most, and why? 3. Impact: How has the study of philosophy (if at all) changed the way you understand yourself, others, or the world? 4. Application: How do you see yourself putting the discipline of philosophy into practice-in your personal life, professional life, or broader society? Note: Philosophy is not just abstract theory; it is a dynamic activity of reflection in time and space. It is intended to enhance human well-being and promote excellence worldwide. What do you see as the living value of Philosophy? Why do you think our world could benefit from the genuine practice

750-100 words (excluding works cited and MLA required text)Your paper should have a minimum of 750 words without the works cited and MLA required text. 750-100 words (excluding works cited and MLA required text)

Your paper should have a minimum of 750 words without the works cited and MLA required text. Maximum word count is 1000.

5 pts

Full Marks

4 pts

One hundred or less words short in word count.

3 pts

200-199 short in word count

2 pts

More than 200 words short

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

MLA format

You must review the MLA style guide and format your paper accordingly to the best of your ability. I have added an MLA link where you can download a template and also review a paper using the MLA style guide. If in doubt, meet with a tutor.

5 pts

Full Marks

4 pts

One or two minor formatting issues

Are you using in-text citations? Have you included your last name and page number in the header? Is all your text set to double line spacing?

3 pts

three or four MLA issues

2 pts

Needs Revision

Your paper has not been formatted according to MLA standards

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Use two to four quotes in your paper

Use one-to-two quotes from the philosopher and one-to-two quotes from an academic secondary source. Ensure the quotes are used to support your claims, not make the claims for you.

5 pts

Full Marks

4 pts

Missing one or two quotes

3 pts

Missing quote from the original source

2 pts

Missing quote from secondary source

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Includes Works Cited

You should have at least one text by the philosopher and at least two other secondary sources with a maximum of two works by the philosopher and two secondary sources.

5 pts

Full Marks

4 pts

Missing one source

3 pts

Sources are questionable

Are you sources good? There is a lot of questionable information out there, or obscure interpretations. Your sources should be considered authoritative according to the academy. Articles in the NYT, National Geographic, Atlantic, and historically intellectual magazines and newspapers can be used as a second original text source or if more than one secondary source is being used.

0 pts

No Marks

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Your work has a compelling title

The title is the beginning of your paper so make it count.

5 pts

Full Marks

4 pts

Good but could be improved

Does your title foreshadow the paper? If not, work on it a bit more.

3 pts

Good but there are grammar issues/or it is too long

Your title has great potential but there are grammar issues, or it is too long.

2 pts

Needs Revision

Your title needs to be revised.

0 pts

No Marks

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Paper structure

Your paper should include an introduction with thesis statement (paragraph 1), three or four paragraphs of main text, one final conclusory paragraph.

5 pts

Full Marks

4 pts

Good but introduction needs more definition

If your introduction needs work, the rest of your paper will suffer. Work with a tutor to work with thesis statement and introduction.

3 pts

Thesis statement needs work

Work with a tutor to assist in the crafting of your thesis statement and introduction.

2 pts

Needs Improvement

The paper lacks structure and should be revised with a writing tutor.

0 pts

No Marks

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Discussion of the philosopher’s perspective and arguments

5 pts

Full Marks

4 pts

Very good with one or two areas of need of clarification

3 pts

Good but vague in areas

Be as clear as possible to avoid ambiguities

2 pts

Has not grasped arguments or perspectives or leaves out important information

0 pts

No Marks

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Grammar and syntax

5 pts

Full Marks

4 pts

Very good with some minor errors

3 pts

Good but needs proof reading

2 pts

Grammar and syntax need improvement

0 pts

No Marks

5 pts Part 1: rewrite add abstract

Student Name Professors Name Philosophy 101 10 March 2026

The Architecture of the Real: Knowledge as a Product of Crisis

The human experience is often defined by a comfortable reliance on the familiar. We move through our daily lives assuming that the floor beneath our feet and the information on our screens represent an objective, immutable reality. However, the history of philosophy suggests that this comfort is a trap. In the quest to address the great question“What is knowledge?”one must determine if truth is a destination reached through a disciplined, rational ascent or a jarring awakening triggered by a systemic failure. By examining Book VII of Platos Republic alongside Philip K. Dicks 1978 essay, “How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later,” a striking commonality emerges. While Plato suggests that knowledge is a gradual transition toward the “Forms” and Dick proposes it is an involuntary response to a “glitch” in a fake reality, both agree that authenticity is only achieved when a crisis forces the individual to turn away from the preconceived shadows of their environment.

In the “Allegory of the Cave,” Plato describes the human condition as one of profound delusion. Prisoners are chained in a subterranean cavern, viewing shadows cast by a fire onto a wall, mistaking these flickering silhouettes for reality itself. For Plato, the transition from ignorance to knowledge is a process of periagoge, or a “turning around” of the soul. This is not a painless process; it is a fundamental crisis of identity. As Socrates notes, when a prisoner is first dragged into the sunlight, he suffers “sharp pains” and is “unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows” (Plato 255). This suggests that knowledge is not merely the accumulation of facts, but a difficult, ontological shift. To know the truth, one must first endure the blinding discomfort of realizing that their previous life was a fabrication. In Platos view, the “Great Question” of knowledge is answered through a guided, rational education that leads the mind away from the sensory world and toward the eternal truth of the Forms.

Philip K. Dick provides a modern, more chaotic counterpart to Platos structured ascent. Writing in the late 20th century, Dick was obsessed with the idea that our reality is a “spurious” construct manufactured by media, technology, and political entities. While Platos prisoners are victims of their own limited perspective, Dicks subjects are victims of deliberate artifice. In his essay, Dick argues that we are living in a “fake reality” that is prone to malfunction. He famously defines reality as “that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away” (Dick 4). For Dick, the moment of true knowledge occurs during a “glitch”a moment where the artificial universe begins to “fall apart,” revealing the mechanisms of control behind it. Unlike Platos philosopher-king who eventually reaches a state of enlightened calm, Dicks seeker of knowledge remains in a state of perpetual vigilance, knowing that the “truth” is often just the next layer of a crumbling illusion.

The connection between these two thinkers lies in the necessity of a “cracked” reality to facilitate growth. As Friedrich Nietzsche observed, the philosophy of Socrates emerged during the decay of ancient Greek democracy, a time when “strong man” ethics and war had soiled the existing social contract. This historical decay acted as the “glitch” that forced Plato to seek a higher, unchanging truth beyond the corruptible world of politics. Similarly, Dicks work reflects a mid-century disillusionment with mass-media manipulation. Both authors argue that we are naturally inclined to stay in the cave because the cave is safe. We only seek the light when the shadows stop making sense. Whether it is the prisoner being dragged up the steep ascent or the sci-fi protagonist watching their world dissolve, knowledge is a product of an unexpected, intimidating awakening. It is only when the reality we trust begins to show its seams that we are forced to look for what lies behind the fissure.

Secondary scholarship reinforces the idea that these “crises” are essential for the survival of the human soul. According to academic analysis of the Cave, “the ascent is not merely an intellectual exercise but a psychic trauma that shatters the prisoner’s previous world-view” (Smith 112). This mirrors the “Dickian” hero who, once he realizes the universe is a construct, can never return to the bliss of ignorance. Furthermore, contemporary scholars suggest that “Dicks ‘glitch’ serves the same function as Platos sun; it is an external force that renders the previous shadow-play impossible to believe” (Jones 45). Both the philosopher and the sci-fi protagonist become outsiders, alienated by their knowledge but liberated by their realization of the truth.

In conclusion, the question “What is knowledge?” cannot be answered without acknowledging the pain of its acquisition. Plato provides the map for the ascent, viewing knowledge as a gradual movement toward a supreme Good. Philip K. Dick provides the warning, viewing knowledge as the byproduct of a collapsing fake reality. Though they approach the problem from different erasone from the dawn of logic and the other from the height of postmodern anxietytheir conclusions are remarkably similar. They both assert that we are living among shadows. Whether we are moved by the gentle hand of a teacher or the violent shudder of a glitching universe, we only truly “know” when we have the courage to face the blinding light of the real.

The second paper must concern the topic, ‘What is knowing? How does a person arrive at full philosophical knowing?’ Address the course material as part of your response. The papers need to be at least 1,500 words each. Quotations do not count toward the minimum word-count. There are essentially no ‘maximum’ limits for word-count. With this paper, I would advise that you avoid sceptical theses, e.g. ‘humans cannot know.’ Such negative attempts do not seem to lead to a good result at an introductory level. –Before getting into limits on what we can know, first try just to show how knowing is possible in the first place. Further I would warn students against the tendency to focus on material outside of the course. Focus on the course-material in constructing your answer and use outside material sparingly and only to help develop your approach, excepting in discussion of Leibniz. Do not give more credence or attention to, e.g., encyclopedia accounts of ‘the analysis of knowledge’ than is appropriate. Start with a focus on the Week Four document, and then consider discussing Leibniz. Consult the Week Four document for more on the definition of knowledge. This in fact is to be your main focus in the paper, though it must be brought into connection with the wider course-material, etc. If you are at a loss for an idea, you could use the following as a thesis: ‘Aristotle correctly shows, knowledge consists of foundational beliefs and deductions from them: the key and certain, foundational beliefs for the life of philosophic knowing are x, y, & z,’ where you then fill in x, y, and z, etc. For ideas on what X, Y, & Z could be, you can look especially to Leibniz and his claim that substances, by definition, cannot affect each other except through the act of creation. –Use this model unless you feel you know what you are doing and have spoken with the instructor about your plans. An example thesis: Aristotle correctly shows, knowledge consists of foundational beliefs and deductions from them – the key and certain, foundational beliefs for the life of philosophic knowing include: ‘I think’ (self-awareness as a thinking being) and substances, by definition, cannot affect each other except through the act of creation. 1. Make sure have a strong thesis statement. Place your thesis statement in the first paragraph of your paper. Please make it the first sentence. Use ‘and,’ commands and semi-colons, etc., to fit all the thesis ideas into one, grammatical-sentence. 2. Make sure your paper is organised around the thesis-statement, working to support it. So, e.g., if you say, ‘Descartes is correct about knowledge,’ do not just describe Descartes’ ideas but show why they are correct (as claimed). 3. Make the thesis specific, not ‘Socrates helps us with thinking,’ but instead ‘Socrates helps us with our thinking by offering his method of questioning to find contradictions, and to seek definitions; in particular, Socrates’ approach is beneficial in raising the idea, to know x, one must able to define x – this idea gives us a goal for our attempts at knowing.’ Try to discuss one or more of Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant or Hegel in the thesis and paper. Kant may, however, be difficult as a main focus, and Hegel is likely even more difficult. 4. Include numerous references, with page numbers. Try to use quotations. Try to reference your textbook. When your paper needs an in-text reference: give a quotation with a page-number. Then follow this up with a paraphrase of what you think the quotation means. Ideally, supply both the quotation and the paraphrase…. It is indeed very, very important to use primary sources, and to use secondary sources from outside our classroom only to clarify primary sources. (Obviously, then, there is more freedom when it comes to secondary sources, from within the classroom….) 5. You have to use MLA style. 6. Work on displaying your knowledge of Philosophy. 7. Remember that there are two questions here that you need to answer. You do not need to give equal attention to both questions, but you do need to address both in your papers. Students have a tendency to totally neglected the issue of ‘philosophical knowing’ or to approach it in a short, ad hoc, and erroneous manner. Beginning your paper Don’t begin with a sentence like “Down through the ages, mankind has pondered the problem of…” There’s no need to warm up to your topic. You should get right to the point, with the first sentence. Also, don’t begin with a sentence like “Webster’s Dictionary defines a soul as…” Dictionaries aren’t good philosophical authorities. They record the way words are used in everyday discourse. Many of the same words have different, specialized meanings in philosophy. –Jim Pryor, ‘Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper’ Each paper must be tightly organized around a thesis statement that is presented near the beginning of the paper, ideally as the first sentence. A thesis statement takes a side regarding a controversial question. E.g. ‘The value of Socrates’ philosophy lies solely in his willingness to question atraditional claims.’ This is obviously controversial as one could well imagine, there is some other value to Socrates’ philosophy. Etc. A thesis statement is not a statement of aims. A statement of aims describes what your paper is about, in terms of what the paper will be covering and what it is trying to accomplish. I am looking for a thesis statement in each paper, not a statement of aims. You can also add a statement of aims, but that is optional. (By default, your aim is to support your thesis.) Do not merely describe what is in the texts, but evaluate the material and give arguments about what is important in philosophers’ thinking. Develop your own, detailed, logically coherent arguments. At the same time, papers must demonstrate the students’ knowledge of the history of philosophy. (Thus it is a question of balancing the evaluative, the creative, and the historical-descriptive.) Papers ought to be on the topics assigned. Moreover, the paper ought to be about the course material, which means especially the textbook and the online readings within GeorgiaView. * –References / Secondary Sources Be sure to provide proper references, including page numbers, for direct claims about philosophers. This is the most importantrequirement for your papers. Papers without references appropriate to beginning students will automatically be failed, and would have to re-written. All essays need to use appropriate, academic references in the MLA-style. The emphasis with reference in general ought to be on quotations rather than paraphrase (though with referencing the course textbook, accurate paraphrase might make quotation redundant). Plagiarism is a problem in online courses, and all plagiarism will be reported in accordance with University-policies, so please take extra-steps to avoid any appearance of plagiarism. Papers require proper citations and references in MLA format [see . Also keep in mind that, only certain WWW material can be used for references in papers: 1)specifically approved material, 2) material written by the instructor, 3) material assigned by the instructor as reading, & 4) material that is published elsewhere in print. The reason for these restrictions, is that much WWW is of a low-quality. It is recommended that you use JSTOR to find better quality material, if needed. — The contents of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is approved in advance for student use, however students are advised, that the content is often, not really very well-written or easy to read, and often pursues somewhat idiosyncratic questions. More generally, care is required in choosing references. So, for example, please do not use Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. This work is not permitted as a basis for papers in this course; please refer to the assigned readings and appropriate supplements to them. Then in general, -you need to pick good sources. If you rely upon the false claims of even a prestigious source or if you paraphrase an accurate source so as to turn its ideas into false claims then your own ideas have not been established. I do not give out a lot of points for just quoting false ideas from the secondary literature.

ilmu sebagai proses prosedur dan produk