please log into UHD canvas login username – guidryj12@gator.uhd.edu

password – 031380Jay!

Please click on the Introduction to Philosophy 23506 class then Modules scroll down to unit two ( Week nine day two ) watch video and answer the question that is at the end of the video.

follow the instructions.

please let me know if you have any questions

please log into UHD canvas login username – guidryj12@gator.uhd.edu

password – 031380Jay!

Please click on the Introduction to Philosophy 23506 class then Modules scroll down to unit two ( Week nine day one ) watch video and answer the question that is at the end of the video.

follow the instructions.

please let me know if you have any questions

please log into UHD canvas login username – guidryj12@gator.uhd.edu

password – 031380Jay!

Please click on the Introduction to Philosophy 23506 class then Modules scroll down to unit two ( Week eight day two ) watch video and answer the question that is at the end of the video.

follow the instructions.

please let me know if you have any questions

please log into UHD canvas login username – guidryj12@gator.uhd.edu

password – 031380Jay!

Please click on the Introduction to Philosophy 23506 class then Modules scroll down to unit two ( Week seven day one ) watch video and answer the question that is at the end of the video.

follow the instructions.

please let me know if you have any questions

Assignment Overview: For the midterm, you will complete a creative, independent project that engages with a central theme, question or thinker from the course. This assignment moves beyond a uniform model of evaluation, giving you the freedom to demonstrate philosophical understanding in a format that best reflects your strengths and interests. As part of the assignment, you will also present your project during Socratic Dialogue Days. Each student will have approximately ~10 minutes to share their work, followed by peer discussion and questions. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism Define and explain the key components of Consequentialism and Utilitarianism. How does John Stuart Mill contribute to the development of Utilitarian theory? How might a Utilitarian respond to common criticisms, such as the theory being overly demanding, violating individual rights, or instrumentalizing people? If you choose not to submit a traditional essay, you must also include a 500-word written explanation of your project. This explanation should clearly connect your creative work to the philosophical concepts, arguments, or thinkers you are engaging with. Project Format: Potential prompts [Creative Project]: Your project should creatively engage with at least one major theme, question, or thinker from our course. Below are some suggested prompts to help you get started. You are also welcome to develop your own idea in consultation with me. 1. Platos Ring of Gyges & Ethical Egoism a. Imagine a modern-day Ring of Gyges b. Would ethical egoism justify such power for personal gain? c. How does this thought experiment challenge the possibility of morality without accountability? Students may choose the form their project takes. Acceptable formats include, but are not limited to: Written essay (1250 word minimum)

Discussion Prompt:

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

Topic A: Rawlsian Justice

John Rawls claims that justice comes down to a notion of fairness. He proposed a thought experiment wherein he proffers an ideal “original position.” The idea is that representatives of the people operate behind a “veil of ignorance” when determining what policies are in the best interests of all of the citizens. As Kao writes, Rawls assumes that people will act benevolently if they are rational, self-interested, and behind the veil of ignorance.

Imagine you are a representative behind this veil. Pick a moral issue with regard to fair distribution of resources like loan forgiveness or universal healthcare and give an argument for or against based on Rawls veil of ignorance.

Topic B: Egoism

Consider the relationship between egoism and social contract theory. Both theories explore the role of self-interest in shaping morality and societal structures. Using examples from the lessons, discuss whether you believe morality is primarily a product of self-interest (as egoism and Hobbes’ contractarianism suggest) or if it stems from a deeper sense of altruism or fairness (as Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” implies). How do these theories align or conflict with your own views on the origins of morality and justice?

In your response, address the following:

• Do you think self-interest is a sufficient foundation for morality, or does it require something more?
• Describe psychological vs ethical egoism as noted in the lesson. What are your thoughts on the implications of the idea that people are naturally greedy and only controlled by fear of punishment, as suggested in the Ring of Gyges.
• Can a balance between self-interest and fairness be achieved in modern society? If so, how?

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 offering new ideas, asking thoughtful questions, or providing strong evidence from the readings or research. For Topic A, challenge or expand their view of fairness using Rawls ideas and real-world examples. For Topic B, critique or support their stance on egoism by exploring its practical effects or deeper implications, backed by evidence.

This discussion aligns with the following:

• Course Objective:

Rubrics

• RAMP LD Discussion Rubric v.5

reply to:

WK4 – Topic B Egoism & Social Contract Theory

• Contains unread posts
• Daniel Wilkinson posted Feb 24, 2026 2:09 PM
• Good afternoon everyone! Hope everyone did well with the week 3 assignment.
• This week I decided to go with Topic B: Egoism & Social Contract Theory. There was a lot more material to read through and videos to watch, a lot to take in.
• How does self-interest and fairness shape our society? To compare egoism and social contract theory is interesting because they both start with the ideas that humans want to protect themselves, but they reach different conclusions on how to treat others.
• I believe morality is a product of self-interest. It usually needs something more to be “fair”. Hobbes argued that humans are naturally prone to “squabbling” and “fighting”. In his view, the “state of nature” is a scare place and is “nasty, brutish, and short”. This results in people entering a social contract where they gave up freedom to a ruler (Leviathan) in exchange for safety. This suggests that we are necessarily good by nature but follow rules to avoid living in chaos (Political Theory Video, Hobbes).
• According to some of the course material it is important to distinguish between Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism. Psychological Egoism is the theory that we are always motivated by self-interest even when doing something that looks helpful and Ethical Egoism is the idea that we should act in our own self interest because it is the right thing to do (Intro to Philosophy: Ethics Chapter 4). This leads to the Ring of Gyges story. The “Get Away with Anything” video shows that if someone could become invincible and never get caught they might commit crimes for selfish gain. This supports the idea that people are naturally greed and only follow rules for fear of punishment (Get Away with Anything Video).
• Hobbes focuses on fear, Rawls focuses on fairness. He proposed the “Veil of Ignorance” where we imagine we are waiting to be born but have no idea if we will be rich, poor, healthy, or sick. Rawls suggests that if we were playing the lottery we would choose a society that protects the “worst case scenario”. This balances self-interest with fairness because we want the rules to be good for everyone “just in case” we end up at the bottom (Political Theory Video, Rawls).
• I think balance can be achieved if following Locke’s idea that generosity becomes easier when resources are plentiful (Intro to Philosophy: Chapter 4). As Rawls suggested, if there was a societal safety net of good schools and hospitals people might be less greedy because they don’t fear for their survival. To me, a fair social contract is one where we act our of self-interest to stay safe but use fairness to ensure everyone has a chance to be successful.
• -Dan
• 0 Unread
• 0
• Unread
• 0 Replies
• 0
• Replies
• 0 Views
• 0
• Views

Discussion: Egoism/Social Contract Theory

• Contains unread posts
• leonard mckinney posted Feb 24, 2026 1:21 PM
• Hello Class,
• I am choosing Topic A on Rawlsian Justice and focusing on student loan forgiveness as the moral issue for fair distribution of resources.
• Imagine I am behind Rawls’s veil of ignorance. I do not know my family background, my intelligence, my future job prospects, whether I will come from money or struggle financially, or if I will even go to college. All I know is that society needs educated people to function well, but higher education costs a lot, and many rely on loans to get degrees. Rational self-interest pushes me to design rules that protect the worst-off positions, since I might end up there.
• Without knowing my place, I would worry about ending up in a family where college seems impossible without debt, or where loans pile up because of low-paying jobs after graduation, bad luck in the economy, or even predatory schools. Student debt can trap people for decades, blocking homeownership, starting a family, or even basic stability. That creates inequality not from effort or choices, but from arbitrary factors like birth circumstances or market shifts.
• Rawls’s difference principle says inequalities are okay only if they benefit the least advantaged. The current system lets some graduate debt-free while others drown in loans, often those already disadvantaged. Forgiveness, especially targeted at lower earners or public service workers, would help level things by reducing burdens on the worst-off without removing incentives to work hard or choose useful fields.
• I would support broad student loan forgiveness behind the veil because it makes society fairer for whoever ends up disadvantaged. It promotes equal opportunity to pursue education without lifelong punishment from bad draws in life’s lottery. A just system should not let arbitrary luck ruin chances for a decent life.
• Leonard.

Part 1: Discussion Prompt

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

• 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?

Discussion Guidelines

• Three (3) 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. 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 Rubric v.5

reply to:

Nissen Wk 4

Contains unread posts

Xavier Nissen posted Feb 24, 2026 8:36 PM

Empiricism is the philosophical thought that the majority of information of the world can be gained through the senses or experiences. The word Empiricism comes from the Greek word emperia which translates to experience (Britannica). It is important to note that empiricists do not hold the belief that they hold any knowledge of any specified thing, but rather, that if knowledge can be gained it will be through experience (Markie & Folescu). Empiricists also support intuition and deduction, meaning that through the past experiences that have led to a given outcome, one can surmise the outcome of a same or similar experience. One simple example is if someone hits their hand with a hammer it will hurt, so if they were to do it again they would be able to know it would hurt again, and this is knowledge gained from a previous experience. However, if that same person were told to hit their hand with a hammer, and they had never done so before they would have no knowledge or experience of the pain that would follow. Philosopher David Hume stated that we see events in the world as related due to our past experiences and the regularity in which they were observed. Hume also summarizes that while we do not have an innate knowledge of motion we do possess the idea of a necessary connection, and it must come from somewhere (Kemerling).

References:

Definition, History, Criticism, & Facts | Britannica. Britannica, . Accessed 25 Feb. 2026.

Kemerling, Garth. Hume: Empiricist Naturalism. Hume: Epistemology, 12 Nov. 2011,

Markie, Peter, and M. Folescu. Rationalism vs. Empiricism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 2 Sept. 2021, plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#IntuThes.

0 Unread

0

Unread

0 Replies

0

Replies

0 Views

0

Views

W4 Aubrey Knowledge of Reality

Contains unread posts

Amy Aubrey posted Feb 24, 2026 4:43 PM

Empiricists believe there are limits to humans knowledge of reality. John Locke believed that humans could only know so much of the natural world because to have true knowledge of something, you have to know its true essence. He believed that we should accept some things as good guesses and that our knowledge limitations are good enough. By recognizing our limitations, we, as humans, should turn our efforts to subjects we can learn more about, rather than waste time on those we will never truly know. He believed that we are given enough knowledge to live well as humans. However, David Hume believed that our knowledge, as humans, was limited to what we could perceive with our senses. But since our senses are fallible, like two people seeing a color in a different way, the knowledge we gain cannot be completely trusted. Hume also believed that even if all our sensory input could be trusted, the mind itself was fallible, and we could not completely trust what we take to be real. Another example of Humes limitations on knowledge is that everything has to connect back to an experience, such as a sunrise. Our experience is that the sun has risen today and every day before that. Our mind fills in that the sun will rise again tomorrow, we dont have empirical knowledge that it will.

Kemerling, G. (2011, November 12). The Limits of Knowledge. Locke guide: Limitations. https://www.philosophypages.com/locke/g05.htm#lim

David Humes empirical critique of Human Knowledge . Philosophy Institute. (2025, November 7). https://philosophy.institute/research-methodology/david-hume-empirical-critique-knowledge/

Fasko, M., & West, P. (n.d.). British empiricism . Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/british-empiricism/

Part 2:

Instructions

Assignment Directions:

Create an 8-10 slide PPT, or some other presentation, that accomplishes the following.

Choose one of the following two topics:

1. Drawing on what you know of pre-Socratic and classical philosophy (i.e., the philosophy of Socrates and Plato) and modern philosophy (i.e., the philosophy of Descartes and Locke), compare and contrast the concerns of modern and ancient philosophy. Do the ancients care about the same problems as the moderns? If not, what are the major differences between them? Can those differences be reconciled? Why or why not? If not, then which approach to philosophical questioning is the most valuable? Why?
2. Consider the debate between Rationalism and Empiricism. What are the major differences between these two traditions in their approach to the theory of knowledge and metaphysics? What are the differences in their methods and attitudes to doing philosophy? Which tradition is more convincing/more useful as an approach to seeking answers to philosophical questions and to seeking meaning in life? Why?

Present research on each tradition that clearly discusses both sides of the relevant debate. Try to favor reputable sources from the APUS library or philosophy program guide (i.e. no Wikipedia, Course Hero, Spark Notes, etc.).

Submission Instructions:

• Include a proper references/works cited slide (APA or MLA).
• Keep in mind these best practices, please:
• Proper PPTs have bullets on the slide that are explained in the notes section or include audio recordings embedded in the slides where you narrate the presentation (see the video on how to do this if you do not know how). You must provide narration for the presentation in some wayi.e., as notes or as audio recordings.
• If you intend to narrate the presentation with audio recordings, be sure to include the transcript in the notes section (see PPT on how to insert audio if you do not know and want to give that a shot).
• If, for any reason, you are unable to access the notes section, put the transcript/notes in a numbered list in MS Word with the numbers matching the slide.
• Keep the viewer in mind (teacher). While you might work hard on a 20-minute presentation, few faculty members have the time to watch or listen to it.
• Just like papers, clear citations must appear on the slide, i.e., where an audience viewing your presentation would naturally be able to see the citation to justify listing a resource as a reference.

This Assignment aligns with the following:

• Course Objectives
• Learning Objectives

Resources & Supports

• You have free access as an APUS student. Sign in with your MyCampus Email credentials.
• : Watch this 3-minute video if you need guidance on submitting your Assignment.
• Resource with a video on inserting audio.
• APUS Style Guide: – Select your style guide based on your program of study (or MLA).

Attachments

(527.38 KB)

(4.85 MB)

Use this week’s texts and lectures to describe our relationship to technology. Is it inherently good or bad? Can a balance be struck? What relationship should we have to media and technology for a sustainable future?

MUST BE MINIMUM OF 200 WORDS. NOOOOO AI. IT MUST BE SCANNED UING TWO SITES. USE AT LEAST 1 PARENTHETICAL CITATION

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/this-is-why-we-cry-from-sad-by-design-on-platform-nihilism/

In this assignment, you will write a reflective essay that articulates your personal philosophy of

being a college academic advisor. The purpose of this paper is to encourage you to critically

think about the role of an academic advisor, the values that guide advising practices, and how

you envision supporting students in their academic and personal development.

Assignment Objectives:

To articulate a personal philosophy on the role of a college academic advisor.

To reflect on the skills, values, and practices that contribute to effective advising.

To explore the impact of advising on student success, both academically and personally.

To connect theories of student development and learning to practical advising strategies.

Instructions:

1. Introduction (1-2 paragraphs):

o Define the role of a college academic advisor in your own words.

o Briefly explain the purpose of academic advising in the context of student

development and success.

2. Core Beliefs and Values (2-3 paragraphs):

o Describe the fundamental beliefs and values that would guide your advising

practice.

o Consider questions like: How important is a student-centered approach? How do

you balance academic goals with personal growth? What role does cultural

competence play in your advising?

3. Advising Practices and Strategies (2-3 paragraphs):

o Reflect on specific advising practices you believe are essential to supporting

students.

o Discuss your approach to topics such as helping students set academic goals,

navigate challenges, and develop a sense of purpose.

o Explain how you would approach advising for diverse student populations (e.g.,

first-generation students, underrepresented groups, students with disabilities).

4. Impact on Students (1-2 paragraphs):

o Reflect on the broader impact you hope to have on students academic, personal,

and professional development.

o Consider how you would measure success in advising. What outcomes would

indicate that your advising practices are effective?

5. Conclusion (1 paragraph):

o Summarize your philosophy and how you would strive to implement it in a real-

world advising role.

o End with a reflective thought on the ongoing development of your philosophy

over time.

Formatting and Length:

The paper should be 3-5 pages, double-spaced, in 12-point Times New Roman font with

1-inch margins.

Use APA citation style to cite the 2 external sources. Our textbook can be used as a

source.

Evaluation Criteria:

Clear articulation of a personal advising philosophy.

Insight into the role of academic advisors in fostering student success.

Reflection on how values, practices, and impact align with a student-centered approach.

Coherent organization, proper grammar, and writing mechanics.