Posted: March 13th, 2023
Study question 2
Study questions require:
(1) A length of at least 750 words, excluding the prompts
(2) Three citations of assigned or suggested materials via parenthetical citations
(3) A reference page (“Works Cited” page) providing information about works cited. APA format must be used for citations and references
(4) No citations of, or references to, outside sources and Power Points (for this assignment, you can cite PowerPoints on Part A)
(5) A brief, one-page outline of your answers. The outline should be submitted before the study questions answers.
If you have any questions, email me. In class I reviewed two strong papers and provided an overview of what is required for parenthetical citations and references. If you need that other information or other helpful materials, feel free to review Study Question Materials. Note that you can use all of the materials in Supplemental Materials except the two PowerPoint lectures.
A. (35 points) Globalization is a troublesome issue, particularly because it forces human beings to reflect on partiality. Define partiality and describe two positions that could be seen as extremes regarding partiality and impartiality. In discussing partiality and impartiality, present and defend your view. Explain your view either with an example related to globalization or contrast your approach with the extreme views.
B. (30 points) Peter Singer provides an argument that presents how impartiality is related to globalization. Here’s his argument for a duty to aid:
1) Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad.
2) If it is in our power to prevent something [very] bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.
3) It is easily within our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.
4) Therefore, we ought to aid those who are suffering and dying from a lack of food, shelter, and medical care.
Begin by analyzing this argument as we have done before: identify the premises and conclusion, and consider whether the argument is valid and/or sound. Based upon your analysis, do either I or II:
I) If you think the argument is invalid and unsound, revise the argument so that it is both valid and sound, and note whether your revision, done to the best of your ability, has any drawbacks (i.e. it contains radical alterations, may still be invalid or unsound, etc.).
II) If you think this is a good argument (that is, valid and sound), then consider which premise is most vulnerable to rejection and discuss how you think Singer should defend it.
C. (35 points) Disagreement and globalization are interrelated in a number of troublesome ways. Identify how one problem where disagreement and globalization intersect—considering an example if useful to make your point. After laying out the problematic intersection of these issues, consider if one of the readings we have discussed would aggravate or alleviate the conflict you identified in the intersection of disagreement and globalization.
1. Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care is bad. 2. If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. 3. It is easily within our power to prevent suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.
Conclusion: Therefore, we should do everything in our power to prevent others from dying from lack of food, shelter, and medical care.
Considering and reading all the premises, this argument is valid. The premises are based on the truth that suffering and death can be prevented and lowered by taking sufficient measures against the lack of food, shelter, and medical care. The first premise states the truth regarding the cause of the suffering and death, which is evident from today’s conditions. The second premise passes a moral judgment where it tries to persuade individuals to do morally right and correct actions. The third promise convinced individuals regarding the power to encourage people to take measures in order to prevent suffering and death due to a lack of food, shelter, and medical care. The last premise is trying to persuade people as it is based on the arguments that we should take measures to prevent people from dying (Rachel, 1989). Comment by Paul Poenicke: It would be helpful to have definitions of validity and soundness before discussing and applying these concepts. Comment by Paul Poenicke: You’d identified why the argument is valid and sound–you also need to explain to your reader why this is the case. Another sentence or two, explaining the argument’s validity and soundness are appropriate.
1. In some societies, infanticide is thought to be morally acceptable.
2. In other societies, such as our own, infanticide is thought to be morally odious.
Conclusion: Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right or wrong; it is merely a matter of opinion that varies from culture to culture.
I agree with this argument, as infanticide depends on the moral values and norms of a culture or a society. The second promise reveals that in some cities, infanticide is not acceptable because it is considered an Immoral act; however, some societies and cultures accept it by considering or categorizing this as the right of women. Therefore, I agree with this argument that infanticide cannot be considered objectively write wrong as it depends on the opinion and the culture. Comment by Paul Poenicke: You’re working from an intuitive understanding of validity and soundness. It is best to present this, especially when moving from the premises to the conclusion, that is validity, seems to be the most troubling aspect of this argument.
1. Either scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy, or non-scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy. 2. Scientists do not have the necessary skills to determine federal government COVID policy. Conclusion: Therefore, non-scientists should be the primary determiners of federal government COVID policy.
I do not agree with this topic because I believe that scientists should be a part of the policy-making team. As scientists are aware of the technicalities, therefore, any area which requires some technical knowledge should be directed to scientists where they can state the pros and cons of a particular policy. Therefore, scientists should be the determiners of the federal government’s COVID policy. Comment by Paul Poenicke: Setting up your analysis is key here: tell me what the premises and conclusion are, then tell me how the argument is valid and/or sound. This might seem robotic, but it’s appropriate to be careful at this stage. Grade for Part A: 30/35 Comment by Paul Poenicke: Is the issue that they should be a part? Or that they are going to determine policy?
Peer disagreement occurs when individuals having knowledge regarding a particular topic disagree with each other on the basis of their own arguments. An example of peer disagreement can include disagreement between two researchers. For example, the researchers reared insects at 27 degrees Celsius in the lab environment; however, one of the researcher’s insects was unable to increase their generation having high mortality. At the same time, the other researcher had increased the population of insects at a similar temperature. Both the researchers disagreed with each other as both had different resorts according to their experience at similar temperatures and conditions, which led to a peer disagreement. Comment by Paul Poenicke: It would be helpful to cite the paper this example comes from and explain how they understand what a peer is.
The following three purchases can be used to explain peer disagreement:
The equal weight view: The equal weight view states that an agent disagrees with their peer about p on the basis of equal knowledge and information or experience, and one of the agents has to change their views. Comment by Paul Poenicke: This is better expressed as steadfast, conciliation, and concession. It would be appropriate to cite where you are getting this info from, as it is slightly different than how we approached the concept in class. One thing that you didn’t include is your view on disagreement. That was part of the question, and it’s a chance for you to present your view. Grade B: 28/35
The steadfast view: The steadfast view revolves around sticking one’s guns inert instances or cases where peer disagreement can be rational.
The total evidence view: the total evidence view claims that when a peer disagreement occurs, the agent who has the support of the evidence should be justified and believed.
Vallier’s first approach revolved around the belief of Vallier in treating the citizens. The first stage in providing the solution to political disagreement is whether we should be mean and attempt to eliminate our opponents. This approach needs to provide a valid argument as it is not based on the truth or the fact. Another argument revolves around the second stage of Vallier’s belief that political disagreement is no longer a threat to society as trust and neutral policies have encouraged society to be more open. At this stage, Vallier explains that several neutral policies have played an important role in increasing the viewpoints of a society where the norms of the society have resulted in endurance with our opposite views or opposition. Therefore, the strategy to utilize political disagreement is no longer a threat to society as people have started to accept the opposite views. Comment by Paul Poenicke: Vallier doesn’t discuss validity, though it is important for him when considering how we ought to treat others. This is close to his solution for US politics.
Vallier provided a solution against US political disagreement that has efficiency because, in the first stage, Vallier addressed the behavior and perception of individuals against their opponents, where he highlighted the behavior and the treatment of the opponents. While in the second stage, he has addressed and highlighted the modernization of the society where issues like political disagreement are not a threat to this society because people are now starting to believe in neutral policies where the population benefits. These two stages highlight the most important issues in a society where endurance to the opponents can result in peer disagreement, which is based on the provision of truth and solid evidence. By disagreeing with one’s arguments, we need to trust another political entity having similar knowledge and skills in politics who can deny on the basis of facts leading to the availability of different viewpoints for different people. Comment by Paul Poenicke: I’m a little confused by what you mean by first stage here. Use the language of the prompt to frame your answer. Comment by Paul Poenicke: You’ve got most of the prompt answered. Additionally, you need to present your view of whether Vallier’s position is feasible. Grade for Part C: 25/30 Overall grade (including -3 for missing outline): 80/100
Rachels, J. (1989). Some basic points about arguments. Rachels. J., The Right Thing to Do, 20-28.
However, the argument is only sound if the premises are true, and that is a matter of debate. The first premise is straightforward and accepted by most people as true. The second premise, on the other hand, could be considered controversial. Singer suggests that we have a moral duty to prevent suffering and death when we can do so without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance. This implies that we have an obligation to give up something we value, such as money or time, to help those who are suffering. But not everyone would agree with this assertion.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.