Imagine someone subscribes to a conspiracy theory that it is not safe to vaccinate children. Does that person make some kind of epistemic and moral error in holding that belief? Aim to work out your own ideas by responding to one argument in each of the two readings you select. Be sure to consider and respond to objections to your argument. Readings to consider: Clifford, Hank Green, Crash Course Philosophy video on conspiracy theories, Shatmadari.

In your paper make sure you:

1. Have a thesisa claim you are arguing forand a thesis sentence near the start of the paper. Be sure your thesis gives a brief statement of your reasons for arguing as you do, e.g. In this paper, I will argue that reparations for slavery is just because....."

2. Develop your own ideas by engaging with the arguments from several philosophy readings.

3.Try to set out the main argument of your paper in premise and conclusion form.

4.Give page citations (in brackets, e.g. Chan, 271

reflect upon the social contract. Outline in detail how Rousseau describes the state of nature and what must be transformed in order for the social contract to come into being. What does his account of the state of nature show about Rousseau's beliefs about human nature? What do people gain and lose by entering into the social contract?

Next, analyze to what extent contemporary society and government resemble the social contract as Rousseau paints it. Have people in modern society given up natural liberty in order to attain civil liberty? What specific rights and privileges does/would civil liberty in a modern context entail?

You must (1) identify, comprehend, and resolve ethical issues/problems and their ramifications in a thorough and responsible manner, (2) describe the historical and cultural contexts of the issue, (3) determine the legal issues associated with the case study. Essay should be double spaced and 1000 words minimum. The instructions for the essay is attached in the outline.

Facione & Gittens (2016) state, "Strong critical thinking about complex and difficult social policies demands that we respect those with whom we disagree" (p. 344). The authors of your text ask us to take seriously the points of view of those with whom we disagree.

Should I respect the point of view of a misogynist a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women?
Should I respect the point of view of a racist?
How about someone who believes marriage is only between one man and one woman?
How about someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?
How about someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred?

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five questions above that you find particularly repugnant one that you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in conversation with such a person, how could you ethically respond to the sta

Critical Thinking
Go back to your very first journal entry review your definition of critical thinking. After studying critical thinking for the past eight weeks, would you change your definition in any way? If yes, how and why? If no if it was perfect what parts of the text were best reflected in your definition?
Heart of the Matter
Recall in your first journal entry that you discussed the authors' statement that the concepts in Chapters 12, 13 and 14 were "the heart of the matter." After having studied those chapters, answer again, with renewed understanding, the question posed there: Why do you think the authors find these concepts important to critical thinking?
Ethical Decision-Making
The lecture claims that an argument is no good unless it has a "strong and reasoned ethical base." Do you agree that ethics is an essential element of a good argument? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Looking Forward
Do you believe that you now know everything you need to know abo

At the very end of Chapter 13, there is a Group Exercise that asks: What ideals would you go to war to defend? We are not going to ask you to go to war, but we are going to ask you to think about what ideals or values you believe would be worth defending even to the point of risking your life in their defense.

When Nazi Germany overtook Europe in the early 20th Century, resistance movements sprung up in the occupied countries, and many civilians risked and lost their lives against Nazisim. Today, in Saudi Arabia, women who protested restrictions on the rights of women imposed by that country have been jailed, and remain jailed, even after some of the rights they asked for have been granted.

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:

What core values would you risk your life and freedom to defend?
Could a nation going to war be appropriate in certain circumstances or is war never an appropriate response?
This is not a group e

Your third essay should discuss either the issue of digital surveillance as presented in weeks seven and eight, or the idea of interveillance as it relates to social media introduced in weeks nine and ten.  You can take any position you like with regard to these issues and must develop an original idea.

Week 8 material: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63of4yrOvUY&feature=youtu.be
Week 9 material: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJxXYNawQWA&feature=youtu.be
Week 10 material: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZT86HXVayA8H_y5BWO6-bMcDEDtpqZ1c

Needs to explain Husserl's method before going into its value.  Avoid discussion of work outside of Philosophy (Psychology, psychiatry, Medicine, etc.) claiming knowledge of 'phenomenology.'  At the least, verify a correct understanding of Husserl is present.  In general, I would recommend avoiding discussing material from 'social scientists' who are not philosophers. you want proper quotations and paraphrases, and you want to work on displaying your knowledge of Philosophy.  That means dealing with the history of Philosophy, but it also means having a feel for what philosophical discourse is and what it expects. The paper main-topic asks you to discuss the value of insights developing from Husserl.  I would try to focus on, what you personally find valuable.  Of course, what you find valuable, can be prompted by what you read elsewhere as discussing implications of Husserl.  So, all things being equal, you ought to pursue the 'implications' of Husser

Audible! We're going to listen to a podcast this week (get it?) instead of homework in the textbook. Here the task is different. The speaker, Sam Harris, considers many outside sources. Pick one of his statistical outside sources, use the internet to find this source, and then write a three part essay in which you identify what the data shows in the original source, and what claims if any the authors of that source make about their data. Then, compose an essay in which you compare the data in the original source to the claims made by Harris: does he accurately represent the data from the original? Does he use the data to reach conclusions that the data actually supports? In a final section, write about your personal response to this podcast, indicating the thoughts it provoked in you, and the lessons, if any, you learned from it. What problems, if any, do you find with Harris' arguments, asides, or opinions?

Keep in mind the views of the podcaster are not necessarily my own view

Hume is a sentimentalist.  He says that, Though reason, when fully assisted and improved, be sufficient to instruct us in the pernicious or useful tendency of qualities and actions; it is not alone sufficient to produce any moral blame or approbation...It is requisite a sentiment should here display itself (Hume 282).  Explain and critically evaluate the five considerations that Hume gives in his Appendix in favor of sentimentalism.