What does the Justified True Belief theory of knowledge say about what is necessary and sufficient for knowledge?

On Gettier, “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” What does the Justified True Belief theory of knowledge say about what is necessary and sufficient for knowledge? Provide your own example of knowledge that meets these conditions.

Does Gettier argue that these conditions are unnecessary,insufficient,or both?Why so?

Provide your own Gettier-style counter-example that demonstrates Gettier’s argument.

Which approach do you believe overall provides a more compelling and practically useful approach to living a good life?

Prompt 3

Compare and contrast two of the following ways of life: Buddhism, Taoism, and Ancient Aztec Virtue Ethics. Your answer should include the following:

A comparison of the goals of each way of life.

An explanation of the similarities and/or differences between their understanding of reality and how this influences their view of how people ought to live their lives.

An explanation of the similarities and/or differences between their beliefs about the practices and behaviors needed to achieve a good life.

Lastly, which approach do you believe overall provides a more compelling and practically useful approach to living a good life?
Support your position with several clearly explained reasons.

If you think neither approach is compelling nor practically useful, then be sure to provide reasons for rejecting both approaches.

If you think both approaches equally compelling and practically useful, then be sure to provide reasons that clearly show how neither approach has a clear advantage or disadvantage over the other.

Explain the specific aspects of these philosophical perspectives that you think bests respond to the challenge posed by nihilism.

Prompt 2

Nietzsche’s account of nihilism and his philosophy of life affirmation can be regarded as a response to the following question, “Why should we consider the philosophical ways of life that we explore in our units on the good life?” In my lecture on Nietzsche,argue that we can regard the ways of life explored in the course as responses to the challenge posed by nihilism. Each philosophical perspective provides an account of the good life that provides a path to living a meaningful life. In this prompt, you will assess the degree to which this has been true of the philosophical perspectives we have considered (Aristotle, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Ancient Aztec Virtue Ethics).

Begin by explaining nihilism and how it poses a challenge to living a meaningful life.

Next, explain Nietzsche’s account of nihilism.

Then, pick two philosophical perspectives we have considered (Aristotle, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Ancient Aztec Virtue Ethics).

Explain the specific aspects of these philosophical perspectives that you think bests respond to the challenge posed by nihilism.

Lastly, evaluate the degree to which the two perspectives you have explained successfully respond to the challenge of nihilism: do they articulate a way of life capable of overcoming nihilism? Explain why or why not.

How does DesJardins see the interaction between ethics and culture?Do you agree with his characterization?

From Chapter 4, How does DesJardins see the interaction between ethics and culture?Do you agree with his characterization?

Give philosophically adequate arguments. Give an accurate analysis of the arguments presented and to give well-constructed arguments. Lastly, give an accurate account of the theories and terms presented in the reading.

Provided the book, just go to chapter 4

Identify reasons why the study of ethics is important.Identify ethical issues within a case description

L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S

Why Study Ethics?

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

Identify reasons why the study of ethics is important;

Explain the nature and meaning of business ethics;

Explain the difference between ethical values and other values;

Clarify the difference between ethics and the law;

Describe the distinction between ethics and ethos;

Distinguish between personal morality, virtues, and social ethics;

Identify ethical issues within a case description.

Who is responsible for the ethical integrity of such institutional practices as the LIBOR? Is anyone at fault for this fraud other than the individuals involved in reporting false information?

The LIBOR Scandal

The scandal even spread to the British government. Barclays CEO Bob Diamond testifi ed that at the height of the fi nancial collapse in fall 2008, he received a call from Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England.

According to Diamond, Tucker called on behalf of “senior Whitehall” fi gures and put pressure on Mr. Diamond to lower his reported LIBOR rates. The allegation is that the higher rates would undermine confi dence in Barclays at a time that fi nancial markets needed boosting, and it increased the likelihood that the British government would need to bail out Barclays as it already had done for other failing banks. Mr. Tucker claims that he was misunderstood by Mr. Diamond.
des38324_ch01_001-019.indd 3des38324_ch01_001-019.indd 3 1/16/13 12:32 PM1/16/13 12:32 PM

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. What ethical issues are involved in this case?

2. Who are the stakeholders in this case? Who would be hurt by rate fixing?

3. What responsibilities did senior executives at Barclays have to prevent fraud in circumstances that, in Timothy Geithner’s words, “created not just the incentive to underreport, but also the opportunity to underreport”?

4. If the LIBOR scandal is as widespread as ongoing investigations suggest,are there ethical issues involved in this case that are different from those that would be involved if only Barclays was guilty? What are they?

5. Who is responsible for the ethical integrity of such institutional practices as the LIBOR? Is anyone at fault for this fraud other than the individuals involved in reporting false information?

Explain and critique Marquis’s argument in defense of the claim that abortion is seriously immoral.

Third Party Coercion

ARTICLE THAT IS BEING CRITIQUED IS “FAMILY COERCION AND VALID CONSENT” by Stephen D. Mallary, Bernard Gert, and Charles M. Culver

Paper topics: Any paper you write for this course will have two primary goals: to explain and critique a particular argument for a particular conclusion. So any paper topic you choose for this course should have the following form:
“

Explain and critique [name of philosopher]’s argument in defense of [the philosopher’s substantive conclusion]”

For example:

“Explain and critique Marquis’s argument in defense of the claim that abortion is seriously immoral”

“Explain and critique Thomson’s argument in defense of the claim that abortion is morally permissible”

You are free to write each paper on any reading that is covered in the course. In writing your paper on a particular reading from the course, you are also welcome to make use of additional readings that were not covered in the course, but you need not do so (for example, if you want to, you may look up articles that other philosophers have written in response to the reading you are writing your paper about and use them as a source of objections to discuss in your paper). Again, this is completely optional. If you do use any outside sources, however, you must make this fact clear in the paper and cite the sources. Note that the suggested page length for these papers (2,500 – 3,000 words) is intended as a guideline, not as an absolute requirement. It is possible for a concise and cogent paper to be fully satisfactory and fall below these limits. Such a paper will not be penalized for being short. However, a paper that is shorter than the suggested length and that does not go into sufficient detail will be penalized for such failure. Similarly, a paper that goes over the page limits because it contains more or more complex ideas than can be clearly presented within the page limits will not be penalized simply for being long. If the extra pages are of high quality, the paper will receive whatever grade corresponds to that quality. However, a paper that goes over the page limits simply because it is too wordy or redundant will be penalized for those qualities. In general, it should be possible to write a fully successful paper within these page limits, and most good papers will fall roughly into this range, but you should not attempt to force a paper to fit the limits if doing so will make it worse.

Describe how virtue ethics works,what rules does a person have to follow,how does a person practice virtue ethics.

Analysis of virtue ethics in healthcare.

1. Analyze the virtue ethic system, describe how it views right vs wrong

2. Provide a historical summary of where the system originated

3. Describe how virtue ethics works,what rules does a person have to follow,how does a person practice virtue ethics.

4. Finally, is this is a good system for healthcare workers to follow?

5. Conclusion, summarize.