Philosophy
Question:
PLEASE ANSWERED BEFORE TONIGHT! THANK YOU SO MUCH (a) One of the criteria of moral permissibility is not treating a person as a mere object. There are three senses of ‘not treating a person as a mere object’. State and explain the (a) sense of ‘Not treating a person as a mere object’. (The (a) sense is the same as Kant’s respect for persons version of the Categorical Imperative.) (b) Some people in the U.S. have been radicalized by using ISIS social media. The American initiates the interaction by finding a website on Islam, that is in fact an ISIS website. He asks some general questions about religion. A number of ISIS sympathizers patiently answer the questions. They then progress to telling the person about the Islamic State and how the group was building a homeland in Syria and Iraq where the holy could live according to God’s law. They present ISIS as providing an opportunity for living a faith more fully. They focus on religious rituals and leave jihad out. If the American asks about ISIS atrocities, the ISIS sympathizers tell him things that make him question the media’s portrayal of ISIS as brutal killers. Explain how this behavior on the part of ISIS sympathizers treats the American as a mere object (violates the respect for persons version of the Categorical Imperative). (c) To stop the radicalization of Americans through social media, the U.S. is shutting down ISIS social media accounts. Explain how this action by the government treats Americans as mere objects (violates the respect for persons version of the Categorical Imperative). (d) Is it morally permissible for the government to shut down ISIS social media accounts? Defend your answer.
—
Question:
Recently, the following was reported: forty-nine persons were killed in a homosexual nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Survivors of the attack reported seeing a lone gunman shoot the patrons. The Police stopped the attack by shooting and killing the gunman. Police said his name is ‘Omar Mateen’. They based their claim on the ID he was carrying, the identification of the gunman’s body by Mateen’s parents, and the fact that the guns were registered to Omar Mateen. (a) State the definition of ‘a true belief’. This definition is the statement in Lecture 4 that begins with ‘A belief is true if and only if’. (b) State the definition of ‘The evidence for the truth of the belief’. (c) State the definition of ‘know’. This definition is the statement in Lecture 4 that begins with ‘A person knows something if and only if ‘. Consider the belief that Omar Mateen killed forty-nine people in the Orlando nightclub. (d) What is the fact that must exist in order for this belief to be true? (e) What is the evidence for the truth of the bel. (f) Do the police know that Mateen killed forty-nine people in the club in Orlando? Defend your answer .
—
Question:
As far as pollution is concerned, coal is the worse fossil fuel. It contains variety of chemicals. When coal is burned, they or forms of them are released into the environment. They cause serious health problems. In addition, the burning of coal produces more carbon dioxide than the burning of other fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is now well established that greenhouse gases are a significant causal factor in global warming. Global warming is bad because among other things, it causes coastal flooding and severe, prolonged droughts. In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a regulation that requires states to make major cuts to greenhouse gas pollution created by electric power plants. Hundreds of heavily polluting coal-fired power plants will be closed. One drawback of this regulation is that many coal miners will lose their jobs. Is it morally permissible for the government to limit the coal that can be used in power plants? Defend your answer with a parallel case argument . In giving the parallel case argument, first state what Cases 1 and 2 are in diagrammatic form. Then state the parallel case argument. Note: your defense must be a parallel case argument. If it is another kind of argument, your answer will be marked wrong. The question is about the morality of the federal government’s prohibition. It is not about the Constitutionality of it.
