I’d like to discuss the Euthyphro Dilemma and moral relativism. Firstly, Euthyphro dilemma is a

/in /by

I’d like to discuss the Euthyphro Dilemma and moral relativism. Firstly, Euthyphro dilemma is a

I’d like to discuss the Euthyphro Dilemma and moral relativism. Firstly, Euthyphro dilemma is a classic problem in moral philosophy that has been debated for centuries. At its core, the dilemma asks whether something is good because God commands it or whether God commands it because it is good. Some philosophers argue that if something is good simply because God commands it, then morality becomes subjective. Others contend that if God commands something because it is good, then morality exists independently of God and is therefore objective.  Moral relativism, on the other hand, is the belief that moral principles are relative to individuals. Proponents of this view argue that there is no universal standard of morality and that what is right or wrong can only be determined based on cultural norms and practices. In evaluating these issues, it is important to consider the implications of each position. For instance, if morality is subjective and dependent on cultural norms, then it becomes difficult to criticize practices such as slavery or genocide, since they were accepted in certain cultures at certain times. Similarly, if God’s commands are the sole basis for morality, then it becomes difficult to reconcile certain biblical teachings with our modern ethical sensibilities.  Ultimately, the challenge is to find a middle ground that acknowledges the importance of both reason and emotion in moral discourse. This may involve recognizing that universal moral principles exist, but that they must be interpreted and applied in culturally sensitive ways. It may also entail acknowledging the role of intuition and emotion in ethical decision-making, while also subjecting our moral intuitions to critical scrutiny.  In conclusion, the Euthyphro dilemma and moral relativism are complex and important issues in moral philosophy. While there is no easy solution, engaging in reasoned and reflective discussion can help us better understand these issues and arrive at more nuanced and sophisticated perspectives on morality. -Min

Hello all, Looking at the idea of moral relativism, I can see how a lot

/in /by

Hello all, Looking at the idea of moral relativism, I can see how a lot

Hello all, Looking at the idea of moral relativism, I can see how a lot of discussion and unproductive arguments can come about. The basis of moral relativism is that the morals of the individual are up to the individual. For example, one person could say it’s okay to lie in order to protect the happiness of another, however a second person could hold the belief that it’s not morally right to lie at all. With both ideas being equally privileged, both could state that their beliefs are morally correct with respect to moral relativism. Should these two individuals attempt to argue their points, there would be no clear victor in the debate. The idea that there is no objective rights and wrongs, if someone is following moral relativism correctly, can result in vastly different positions that moral objectivists would firmly agree or disagree with. Taking the previous example, following moral objectivism, one could say that lying is wrong is a moral fact and if someone were to lie, they would be performing an immoral act, regardless of the intent of the lie. Similarly to an argument between two relativists, an argument between a relativist and an objectivist would have a similar outcome due to the position of the relativist being based on the standpoint of the relativist. All that would result in this argument is the objectivist stating that the relativist is committing an immoral action, and the relativist stating that from their standpoint, it is a moral action. Again, there would be no clear victor in the second debate as well. -Billy

For this forum you will be writing about a disease or disorder that affects the respiratory OR

/in /by

For this forum you will be writing about a disease or disorder that affects the respiratory OR

For this forum, you will be writing about a disease or disorder that affects the respiratory OR urinary system.  Be sure that the posting is at least 150 words in length to earn credit. The title of your posting should be the disease or disorder you are writing about. Information such as cause, signs or symptoms, treatment, and prognosis can be included.  At least TWO references must be used.   To earn full credit, please list the resources you used at the end of your initial post.  DO NOT COPY/PASTE information.  Doing so (even with reference) will result in a score of zero.  Your post should be written in your own words.

eaasy 1-1/2 to 2 pages in length(approx.. 600 words) The Epicureans claim that the

/in /by

eaasy 1-1/2 to 2 pages in length(approx.. 600 words) The Epicureans claim that the

eaasy 1-1/2 to 2 pages in length  (approx.. 600 words) The Epicureans claim that the Good Life is a life of maximum happiness.  Wouldn’t that mean that the life of a self-satisfied, drunken stumble-bum, like Barney from ˜The Simpsons’ would be a better life than that of a self-sacrificing saint like Mother Teresa? Is that really what their theory would say?  Why, or why not? If you don’t know much about Barney, or The Simpsons, just think of any alcoholic.

Consider the terms vague ambiguity and generality as they relate to our textbook reading for

/in /by

Consider the terms vague ambiguity and generality as they relate to our textbook reading for

Consider the terms vague, ambiguity and generality as they relate to our textbook reading for this week. How are vagueness, ambiguity, and generality used in politics or in law in order to achieve the desired outcome? What are some examples of how this might be applied in your future career? Include an example or two from current events that demonstrate the use of vagueness, ambiguity, and generality. Choose examples from the news. Feel free to share an article, a screenshot of a social media post, a video, etc. Cite in APA style.

CO4: Evaluate arguments for and against the existence of God.CO6: Evaluate various

/in /by

CO4: Evaluate arguments for and against the existence of God.CO6: Evaluate various

CO4: Evaluate arguments for and against the existence of God. CO6: Evaluate various approaches to the problem of free will. Open discussion week. You choose what you would like to discuss from the week’s course material. Be sure to provide reasoned evaluations of the issues and discuss them philosophically rather than just stating your opinion.  Topic:  Morality Without God and the like

Answering for each question What is your philosophy of education and the purpose of schooling

/in /by

Answering for each question What is your philosophy of education and the purpose of schooling

Answering for each question. What is your philosophy of education and the purpose of schooling? 2. Explain, using citations, how Confucius, Maxine Greene, and Maimonides support your personal philosophy and how they may have shaped your view of education. 3.  How you appreciate Erikson’s view on Education and why? 4. What is the challenge in education today, including the technological challenges and opportunities, particularly following the COVID pandemic- How does your philosophy of education answer the need for education in the 21st century?

3 pages Link to textbook included below and pages and topics included below Overview: In

/in /by

3 pages Link to textbook included below and pages and topics included below Overview: In

3 pages. Link to textbook included below and pages and topics included below Overview: In your own words, explain what you learned this week from the textbook readings or from the course assignments (discussion, reading journals, etc.). If someone asked you what you studied this week, what could you tell that person?  2. Vocabulary: List and define at least five terms that you did not know or fully understand before reading this chapter and reviewing the content. Which of those are still unclear to you? Bullet points or a numbered list is fine for this section. 3. Philosophers: Identify philosopher or theory from this week’s material that you think is particularly interesting and tell why. 4. Reflection: Is there anything you read or learned this week that has made you rethink your ideas or views on an issue? Did you have conversations about the material with friends or family members? 5. Clarification: Is there any concept that just does not make sense to you or that needs clarification?  Words of Wisdom: Intro to Philosophy | OER Commons   section 7. Augustine of Hippo: On the Nature of Good 10. Aquinas: Summa Theologicae 54. Watch Kwame Anthony Appiah, from TedTalks