SELECT JUST ONE TOPIC!
Please see the syllabus for my policy on academic dishonesty. If you plagiarize, you will not have another chance to rewrite the paper. You will receive a zero and I will enter your name into our institutional tracking system. Period.
1. Watch these two videos in which Justin McBrayer explains why the fact opinion distinction, as taught in K through 12 ( and sometimes after that) is a problem.
What is McBrayer’s view of how we should think of facts and opinions? Take the time to use the definitions he offers in the discussions. Explain his argument for thinking of the terms in the manner that he thinks is correct. Then, explain how he thinks that this distinction is relevant to the moral relativism debate. How does he think that a proper understanding of facts and opinions (or beliefs) will help us think about the relativism debate?
Cite all the texts you employ. This is at 4 to 5 page paper, though
you may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and
defense, use course concepts.
2. What is William Clifford’s primary argument to show that we are not entitled to hold beliefs under certain conditions? What if I live alone in the wilderness and I form a belief via one of the fallacious arguments that we studied in Module 2? Would Clifford still hold that I am not entitled to my belief? Justify your judgment. Explain what the relevant fallacies are as you consider what Clifford would say about them.
Cite all the texts you employ. This is a 4 to 5 page paper, though you
may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and defense,
use course concepts.
3. We only briefly encountered subjectivism in here. What does that term mean as it applies to moral theory? What might the term mean if we were to treat it as a theory of truth? Now, suppose that I say the following: I know that you disagree with Bob. But truth is subjective. Thus, Bob is not wrong. In fact, he’s right. If you agree with him, you will think that he is right, after all. So, Bob is right!
There are two arguments in the previous paragraph. What are they? Neither argument is one that a professional philosopher would employ. What are the various problems with the arguments offered in the previous paragraph?
