You will write a 1200-1500 (minimum) word reaction/position paper. There is no maximum. You will be watching the movie HOTEL RWANDA and following the instructions below. Make sure to CITE your sources. You CAN ONLY use class material to make your case. NO OUTSIDE SOURCES! (Unless we are using FACTS (like the video below, you cannot use outside opinion or analysis unless you have run it by me first.) The link to the movie description on the internet movie database is below but you must find access to the movie yourself. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395169/
HANDY-DANDY GUIDE TO WRITING A PAPER FOR ME:
1. Introduction/Thesis: State your Thesis and introduce your paper!
the sketch of your primary claim with relevant supporting ideas (do you lean towards a universal or relativistic model of morality?)
mention the movie and how it’s relevant
here you should be making specific but not detailed (think of your introduction as your table of contents) claims/points
2. SUMMARY/SYNOPSIS– What are you reacting to? THIS SHOULD ONLY BE A SHORT SUMMARY. It should not be more than a few hundred words.
Goal: Present what you are writing about.
Identify all of the basic information: about the book/movie/documentary that you will be relating to your argument and explaining in more detail later in your paper.
the author of the piece, the title of the piece, the title of the book or journal from which it was taken (if relevant), the publisher, and the year of publication;
the topic or subject of the piece—for example, “The Triangle Shirt-Waist Fire” or “Revitalization efforts underway in Roxbury’s Codman Square.” In other words, tell what the piece is about in a word or a phrase.
3. What is Cultural Relativism? How does the movie relate?
Explaining Cultural Relativism, the argument(s), give elaborations in terms of the movie, and how does CR arise in different circumstances in the movie?You should be using scenes from the movie and class materials (books, lectures, etc…) to explain what CR is, including the argument(s) for it.
You should be citing class materials and quoting when appropriate (from both the book and the movie).
Give examples that parallel the scenes in the movie to back up your interpretive analysis.
Ex. ? In-class.
4. .Thought Prompts/Analysis/Personal Response–
You will be choosing a side: Pro Relativism or Pro Universalism (weak or strong).
Goal: You should be writing about your naive* views as they relate to the possibility of a universal morality versus a relativistic model. You should use the movie as an entry point.
*Naive? Let’s talk about it….
I have listed a few questions below that should help you think about the case you want to make and how to relate it back to the movie. You should be connecting our discussion about cultural relativism (esp, the cultural differences argument [ie, the argument for CR) and criticisms of CR) with the themes and ideas in the movie. The questions below are NOT the writing prompts for this assignment. They are meant to get you brainstorming.
What goals does the United Nations pursue? When, if at all, is UN intervention or involvement morally permissible?
Tatsi tells her husband (scene 17, roughly 1:20:24 into the film): “You are a good man, Paul Rusesabagina.” Does she mean he is a good Hutu? If not (or if not merely that), what does it mean to be a (morally) good person?
How do you react to the piece on a (moral) personal level? Why?
How does the piece relate to your experience or your own “naive” moral perspective?
what questions does the piece raise for you — about the material, about other things?
does the piece remind you of other readings you’ve done for the class? compare and contrast the piece to those readings.
(2) What would it mean to say that morality is relative? Is it?
(3) Why did Moore claim that moral properties are not natural properties? Was he right?
(4) What is the categorical imperative, and how is it meant to underpin a normative moral theory?
(5) What is virtue ethics, and what problems does it face?
(6) What is euthanasia, and why is it considered to be morally different to murder or suicide?Is it?
(7) What do you think is the best moral argument for vegetarianism? Does it work?
Find one philosophy journal article on sexual harassment, summarize the article, and then critically evaluate the author’s view. The journal must be a peer-reviewed philosophy journal, and the paper must be on a philosophical issue related to sexual harassment. Papers can be found using the Philosopher’s Index, which is located on the library’s website. Your summary should include a statement of the author’s thesis, as well as 1-2 arguments she gives in defense of this thesis. At the end of the paper, in your critical evaluation YOU MUST CRITICIZE THE AUTHOR’S VIEW. Even if you agree with the author, I would like you to raise one objection to his/her view. Don’t focus on legal; personal experience. you need to use philosophical approach. Your papers should be 2-3 pages, in APA format (you do not need to include an abstract).
This week we’ll look more closely at the case by reading an essay from Dennis Gioia, Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics (Links to an external site.). Gioia was Ford’s Field Recall Coordinator during the Pinto controversy, responsible for issuing recalls on defective products. In his article, Gioia explains his decision-making process during the Pinto crisis in terms of the corporate scripts driving his decisions. Gioia writes, “I remained convinced that I had made the “right” decision in not recommending recall of the cars. In light of the times and the evidence available, I thought I had pursued a reasonable course of action. More recently, however, I have come to think that I really should have done everything I could to get those cars off the road.“
Your assignment this week is to write on the ethics of conforming to the “scripts” prescribed by your professional environments. Was Gioia wrong to follow the corporate script? Does he bear responsibility for “just following orders”? Next week we’ll talk about whistle-blowing and the ethics of breaking scripts. But this week, let’s focus on the ethics of following scripts. In preparing your post, please consider the following sources:
In transition of the subjects… you have to expand it out when explaning.The transition s to short
The themes that you have chosen not to be longer in Length, the instructions ask for it to be at least 3 pages in length. Maybe you can expand on the themes more. In the previous instructions, I’ve attached the 6 peer-reviews articles from my schools library. Those articles should be the one’s you pull your information from. I’m not allowed to use any outside sources. Please use the articles that have already been choosen. I will attach what you started so far and make the themes etc. longer in length please. Thank youInstructionsThe purpose of this assignment is to identify themes related to your chosen Research Paper topic and organize those themes in a logical manner. The Outline will provide structure to the Research Paper as you work to compose it. When complete, each theme should become a subheading ordered to present each topic/theme to the reader in a logical order.A form for the Thematic Outline is attached to this dropbox. There are three distinct steps identified in the Outline form; be sure to complete each step. Use APA style throughout, and formal third-person narrative. The completed assignment should range in length from 3 to 6 pages due to the form used.
This is philosophy course.
Three short answer questions. Each question for at least 7 sentences. Total 3 questions for 300 words.
Please number the responses.
The question to be answered are, question 6, question 5, and question 1.
Please cite at least 1 citation for 1 question. –total of 3 citations.
1 Explain Epictetus’ view concerning freedom and control and the way in which this argument is related to his notion of happiness and misery
Do you think that we have a moral right to restrict immigration? Are we morally required to admit to this country people who would starve if they didn’t come here? People who are politically persecuted? What about people who might threaten our culture?
Readings would be uploaded.
You can think of this as a kind of “journal entry”-style assignment. You don’t have to argue a point (though you may!), and you’re welcome to develop your thoughts in whatever direction you see fit. I just ask that you try to engage one (or more) of the questions below. In other words, try to take one or more of the questions below as a starting point, but feel free to let your thoughts roam a bit and/or discuss other aspects of the film that were interesting to you.
The assignment will be graded on the basis of the amount of thoughtfulness and effort you have put into it. I expect most students to do very well on their film reaction assignments. Remember that you are only required to complete three of the four film reaction assignments, but (even if you don’t write a reaction on a given film) you’re still expected to watch the film in question by the due date indicated on the syllabus.
This reaction is due by the beginning of your recitation on Friday, October 1. Even if you don’t write a film reaction for Icarus, you will still need to have watched the film by then so that you can participate productively in class discussion that day.
Some Questions You Might Consider:
As a spectator of sports (e.g., if you watched the Olympics this summer), do you feel like it makes a difference to you whether the athletes participating in (and winning) sporting events are using PEDs? In other words, in watching sports, do you care whether the athletes you’re watching are “drug cheats” or not?
In Fogel’s exchange with Don Catlin, late in the film, he asks him, point-blank, “Does WADAhave the ability to catch drug cheats today?”—to which Catlin replies, “No.” If you were participating in an elite sport in which you knew, or strongly suspected, that all your top competitors were doping, and gaining a huge competitive edge from it (Fogel is initially told to expect a 15%-20% improvement!), what do you think you would do? Do you think it would be wrong to participate in doping in such circumstances?
According to Rodchenkov, Vladimir Putin (this is around 1:28 of the film) used the popularity he gained from Russia’s dominance at the 2014 Sochi games as political capital to back his invasion of Ukraine. Do you think the IOCand/or WADA bear any responsibility for the political events that unfolded in the wake of the Olympics?
More broadly, Olympic sports clearly serve political purposes, reinforcing patriotic zeal in many countries. Should sports be used to build patriotic sentiments and solidarity within countries? Or should sports and politics be separated? If they should be, is there any way to continue the Olympic Games without them being used for political ends?
Do you think Rodchenkov regrets having exposed the Russian doping scheme? If you were in his place, do you think you would have opposed the Russian government in the way he did?
Did the IOC make the right decision in allowing Russian athletes to continue to compete in the Olympic Games, with the idea that a collective punishment would be unfair to the individual Russian athletes who weren’t doping?
“There’s nothing new about anti-work philosophy. History is dotted with individuals and groups who decided that laziness was next to godliness and work was a waste of time.” — Tom Hodgkinson, “Idle Thoughts”.
Discuss the statement above with reference to a type of work that you consider to be significant. In your discussion, you should also make reference to two relevant theories (Aristotle, John Locke, or Émile Durkheim).
In your single, 800-word essay (including in-text citations, but excluding references), you should:
Identify a specific type of work and outline the nature of this work. (10 marks)
Describe the current social and economic context of the type of work you have chosen and show its impact of our society – whether socially, culturally, technologically or economically. (20 marks)
Explain how the statement above applies to this type of work. You must use two relevant theories from this course (i.e. Aristotle, John Locke, or Émile Durkheim) to help you discuss about the meaning and value of labour in this type of work.(60 marks)
Articulate your ideas clearly and grammatically. Include proper in-text citations and references. (10 marks)