PHILS 13 Kwantlen Polytechnic University Strawson and Ultimate Responsibility Essay (i) Long quotes do not count, so if a quote takes up a third of a page,

PHILS 13 Kwantlen Polytechnic University Strawson and Ultimate Responsibility Essay (i) Long quotes do not count, so if a quote takes up a third of a page, that doesn’t count for the length requirement.(ii) Your essay must have structure(¡¡¡)Use whatever style manual you prefer best, but 4-7 pages, double-spaced, 12-point font. One section must be the Introduction….” An introduction must state your conclusion as a thesis statement Essay Questions for Intro on-line
Overall: Write and essay between 4 and 6 pages long, double-spaced, 12 point font.
Choose one topic only to write about.
More Important Instructions:
(i)
Long quotes do not count, so if a quote takes up a third of a page, that
doesn’t count for the length requirement. More importantly all quotes
must be explained in your own words. Advice: quote when (i)
controversial things are said (ii) obscure things are said but seem
important (iii) beautifully put points are made.
(ii)
Your essay must have structure: there must be sections and the sections
must have useful titles helping the reader follow the debate
(iii) One section must be the Introduction….” An introduction must state your
conclusion as a thesis statement
(iv) All references made in your essay must be read by you. You will be
asked to prove it if there is a question about authorship. E.g. You wrote an
essay and referred to a book by Smith. This means you actually read some
of the book by Smith. If you didn’t read anything in the book or source
then you cannot use it as reference. The “use” of an unread source will be
considered fraud.
(v)
Use whatever style manual you prefer best, but 4-7 pages, double-spaced,
12-point font.
Topic One. Descartes’ Arguments for Substance Dualism
According to Descartes he can find differences in essence between the mind and the
brain/body which prove the mind and brain/body are not the same thing. Minds
are essentially thinking things and material things are essentially spatial
(“extended”). He offers two discussions, one in meditation two and one in
meditation six (he also summarizes meditation 2 in 6). The first concerned his
famous search for absolute certainty and the second is this:
“…that there is a great difference between mind and body, inasmuch as body is by
nature always divisible, and the mind is entirely indivisible. For, as a matter of fact,
when I consider the mind, that is to say, myself inasmuch as I am only a thinking
thing, I cannot distinguish in myself any parts…”
The focus of this essay is to explain Descartes’ discussions and to evaluate them:
does he succeed in proving that we are not our brain but instead a nonmaterial
substance? Discuss both arguments. Your essay should include, but isn’t limited to
the following
(i)
Explain the method of doubt briefly and what Descartes thinks it reveals
about our essential nature.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Evaluate this argument utilizing doubt for mind and brain being different
(see slides).
Explain the “divisibility argument” in the quote above and
evaluate it, does it prove that minds are not same as brains? [Discussion
of the problem of interaction is not the topic, so if you wish to mention it,
give it only one paragraph.]
Topic Two: Jackson’s argument for Property Dualism and Epiphenomenalism
The aim of this essay is to explain and evaluate Jackson’s reasoning for thinking the
brain has non-physical properties like the “hurtfulness of pain”, or the “quality of
colour experience”.
According to Jackson the painfulness of pain is epiphenomenal.
(i)
Explain what that means and explain
(ii)
why Jackson thinks the quality of pain is epiphenomenal.
(iii) Explain Jackson’s argument that the qualities of conscious states are not
physical qualities of the mind by explaining his example of Fred and the
red tomatoes.
(iv) Discuss, are the qualities of our experience physical and epiphenomenal?
Topic Three. Can the freewill defense solve the problem of evil?
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
State and explain the atheist’s argument from evil for the nonexistence of
God.
State and explain the free will defense that allows for a perfect god and
evil to exist
Reflect on yourself and others: why do people choose to do wrong acts?
What might be the source of evil in humans?
Explain the point, and relevance to the debate, of the following quote
from J.L. Mackie: “If there is no logical impossibility in a man’s freely
choosing the good on one, or on several occasions, then there cannot be a
logical impossibility in his freely choosing the good on every occasion.”
Adjudicate: Does the problem of evil prove there is no perfect god?
Topic Four: Harris Against free will
Harris writes:
“The popular conception of FW rests on 2 assumptions: [1] that each of us could
have behaved differently than we did in the past, and [2] that we are the conscious
source of most of our thoughts, [intentions] and actions in the present…both of
these assumptions are false”.
(i) Explain what these two assumptions are and give examples of each, then
(ii) Explain his reasons for believing each is false
Harris believes we do not have free will and yet he seems to believe it is fair to hold
people morally responsible anyhow. He writes:
“Judgments of responsibility depend on the overall complexion of one’s mind not on
the metaphysics of mental cause and effect”
(iii) Explain what he means and give an example of “judging on the overall
complexion of one’s mind” and how that might work.
(iv) Critically evaluate Harris’ views on free will and moral responsibility. Is he
right? Why, why not?
Topic Five: Strawson and Ultimate Responsibility
According to Galen Strawson, no one is ultimately responsible for what they choose
to do.
(i)
Explain what Strawson means by “moral responsibility”.
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Explain Strawson’s “regress” argument and his basic argument regarding
“self-creation” for the claim no one is responsible for what they choose to
do. Be sure to tell a story of a person’s life (maybe two people is better,
maybe your own life would be helpful) to illustrate his regress argument.
.
Explain Strawson’s response to the idea that if we weren’t determined we
could be responsible.
Critically evaluate, is Strawson right? Is no one responsible? Or could we
be if we weren’t determined?

Purchase answer to see full
attachment