PHIL 347 PHIL347 Case Study 1 (Chamberlain College of Nursing)

PHIL 347 PHIL347 Case Study 1 (Chamberlain College of Nursing)

BUY HERE⬊

http://mxstudent.com/phil-347-phil347-case-study-1-chamberlain-college-of-nursing/

Identify the main point and the supporting points of each argument:

1. Throughout history, people have disagreed about moral issues.  This isn’t true about science, because science is objective, and people can come to objective agreements.  If morality is not like science, and science is objective, morality must be subjective.  Morality, then, is just a matter of opinion.

Main point: 

Morality is a matter of opinion

Supporting points:

1. People disagreed about moral issues

2. Science is objective and people can come to objective agreements

3. If morality is not like science, and science is objective, morality must be subjective.

1. We should help people that are starving in other countries.  We have plenty of things that we can share without adversely affecting our own lives, and we are morally obligated to help people who are less fortunate than us if we can do so without giving up anything of comparable importance to the aid that we are giving.

Main point:

We should help people that are starving in other countries.

Supporting points:
1. We have plenty of things to share without adversely affecting our own lives. 

2. We are obligated to help people who are less fortunate than us if we can do so without giving up anything of comparable importance to the aid that we are giving

Identify the premises and conclusion in the following arguments:

1. Since large corporations make more money than small businesses, we should tax them at a higher rate than we tax small businesses.  This is because everyone should contribute to society according to his ability.

Premises:

1. Large corporations should tax at a higher rate, since they make more money than small businesses

Conclusion: Everyone should contribute to society according to their ability 

1. Some people use handguns in self-defense.  Preventing someone from defending herself by taking away her weapon is the same as helping the attacker.  Bans on handguns are therefore the same as giving aid to the attackers.  Since giving aid to the attackers is wrong, we should not ban handguns.

Premises:

1. Handguns are used in self-defense

2. Prevention of self defense by taking away of the weapon is the same as helping the attacker

3. Banning handguns is considered as giving aid towards the attacker.

Conclusion:

Handguns should not be banned.

Identify the premises and conclusion in the following arguments.  Then put the arguments into standard form.

1. Bill is going to be able to tell the difference between disagreement and critical reasoning.  He is going to read the lecture, and anyone who reads the lecture is going to be able to tell the difference between disagreement and critical reasoning.

2. Students will not become interested in learning for its own sake.  Universities will become more vocationally oriented.  Either students will become more interested in learning for its own sake or universities will become more vocationally oriented.