Case Four: Gone Today, Here Tomorrow
In Jurassic Park-like fashion, scientists have been attempting to bring recently-
extincted species back from the dead, so to speak. The 5 April 2013 journal Science
reported that the first live product of de-extinction, a Pyrenean ibex, lasted only a
few minutes before extincting again. The ibex, which was produced by a process
similar to that used for Dolly, the infamous cloned sheep, was driven to extinction in
the first place with the help of humans. Some scientists think it only fitting that
humans play a part in the de-extinction of those species that we helped to extinct in
the first place.
An environmental argument for de-extinction arises from the case of the wooly
mammoth, a species whose de-extinction would likely have beneficial
consequences, such as the restoration of a more diverse ecology in the Arctic.
Unfortunately for dinosaur enthusiasts, species of dinosaurs are not contenders for
de-extinction at the moment, as the processes for de-extinction that are currently
available require fresher DNA. And some notable environmental scientists are
concerned about the unforeseen effects of reintroducing a de-extincted species into
an environment, much like the unforeseen effects of introducing non-native species
of plants or animals into novel environments. One might also wonder whether de-
extincted creatures fall under endangered species laws and whether it is
appropriate to use the term extinct for species from this time forward, given that
de-extinction is an imminent possibility.

Our final discussion board assignment is much more complex than all of the others; accordingly, it is worth 100 points, and aims to integrate all of the material we have covered throughout the class in order to analyze and try to resolve a contemporary ethical issue.  Instead of responding to two classmates postings, you must respond to at least three of your classmates.
In order to complete your original posting, you will undoubtedly have to do additional research on the case study you have been assigned.  I have included one web link with additional information pertaining to each case study.  This is suggested reading.  Be sure you cite whatever sources you rely on when submitting your posting.
After reading and researching your case, compose an initial posting that includes the following:
1.    Identify the ethical question at issue in the case study and explain why this captures the heart of the ethical conflict.
2.    Provide a summary of the case study in your own words that includes the essential information of the case. Include additional information you have gleaned based on the additional research you have completed.
3.    Identify any assumptions, implications or consequences that are relevant to the case study. Define these terms, and explain how they apply to the case, being sure to explain how they relate to your resolution of the ethical question at issue
4.    Identify at least two ethical concepts that are relevant to the case study. Define these terms, and explain how they apply to the case, being sure to explain how they relate to your resolution of the ethical question at issue.
5.    Identify or develop at least one principle that is relevant to the case study. State your principle clearly, being sure to explain how it relates to your resolution of the ethical question at issue.
6.    Apply at least two ethical theories we have covered in the class to the case study. Be sure to define the basic idea of the theories and explain how they relate to your resolution of the ethical question at issue.
7.    Propose a solution that best resolves the issue in an ethical manner based on your own judgment. Be sure to provide a thorough explanation of your solution.

Topic: Do we have special obligations to veterans, the elderly, children, women, any minorities, any types of disability or “differently-abled” people? According to the CARE OF ETHICS this theory will further support my opinion on why society has an obligation to care for all individuals specifically those previously mentioned

Writing a philosophy paper:
(1) The whole paper is one big argument. It is not a report.
The aim in philosophy is to find the truth, and the tool we use to find it is an
argument. Notice I didnt say the aim is trying to win the argument but to find the truth. The process begins with suspending judgment until all the facts are in. Only then you form an opinion, i.e. make a judgment. Then, you argue by presenting reasons to support your
judgment. You may, in the course of your research, completely flip your point of view… and
that’s how we learn. Even if we decide our original opinion was wrong it’s still a win-win
situation because we always know more in the end.

(2) The thesis is your point of view. Your thesis statement is a concise assertion of your point of view (your judgment or opinion) on an issue. In other words, you are taking a stand, pro or con, and arguing from that perspective. You argue by presenting good reasons for believing your thesis is the right way to think and backing those reasons up with supporting evidence. Even if you are defending a particular philosophers thesis, because you agree with him/her, it is your thesis, too. Note that the introduction should introduce the paper to the reader. Think about introducing a new friend to your current friends. Tell the reader exactly what the paper is about. For an argument, lay out your argument in brief. Example:an unprecedented times, unprecedented actions are often necessary. Now officially labeled a pandemic, health organizations must do all possible to protect global and local citizens. After discussing the explosive growth of COVID-19, the right of the WHO and CDC to employ quarantines is explored through the lens of rule utilitarianism.

(3) There is always an objection section. As open-minded philosophers, we seriously consider the opposing point of view. You cant find the truth if you confine yourself to your own little echo chamber where everyone you talk to has exactly your point of view. This means that every paper you write will have an objection section, so, you will be presenting two opposing arguments. Your reply to the opposition shows that your thesis is still better. There is a very helpful article by Peter Horban, Writing A Philosophical Paper. Here is an excerpt : One of the first points to be clear about is that a philosophical essay is quite different from an essay in most other subjects. That is because it is neither a research paper nor an exercise in literary self-expression. It is not a report of what various scholars have had to say on a particular topic. It does not present the latest findings of tests or experiments. And it does not present your personal feelings or impressions. Instead, it is a reasoned defense of a thesis. What does that mean? Above all, it means that there must be a specific point that you are trying to establish – something that you are trying to convince the reader to accept – together with grounds or justification for its acceptance. Before you start to write your paper, you should be able to state exactly what it is that you are trying to show. This is harder than it sounds. It simply will not do to have a rough idea of what you want to establish. A rough idea is usually one that is not well worked out, not clearly expressed, and as a result, not likely to be understood. Whether you do it in your paper or not, you should be able to state in a single short sentence precisely what you want to prove. If you cannot formulate your thesis this way, odds are you are not clear enough about it.

Rather, it should be a critical paper. What this means is that you will offer either a defense or a critique of a position or topic that we have covered in class this semester, and will support your position with rationally persuasive reasons. Your job here is to think, and to write in support of your thoughts. It is not enough just to say that you agree or disagree — give good reasons why — this will require to think! The more thoughtful and original, the more reasoned the premises in support of your argument, the better the paper. Try to choose a topic that captures your interest; something close to you; something you care about. Also, citations MUST come from the texts we actually used in class.

In any case: you will chose a position or topic (to offer just a few examples: perhaps you will argue that Nietzsche’s distinction between master and slave moralities is rife with inconsistencies; or perhaps you agree (or disagree) with Kant’s theory of the good will and how it succeeds in describing the highest sense of morality. Once you have selected a topic position, you will (i) work to explicate the topic and then (ii) provide good reasons for your support or critique of a topic position. These reasons should show a serious engagement with the text, again, for this assignment you will have to think! Consequently, the aims of the paper need to be clearly set out at the start, with an account of how the author proposes to approach the subject and support the argumentation.

The paper has a 5-page minimum requirement, and should represent a polished piece of academic writing (in formal style – 12-point type, page numbers, etc.), organization (sentences and paragraphs should flow seemlessly, with each part of the essay playing a unique role), and citation, etc. I strongly recommend that you use the style and suggestion sheet I offered for the first paper. As I explained, a solid plan would be to write the first half as an explication and the second half of the paper as your evaluation.

Below are six possible topics for your final essay:

1.    Epictetus, The Enchiridion. Work to explicate his main points using representative passages from the text, and then work to formulate reasons in support or against his arguments.
2.    Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. Hobbes has a very negative view on human nature and makes an identity relation between the state of nature and state of war. Work to explicate his main points on the relation and formulate reasons in support or against his arguments.
3.    Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Morals (Section I). Kant argues that the only thing that can be judged as unconditional good is the good will. Work to explicate his formula for the good will, and then proceed to offer reasons in support or against his formulation.
4.    Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of a Metaphysics of Morals (Section II). Kant introduces his reader to the role that imperatives (commands) play in morality. Work to articulate the difference between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperative, and then formulate reason in support or against the idea that the categorical imperative can serve as a procedure for rational agents to author moral laws.
5.    Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Vanity of Existence (on Blackboard) or On The Suffering of the World. Schopenhauer provides a philosophy of existence which is pessimistic. Select one of the essays above and explicate its arguments before coming up with reasons in support or against it claims.
6.    Friedrich Nietzsche offers a unique, if controversial, story of origin for modern values in the first essay of his Genealogy of Morals. Basically, he believes that modern value systems are based on weakness and produce a culture full of pathetic human beings. In your work, explicate his take on what he perceives as a modern malaise and formulate reasons either in agreement or disagreement.

Finally, put effort into your papers and take pride in your work.

write about the letter of dedication of the Meditations. If so, you should address both of the following two questions:

a) what is Descartes trying to accomplish in the Meditations, according to the letter?

b) how does he hope to convince everyone of the truth of what he is saying in the Meditations.