Now apply what we've been studying with your own good thinking on all forums from here on. Especially on this first topic, don't forget the clinical attitude, and to bring reasons to bear. the politically charged words, terms and charges that so often mark our public debates on these issues are generally far more (deliberately) rhetorical, emptional and merely insisted upon than evinced and argued with reasons that are ethically available to anyone. Again, and especially from now on, no like wording, no agree wording, and 'believing' only has legitimate currency here in according with the Beginning Reading (Knowing, Believing and Faithing), thus if a belief cannot be rendered into the terms of the course AND supported with logical and/or empirical evidence, then it's faithing, and philosophy doesn't do faithing.  Also, for all our issues based forums, please do not leave off with just a concession to the diversity of opinions; be sure to have a 'thesis', an argued-for and supported 'studied opinion' in your posted offerings. Try to translate different issue positions into terms other than the one's they are presented in. Watch each others' and your own fallacies. And do not try to win! The work here is to understand the implications of different sets of terms and try to bridge gaps between different theories and positions. (Remember, no mere views - support everything said in the courses terms.) If you're trying for the right answer here, you're already wrong. The best understanding and response to the collection of competing concerns is what we're up to here. Apply moral theoretical reasoning theories and tools to show you are mastering course material.

General Instructions:m Introduce yourself, then relate to the Philosophy of Language article (first under Lessons) ini paragraph 3. STICK TO THE PARAGRAPH FORMAT AND SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS.

You must post your responses to forum questions twice in this course: Start in the Homework folder under Lessons, then after posting your 5+1 paragraphs (see just below) in the dropbox there (NOT in the comments box - you may paste it in or upload a .doc/.docx/.pdf/.rtf file there (No .pages, Google docs or any other format). Review the SafeAssign report there. It will flag the quoted passage(s) in it, but if cited effectively, that's fine. Fix anything else; the program allows you to check your work. I'm trying to "catch" you, but given this functionality to help you not make or leave an error here, uncited quotes and paraphrases left uncorrected will be considered plagiarism. (please only use quotes to support what you are submitting - what you are thinkig is what you are trying to express here, not just pasting others' ideas into assignments.) Then copy and paste what you posted into the Homework Dropbox into the Discussion Board Forum accessible through the Calendar or the link on the left of your Blacklboard screen. Follow the Homework/forum posting 5 paragraph format: 1. Objective Summary, 2. Focus objectively on something particular, per specific instructions 3. Relate these readings to previously studied course material. 4. Reflect on the above subjectively, in your own terms - this part is graded for your considering not the content. 5. Compose a Discussion Question; one that cannot be answered in a word or sentenece, but must be responded to with a discussion. -- You must cite at least one quote from the assigned reading in each posting. After others have posted, post paragraph +1 Response. Respond critically (not negatively, but substantively, analytically - AND YOU MAY NOT USE LIKE/DISLIKE OR AGREE/DISAGREE WITH regarding a posting by another student) to a class mates posting. Your 5 paragraph posting is due on the date listed. Your response to another's posting in the forum is due 2 days later. Do not forget to add your response posting in the forum board into the dropbox under homework, or better, post it first into the dropbox, review as above, then cut and paste it into the discussion board as a response to the other's posting. All of this applies top all subsequent forum activity for this course.
Lateness, failure to include a cited quote and to exclude an uncited references will impact or disqualify your grade.

Also, for all our issues based forums, please do not leave off with just a concession to the diversity of opinions; be sure to have a 'thesis', an argued-for and supported 'studied opinion' in your posted offerings.

Apply the theories and tools we've been covering to form your own STUDIED views; don't just talk about the issues or the facts around them - apply moral theoretical reasoning!

Specific forum instructions (ONLY APPLIES TO PARAGRAPH 2 - ALL OTHER PARAGRAPHS AND RESPONSES ARE ABOUT ALL OF THE READINGS/TOPICS SINCE THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION FORUM) THIS FIRST ONE, YOU CAN USE THE TYSON VIDEO AND PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE ARTICLE AS "PRIOR READINGS"

Specific instructions: (Address and defend a conclusion about one of these questions below (pick one the fewest number of classmates have done):

A. Discuss the 'rules of warfare' and their relevance, practicality and necessity. And the difference between rules for going to war and rules about fighting wars. What about the rule about how if a nation can't win, they should not fight?

B. Why did so many in the military not support any US appearance of torture?

C. Some argue that the last good war for the US was World War II. What would a 'good' war look like today?

D. Discuss the 'rules of warfare' and their relevance, practicality and necessity with respect to terrorism. And the difference between rules for goals and rules about ther means of terrorist activities.

E. Some argue that the last good war for the US was World War II. What would 'good' terrorism look like today?

F. How important is scale to what's considered terrorism? The provoking of psychologically driven changes in behavior at the very least have analogues with organized crime protection rackets and school yard bullying. Just how different and how similar are these?

G. What, if anything, would make someone torture-worthy?

H. What would goal or need might make torturing anyone permissable? Required?

I. How can any two people, with different particulars conditioning them through different pasts, be found or understood to be, equals in some or many ways that matter for recognizing standing in the moral community? Are moral equals common, rare or possible?

J. What about all the not especially moral ways in which people have different capabilities and dispositions? Do not some differences matter such that discriminating based on them is beyond reasonable and necessary, even if there are differences between people that are generally or situationally irrelevant such that they should not be used to discriminate with? Should people with unsteady or tremors in their hands perform brain surgery or disarm bombs? Should non-swimmers be lifeguards at the shore? What about using people with naturally curly hair being used in experiments for new hair curlers? (Think about how this questions would differ if I mentioned using straight haired people to test hair straighteners!) Versus Should people with one of many shades of skin be worth more as an accountant or neighbor than those with other shades of skin? Should you distrust the use of a turn signal for someone driving a car with bumper stickers suggesting that he or she follows a different religion, political party or baseball team than you do? Should you disassociate yourself from anyone with bathroom toilet paper rolls in their houses where the paper rolls out from underneath the roll, instead of over the top of it? Or fire a babysitter if she or he only puts ketchup on vegan hot dogs?

K. Differentiate between oppression, (illegitimate) discriomination, and bigotry, as well as structural versus subjective bias.

L. Explore how affirmative action programs may be both immoral and just, or moral, but unjust.

M. Also, consider again the issues raised by distinguishing, or not, between human beings and 'persons', with the latter involving more than just biological "human-ness", and including other characterisitics as suggested in the readings, like self-consciousness, reason or otherwise being a member of the moral community -only with respect to euthanasia and death penalty candidates! Consider too obvious background conditions as they exist that may influence the ethics of both individual choices on these topics, as well as the ethics of policy and legal implications at a society level.

N. Defend treating people equally, even when they are not equal. And defend treating people unequally, even when they are equal. Where and when what for whom and for which, and why?

O. Why be moral? is a hard enough question. But why be moral to everyone, or any one living outside of the consitions of justice, is even harder. How do we balance living in a limited circle of people about whom we care in an active, transitive sense, and knowing about many, many more people who may be suffering circumstances, made by nature or other humans, that we would not hesitate to intervene and try to improve, if these billions of others were in our limited circle of lived care?

P. The utilitarian Peter Singer, among others, argues that it is irrational to treat nearby moral and justice matters any differently than distant ones. In our global context, do we any longer have the luxury of only being locally moral mostly through our capacities to feel, instead of expanding our bases of action to include a wider field of concerns through a more rational approach? But we feel more about our family, freinds, neighbors, classmates, teammates, coworkers, etc.

Q. Does this suggest that the gap here indicates that we are often or generally incapable of being just? Just locally moral? What is the best case or plan for balancing these scopes of concern?

Review the SafeAssign report for this before you paste into the discussion forum.

Then copy and paste into the corresponding discussion board.