Philosophy

What is the argument for Gods existence that Anselm give in Chapters 2 and 3 Since the argument is complex, try to lay it out step by step. Ultimately for Anselm in Chapter 4, what is it that allows the fool (the atheist) to say that God does not exist Do further research on your ownand state (briefly) any objection you findto Anselms so-called ontological argument.

There are two factual premises and a logical premise which are present in Anselms argument in defense of Gods existence. The two factual premises are listed below followed by the single logical premise which will support the conclusion.

The fool understands the claim of the believers that God exists.
The fool does not believe in the existence of God.
It is impossible that God can exist only in the understanding of man as suggested by the fool.
Since the argument involves a lot of technical words, it is best to clarify and single out these words to avoid certain confusions.

God
This is defined by Anselm as a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. It can be translated as an absolute, supreme and unsurpassed being which is the epitome of perfection.

Fool
These are the unbelievers. We refer to them as the atheists, agnostics or skeptics.

Understanding
This is primarily used as a location in the mind rather than a faculty of the mind.

Conceive
This involves the ability to create an image of a being with certain qualities in the mind.

Believe
It is condition of the mind which requires conviction of things unseen.
We may now proceed with the argument of Anselm using a question and answer format.
Q  Is it possible to conceive a being than which none greater can be conceived
A  It is possible to conceive a being than which none greater can be conceived in the understanding alone.
Q  Is it possible for this being to exist in reality
A  It is certainly possible because if it does not exist in reality then how can it be considered as a being than which none greater can be conceived Greater beings exist in reality and the same goes with God.
C Therefore God exists not only in the understanding but also in reality.

The fool does not adhere to this argument by insisting that the concept of God rests on the understanding alone but cannot be transported to reality. The reason behind their resistance to this fact lies on their lack of understanding of God for only if their minds are illuminated with this understanding then they will not be fools but believers.

Some of the objections against Anselms ontological argument includes the following
existence is not a predicate
it is one sided since it assumes that everyone can indeed conceptualize a being than which none greater can be conceived and makes no room for non-believers who rejects even the conceptual existence of God
the choice of vocabulary is controversial and confusing
it lacks an actual reference and
it is question begging.

In as much as there are many disputes regarding Anselms argument it still remains a good foundation to test your analytical and critical thinking skills. The reader is left with the choice of accepting or declining his argument.

(2) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Question 1 Article 1 based onhttpnewadvent.orgsumma1001.htm How does Aquinas see what would today be called the relationship between faith (theology) and reason (philosophy) Are they in opposition Which seems to be superiorfor Aquinas Finally, give the reasons why for Aquinas philosophy is inadequate and theology is necessary.

According to Aquinas, there are two major classification of knowledge (science) which includes philosophical science and divine or sacred science. Philosophical science constitutes knowledge based on reason and is built up by reason while sacred science constitutes knowledge based on reason coupled with divine revelation. Both sciences do not contradict one another rather they support one another with divine science reigning supreme over philosophical science.

The main tool for attaining philosophical science is reason. Reason sorts through the different information received by the senses. It filters all the data received by the brain makes the necessary conclusion and generalization. Unfortunately, it only sees reality which is exposed to the naked eyes and is unable to see through and beyond this physical reality.

Philosophical science can also be characterized as indirect divine revelation because He uses tools to provide us philosophical truth regarding the world. Reason functions as a tool finder for practical knowledge which is relevant for mans survival and convenience in this world. It is moved by this purpose and is motivated to acquire more philosophical knowledge mostly because of this.

Divine science on the contrary is motivated by a different factor. It is moved by Gods desire to guarantee the salvation of man. Unlike philosophical science which we may consider us indirect divine revelation divine science is direct revelation from God. It leads to the arrival of divine truth which is a very important factor in attaining salvation and life everlasting. But unlike philosophical science which is deduced through the known, divine science is attained through the unknown and the unseen. This reason also gave room for theology, the study about God and everything both unseen and seen that is related to Him.

God is beyond nature. He is above it and human reason has no capacity to understand his ways and understanding. The only way to realize and attain this knowledge is through direct revelations coming from Him which is strongly supported by facts achieved through philosophical science. Philosophical science cannot achieve this truth but can only support the truth value of these revelations through gathered sensory data information.

(3) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Question 2 Article 3httpnewadvent.orgsumma1002.htmExplain the reasoning of Aquinas Third Way for proving Gods existence in the passage above. As with the ontological argument, try to break this argument down into steps or premises leading to a conclusion.Read the Third Way carefully and try to pick out what many commentators have called an error in Aquinas reasoning. Hint it has to do with the first half of the argument in which Aquinas tries to prove thatthere cannot be only possible beings. You might want to research the Third Way to get at this last part.

The Third Way can be characterized as Aquinas version of the cosmological argument which works on contingencies and necessities. It rests on the principle that existence of the world necessitates an efficient cause which is necessary for the existence of all things since these contingent things can only spring fourth from the existence of a necessary being. The argument can be summarized as follows

There exist in nature two things that which is possible to exist and that which is necessary impossible not to exist. Things that rest on possibility cannot generate existence for how can it produce anything if it cannot even support its own existence. The fact in the world is that there are things which are already in existence. We can see, feel, hear, taste and smell these. Given this fact, it is impossible not to conclude that there ought to be something in existence that would have caused the existence of these currently existing things. This being is capable of having his existence independent on other beings existence. This being is what we call God.

There are several criticisms with regards to the Third Way. According to them Aquinas committed the fallacy of relational logic and fallacy of disjunction in his arguments.

Aquinas assumed that if everything fails to exist in a particular time then it is also possible to there is a time where nothing existed. But it would be absurd to even think of anything like this so we should accept that there is something that is independent of existence since there are existing things in the world. This series of arguments according to them fall under the fallacy of relational logic because it commits the fallacy of the four terms. It has the following logical form If every X has A then some X is the A of every X. The phrase is A and has A entails two different entities and is not synonymous with one another.

The other fallacy is referred to as a disjunctive fallacy. He assumed that the truth of one of the disjunct directly follow from the disjunction alone. Something that is either possible to be generated or possible to be corrupted cannot entail the possibility of a world which is non-existent in the past. Nevertheless, we can simply argue that these inconsistencies may have been produced because modal logic was not yet highly developed during his time thus the misinterpretation of some of the quantifiers used in the argument. But a clearer understanding of his argument will lead us to a strong argument in support of his argument. We simply need to clarify some of the modal terms which he used.

(4) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Question 2 Article 3httpnewadvent.orgsumma1002.htmExplain the reasoning of any of Aquinas Ways for proving Gods existence other than the Third Way.

The Five Ways of Aquinas is a very challenging argument which aims to prove Gods existence apart from divine revelation through the scriptures.  One of the strongest of these ways must be the First Way. He argues in this that the existence of motion and change in the world warrants an ultimate mover, God.

The argument can be summarized in this manner.
Some things experiences motion (change).

It is best to define Aquinas idea of motion to further analyze his claim. Motion is not limited to the change of location but extends to change in characteristics of things. Thus it will extend not only to living things but non-living things.

The quality of potentiality and movement cannot exist in the same object under a specific realm of time.

It is impossible to claim that you are walking and not walking at the same time. It is absurd to accept a claim that a stone is on top of the table and not on top of the table, especially if we are referring to one and the same stone. It is either you are moving or not. It cannot be both.
Each motion has a cause and that cause is something which is apart from that which is being caused to move.
         
This springs fourth from premise 1 and premise 2. Since we observe and experience change in the world, it is but rational to accept that these changes is motivated by factors apart from the object which is moved

Chain of motions is moved by series of movers which initiates change in the world but all of these movements are ultimately subordinated by an Ultimate Cause, A First Mover.

The transfer of energy entails the impossibility of movement extending towards infinity. Ultimately, there should be a first source of all of these motion and the first source lies outside the realm of changes in order to fulfill such a glorious task. It should be devoid of change so it can be considered as the First Cause of Things for how can it become the first if there is still something which precedes its existence. This First Cause is God.

This is a scientific approach towards proving the existence of God. It is supported by scientific explanations and principles, primary the laws of Motion. It clearly states that there is a First Moment in time for the Universe which is caused by a being apart from the world which experiences change.

(5) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Question 72 Article 2httpnewadvent.orgsumma1075.htmarticle2 How does Aquinas argue that the human soul is (a) immaterial and (b) subsistent Here, subsistent means that the soul can exist apart from the body.

Aquinas referred to the soul as the intellectual principle of man. He argues that it is both immaterial and subsistent based on the following set of reasons.

The soul is the first principle of life and is considered the act of the body, just like heat is the principle of calefaction. It is moved accidentally because several factors add a special form to its nature which includes quantity, quality and relations. This is in contrast with the body which is moved essentially, Nature moves the body to perform certain biological activities which are vital for survival. Some of these activities are eating, drinking, sleeping, walking and talking.

The nature of the soul rests on substance rather than the concept of a body. It cannot be corporeal (material) because according to Aquinas, whatever knows certain things cannot have any of them present in its own nature since it would only impede knowledge of other things. Notice the tongue, it is limited because it is corporeal and is dependent on the body. Its performance is affected by the physical conditions of the body. It works inappropriately when the body is sick. It cannot taste the food properly when the body is enduring colds and flu. Thus material things of the body are dependent on the health of the body.

The soul acts differently. It has its own operation apart from the body. Only things which are capable of subsisting can work in this manner. The tongue cannot subsist without the body, meaning it cannot function apart from the body. The same goes with other body parts and organ system. Their efficiency relies on the body but the soul function efficiently even if the body is extremely sick. It can still function even if the body lies comatose inside the hospital. It can still be aware of its surroundings because it has its own operation which it can work with. It is complete on its own but needs the body so it can absorb particular set of knowledge. Bear in mind that the soul is the intellectual principle of man rests on understanding and understanding goes beyond sense perception.

(6) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II, Question 2 Articles 1-8httpnewadvent.orgsumma2002.htmThis question requires a good dealmore reading than the rest. In Articles 1-8 Aquinas rejects a series of candidates for what it is that leads to human happiness. Briefly list these eight candidates and say, again briefly, why Aquinas rejects each of them. In each case for these eight, your answer need not be much more than a sentence or two.

The human happiness referred to by Aquinas is different from the happiness which we commonly discuss. It refers to the ultimate happiness and is related to the ultimate good. Below is the list of the eight candidates which may lead to happiness and the reason why Aquinas rejected them.

Wealth
It cannot be considered as factor which will lead to happiness because it is sought for by man not as end to itself but as means of other things which may provide him happiness like the other things which will be mentioned below.

Honor
It is given as an account of a particular excellence present in the works of man but can only provide partial happiness. The happiness which man seeks is enduring and extends beyond this life so it cannot be honor.

Fame or Glory
It is prone to deception, lies and corruption because it rests on human knowledge which is imperfect.  Happiness rests on Gods knowledge since he alone is free from injustices and lies.

Power
It rests on the nature of principle which is opposite from happiness which rests on nature of last ends. Moreover, it has the tendency to be associated with evil works while happiness can only be associated with the good.

Bodily Good
This is in contrast with mans last end which is to use his will and reason rather than succumb to the dictates of the appetite. Aside from this, man is composed of both body and soul thus making it necessary to satisfy both parts in order to attain happiness.

Pleasure or Bodily Delights
It is often trifles with the soul which is above the capacity of corporeal or material matter.

Good of the Soul
Happiness may indeed belong to the soul but it does not mean that its happiness rests within itself. Inside the soul rests potentiality and potentialities cannot be considered as mans last end.

Created Good
Happiness cannot be experienced through the created good since only God can satisfy the will of man. He alone can complete man and provide him happiness.

(7) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II, Question3 Article 8httpnewadvent.orgsumma2003.htmarticle8 Explain Aquinas argument for why human happiness can only consist in a vision of the divine essence, i.e. in an unmediated intellectual vision of God of the sort that Aquinas thinks could beexperienced in heaven but not on Earth.

Man is not perfectly happy as long as he desires and seeks something. Here on earth, man is bound by a lot of limitations. We are trapped in a body which is very limited to do and know things. It can only satisfy our wants and desires for a particular moment of time but finds it impossible to give us eternal bliss and contentment.

The soul, man intellectual principle, strives to know the essence of a thing and the essence of causes. Here on earth, it works diligently to know several sets of knowledge with a hope that it will arrive with ultimate knowledge of the First Cause but how can it ever achieve this in earth How can it know something that is beyond its nature and capacity

The soul can only be perfected the moment it comprehends the cause and essence of God. Happiness is only achieved the moment this becomes a reality. God is the Ultimate Cause which man seeks to know and He alone has the power to supply man of this particular desire. These cannot be supplied by philosophical science or divine science on earth because it requires unmediated intellectual vision of God. It requires feeling his presence in all aspects. It requires gazing at his face and feeling his warmth embrace.  It requires being with HIM and this can only be achieved in heaven.

Man needs to directly experience God in order to comprehend his nature, essence and cause and only in heaven can this become a reality. Only in heaven can we gaze upon his full grandeur, glory and magnificence. Only in heaven can we find the answers to all the questions lingering in our mind because he will directly respond to these inquiries. Only in heaven can we find peace and contentment because only there can we find the completion of our being. Only in heaven can we experience enduring happiness because God, the source of happiness, is there with us to satisfy all our desires.

(8) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II, Question 64 Article 3httpnewadvent.orgsumma3064.htmarticle7 Explain how Aquinas uses the notion of an act having two effects to justify some cases of self-defense thatresult inthe death of the person being defended against. Note This passage has been interpretedin different ways do your best to come up with a defensible interpretation of what Aquinas is saying.

There are two types of acts presented by Aquinas in this Article intentional acts and accidental acts. Intentional acts are motivated by deliberate emotions and reasons. It may be naturally occur to man as the need arises or it may be pre-meditated. Accidental acts on the other hand are unwanted acts which results from intentional acts. For example, you wish to prepare hot coffee for your visitor but while handing over the coffee to him you stumbled and poured coffee over his head instead. You have no intention to shame him but it happened out of unintentional circumstances.

The act having two effects works on a similar pattern. The intentional act is to defend one self and preserve your life but the accidental act is the death of your attacker. You have no wish that he be killed but based on the consequences of the situation, it leads to his death. According to Aquinas you are free from all liabilities taking into consideration that it does not extend to the limit of a blameless defense. It means that his death is caused by a single gunshot or a fatal strike but not dozens of stab wounds on the chest or multiple gunshots. If the other party died in this manner then the person has no right to freedom from liabilities based on self-defense. It would be very hard not to consider the element of hate, disgust or vengeance when you strike a person in such a brutal manner.

It is natural to defend ones life and a person is biologically bound to take care of his own life more than that of others but it does not give him the authority in any way to become the judge of another persons fate. Thus for Aquinas, judges does not have any moral right to condemn a man to death. We have no power to dictate when a persons life should end. We are all under the same category creations of God and does not reign supreme over and above any fellow human being.

The act having two effects rarely happens but when it indeed happens it should only be motivated by mans natural instinct to defend himself against harm otherwise he is morally liable for the crime. Man is forced in a corner where he has to choose death or life. This does not extend to the states defense for death penalty. The state is not forced in a corner or is it given with a dilemma where the only possible action is to sentence a villain to death. Everyone deserves a chance but if you end his life then what chance will you give him This can only be acceptable if and only if the threat a person poses to society goes beyond what the state can handle.

The case of physician assisted death (PAD) which is also called as physician assisted suicide (PAS) in Oregon has created ethical debate amongst different academic communities, especially in the field of law and medicine. Both the articles of B. Steinback, The case for physician assisted suicide not (yet) proven and Timothy Quills Physician-Assisted Death in the United States Are the Existing Last Resorts Enough discusses legal, medical and ethical claims which supports and refutes the legalization of both PAD and PAS in the United States.

In the perspective of Quill, the inadequate supply of skilled palliative care clinicians and the problematic reimbursement of palliative care services remain a serious challenge in addressing the need of terminally ill patients who are undergoing intractable sufferings (p.17). But even if these problems are all addressed, there will always be a small percentage of cases where suffering becomes severely unacceptable and clinicians will feel obligated to treat these patients in the most helpful yet least harmful way (p.19). Some of the last options which can be laid down at the patients own disposal includes the following methods increased dosage of opioids to relieve the patient of pain, voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED) and sedation to unconsciousness. According to Quill, it is better to have these options out in the open so patients can evaluate the best options for him rather than keeping it in the dark yet administering it to the patient.

On the other hand, Steinback looks at the legalization of PAD or PAS based on the risks of mistakes and abuses which go together with it. Take into consideration the case of Kate Cheeney and Michael Freeland. Kate Cheeney is an 85 years old who was diagnosed with inoperable stomach cancer. Upon seeing the difficulty her illness brought to her daughter Erika, she decided to eat the bowl of applesauce which was mixed with barbiturates that eventually lead to her death within an hour (p.238). According to some analysts, Kate was simply forced by circumstances and did not choose to take barbiturates out of free will but because of the pressure brought by her family members. Michael Freeland shares a similar case. He was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and received a prescription for lethal drugs from Dr. Peter Reagan. The option to end his life only lead him to more psychological trouble but thanks to the Hamiltons he was able die naturally and used the remaining two weeks of his life reconciling with her daughter (p.239). Although, both cases are not show clear cut abuse of PAD or PAS, there is still a big room for mistakes and abuses in these types of last options.

In presenting his argument to support PAD or PAS, Quill provides the following factual claims. One of out 50 patients talks to their physicians while one of six talk to their family members regarding the availability of PAD or PAS (p. 20). This implies that patients are looking for other avenues on how to alleviate the extreme pain they are experiencing. The legalization of PAD in Oregon enhances other aspect of palliative and end-of-life care rather than undermines it. Oregon alone has one of the highest rates of hospice referral in the nation. It has a relatively high rate of opioid prescription per capita. Its physicians and other medical professionals have very high rates of attending training courses in both palliative care and end of life medical decision making. The Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment or POLST is a statewide form and has become a model for other states (p.20).

Other factual claims presented by Quill are based on percentage of PAD or PAS related death cases in particular states and countries. In New York where VSED is permitted, PAD accounts for less than one percent of deaths. In Netherlands, 20 percent of death is related to the prescription of opioid to patients forgoing life sustaining therapy.  In a mid-1990s study, researchers found out that PAD and euthanasia accounted for approximately 1 to 2 percent of deaths. Lastly, Quill uses a legal decision to further strengthen his claim on this matter. The 1997 Supreme Court decision made it clear that alleviating suffering to the point of causing unconsciousness and hastening death is legally acceptable (p.21).

On the other side, Steinback provides these factual claims to refute PAD or PAS. 50 of conscious patients who died in the hospital experienced moderate to extreme pain in the last three days of life (p.236).  Suffering is not limited to individuals who are competent to request death but extends to infants, people with developmental disabilities and the elderly senile. Educated Middle Class members are the one who chooses PAS or PAD which is in direct contradiction to the earlier assumption that members of the lower classes of society are more likely to choose this option.

She also provided some statistical information to support his arguments. These are as follow According to a report of 897 physicians who cares for cancer patients, the most common form of narcotic abuse in the care of the dying is the under treatment of pain (p. 237). Only 1 out of 100 who asked about assisted suicide carries it out in the end. In Oregon alone where PAD or PAS is legalized, only 1 percent of Oregonians die of PAS. Further studies suggests that the risk of choosing PAD or PAS is brought by economic pressures, when healthcare budgets are being cut which makes poor people, minority group members, and the disabled prone to abuses and mistakes.

In as much as Steinback has no legal decision to back up his argument, she has WHO and the New York State Task Force to support her on this matter. The World Health Organization has endorsed palliative care as an integral component of a national health care policy and has strongly recommended to its member countries that they not consider legalizing PAS and euthanasia until they have addressed the needs of their citizens for pain relief and palliative care (p. 237). In addition, the New York State Task Force characterized the treatment of severe pain in hospitalized patients as regularly and systematically inadequate amidst the contention that the availability of PAS has only addressed the other end-of-life care options more effectively.

It is apparent in both of the factual claims presented by Quill and Steinback that legalization of PAD or PAS has indeed enhanced and improved palliative and hospice care. Both of them also shares in the belief that PAD or PAS in Oregon is relatively low with just a rate of 1 percent. Nevertheless they present a different perspective with regards to the patients who seek information regarding PAD or PAS. Quill only notes of the ratio of patients who asks information pertaining to PAD or PAS but refrained in providing numerical information which provides answer to the rate of patients who forego such a method. On the contrary, Steinback went a step further by providing us information on the ratio of patients who did forego with the PAD or PAS and we found out that it is a very small percentage compared to the rate of patients who inquired. This information is vital when we make our final analysis on this matter.

Let us now proceed to the ethical claims provided by both parties. Quill presented the following ethical claims to prove his support of PAD or PAS. It is better and safer to have open conversations about PAD or PAS out in the open rather in secret because the secret practice of PAD only results in a dont ask, dont tell policy which is unpredictable and potentially dangerous (p. 21). Terminally ill patients have the right to intensive pain and symptom management but the obligation to relieve them of severe suffering will definitely warrant taking the risk of an early death (p. 18).  Terminally ill patients have the right to forego life sustaining therapy but if these fail and the patient experiences extreme pain he has the right t look for options where he can escape suffering and hasten death (p. 19). Some patients who experience extreme pain will need a way out, and withholding one important option from patients whose options are so limited seems unfair (p. 21). PAD or PAS puts choice directly to the hands of the patient and thus gives them autonomy.

On the other side, Steinback presents these ethical claims
It is cruel to force a dying patient whose pain cannot be controlled with medication to continue living but it is more cruel to force someone to endure suffering for a longer period which includes infants with multiple disabilities, personal with developmental disabilities and the elderly senile but it does not mean that you can force these individual to undergo PAD or PAS. It cannot simply be possible because they are not competent individuals. (p.235).

Every competent person has the right to make momentous personal decision which involves fundamental religious or philosophical convictions about lifes value and him self but Only God has the right to determine when a person will die. PAD or PAS is a direct violation of the fundamental tenet of medicine to heal and not to harm (p.236) and administering PAD or PAS to patient is definitely doing harm to a person.

It is not possible to draft a statute that will cover all and only the justifiable cases which pertains to PAD or PAS. Man is not all knowing. Our knowledge is limited and we can only provide general statutes and because of this, changing laws in favor of PAD or PAS is more likely to produce mistakes and abuses in the future just like the case of Kate and Michael as mentioned earlier in the paper. Lastly, the duty to die only imposes the avoidance of financial, physical and emotional burden on the family member rather than an imposition on ones autonomy.

In both of the ethical arguments, we see that both parties believe that autonomy and suffering are vital in the analysis of this problem. Nevertheless, they see it in a different perspective. Quill sees individual suffering as an excuse to offer PAD or PAS. His eyes are concentrated on the individual per se. His ethical claims are grounded on individual rights and all other premises springs forth from this realization. PAD or PAS is but compassion towards the patient since there are no other forms of medication available for him. The only thing a physician can do is to lessen the pain a patient is experiencing but bear in mind that this option is only to be considered after all other life sustaining technology and medication has been exhausted. Quill does not support PAD or PAS unless a physician has extensively exhausted all resources possible to cure his patient. On the contrary, Steinback sees it in terms of the universal impact it will produce in society. Legalizing PAD or PAS gives room to extension of these practices even to those who does not need it like the elderly senile, the poor and the minority group members who simply does not have enough resources to support life sustaining technology. Steinback thus not deny the possible benefits PAD or PAS may offer to terminally ill patients but she worries that some family members or irresponsible physicians may use this as a tool to lessen the weight of responsibility on their shoulder.

Timothy Quill is an associate in the Litigation Department of Cooley LLP and focuses on general commercial litigation. This means that he is very much acquainted with legal procedures as shown in his analysis of the problem of PAD or PAS.  We can also consider his approach towards this problem as a form of consequentialist approach. Consequentialism is the approach wherein the moral rightness of acts depends only on the consequences of the act or of something related to the act such as motive behind the act or a general rule requiring acts of the same kind (Sinnott- Armstrong, 2006). It can further be translated to the maxim which states that the end justifies the means. It is focused more on the good rather than the right. A physicians role is primarily to provide treatment but if treatment is not anymore applicable then he becomes the source of alleviating pain.  The motive of the physician is not to do harm to the patient but only to ease him of the pain. The patient deserves all the right to be free of extreme pain. The patient considers this the best option for him, the law supports it and we are not harming anyone so why not do it. It promotes the good of the patient and whatever suits his desires should be administered especially after taking into consideration and exhausting all other medical treatments and technology which can cure him of his illness.

On the other hand, B. Steinback uses the deontological approach or the absolutist approach. Deontology originated from the categorical imperative of Kant which states that one should always act in such a way that you can also will that the maxim of your action should become a universal law. That which cannot be universalized cannot be accepted as morally right. Steinback argues until the very end that PAD or PAS cannot be universalized because we cannot create statutes that can address all possible cases which will contain the permission of this PAD or PAS. She further advocates the deontological principle, duty-based ethics, by addressing the fact that physicians have a pledged obligation not to do any harm to their patient. This obligation is further extended to the government. By constantly reiterating the need to provide safeguards which will ensure that PAD or PAS even after legalization will not pose any abuse towards any member of society, she only affirms her deontological conviction. It is also worthy to take note that Steinback is a woman and being a woman it is very much possible that she experienced discrimination compared to men. You can sense in her arguments how this greatly affects her reasoning. She has focuses on the risks of abuses PAD or PAS may bring forth to society because she herself may have experienced abuses in the past.

The deontological approach and consequentialist approach has always been in conflict with one another in as much as mans reasoning compared to a womens analysis contain differences especially in the perspective which they are looking at. The case of the legalization of PAD or PAS shares a very similar argument. It is battle between what is good and what is right. Quill argues that what is good should be legalized while Steinback argues that what is right should be implemented by law. In as much as it is very hard to make a union out of these two principles there is still certainly an avenue where both can meet and agree on something. Steinback only wishes that the risk of abuse in PAD or PAS be eliminated while Quill wants PAD or PAS to be included in list of legally medical options for terminally ill patients.

Both are not absolutists on these issues but are amenable to modifications. In the concluding words of Steinback she states, I am not suggesting that the Oregon law should be repealed. . .My point is rather that before the rest of us climb on the PAS bandwagon, there are many crucial issues to be hammered out. The discussion should continue. (p. 240). On the other hand Quill makes this concluding remark, We can simultaneously evaluate the impact of better and more widespread access to hospice and palliative care, and of more predictable and accountable availability of other last resort options. (p. 22). Apparently they share one thing they want a continued deliberation and evaluation of the different alternatives and consequences this act will produce. Both are open minded and amenable to change but make sure you allow both sides to present their arguments.

After careful deliberation of factual, ethical and post ethical analysis of these arguments I propose the following remedies which can further draw the two opposing parties together. It is best to gather factual claims which provide sufficient evidence that a great percentage of terminally ill patients will indeed prefer having several last end options which includes PAD or PAS. It is best to have a comparative analysis of the different states which already allow PAD or PAS and see the significant impacts it has on society. These ought to include the rates of cases with alleged irregularities, abuses and mistakes. On the ground of the ethical issues discussed in the two articles, I suggest that a clarification of the term harm, heal, duty and rights be further expanded. It would be better if it will include a lengthy discussion of personal rights and social rights. As for the post-ethical analytic approach, an elaborative study of what is good juxtaposed the principle of what is right would further make our analysis constructive.

Nevertheless, as of the moment I consider the Quills approach more realistic. We should indeed provide terminally ill patients all of their options. As long as they are competent to make major decisions in their life, we should respect and honor it. The individuals right is still above all other rights especially if you are not trampling on the rights of others. Nevertheless, if the physician sees that a patients decision is clouded because of ignorance of the facts, he may intervene and provide further explanations on the options provided before him. This does not mean in anyway that PAD or PAS will always be the first option whenever we are given a terminally ill patient. Palliative care still needs to be the standard of care for all seriously ill patients and the government should ensure that all its physician, clinicians and medical professional are well trained with it. Better policies and procedures which will help support a quality life should be supported and consistently discussed because it is still the governments role to ensure that its citizen has access to a quality and efficient health service.

Virginia Woolfs A Room of Ones Own was written as a response to her being asked to speak about the topic of women and fiction and excerpts from it was reprinted in the article, A Womans Place. The article examines Woolfs views on the place of women in literature and her feelings on discrimination against women in society as a whole. Throughout A Room of Ones Own, Woolf emphasizes that a woman needs a room of her own to be a complete writer and also a complete woman.

Woolf felt that the issue of a womans place in literature and the world was an important topic for discussion because, at that time, women had no place in either. She blames this in part on institutional sexism and discrimination against women from colleges and places of education that refused to admit women to their classes. But she places the majority of the blame for women not having a voice or a place to belong on the fact that the resistance being fought by women was not being fought in the public eye, so it was largely ignored. She states that the realm of the public eye was places like bars, restaurants, courthouses and other public meeting places. These places were for men, so the battle for the emancipation of women couldnt be fought here. Instead, women were staging their resistance in the place that they ruled  the home. This battle was not only to have a voice in the literary world, but also to be able to define who they were as women and not be confined by the boundaries society had placed on the female gender. Woolf points out that its impossible for a woman to write at home without a room to herself where she could get away from household chores, children, and husbands. Male writers did not have this kind of domestic responsibility, so they didnt realize it to be one more hurdle for women writers to get over in order to write successfully.

Woolf relates the analogy of Shakespeares sister as an example of how hard it must have been to have been a woman who wanted to write, act or be a part of the intellectual world back in the sixteenth century. She imagines that if Shakespeare had a sister, she would not have been afforded any of the educational or acting opportunities that Shakespeare had as a man. She wouldnt have been allowed to act, she probably would have been betrothed by her father into a marriage with a man she didnt love, and she would have been taken advantage of by any man that she tried to get to help her act or be educated. In her analogy, the female version of Shakespeare ends up committing suicide because the world simply doesnt accept her for what she wants to be. This is Woolfs way of illustrating how different opportunities and rights were for men and women back in the sixteenth century and before, and why this is all the more reason that change needed to happen then.

She also pointed to two popular public commentators in the sixteenth century, Oscar Browning and Mr. Greg, that both expressed opinions about a womans place in society. They both felt that women were intellectually inferior to men and that a womans primary role in life was to support and care for men. This was the only way in which women were useful. Woolf relates her anger at reading this.

One of the reasons that Woolf feels a woman needs a room of her own and money to write, and nothing more, is because prior to the nineteenth century a room of her own would have been an impossibility. Prior to that women were under the control of their father or the male head of her household, and he also controlled all her money and education. Attempts at self-expression like writing were forbidden or mocked. The fact that female writers were all but nonexistent before is all the more reason why they have become so self sufficient and need so little to survive and write in Woolfs time. She uses Shakespeare as an example again in her conclusion, but this time she points to Shakespeares mind as being one that was free and unencumbered because he was able to say and write whatever he wanted. She is saying that women should have this freedom of expression too, because everyone should be able to have a mind as free as Shakespeares.

Enlightenment is heralded in history as the era where man gained freedom. It is widely praised by most historians because it liberated the medieval mind and managed to cut loose the strings of scholasticism which tied the minds and lives of Medieval Europe. But in the eyes of Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer there are some aspects in the rise of Enlightenment which are worth investigating and analyzing.

Enlightenment aims in liberating human being from fear and installing them as masters of their own fate. It tried to do this by extirpating animism, superstitions and mythologies while promoting logic, science and technology. Concepts are replaced by formulas while causes are replaced by rules and possibility the local spirits and demons are replaced by heaven and its hierarchy magical incantations are replaced by physical and natural laws deity speech is replaced by tautologies the infinite replaced by mathematical variables the principle of fated necessity replaced by principle of immanence and social order is replaced by division of labor. But in doing so, did it liberate the minds of men and eradicated fear

Knowledge is boundless and limitless. It knows no master yet it can succumb itself to anyone who caters to its desires which is power. During the enlightenment, knowledge reigned supreme over faith but it does not mean that it has attained freedom rather it only became the servant of the bourgeoisie class and the military. It was during this era when invention and discoveries where supported but it was also during this era when countries gave more funds for the improvement of military artillery. There were different types of guns, bombs and ammunitions which were invented and designed. It was prioritized because whoever gains superiority over these devices will rule the world.

Technology is the product of enlightenment. It is the one of the brainchild of man which is both beneficial and harmful to man. Technology is proof how man learned how to use and manipulate nature to dominate and rule over it but in the end he himself becomes dominated by its own product, technology. Technology has produced method and exploitation of the labor of others because without its birth in the world, division of labor would never be impossible.

Industrialization is one of the effects brought by the enlightenment period. Man realized that self preservation is best maximized if we uphold division of labor in society. But by following this system, power in the hands of the clergy were simply transferred to the hands of the owners and manufacturers. It is just a slight twist of characters but the cycle still remains. There is still a ruler and there still exists the slaves.

If I will be allowed to use the phrase of Kuhn, enlightenment is simply a paradigm shift. It is simply a shift of power and interplay of words. It has produced nothing new instead it only devised new concepts. It only placed science on top of the hierarchy and made it the totalitarian ruler. Anything that does not conform to the standards of calculability and utility must be viewed with suspicion. (p.3) Science is the ultimate law and whatever contradicts to it is considered taboo in society. Logic and Mathematics are its foundations but in as much as it want to display accuracy it still left the option of possibility lying very near its core. It tried to free the mind from superstitious beliefs but it only transformed these beliefs into scientific theories. It tried to eradicate fear of the unknown but managed to produce more unknown qualities in the process.

The purpose of this essay is to analyze and evaluate the article Lack of sleep linked to early death-study. The essay discusses rhetorical devices first then goes through the main premises and supporting premises in detail.

Conclusion Doctors never ask how much one sleeps, but that could be an indicator that something is wrong. Research showed no adverse effects for those sleeping between six and eight hours per day.

1      People who get less than six hours sleep per night have an increased risk of dying prematurely.
1.1   Those who slumbered for less than that amount of time were 12 percent more likely to die early.
1.2    Unequivocal evidence of the direct link, between lack of sleep and premature death.
1.3      If you sleep little, you can develop diabetes, obesity, hypertension and high cholesterol.
1.4   We think that the relation between little sleep and illness is due to a series of hormonal and metabolical mechanisms.

2     The duration of sleep is a public health issue and should be considered as a behavioral risk factor by doctors.
2.1       Society pushes us to sleep less and less.
2.2   More common amongst full-time workers.
2.3   Doctors never ask how much one sleeps, but that could be an indicator that something is wrong.

3    The study also found a link between sleeping more than nine hours per night and premature. Oversleeping is more likely to be an effect of illness, rather than a cause.

Evaluation of the argument
Rhetorical devices
Emotionally charged language is used in creation of the argument People who get less than six hours sleep per night have an increased risk of dying prematurely. The use of emotionally charged language draws the audience aback creating an anxiety. Audience is impacted and is made believe and agree that the author is correct.

The description If you sleep little, you can develop diabetes, obesity, hypertension and high cholesterol, is more a conclusive statement. Use of the statement Unequivocal evidence of the direct link, between lack of sleep and premature death elaborates that there is clear evidence that less sleep makes you prone to conditions like diabetes, obesity, hypertension and high cholesterol. The statement is made in certainty to convince audience to believe what he says are right.We think that the relation between little sleep and illness is due to a series of hormonal and metabolical mechanisms, This statement is an asserted assumption by the author. The assumption is made in the elaboration of the cause of less sleep to make audience believe what he says is right.

The author uses the analogical argument that Society pushes us to sleep less and less. This argument is supported by an inductive inference of statistical generalization he uses that ...20 percent of the population in the United States and Britain sleeps less than five hours, an assumption of similarity between United States and Britain is obtained. Populations are compared also suggesting  that sleeping less than is hours is More common amongst full-time workers, suggesting that it may be due to societal pressures for longer working hours and more shift work. The author uses superlative language as less, more, longer to make a higher level of argument and in doing so set standards, precisely giving an inductive generalization in sentence to convince the audience to believe what they say is correct.

He concludes Doctors never ask how much one sleeps, but that could be an indicator that something is wrong, this statement in itself is a proposition to make the convince audience and make them believe that what he says is right. The statement Research showed no adverse effects for those sleeping between six and eight hours per day then concludes the argument, then assuring the audience and making them believe that what he says is indeed truthful.

Evaluation of the inferences
Main argument (Premises 1-3).
Premise 1.
The author puts out the main premise as an opening statement that, People who get less than six hours sleep per night have an increased risk of dying prematurely. The use of this argument is more like a deliberation while the argument given supports the conclusion.

In order to decide whether the conclusion is supported, we need to look at the main premise. The author concludes by stating that, Doctors never ask how much one sleeps, but that could be an indicator that something is wrong,  Research showed no adverse effects for those sleeping .... The main argument is that the less you sleep the more likely you could die prematurely and the more you sleep brings about a similar effect. The author supports the main premise very well using Cappucios research findings to explain the conclusion he arrives at. The author looks at both arguments. Indeed then chooses the best conclusion being that doctors should be inquisitive about hours of sleep and gives a recommendation of hours of sleep in inference to the best explanation from Cappucios research findings. This is inductive reasoning that gives us a good reason to believe that the conclusion is likely to be true but does not purport to make it certain. An inference is made to his observation of facts of cause explained.

Premise 2.
The author further argues The duration of sleep is a public health issue and should be considered as a behavioral risk factor by doctors. This is an argument in counter consideration of Premise 2.There is an element of consideration that indeed sleeps a public concern.

Premise 3.
The author then departs his attention into explaining that the study also found a link between sleeping more than nine hours per night and premature death. This departure plays the role of explaining that while people are recommended to sleep enough, sleeping more that the recommended hours may be a cause of sickness and which may cause premature death according to Cappucios findings.

Sub Arguments Supporting Premise 1
Sub Argument 1.1 Is an interdependent premise directly linking statistical generalization to support the assertion that those who slumbered for less than that amount of time were 12 percent more likely to die early  The statistical generalization is a sample representative of the population of more than 1.3 million people for over a decade and from all around the world, stratified sampling has been used to show differences in the population for this study as in the demonstrating statement that about 20 percent of the population in the United States and Britain sleeps less than five hours.

Sub Argument 1.2 The authors uses causal reasoning that there is an unequivocal evidence of the direct link between lack of sleep and premature death, showing correlation of omission of an act to a cause.
Sub Argument 1.3 The author uses causal reasoning in the statement, If you sleep little, you can develop diabetes.l. This is a supporting statement to the Premise 1.

Sub Argument 1.4 The author promotes a further contemplation, analogical reasoning  We think that the relation between little sleep and illness is due to a series of hormonal and metabolical mechanisms, this could be thought of as supporting that people may develop diseases as a result of lack of sleep.

Sub Arguments Supporting Premise 2
Sub Argument 2.1 The sustaining argument to Premise 2  is in the facts that Society pushes us to sleep less and less, This is supported by giving a statistical generalization in demonstration that, about 20 percent of the population in the United States and Britain sleeps less than five hours.The statistics have been used by the author in support of Premise 2 to convince the audience to believe that a study was indeed carried out stratified sampling was used for the study involving more than 1.3 million people from around the world in duration of decade long of studies.

Sub Argument 2.2 The author uses the inductive inference from statistical generalizations that sleeping less than six hours is more common amongst full-time workers... as found in the study to elaborate further why society is sleeping less and less.

Sub Argument 2.3 There is concealed information in the conclusion the author clarifies in Cappucios words, that the duration of sleep is a public health issue and that should be considered a behavioral risk factor by doctors, he brings out the need to investigate into the conclusion. The major concern is the public health issue that doctors should look into sleeping patterns of patients while they try understanding a persons health as a societal affair.

Conclusion.
The conclusion is normative, it does tell us what we should have and do and should not do. From the article, the evidence and arguments provided, do support the conclusion. The article talked about too much the adverse effects of less sleep than oversleeping. We have some emotionally charged language and loaded descriptions trying to convince audience, however some parts of article is lack of sufficient support, Premise 5 . Sufficient evidence has been provided in support of the conclusion given therefore convincing to its audience.

Platos work follows the journey of Socrates as he was traveling to a court trial where he is accused of honoring other gods. While traveling he met Euthyphro, a man known to be a religious expert. These two men engaged in a discussion about piety and Gods will and they reached a dilemma of determining what the real source of moral values is. The argument tackled on the question whether something is loved by gods because it is good or is it good because it is loved by the gods. Based on my understanding, I believe that the discussions of Socrates and Euthyphro that was stirred up by saying that gods love the pious because they are pious then adding that they are pious because gods made them is very conflicting. The dilemma also pose a disagreement to the Divine Command Theory for it questions if an action is automatically good because gods willed it or did the gods will it because it is good. If the second idea is deemed true, then where does the moral good come from Platos Euthyphro ends with no resolution to the dilemma.

Source of Moral Value According to Kant
Immanuel Kant is regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of all time. In his lifetime of intelligent work, Kant has carried out different means of establishing what the source of moral value is. His works begin by establishing the idea that practical reason, and not experience, is what shapes humans way of thinking. Based on this idea, he said that reasoning enables us to form our idea of obligations to the world and definition of morality. Kant said that moral systems are rooted on categorical imperatives, the representation of the universal moral laws that we ought to apply in the world we live in. Our adherence to our duties based on these imperatives is what determines our moral values. Thus correct reasoning is the first important step to morality because it is the basis of our sense of duty.













 PAGE    MERGEFORMAT 2

In Euthyphro, Socrates, one of the original great Greek philosophers, seeks to find the meaning of a few principles generally associated with the moral aspect of religion through a dialogue with the religious expert Euthyphro. An important consideration to take into account when discussing the philosophical nature of his dialogues is that he was indicted for acts that were disproved by the State. His questions are perhaps just as much aimed at raising doubts about his (would-be) incrimination as they are inclined to unearth the concept of morality with respect to religion.

Socrates raises questions about piety and morality with regards to god(s), who he purports to believe are responsible for religion. However, when arguing against polytheistic religions, he imagines that the gods might be in conflict as to what constitutes piety, or even morality, thus a strict definition may not be achievable. By suggesting the same he instills a very real possibility of religion being the work of a man instead of a superior creation if a man is responsible for the definition of a pious act, he may alter the definition with time, creating uncertainties that word of gods are not supposed to endorse. Euthyphro also indicates that moral values may be subject to the same ambiguities of origin, thereby indicating that the gods in question may just be a figment without concrete definition, and thus capable of change. Socrates blaspheme of worshipping other Gods were probably factored into the argument, in which Euthyphro, and consequently his followers, were made to question the very foundations of his religious beliefs.

Discussion on Kant
Kant laid down a few stepping stones in the formation of belief regarding the presence of moral values as governing a devoted mans actions. His discussion provides a basis of argument as to what constitutes the source of moral values, whether it is a divine understanding of the limits of a mans actions or whether it is simply a way devised by those positioned in power in order to regulate the code of conduct of the general population.

Kant indicates the ambient presence of divine will or regulation that incorporates itself into the conduct of humans through conscience, thereby serving to create maxims, staying within which constitutes moral conduct. In doing so, Kant argues in favor of the supernatural flavor of religion(s), which of course are designed to regulate the conduct of humans. Since each of them impart definitions as to what may be considered moral, they are not the actual source of moral values themselves, but instead are just a mechanism through which the instinctual nature of humans to distinguish right from wrong operate. The three formulations of moral conduct he stipulates are thus an indication that individuals, although capable of acting on free will, guided by divine will, can understand moral acts to be in favor of humanity and are thus automatic, originating in the conscience.