Really Need Help 2

By
Responsive Centered Red Button

Need Help with this Question or something similar to this? We got you! Just fill out the order form (follow the link below), and your paper will be assigned to an expert to help you ASAP.

Order Form

Question Description
Hey guys, I really need help with this homework assignment. I need it all to be well written out please. Also, please respond to the questions in a word document under the question so I know which answer belongs to the question. Please open the document and answer the questions. I only need 11 of the questions answered so you can pick which ones you want to answer.

Short Answers (80%–8 points each): I will select 10 questions. Your answers need not be longer than a paragraph, and may well be (much) shorter.
Essay (20%–20 points): I will choose one essay. Each essay has multiple parts, so partial credit is possible.
Bonus (5 points): Choose an additional question from section I and answer it
Briefly describe the three branches of ethical philosophy (value theory, normative ethics, and meta-ethics).
What does the theory of individual relativism (also known as ethical subjectivism) state? What is one attraction of this theory?
Describe (in broad strokes or premise-conclusion form) an objection to individual relativism or cultural relativism that we considered.
Error theorists claim that morality is essentially objective and that moral reasons are essentially categorical (and they go on to argue that nothing has these features). Explain both of these concepts.
How would an expressivist understand the meaning of “torture is immoral”?
The argument from disagreement against moral objectivism goes like this: (1) If well-informed, open-minded, rational people persistently disagree about some claim, then that claim is not objectively true. (2) Well-informed, open-minded, rational people persistently disagree about all moral claims. Therefore, (3) No moral claim is objectively true. How did we say that a moral objectivist could argue against premise (1)?
How does utilitarianism (and consequentionalism more broadly) support the impartiality of moral duty?
Do utilitarians (or consequentialists more broadly) believe any moral duty (like “do not kill innocents”) is absolute—that it holds without exception (barring the principle of utility itself)? Why or why not?
A common objection against utilitarianism (and consequentialism more broadly) is that it makes moral knowledge difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. How does Mill respond to this objection?
Utilitarians (and consequentialists more broadly) typically draw a distinction between a standard of rightness and a decision procedure. What is this distinction, and why do they draw it?
What is the argument from injustice (or problem of injustice) against utilitarianism?
According to Kant, what is the relationship between morality and rationality? How does his view answer the challenge of the amoralist?
What is moral luck? Does Kant believe in it? Why or why not?
What is a “good will” according to Kant?
Aristotle thought that every virtue was a mean between two extremes. This is often called the “doctrine of the mean.” Give an example that illustrates this view.
Aristotle believes that any view of “the good life”—the life worth living—must meet three conditions. Name and explain them.
In “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Marquis explains why he thinks it is prima facie seriously morally wrong to kill someone, and he then applies his explanation to the question of abortion. What is the reason that he gives (you need not apply it to abortion)?

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services