Swamped with your writing assignments? Take the weight off your shoulder!
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhPPP_w3kNo&t=5s – (i) Provide three arguments (that is, three structured linkages of inferences – premises to a conclusion) that argue why the purchasing of fast fashion is not only ethically permissible, but ethically praiseworthy; (ii) present four arguments from the video that would challenge your arguments from (i); and (iii) attempt to refute the arguments from (ii) without merely repeating your arguments from section (i) of this question.
2) Outline Shockley’s argument by (i) logically reconstructing the piece – indicate the premises that lead to the main conclusion; and (ii) present three counter-arguments to any of three sub-arguments that appear in Shockley’s piece.
3) https://youtu.be/QdeHUrL1FEM – (i) Do some research to investigate to what this video refers and provide a synopsis of the particular pipeline controversy highlighted in this video (do remember to cite from where you are providing your information – you must do so for all questions, but I remind you in particular for this question since it is research based); (ii) who do you take to be Prolific’s intended audience and why?
4) (i) Outline the main premises and conclusion of Sioui’s article; (ii) outline the main premises and conclusions of Morito’s article; (iii) provide three counter-arguments to any of Sioui’s premises not found in either Sioui’s own piece or Morito’s piece which is indeed a response to Sioui; (iv) provide three counter-arguments to any of Morito’s premises not found in either Morito’s own piece or in Sioui’s piece.
5) (i) Outline Dr. Shiva’s main premises and overall conclusion in her speech; (ii) provide three arguments (arguments are premises that lead to a conclusion) from any readings/videos from this semester that support any of Dr. Shiva’s premises and main conclusion and explain why; (iii) provide three arguments from any readings/videos from this semester that argue against Dr. Shiva’s main premises and conclusion and explain why.
6) (i) Outline the main premises and conclusion of “American Disenlightenment”; (ii) provide two arguments to support the author’s premises (not the main conclusion) not found in the piece itself or in my lecture; (iii) provide three arguments to challenge the author’s premises (not the main conclusion) not found in the piece itself or in my lecture.
7) Outline the premises and conclusion of “On the Possibility of an Intergenerational Arms Race”; (ii) the main just of the argument or the question raised, is whether extra-ethical concerns (say, attaining a monopoly, making money, the triumph of just being able to claim “I/we” did if first/best) can sometimes lead to better ends than following a strictly “ethical” path or having an ethical target goal. Can you have, in other words, have the wrong (read: non-ethical, or extra-ethical) standards/goals and end up doing good or more good in the end than if you had been ethical or had “the right” intentions the whole way through? Offer three arguments with examples that suggest that this is possible and (iii) three arguments with examples that suggest that this is not possible. (iv) Given the nature of the globalized market, as well as individuals’ and groups’ overall less than virtuous character, might it actually be our best hope that competition or something comparable leads us to the best environmental outcomes/solutions? Provide three past and current examples of how, almost accidentally, good, arguably, came whilst attempting to do something unrelated or perhaps even if not morally repugnant, morally questionable (these need not be examples directly related to environmental issues).
8) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZYQpge1W5s&t=8s&ab_channel=BritishGQ (i) Outline where arguments begin and end. (ii) Explain, as the video proceeds, who is engaging in good argumentation (producing robust counter-arguments, etc.) and where things go askew – where the debate has moved to rhetoric, perhaps, or where it seems the two are talking past one another and explain why you believe this to be so.
(i) The above two videos are purportedly about the same issue – do they claim the same conclusions? For each video, summarize the claims and conclusions drawn; (ii) provide three arguments that challenge the videos and argue that, not only is using Amazon morally permissible, its use is morally praiseworthy for at least one environmental reason and any two other reasons, taking your time to explain why.
Is practicing veganism more ethical than practicing non-veganism? The question is vague. Is veganism more ethical in terms of its protection/non-inteference to whom or what? (i) outline the claims of the video; (ii) explain why the question “Is practicing veganism more ethical than practicing non-veganism?” is vague; (iii) provide an an analysis of how you think Singer might react to this video and explain why; (iv) choose a biocentric (holistic) author from our readings and provide an analysis of how you believe that they might react to the above video and explain why.