Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper.In order to write this critical thinking Argument Reconstruction paper, you have to follow some steps which you will see in the attached documents. So, I am attaching 3 documents, please review all the documents to know about the assignment clearly :1- the first document is an assignment question ( The paragraph on which you have to write the paper and what are the instructions for the paper and  for clear idea understanding of the instruction see both sample papers)2- the second document is a sample for this assignment given by the professor ( that is the pattern and steps of how you write the paper)3- the third document is also a sample paper done by me in my last assignment ( that is the pattern and steps of how you write the paper )
Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper. In order to write this critical thinking Argument Reconstruction paper, you have to follow some
Short Paper Write a paper where you reconstruct one (1) of the arguments below. Your paper should: Begin with a brief summary, in your own words, of the argument. Reconstruct the argument into standard form: make sure your reconstruction is in your own words and valid For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or a conclusion. If it is a conclusion, indicate which premises it follows from. Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be a paragraph of text in length. Deny one (1) premise: explicitly state which premise you deny and explain why you think it is false. Do not object to the conclusion of the argument. Turn your own reasoning into a standard form argument. Make sure your reconstruction is valid, and that its conclusion is an explicit denial of the premise in question. For each line in your argument, note whether it is a premise or a conclusion. If it is a conclusion, indicate which premises it follows from. Give a brief defense of each premise. You should aim for your defense for each premise to be a paragraph of text in length. Add a concluding paragraph where you address the following question: how would the proponent of the original argument respond to your counter-argument? Which premise would they deny, and how would they do so? (1) ATTAS ON BELIEVING FALSEHOODS “Now it is generally the case that individuals prefer their beliefs to be true. It might seem, then, that one’s welfare, in the sense of preference satisfaction, is reduced when one’s belief is false. But I think that preference satisfaction is irrelevant to the agent’s welfare when the agent doesn’t know if his want has been satisfied or not. I want my great grand children to live in a healthier environment: will the actual facts to which I am necessarily ignorant make the slightest difference to my happiness today? Would not my belief that my descendants environment be healthier, unfounded though it may be, enhance my welfare? It is not merely the fact of my preference having been satisfied or frustrated that has an effect on my welfare. Rather, it is also the epistemic aspect of the matter: in my knowing that this is the case, and, in the absence of knowledge, in my believing that my preference has been satisfied. So, though a person may prefer to hold true beliefs, his holding false beliefs will not affect his welfare since he necessarily believes his false beliefs to be true.” (Attas, p. 53) (2) SNYDER ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF VICTIMS “…there is reason to think that the demeaned party may in certain circumstances have an obligation not to accept a demeaning choice or at least to offer resistance to the silencing effect of demeaning choices. This obligation stems from a political responsibility to help reform the structural injustices that shape the options for the demeaned party and that have made her and others vulnerable to being placed in a demeaning position in the first place… Victims of injustice may be in a unique position to convey the experiences of unjust treatment, reflect on the impacts of proposals for reforms, and act as agents of change given the authenticity of their voices and experiences in light of their unjust treatment. (Snyder, p. 356)
Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper. In order to write this critical thinking Argument Reconstruction paper, you have to follow some
Final Sample Paper – Is Every Good Deeds Selfish? Joey’s Argument: In an episode of the 1990s TV series Friends1 has an episode (season 5, episode 4) in which a character (Joey) argues that all good deeds are ultimately selfish, because they make the person feels good about doing a good deed: Joey: Well, yeah, it was a really nice thing and all, but: it made you feel really good, right? Phoebe: Yeah, so? Joey: Well, it made you feel good, so that makes it selfish. Look, there’s no unselfish good deed. Sorry. (4:00-4:20) Phoebe then spends the rest of the episode trying to find a way to do something good without feeling good about it. Joey’s argument can be summarized as follows: Every action that makes one feel good is selfish. (premise) Every seemingly selfless action makes one feel good. (premise) So, every seemingly selfless action is selfish. (1-2) (Conclusion) If every seemingly selfless action is selfish, then every action is selfish. (premise) So, every action is selfish. (3-4) (Conclusion) Joey does not provide any reasons to think that (1) is true, so I will provide one on his behalf. An action is selfish if the consequence of that action is that the person who does it is better off. Feeling good is better than not feeling good. So, we should think that every action that makes one feel good is selfish. Joey argues for premise (2) by induction. He presents a case: Phoebe being a surrogate mother for her brother, and claims that even this seemingly selfless action made Phoebe feel great. He then extrapolates from this case to the general claim. He also challenges Phoebe to come up with examples of seemingly selfless action that don’t make someone feel good. But there is an even stronger argument for (2) that Joey ignores. This starts from noticing that everyone who decides to do something seemingly selfless would feel terrible if they didn’t do it. But this means that, in doing something seemingly selfless, the person who does it is avoiding feeling terrible. This means that doing the “selfless” deed feels much better than not doing it. Joey does not argue for (4), because he thinks it is obviously true. To see why, assume that every seemingly selfless action is selfish. This only leaves actions that are not seemingly selfless: actions that are seemingly selfish. But there is no reason to think that seemingly selfish actions wouldn’t in fact be selfish. So, on the assumption that every seemingly selfless action is selfish, we should conclude that all actions are selfish. My Objection Phoebe spends the episode of friends trying to find counterexamples to premise (2). I think this is misguided, since there are good reasons to think that premise (1) is false. I object by claiming that feeling good about the well-being of others is itself selfless. As a result, actions whose consequence is that we feel good about helping others are not selfish. We can give a more formal reconstruction of the argument as follows It is not selfish to feel good about the well-being of others. If it is not selfish to feel good about the well-being of others, then actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish. So, actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish (1-2). If actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish, then not every action that makes one feel good is selfish. So, not every action that makes one feel good is selfish. The reason to accept premise (1) is quite obvious. If someone is truly selfish, it would make no sense for them to feel good about the well-being of others, as there would be no reason to care about their well-being. So it is not selfish to feel good about the well-being of others. For premise (2), assume that it is not selfish to feel good about the well-being of others. But this means that it is not for selfish reasons that one feels good about helping others. But if it is not for selfish reasons that an action makes one feel good, then it is not a selfish action. So, on the assumption that it is not selfish to feel good about the well-being of others, we should conclude that actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish. Premise (4) is pretty obviously true. Assume that actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish. Given that there are some such actions, it follows that there are actions that make one feel good and are not selfish. So, on our assumption that actions that make one feel good about the well-being of others are not selfish, we should conclude that not every action that makes one feel good is selfish. Conclusion: In this paper, I have presented an objection to Joey’s argument for the conclusion that everything we do is selfish. Joey assumes, and Phoebe does not question, that feeling good about what you did is enough to make that action selfish. What I have argued is that it matters why you feel good about the action you did. If you feel good for selfless reasons, then we no longer have any reason to think that the action is selfish. I imagine Joey might reply that even in such circumstances, one does benefit from doing a selfish deed. But since benefitting is not the reason one does the deed, it is hard to see why this would make it selfish. 1“The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS” Friends, season 5, episode 4, NBC, 18 Oct. 1998.
Hi, this is my philosophy course assignment in which you have to write an Argument Reconstruction paper. In order to write this critical thinking Argument Reconstruction paper, you have to follow some
Final Sample paper Argument Reconstruction Assignment An Argument against Profit as an Obligation Brief Summary of Heath Argument: According to Heath (pp. 540-41), many people think that the problem is that profit is associated with self-interest. Nevertheless, on the other hand, business ethics associate with a behavior that is altruistic or unselfish in some sort. Therefore, the moral status of profit can be described as a “principled constraint on the pursuit of self-interest.” Consequently, if profit is substituted with self-interest, then business ethics refer to some sort of principled constraint on the pursuit of profits rather than a mode of maximizing it. Heath’s argument can be summarized as follows: (1) Every action that brings self-interest is unethical. (premise) (2) Every action that makes profit is self-interest. (premise) (3) So, every action that makes profit is unethical. (1-2) ( Conclusion ) (4) If every action that makes profit is unethical then business ethics refers to principled constraint on the pursuit of profit. (premise) (5) So, business ethics refers to principled constraint on the pursuit of profit.(3-4) (Conclusion ) Heath argues for premise (1) by induction. He presents a case: ethics is associate with behavior that is altruistic or unselfish in some sort. Assume if the presented case by Heath is true then any action that is selfish or self-interested are unethical, so any action that beings self-interest is unethical. Heath does provide a reason to think that (2) is true, since in most people minds profit is associated with self-interest and that is true because an action is self-interest if the consequence of that action is that the person who does it getting rewarded for doing so. Adding more to this premise assume company main goal is to make profit and mangers are company’s employees, so mangers every action would be self-interested to make profit. Therefore, we should think that every action that makes profit is self-interest. Health does not argue for (4), because he thinks it is obviously true. To see why, assume that every action that makes profit is unethical. This only leaves actions that makes profit is not unethical: actions that makes profit is ethical. Business ethics is associated with behavior that is selfless or altruistic. So, there is no reason to think that profit making actions wouldn’t in fact be unethical. Therefore, on the assumption that every action that makes profit is unethical, we should conclude that business ethics refers to principled constrained on the pursuit of profit. My objection I object Heath claim in his argument that many people tend to believe that the part of any firm is just based on self-interest. I think this is misguided, since there are good reasons to think that premise (1) is false. However, with the further development of economic theory, clear distinctions have been drawn between individual motivations and profit as an organizational goal, which parties may or may not pursue due to self-interest. A formal reconstruction of Heath’s argument can be given as follows: The pursuit for profit is altruistic. (Premise) Business ethics are associated with a behavior that is altruistic. (Premise) Therefore, the pursuit of profit is ethical. (1-2) (Conclusion) If the pursuit of profit is ethical then the business ethic should not refers to principled constraint on the pursuit of profit. (Premise) So, the business ethic should not refers to principled constraint on the pursuit of profit. (3-4) ( Conclusion ) For premise (1), assume that Profit-maximization is an obligation of the managers rather than a pursuit for self-interest, implying that business ethics can be referred to as a principled restriction to egoistic behavior. To explain further, the confusion that the pursuit for profit and self-interest are the same is mainly based on two assumptions. First, organizations operating within a given market system seem to maximize their utility. The second assumption is that any competitive markets system lacks appreciation. Thus, the role of managers can be based indirectly on the role they play in this assumed economic system. The reason to accept premise (2) is quite obvious. If someone is selfish, I would makes no sense for them to think about the ethics of business, as for him there is no reason to be with a behavior that is altruistic because he is self-interested. So, we should conclude that Business ethics are associated with a behavior that is altruistic. Premise (4) is pretty obviously true. Assume that the pursuit of profit is ethical. Given that it follows that manager of different organizations will compete with one another due to the lure for profits. In an ideal market, such competition leads to an optimum price, leading to a situation where supply equals demand, leading to equitable allocation of resources, services, labor, and goods across the entire economy. However, because rational economic decision-making is not easy to make in the absence of a system of prices, some form of explicit calculation is preferred as an alternative, a process that has proven to be impossible practically (Heath, 5-20). So, on our assumption that the pursuit of profit is ethical, we should conclude that the business ethic should not refers to principled constraint on the pursuit of profit. Conclusion In this paper, Heath’s claim that an economic system based on the pursuit for profits to be morally impartial has been explained, and the foundation for its proof. The pursuit for profit is ethical since most firms undertake their daily activities to achieve morality and get people to operate more cooperatively rather than maximize their profits. The basic idea is that any socially induced collective action problem poses specific challenges based on moral justification. However, the system of market competition is justified based on the scarcity of practical alternatives. The challenge is showing that the moral status of profit ethics shows that a firm can maximize its profits without exhibiting any form of self-interest. This challenge is a burden of proof that remains impossible to explain. Works cited Heath, Joseph. “Business ethics and the ‘end of history’in corporate law.” Journal of Business Ethics 102.1 (2011): 5-20. Heath, Joseph. Morality, competition, and the firm: The market failures approach to business ethics. Oxford University Press, 2014.




Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.