The Good vs. The Right

Question description

Before doing this assignment, make sure to review the two Moral Frameworks The Good– which is Utilitarianism (Morality based on Good or Bad Consequences)– and The Right– which is Deontology (Morality based on Duty and Rights). Information on both is in Burnor & Raley, Ch. 6, 7 & 8.

Objective of this assignment: To put theories into conversation with each other, in order to appreciate that:

  • Ideas are not isolated or made in a vacuum, but are created by real people grappling with real issues in conversation with others.
  • Disagreements aren’t just matters of opinion, but rather can reveal underlying value frameworks. For instance, by analyzing the underlying frameworks of Mill’s Utilitarianism and Kant’s Deontology, we see that Mill and Kant don’t merely disagree with what is moral or not, but they also seem to THINK about morality differently.

This matters because it allows us to see that perspectives that are unfamiliar (or that we disagree with) are often nevertheless rooted in value systems that can be shared or at least understood. Recognizing underlying value systems is one of the first and best ways to move forward when people who disagree deeply are at an impasse.

Other Objectives:

  • Learn to express your ideas clearly and concisely in writing.
  • Learn the argument essay format.
  • Practice critical thinking by evaluating moral theories and constructing your own argument.

Assignment Instructions:

For this assignment we will use a thought experiment like the Trolley problem we discussed in class.

Suppose you are a train conductor on a runaway train. The train heads straight for five men who will not have time to get out of the way, and your train will kill them. But! You notice there is a track going to the right, and you have just enough time to pull the lever and turn onto that track. There is one person on that track who will die just as assuredly as the five would if you stayed on their track. Should you head to the right?

You will write an essay of approximately 1000 words which describes what you think John Stuart Mill (or Bentham) would recommend that you do in the train scenario, what Immanuel Kant would do in the train scenario, and what you would do in the train scenario and why you would choose to do that. This paper requires that you use in-text citations for any quotations you include and that you create a references page citing all of the references that you quote in the paper. You may use MLA style citations (a guide to these can be found here).

Use the following guidelines to structure your paper. This is a kind of fill-in-the-blanks guide to writing this paper. Include the sentences in bold italic word for word in your paper. You will need several of your own sentences in addition to those provided below.

Introduction (1 or 2 paragraphs):

Your introductory paragraph should have the following (not necessarily in this order).

A. Thesis statement- You should state what you think is best to do in the situation described by the scenario. I think I should___________________. Fill in the blank with either divert the train to the right killing one person or not divert the train to the right even though this will result in the death of five people.

B. Background for the thesis. This should include mentioning that you will be evaluating what Utilitarianism and Deontology say about this thought experiment and a brief description of the thought experiment.

C. Plan of the Paper. It might help your reader to tell them how your paper will go. Something like: “I will begin by describing what John Stuart Mill would have me do in this situation. Next, I will contrast that with what Kant’s moral theory

Body Part I:

  • John Stuart Mill would probably want me to ____________________,
  • because _[explain one or more of the primary principles of Utilitarianism and how he would apply it to the train scenario to decide what I should do].
  • As he says, [pick a quote from your text that illustrates that specific principle] (cite it too) and explain what the quote means in your own words,
  • His reasoning here plants him firmly within the Moral Framework called “The ____________,” where morality is judged by looking at _______________________________

[Hint: the first blank should be either “good” or “right” and the second blank ought to be “consequences of our actions” or “what we have a duty to do.”]

Note: Mill largely agrees with Bentham and its probably the case that the higher v lower pleasures distinction is not relevant to this essay.

Body Part II:

  • On the other hand, Kant reasons from framework called “The ___________,” where morality is measured by considering _________________
  • [Hint: the first blank above should be either “good” or “right” and the second blank ought to be “consequences of our actions” or “what we have a duty to do.”]
  • Thus, he would most likely tell me to ___________________
  • For one thing, Kant’s moral theory requires us to follow the Categorical Imperative: [pick one of the formulations of the CI and offer Kant’s statement of it] . (cite it too). (I’m asking for the principle of ends or the principle of universal law).
  • What Kant means here is ______________________
  • So, you can see that he is primarily concerned about _________________________ and he would probably conclude that I should ________________.

Body Part III:

  • Personally, I think I should _______________________
  • Even though I might share some of the values underlying _________’s position, like __________________________,
  • I nevertheless would decide to _________________________________
  • because __________________________________.
  • My reasoning here seems to fall under the framework called “The __________” (or neither) because I am primarily focused on _________________________________

Conclusion:

Briefly summarizes your paper and reminds the reader of your thesis and how your argued for it.

Thomas Aquinas

Question description

In 200-300 words discuss Aquinas’ view on war, stating where you agree and/or disagree with him.Make sure that you respond to another student’s post. Note that you must submit your post before you can see other students’ posts. Your response should be 100 words (Maximum points=30).

students post:

Thomas Aquinas proposed a doctrine called Just war theory that laid out a series of criteria which must be met for a war to be considered just. He proposed three conditions all of which must be met to consider the war as morally just. The first condition was that the war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state or a official political authority. Secondly, the war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain or selfish purposes. Whereas self-defense can be considered a just purpose to participate in a war while material gain or as an exercise of power is not. Thirdly, the war must be fought with the right intention and the authority must fight for the just reasons like restoring the peace. The third condition proposes that peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence. I do agree with Aquinas’s two conditions aside from the first one that ensures whether the war is morally justifiable or not. An instituted authority can be a legitimate person to declare war but he/she cannot be competent enough to make distinctions of justice. While I agree with other conditions that a just purpose and intention can ensure that the war is morally just.

Doubt

Question description

Normally, we tend to think that doubt is a bad or negative thing; in school for example, we strive for the right answers; in normal US daily activity, we try to get things done, be productive, and proceed with our activities. “Doubt” is not seen as a value.

All semester both directly and indirectly, explicitly and implicitly we have seen how important doubt is in philosophy.

The prisoners in Plato’s cave suffered because in part because they did not know to doubt the reality of the shadows that constituted most of their daily lives.

Socrates in the Apology walked around Athens teaching people the importance of doubting their lives and values—he taught them to all into question what they saw, felt, and thought.

In the Sermon that we read, we saw Jesus putting into question people’s standard way of behaving.

Now in Descartes, doubt becomes the basis for his first Meditation, an essential step on his way to understanding the soul, god, truth, and reality. Put simply, he is saying that without active, conscious doubt one can never get to these higher order values and insights.

Consequently, I want everyone to practice and try out doubting for Forum 2.

After very carefully reading Descartes’ Meditation 1 and reviewing the videos on Descartes , I want you to go into your neighborhood for a walk, drive, or short trip. Spend about 45 minutes walking, driving, or just wandering.

Once you have done this, ask yourself: “What can I doubt?”

Write 2-5 paragraphs responding to this. Use the following format for this forum

  1. Concise introduction stating where you are and in a sentence what you are doubting and the basic reason why. If you do not want to share the actual location, you may fictionalize. I don’t care which location you choose, but I want there to be one. Otherwise, philosophy is abstract and empty.
  2. Write 1-3 paragraphs on what can be doubted about what you see. Explain why you can doubt this. These paragraphs should have at least two examples of things that happen or at least could conceivably happen. You may be an active member of the experience or stay at a distance and just observe and oversee.
  3. Conclude with a traditional summary

Theory of knowledge essay

Question description

Theory of Knowledge — PHIL 215/315 – Spring Term 2018

Midterm – Take Home Essay Exam/Assignment

Instructions: Taking into account the variety of readings, class material, and assigned texts, and discussions, in which we have engaged so far this semester–compose a scholarly essay or group/set of scholarly essays addressing at least two of the questions listed below. (You may answer as many of the questions as you wish, but you must answer at least two of them.) In these essays, I want you to take a definitive position (or positions) and defend it/them. I really do not care what position(s) you take at this point. What I am looking to see is how well you defend whatever position(s) you decide upon, and probably equally importantly, how much you have absorbed from the course exhibited in the formulation of your defense. Do not be afraid to take any position (or positions) with which you think I may disagree. It may be in your best interest to do so. I am far more interested in the argument(s) you construct, than in the specifics of the conclusion(s) you decide to defend! In all of your answers/ essays, focus especially on the following central theory of knowledge questions: What do we know? How are we to decide whether or when we know? What is the extent of our knowledge? And, what is or are the criteria (or criterion) of or for knowledge?

The total length of answer for PHIL 315 students should be 1800+ words. (That is, the total length of answers for all the questions you answer can be whatever length you choose, for PHIL 315 students this length must be at least 1800 words.) In addition, the totality of your essay answers to this assignment must contain at least five separate cited direct quotations or cited indirect references to texts or readings which we have assigned or recommended so far this semester – including everything which has been put up on D2L. All of your answers should be either typed or word-processed.

Furthermore, all answers should be as clear, lucid, concise, precise, and to the point as you can (or as is reasonably and practically possible). If you quote or paraphrase any document, including our required texts, required course readings, any additional reference text(s), or anything you find on the internet, you must cite it, including page numbers, or, where necessary, virtual page numbers, or possibly paragraph numbers. Please turn in these assignments to the D2L drop box I will establish. In addition, also turn in both paper and electronic copies as a failsafe. Best of luck!

Best of luck!

********** the questions should be numbered from 1-18, for some reason they only show up as 1s.***********

  1. Compare, contrast, and critically evaluate the theory of knowledge viewpoints of two or more of the following philosophical figures listed below. What are your critical thoughts regarding these theories of knowledge? How well do you think it or they succeed? Or, do not succeed? Why? Explain and defend your answer. (You may answer this question twice):
  • Plato/Socrates
  • Aristotle
  • Augustine
  • Anselm
  • Aquinas
  • Hobbes
  • Sextus Empiricus (Pyhrronism)
  • Descartes
  • Locke
  • Berkeley
  • Hume
  • Reid
  1. What is the base-line Socratic-Platonic theory of knowledge, taking into account at least some of the key notions listed below: How well do you think this base-line theory either succeeds or does not succeed? Why? Explain and defend your answer.
  • The Divided Line
  • Becoming v. Being
  • Ideal Forms
  • Participation
  • Anamnesis or Recollection
  • The Myth of the Cave, and the Analogy of the Sun
  • Virtue
  • Contemplation of the Form of the Good
  1. What is the basic Aristotelian theory of knowledge, taking into account at least some of the key notions listed below: What are your critical thoughts regarding this Aristotelian epistemic viewpoint? How well do you think it succeeds? Or, does not succeed? Why? Explain and defend your answer.
  • Aristotle’s “method” of the “sciences” (knowledge)
  • Induction by enumeration
  • Induction by insight
  • Aristotle’s conception or theory of the four causes
  • The syllogism
  • The square of opposition
  • Universal and particular truths
  • Aristotelian method and necessity; scientific First Principles as necessary truth
  • Essential v. accidental attributes in Aristotle
  • Hylomorphism / hylomorphic theory
  • Species
  • Natural Kinds
  • Teleology
  • Form & Matter
  1. What is the essential Pyrrhonist (Sextus Empiricus) critique of any non-skeptical, positive theory of knowledge, taking into account at least some of the notions listed below: What are your critical thoughts regarding this negative argument? How well do you think it succeeds? Or, does not succeed? Why? Explain and defend your answer.
  • Diallelus (the wheel) argument
  • The Problem of the Criterion
  • Academic Skepticism
  • Pyrrhonian Skepticism
  • Dogmatism
  • Appearance v. Reality
  • Ataraxia
  • Tropes
  • Ten Modes

What are the fundamentals of Descartes’ theory of knowledge as developed in his Meditations on First Philosophy and Principles of Philosophy — taking into account at least some of the notions listed below: What are your critical thoughts regarding this epistemic viewpoint? How well do you think it succeeds? Or, does not succeed? Why? Explain and defend your answer.

  • Method of Doubt
  • Three Stages of Doubt
  • The Cogito
  • Essence of Thinking Substance
  • Essence of Physical Substance
  • Hardly Perceptible & Far/Distant Objects Hypothesis
  • Dream Hypothesis
  • Evil Demon Hypothesis
  • Clear & Distinct Ideas
  • God as Infinite and Perfect Substance
  • Formal Reality v. Objective Reality
  • The Cartesian Circle
  • Dualism
  • The Mind-Body Problem
  1. In the Meditations . . . , Descartes presents a number of skeptical possibilities that he thinks illustrate that our beliefs about the world derived from perception lack absolute certainty. What are these skeptical possibilities? Do you think Descartes is right in his view that we do not know with absolute certainty anything about the external, non-subjective world purely on the basis of perception? Why or why not? Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester (so far), in addition to Descartes, shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. Descartes admits that he could be wrong when he thinks he sees a light, hears a noise, or feels heat. However, he says he could not possibly be mistaken if he believes that he seems to see a light, hear a noise, or feel heat. Is he correct about this? Why or why not? Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester (so far), in addition to Descartes, shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. What is Descartes trying to show with his example of the piece of wax, near the end of the “Second Meditation?” Do you agree with the lesson he attempts to draw from the piece of wax? Why or why not? Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester (so far), in addition to Descartes, shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. In the “Meditations . . .” what finally is Descartes’ answer to skepticism? Explain. In your view is Descartes’ answer correct in/on this matter? Why or why not? Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester (so far), in addition to Descartes, shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. In the Meditations . . . what finally is Descartes’ answer to solipsism? Explain. In your view is Descartes’ answer correct in/on this matter? Why or why not? Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester (so far), in addition to Descartes, shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. What is meant by the Cartesian “circle”? Explain. Does this alleged philosophical problem ultimately defeat the Cartesian project? Why or why not? Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester (so far) in addition to Descartes, shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. Why is Descartes called a “dualist”? What is his theory or viewpoint regarding the relationship between mental entities and physical things? What is his theory or viewpoint of substance? How are Descartes’ philosophical viewpoints related to what is sometimes called the “mind-body” problem? Explain. Does the alleged philosophical issue of dualism ultimately defeat the Cartesian project? Why or why not? Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester (so far), in addition to Descartes, shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. What are the basic skeptical arguments laid out by David Hume (discussed by Palmer, etc.) concerning our alleged knowledge of the external world, as well as, our knowledge of causation and necessary connection? What are your critical thoughts regarding such arguments? How well do you think these arguments either succeed or not succeed? In your view, are these arguments cogent? Why or why not? Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester (so far), in addition to David Hume, shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. What was Immanuel Kant’s basic answer to Hume’s skeptical claims? How did Hume’s writings, according to Kant, “rouse him out of his dogmatic slumber?” Does Kant’s regulative “rationalism-empiricism” solve or resolve issues introduced by Hume’s thoughts concerning and alleged analysis of causation? Why or why not? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. What is R. M. Chrisolm’s basic point (or points) in his article, “The Problem of the Criteria?” Do you agree or disagree with these points. Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester (so far), in addition to Chrisolm, shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. What is the basic line of argument laid out in Lewis Carrol’s short article (or monogram) “What Achilles said to the Tortoise?”What are your critical thoughts regarding such a line of argument? In your view, is this line of reasoning cogent? If so, why? And, if not so, why? Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. What is the basic line of argument laid out in Edmund Gettier’s short article, Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” What are your critical thoughts regarding such a line of argument? In your view, is this line of reasoning cogent? If so, why? And, if not so, why? Do the philosophical views of other authors investigated this semester shed light on this question? Explain and defend your answer.
  1. You may answer any of the questions from Palmer’s Does the Center Hold? – pp. 72 & 110 that you did not answer on your previous drop box assignment, or any of the questions from Palmer’s Looking at Philosophy, the Unbearable Heaviness Made Light under the “Topics for Consideration” headline.
  1. Your choice — but if you exercise this option you should probably come see me first.

Philosophy Course — Evaluation (Grading) Rubric

Twenty Points (out of 20 pts.) For Each

  1. Philosophical Content
  2. How well did you answer the question?
  3. Overall Cogency of Argument
  4. Readability (including grammar & spelling) and Organization
  5. Textual accuracy, citations, references

Applying Ethical Theories

Question description

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

Instructions

For this assignment you will identify a current ethical issue from those provided and suggest an approach to the issue that is consistent with each of three major ethical theories presented in this course (consequentialist, non-consequentialist, virtue). For example, if you are for allowing divorces, then you would present a deontologist perspective for justifying divorce, a utilitarian perspective for justifying it, and a virtue theorist perspective for justifying it. Additionally, pick one of the methods of justification and state why you prefer it over the other two.

Format & Expectations

The format will be a narrated PowerPoint presentation of 10-12 slides, and should include an introductory slide and a Works Cited slide following MLA Style. Keep in mind it is “works cited” and that mean you must cite the resource either on the slide or in the notes to justify listing the resource. If you are unable to add narration, be sure to add commentary in the notes section for each slide. DO NOT just read the slides if you narrate. The slides should contain bullets that are explained by you in the narration or the notes. Ideally, you will have bullets on the slides and your commentary as a transcript in the notes section. Note that you should be looking at a minute or less on each slide. If you submit a presentation where the narration is longer than 12 minutes, I will not listen to the whole thing.

minimum of 6 references are required, with 2 references per theoretical approach. NOTE, just like papers, there needs to be a citation ON the slide or IN the notes section to justify using it as a work cited.

Topics

Please select your topic from the following:

  • Abortion
  • Affirmative Action (as a way to fight discrimination)
  • Animal Rights
  • Civil Disobedience (should be encourages for right reasons or should be oppressed)
  • Genetic manipulation in babies
  • Euthanasia (specifically, for or against physician assisted suicide)
  • Poverty (need to work to eliminate or need to keep as part of an orderly society)
  • Terrorism (how to address it, who could argue for terrorism?)
  • War (necessary at times of should be avoided at all costs)

Response Journal

Question description

  1. This response journal is an opportunity for you to reflect deeply on the attached article . please submit a journal entry on what most struck you from the reading. This is not a summary of the reading. Journaling about what you have read will provide an opportunity for you to critically and personally engage the material, discover what resonates with you, and construct what it means to you, using the classroom materials as a foundation. This may mean you treat each piece in turn, may mean you concentrate on concepts that cut across the readings, or may mean you focus on the one piece or idea that you found most compelling. You should pay particular attention to connecting theory with practice, and strong responses will grapple with issues on both an intellectual and practical level. Written reflections should conclude with no less than three points for in-class consideration and discussion. Pieces that are excessively short, excessively long, or fail to reflect critical thinking are not acceptable.
  2. part 2: What’s on your mind? Discussion prompts: after reading and reflecting about the article, you will author your own question. For this assignment, you should provide a clearly articulated question, contextual material that explains why that question matters in the scope of our work in this course and our professional endeavors, and well as be prepared to facilitate discussion with the whole group.

Core Assessment Assignment 

Question description

CORE ASSESSMENT ASSIGNMENT FOR LE300R

The Core Assessment for LE300R, The Ethics and Psychology of Humor in Popular Culture, must meet Park University’s Core Assessment requirements for LE300 Integrative and Interdisciplinary Capstone courses. The core assessment assignment is a paper that covers 100% of the Core Learning Outcomes (which are listed in our syllabus). The Core Assessment in this course will be a major critical paper of no fewer than 5 pages (not counting title and reference pages). Papers must include academic research and appropriate documentation. The due date for the project is in the final quarter of the term.

The Core Assessment Paper for LE300R must apply the ethical and psychological theories of humor learned in this course in an analytical examination and interdisciplinary discussion of one or more examples of humor in the today’s culture. The paper should synthesize perspectives from multiple disciplines and present an analytical viewpoint of the example(s) being used for the paper. The paper must:

  • Identify interdisciplinary uses of humor in your professional life or future career goals, and formulate a plan for responsible and ethical applications of and responses to humor in your career setting.
  • Create and synthesize a concept for globally responsible values and attitudes toward humor in social media, Pop Culture (television and movies) or other venues that have diverse audience demographics.

The Core Assessment is to be an academic paper demonstrating sophisticated, integrative and interdisciplinary learning about the theories, ethics and psychology of humor in real-world environments. Although the paper may briefly reference comedic cinema, humorous books, comedic television programs or other Pop Culture vehicles, the paper is not to be a ‘movie review’ or ‘summary’ of an entertainment vehicle.

Individual instructors for this course will develop specific guidelines and assignment details.

The Core Assessment is designed to assess Core Learning Outcomes 1,2,3,4 and 5 and its point value is 20% of the final grade for the course.

IMPORTANT TIPS AND FAQS

The information above might seem overwhelming at first, but if you dissect each paragraph, it all makes sense. Here are some questions that have come up in other classes LE300 classes, and some ways you can avoid some common mistakes:

HOW MANY REFERENCES WILL I NEED TO USE?

  • You will need at least FIVE outside references, in addition to the required textbooks for this course. Be sure to have at least five FULL pages of writing in addition to your reference page.

WHAT TYPE OF REFERENCES CAN WE USE?

  • You MUST use both course textbooks in your final paper as reference sources.
  • For the other sources (at least five) you should primarily use academic journals (we have a wealth of them in our online library). Do NOT use Wikipedia, Yahoo Answers, or other non-academic sources.
  • One way to start researching your paper is to find articles in academic journals about the ethics, psychology, social interactions and other elements in your career field, and apply the theories of humor from our course to the information in these studies.

WHAT WRITING STYLE SHOULD WE USE?

  • Use the APA style manual for in-text citations as well as your reference page. If you have questions, send me an email or post the question to this thread.

WHAT IS INTEGRATIVE WRITING?

  • This is writing that weaves the disciplines together in sentences and paragraphs rather than listing disciplines separately. It combines, contrasts and shows balance between academic elements rather than treating them as separate entities.

WHY CAN’T OUR FINAL PAPER BE ABOUT A MOVIE OR A TV SHOW?

  • In this course, the ethics and psychology of humor are analyzed and evaluated, not the plot line or characters in a television show or movie, or how funny it was, or how much you enjoyed it. A paper that reads like a movie or TV review will not meet the requirements of the assignment. You may briefly refer to humor examples in movies or TV shows, but this must not be the focus of your paper.
  • OPIC IDEAS (IN CASE YOU’RE STILL PONDERING)

    • Do you work fulltime in an office? Analyze the type of humor most often observed in your workplace. What theories are evident in the jokes in your meetings or break rooms? What have we learned in Martin’s book about the psychology of these behaviors? What plan do you have now for going forward?
    • Do you work in a customer-contact setting, such as retail or sales? How does humor affect those interactions? Apply our theories to your experiences and discuss responsible ways to use humor in the future.
    • Does your major area of study have professional journals? Many of these journals include cartoon jokes. Applying the theories discussed in our class, analyze the types of humor you see in these cartoons. What do the cartoons say about the attitudes of professionals in this field to their work or to the subject matter?
    • During Unit 4, we discussed Humor and Socialization. How has humor affected the way you meet people and form relationships? Analyze the theories from our studies in your paper, and discuss how humor is used in your ongoing relationships. What would you do differently in the future, if anything, and why?

    Textbook: Comic Relief By: John Morreall The Psychology of Humor By: Rod A. Martin

The philosophical question and claim

Question description

Stage 1: Choosing your Philosophical Question

The question for this project is taken form “The Nicomachean Ethics” by Aristotle. The question is, “Which is more important for a person to possess, courage or truthfulness?

Stage 2: Organizing your Philosophical Question (Organizing the Claims and Counterclaims to your Philosophical question)

For the second stage of your Final Project in Philosophy 100 you will conduct an analysis of your philosophical question by listing a claim and counter-claim to your question, and organizing arguments, evidence, reasoning, and examples that support them. As an introduction to philosophy, it is important to list and organize the conceptual points of your overall argument, and also to list and organize the conceptual points of any counterclaim in order to refute them.

Stage 3: Arguing your Philosophical Claim

For the Final Project stage 3 you will present the answer to your philosophical question in the form of a speech. You will write this speech on a Word .docx to submit. You can also supplement your written speech by recording yourself saying it on an .mp3. but this is optional.

Your speech will take the form of what is known as the Classical Style:

The Classical Style is divided into four (4) parts:

Memos

Question description

Hello buddy this is going to be the last one please apply theories from any chapter that has a theory that related to this memo and try to explain why stuff happening.

memo 5

– we buy a police station

– we proposed a trade with Utopia state we will give them 200 food for 100 gold and 100 steel

-we created or made up a treaty with Kings landing state we called it friends ship with benefits the type of the treaty is mutual assistance pact and it considers trade wise and military wise

-we buy 1 Army Division to fight for our state

the Army Divisions are the heart of your army. All Air and Sea units typically support Army Divisions in combat. This is because Army Divisions are the only units that can conquer territory.

-we buy 50 Apache Helicopters

Apache Helicopters are excellent at harassing enemy ground and naval units, but they are not good at defending themselves from other Air Units. Use these when enemy air support is lacking.

we buy Nuclear Missile but it is un ACTIVE YET

Nuclear Missile

After you have discovered the technology Nuclear Fission you can build nuclear missiles. Nuclear missiles can reach any country on the map in a single turn. Any nuclear missile that strikes a city will have a 75% chance of destroying every structure located in that city (along with all of its structures, including Big Projects). You can see your Nuclear Missiles in the Weapons of Mass Destruction button in your Military Tab. To cancel a movement simply place the Nuclear Weapon over one of your cities.

Notes:

*Nuclear missiles are not meant to be used for tactical combat. If you nuke a city you will only destroy the units and structures owned by the owner of the city. All allied forces in the area will be unaffected.

*The Big Project called SDI will block nuclear missile attacks with a 95% chance of success

-we Proposed trade with Kings landing state we give them 200 gold for 200 food

– Kings landing state needs our support because Gilead sates attacking them so we decide to send them some of our Apache Helicopters to help them

-we really need gold for our country do we were think of The Black Market but we founf that is bad idea because The Black Market allows you to trade your resources at a 3 to 1 ratio. So if you trade 300 Gold for Oil you will get 100 Oil from the back market,so this is not going to benefit our country.

Manual: Trading on the Black Market: You can trade any natural resource, at a 3 to 1 ratio, for any other natural resource using the Black Market. For example, if you have 300 extra food, you can trade this for 100 gold (or 50 oil and 50 steel, etc.). This can be a useful last resort if you have excess resources no other country wants.

-Alexandria has proposed a trade with Gilead ,Alexandria needs 500 of gold Alexandria wants to pay with 500 of Scientific Knowledge

 -Alexandria has proposed a trade with Gilead ,Alexandria needs 500 of gold Alexandria wants to pay with 500 of oil

U.S. Government Relationships

Question description

Conflicts over the respective roles of national and state governments have been around since America’s beginning. The Civil War was fought over questions of states’ rights: Can a state create a law that allows for slavery? Does a state have the right to secede from the Union?

Even today people disagree on how much power the federal government should have; some would like the states to have more power. An area where this debate has made the news in recent years includes:

Illegal Immigration – Is protecting America’s border with Mexico mainly a federal or a state issue? What laws – state or federal – have been broken when a person enters the U.S. illegally? What should a state do if the current federal methods aren’t working? Does a state governor have the authority to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration? Can a state use its laws against trespassing as a means to arrest illegal aliens?

Analyze the historical conflict including the limits on national and state government, and draw conclusions as to whether you agree with decisions that were made. Identify the pros and cons of limiting state powers and give your opinion on how much power the states should have as compared with the federal government.