PHL/320T CRITICAL THINKING AND DECISION MAKING IN BUSINESS The Latest Version A+ Study Guide
********************************************** PHL 320 Entire Course Link https://uopcourse.com/category/phl-320/ ********************************************** PHL 320 Week 5 Apply: Analyzing an Argument Complete the "Analyzing an Argument" homework assignment in Connect®. Note: You have only 1 attempt available to complete assignments. Grades must be transferred manually to eCampus by your instructor. Don't worry; this might happen after your due date. Required information
For each of the following kinds of laws, pick at least one of the four grounds for justification—legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle—and construct an argument designed to justify the law. You may not agree either with the law or with the argument; the exercise is to see if you can connect the law to the (allegedly) justifying principle. For many laws, more than one kind of justification is possible, so there can be more than one good answer for many of these. Overall instructor remarks: Example—the harm principle. Shoplifting harms those from whom one steals. “Unfortunately, you did not appropriately answer the question." Laws against shoplifting
Required information For each of the following kinds of laws, pick at least one
of the four grounds for justification—legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle—and construct an argument designed to justify the law. You may not agree either with the law or with the argument; the exercise is to see if you can connect the law to the (allegedly) justifying principle. For many laws, more than one kind of justification is possible, so there can be more than one good answer for many of these. Overall instructor remarks: Example—the harm principle. Forgery tends to harm others. “Unfortunately, you did not appropriately answer the question . Laws against forgery
Required information For each of the following kinds of laws, pick at least one of the four grounds for justification—legal moralism, the
harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle—and construct an argument designed to justify the law. You may not agree either with the law or with the argument; the exercise is to see if you can connect the law to the (allegedly) justifying principle. For many laws, more than one kind of justification is possible, so there can be more than one good answer for many of these. Overall instructor remarks: Example—Legal paternalism, for obvious reasons, but suicide often harms the family of the deceased. Thus, one can also imagine an argument against some suicides based on the harm principle. “The question was not answered correctly." Laws against suicide reasons, but suicide often harms the family of the deceased. Thus, one can also imagine an argument against some suicides based on the harm principle.
Required information For each of the following kinds of laws, pick at least one of the four grounds for justification—legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle—and construct an argument designed to justify the law. You may not agree either with the law or with the argument; the exercise is to see if you can connect the law to the (allegedly) justifying principle. For many laws, more than one kind of justification is possible, so there can be more than one good answer for many of these. Overall instructor remarks: Example—The offense principle is the probably most relevant because the practice in question is found highly offensive by most people. But one might also include the harm principle because spitting in public can spread disease-causing organisms. “The question was not entirely answered correctly. " Laws against spitting on the sidewalk
Required information For each of the following kinds of laws, pick at least one of the four grounds for justification—legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle—and construct an argument designed to justify the law. You may not agree either with the law or with the argument; the exercise is to see if you can connect the law to the (allegedly) justifying principle. For many laws, more than one kind of justification is possible, so there can be more than one good answer for many of these. Overall instructor remarks: Example—legal paternalism; harm principle. One runs the risk of doing harm both to oneself and others by driving under the influence. “Unfortunately, you did not appropriately answer the question ." Laws against driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol
Required information For each of the following kinds of laws, pick at least one of the four grounds for justification—legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle—and construct an argument designed to justify the law. You may not agree either with the law or with the argument; the exercise is to see if you can connect the law to the (allegedly) justifying principle. For many laws, more than one kind of justification is possible, so there can be more than one good answer for many of these. Overall instructor remarks: “Good job! You did an above average job of answering the questions." Laws against adultery
Required information For each of the following kinds of laws, pick at least one of the four grounds for justification—legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle—and construct an argument designed to justify the law. You may not agree either with the law or with the argument; the exercise is to see if you can connect the law to the (allegedly) justifying principle. For many laws, more than one kind of justification is possible, so there can be more than one good answer for many of these. Overall instructor remarks: Example—the offense principle because same-sex marriages are offensive to some people; and legal moralism
because
some
people
believe
that
homosexuality is immoral. “The question was not entirely answered correctly. " Laws against marriage between two people of the same sex
Required information For each of the following kinds of laws, pick at least one of the four grounds for justification—legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle—and construct an argument designed to justify the law. You may not agree either with the law or with the argument; the exercise is to see if you can connect the law to the (allegedly) justifying principle. For many laws, more than one kind of justification is possible, so there can be more than one good answer for many of these. Overall instructor remarks: Example—legal paternalism. The reasoning is that such laws prevent a person from seeking, or at least from finding, medical treatment that might be incompetent. (Justifications of laws that forbid one group from doing something in order to protect another group from doing
something to itself are sometimes said to be based on “impure” paternalism. In the “pure” variety, the group restrained is the same group being protected.) “The question was not entirely answered correctly. " Laws that require people to have licenses before they practice medicine