basic philosophy class

hello, I have this extra credit assignment that is due 2moro at noon, it’s basically watching a documentry and answering questions about it using philosphical arguments and such. I attached the assignment sheet, and here’s the doucomentry link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMNZXV7jOG0 can anyone do it before 9 in the morning 2moro? and please follow the instructions in the sheet attached ..i chose psychology, but it’s actually philiosophy, but i couldn’t find it with the field of studies.. 

Cri$cal
 Wri$ng
 Exercise

This
 exercise
 is
 a
 great
 opportunity
 to
 prac2ce
 the
 cri2cal
 wri2ng
 component
 of
 the
 class
 
(remember
 that
 there
 will
 be
 a
 short
 wri9en
 sec2on
 on
 your
 final
 exam)
 -­‐
 I
 therefore
 
strongly
 recommend
 that
 you
 try
 it
 out,
 even
 if
 you
 don’t
 finish
 it
 or
 decide
 not
 to
 hand
 it
 in.
 
If
 you
 do
 finish
 it
 and
 hand
 it
 in,
 you
 will
 be
 considered
 for
 extra
 credit.
 The
 deadline
 for
 this
 
assignment
 is
 Friday
 the
 22nd
 of
 November
 (the
 Friday
 before
 fall
 break)
 at
 noon.
 

The
 extra
 credit
 available
 on
 this
 assignment
 is
 anything
 up
 to
 a
 +/-­‐
 grade
 bump
 (e.g.
 C
 to
 C+,
 
B-­‐
 to
 B,
 etc.)
 on
 your
 Final
 Grade
 for
 the
 class.
 To
 be
 considered
 for
 this,
 please
 send
 your
 
answers
 in
 a
 Word
 document
 to
 me
 via
 email
 (ahowat@fullerton.edu)
 any
 2me
 between
 
now
 and
 the
 deadline.
 The
 Word
 document
 must
 not
 be
 more
 than
 3
 pages
 (you
 do
 not
 
need
 to
 copy
 out
 the
 ques2ons).
 There
 is
 no
 minimum
 length.
 

How
 much
 extra
 credit
 you
 get
 depends
 on
 how
 thoroughly
 and
 effec2vely
 you
 answer
 the
 
ques2ons.
 The
 effec2veness
 of
 your
 answer
 depends
 on
 your
 successful
 use
 of
 logical
 
techniques
 and
 terminology
 such
 as:
 valid/sound
 or
 cogent/strong
 arguments,
 counter-­‐
examples,
 fallacies,
 etc.
 It
 will
 also
 depend,
 of
 course,
 on
 whether
 you
 paid
 close
 a9en2on
 to
 
the
 movie!

I
 strongly
 recommend
 you
 consider
 using
 a
 valida$ng
 paBern
 in
 one
 or
 more
 of
 your
 
answers,
 such
 as
 modus
 ponens,
 modus
 tollens,
 hypothe2cal
 syllogism,
 categorical
 
syllogisms
 or
 disjunc2ve
 syllogism.
 This
 will
 ensure
 that
 any
 arguments
 you
 provide
 are
 valid.
 
 
I
 have
 leR
 spaces
 underneath
 each
 ques2on
 so
 you
 can
 take
 notes
 during
 the
 screening.
 

1. What
 arguments
 are
 implied
 during
 the
 film
 for
 the
 conclusion
 that
 corpora&ons
 
should
 not
 be
 (legally)
 considered
 people?
 Try
 to
 reconstruct
 at
 least
 one
 such
 
argument.
 (You
 may
 find
 it
 helpful
 to
 use
 concepts
 like
 rights
 and
 responsibili&es
 in
 
your
 answer,
 or
 to
 consider
 the
 point
 made
 early
 on
 about
 the
 14th
 amendment).
 

2. Is
 it
 a
 good
 thing
 or
 a
 bad
 thing
 (or
 neither)
 that
 corpora2ons
 employ
 ‘desperate
 
people’
 in
 developing
 countries?
 See
 if
 you
 can
 formulate
 one
 or
 more
 arguments
 for
 
each
 conclusion.
 Say
 which
 argument
 you
 find
 more
 convincing
 and
 why.

The Corporation (2003)! Logic 106, Fall 2013

1 of 2

mailto:ahowat@fullerton.edu

mailto:ahowat@fullerton.edu

3. “Again
 and
 again
 we
 have
 the
 problem
 that,
 whether
 you
 obey
 the
 law
 or
 not
 is
 a
 
ma9er
 of
 whether
 it’s
 cost
 effec2ve.
 If
 the
 chance
 of
 ge]ng
 caught
 and
 the
 penalty
 
are
 less
 than
 it
 costs
 to
 comply,
 people
 think
 of
 it
 as
 being
 just
 a
 business
 decision.”
 
What,
 if
 anything,
 is
 wrong
 with
 this
 way
 of
 thinking
 about
 business?
 Try
 formula2ng
 
one
 or
 more
 relevant
 arguments.
 

4. Is
 it
 a
 bad
 thing
 for
 corpora2ons
 to
 profit
 from
 catastrophes
 like
 wars,
 natural
 disasters
 
like
 Hurricane
 Katrina,
 or
 terrorist
 a9acks
 like
 September
 11th?
 If
 so,
 why?
 Formulate
 
one
 or
 more
 relevant
 arguments,
 say
 which
 argument
 you
 find
 most
 compelling
 and
 
why.
 

5. The
 overall
 argument
 of
 the
 film
 corresponds
 roughly
 to
 the
 reconstruc2on
 below.
 
Evaluate
 this
 argument
 for
 soundness
 (bearing
 in
 mind
 that
 it’s
 definitely
 valid).
 If
 you
 
think
 the
 argument
 is
 unsound,
 say
 why
 and
 provide
 an
 argument
 in
 support
 of
 this
 
conclusion.
 If
 you
 think
 the
 argument
 is
 sound,
 say
 what
 you
 think
 we
 should
 do
 about
 
it,
 then
 provide
 an
 argument
 in
 support
 of
 the
 conclusion
 that
 we
 should
 do
 that
 thing.
 
1. All
 people
 with
 a
 par2cular
 set
 of
 personality
 traits
 are
 psychopaths
 (i.e.,
 callous
 

unconcern
 for
 the
 feeling
 of
 others;
 incapacity
 to
 maintain
 enduring
 
rela2onships;
 reckless
 disregard
 for
 the
 safety
 of
 others;
 deceiculness
 -­‐
 repeated
 
lying
 and
 cunning
 others
 for
 profit;
 incapacity
 to
 experience
 guilt;
 failure
 to
 
conform
 to
 social
 norms
 with
 respect
 to
 lawful
 behavior)

2. All
 corpora2ons
 are
 people
 with
 this
 par2cular
 set
 of
 personality
 traits.
 (N.B.
 The
 
sugges&on
 of
 course
 is
 that
 corpora&ons
 are
 (legally)
 people,
 but
 since
 being
 a
 
psychopath
 can
 also
 be
 a
 legal
 designa&on,
 the
 fact
 that
 corpora&ons
 are
 not
 
literally
 people,
 need
 not
 entail
 the
 premise
 is
 false)

3. Therefore
 all
 corpora2ons
 are
 psychopaths.

The Corporation (2003)! Logic 106, Fall 2013

2 of 2