A key skill in philosophy is the ability to critique an argument, but you must first be able to correctly and succinctly describe the argument at hand. Hence, you will write a brief summary (précis) of the
argument in one of two articles (choose Arthur or Altman). Your précis must be no more than 500 words. Start by asking what the conclusion of the article is, then work your way back to identify the
reasons for the respective author’s conclusion. Now write a succinct and purely descriptive (i.e., not evaluative) summary. Do not use quotations. It is all about paraphrasing, clarity, brevity, and conceptual structure.

You will read either page 370-380 on the PDF titled Sticks and Stones by John Arthur or pages 381-386 by Altman titled Speech Codes and Expressive Harm.

Please write about 400-500 words but do not exceed even one word from 500.

Sticks and Stones by John Arthur

In Sticks and Stones, John Arthur comprehensively reviews some of the reasons underscoring the need for the government to protect free speech and dispense with legal policies that curtail such liberties. The author surmises that upholding the aforementioned civil liberty harbors numerous social advantages. He offers commentary that opposes the use of censorship and hate messages in an attempt to support free expression. Arthur (2014) argues that tolerance to varying opinions enables people to learn the truth concerning various issues in society (p. 371). Indeed, freedom of opinion is essential as it fosters knowledge amongst individuals in the community. Like Mills, the author ascertains that unrestricted free speech creates a suitable platform that appreciates the open exchange of ideas and criticism, thus facilitating the growth of knowledge among populations.

Free speech is equally essential to forming a free, fair, and democratic government. Arthur (2014) claims that free and just elections are promoted by freedom of opinion because candidates can debate and criticize their policies. With such liberty, political candidates can develop objective policies that account for the best interests of the masses. Liberty to speak without restrictions enables people to achieve independence (Arthur, 2014). The author equally argues that free speech offers people the potential to lead out lives chosen by themselves and not the system or society. Thus, freedom of expression bars one from living a life of coercion.

Protection of the right to free speech is equally essential because it is a basic human need and want. Arthur ascertains that free speech mirrors human equity, individuality, and independence and should be supported accordingly (Arthur, 2014). Hate speech is a broad term; hence, its adoption within the legal context is ambiguous. Advocates of censorship of free speech increasingly fail to account for expression of words constituting acts of hatred in social circles (Arthur, 2014). Instead, censorship is warranted provided it falls within narrowly-defined categories. The Supreme Court declared that hatred incitement censorship is solely tenable under different constitutionally unprotected categories. Such categories can entail incitement to disorder, yelling obscenities without social value in public, and speaking fighting words.

Despite the author’s support for freedom of expression, he again criticizes it by claiming it has two weaknesses. Censorship threatens the essence of removing speech restrictions because imposing civil and criminal penalties subsequently undermines the value of free speech. Consequently, censorship of free speech prohibits the use of a broader spectrum of words, which eventually restricts the normal usage of previous innocuous word expressions (Arthur, 2014). Nonetheless, hate messages place minority groups in more danger of political subjugation. In all, Arthur concludes that language banning lacks well-defined criteria outlining relevant justifications underscoring what needs to be censored. He argues that censorship of speech lacks definitive accounts of harm and offense, group harm, or cumulative harm to self-esteem.

Reference

Arthur, J. (2014). Sticks and stones. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, 4.

Topic: Discuss Restless Leg Syndrome and Periodic Limb Syndrome. Include etiology and neurobiological principles. Discuss treatments with an emphasis on pharmacologic treatments. Don’t forget to include why and how these medications work to reduce symptoms by including the Mechanism of action, evidence for its use, and side effects along with patient education.

Instructions: Peer-reviewed scholarly resources are used for the 2 required discussion posts. A minimum of 150 words, scholarly written, APA formatted, and referenced. A minimum of 2 references are required (other than the course textbook). Required discussion board responses are developed using appropriate peer-reviewed scholarly resources, scholarly writing, and include APA-style citations and references. The in-text citations and references should match in the discussion posts as per APA style. Peer-reviewed scholarly resources should be no more than 5 years old, but this can change based upon your topic.

Discussion Board Assignment

Restless Leg Syndrome

Restless leg syndrome (RLS) is a condition associated with discomfort in the legs, which forces the afflicted individual to move their legs to relieve the condition. Spells of RLS commonly occur during inactivity, especially when a person is sleeping, seated, or resting. Although stretching the legs relieves discomfort, stopping causes it to return. A person may acquire RLS genetically or from a secondary cause. A high familial pathway has been established in most RLS cases developing earlier in life than cases that manifest much later (Guo et al., 2017). Secondary causes known to cause RLS include lack of iron, pregnancy, peripheral nerves damage, or final stage renal damage. Dopamine functions as the body’s chemical messengers. The shortage of iron impairs dopamine functions, causing higher spinal cord excitability that causes impulsive leg movements.

Restless Leg Syndrome Medication

RLS treatment may encompass a non-pharmacological or pharmacological approach. The pharmacological approach is based on administering dopaminergic drugs such as pramipexole or ropinirole. The said dopamine-inducing drugs increase dopamine release, which helps stabilize body movements. However, dopaminergic drugs are likely to cause side effects such as sleepiness and impulse control problems. Patient education should warn patients about the possibility of the above side effects and the importance of contacting the physician when the above side effects occur. One non-pharmacological treatment approach may entail the correction of sleep disorders. It is advisable to try non-pharmacological treatment before resorting to drug therapy.

Periodic Limb Syndrome

Periodic limb syndrome (PLS) is a condition associated with continuous sudden movements of the limbs during sleep. The sudden movements occur in a predictable pattern. For instance, the limbs may move periodically every 20 to 40 seconds. The main cause of PLS remains unclear, according to various studies. However, studies have identified several risks thought to correlate with the disorder. Some genes, for example, MEIS1 and BTBD9, which correlate with restless leg syndrome, are thought to increase PLS chances (Catoire et al., 2018). The shortage of iron and ferritin deficiency also intensifies PLS.

PLS Medication

Both medicinal and non-pharmacological treatment approaches may be used to treat PLS. Drug therapy is based on the administration of dopamine receptor agonists, including pramipexole, ropinirole, and pregabalin. The drugs are used in RLS treatment but can also manage periodic limb movements. These drugs increase dopamine levels, which helps in managing muscle movements. The side effects of the above drugs are sleepiness or impulsivity. Patient education should focus on issuing warnings about the side effects and informing patients about contacting the doctor should these occur. Exercise may be used as a possible non-pharmacological treatment approach. Research confirms the presence of a link between decreased periodic limb movement and high beta-endorphin levels (Franco et al., 2019). Moderate exercise increases beta-endorphin production. Hence, exercise is a viable non-medicinal treatment method.

References

Catoire, H., Sarayloo, F., Mourabit Amari, K., Apuzzo, S., Grant, A., Rochefort, D., Xiong, L., Montplaisir, J., Earley, C. J., Turecki, G., Dion, P. A., & Rouleau, G. A. (2018). A direct interaction between two restless legs syndrome predisposing genes: MEIS1 and SKOR1. Scientific Reports, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-30665-6

Franco, B., Daubian-Nosé, P., De-Mello, M. T., & Esteves, A. M. (2019). Exercise as a favorable non-pharmacologic treatment to sleep-related movement disorders: A Review. Sleep Science, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5935/1984-0063.20190064

Guo, S., Huang, J., Jiang, H., Han, C., Li, J., Xu, X., Zhang, G., Lin, Z., Xiong, N., & Wang, T. (2017). Restless legs syndrome: From pathophysiology to clinical diagnosis and management. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2017.00171

Education: Attentional Disarray

Summary of Writer’s Position

Turkle reveals that people easily zone off into the world of social media with their cell phones, tablets, iPads, or laptops to the point they hardly have time to interact physically with others. People today prefer virtual interactions over meeting physically and developing a human connection. Studies conducted in different institutions show that students face challenges concentrating whenever they have their devices with them, which affects their ability to stay focused (Colombo et al., 2019). There is a familiar concept known as multitasking. Although many people think this is only a fallacy, multitasking is a serious problem. The truth is that people are forcing their brains to juggle between activities, which might be causing damage to the brain. People need to develop the ability to focus on one thing at a time rather than multiple because, as the proverb goes, “one cannot serve two masters at a go.”

The Fallacies

Turkle’s first fallacy is that any time people use their gadgets in class, they are probably texting or roaming the web unnecessarily. However, this might not always be true since some people might be doing constructive things on their gadgets. There is also a claim that using gadgets in class causes widespread distraction. True as this might sound, this is not always the case because only a few might get distracted by other people’s acts of distraction. The third fallacy can be found in the example given about Steiker, a law lecturer at Harvard. She took the initiative to prohibit the use of gadgets in her classes by banning phones and laptops in a bid to increase student attention. Although this might help, it does not necessarily ensure that students will be attentive, as no one can have total control over people’s thoughts (Colombo et al., 2019). As Turkle has argued, people will always wander off in their thoughts, even if they do not have gadgets to take away their attention.

My Position

I agree with Turkle’s perspective, as the arguments are evident today. These days, people use their gadgets lengthily, following up on something or conversing with others. It is the idea of being together physically yet distanced. However, failing to concentrate on one thing at a time or lengthy engagements with gadgets might be damaging in the long run. Eventually, people will be very efficient in performing their work and achieving results, yet extremely poor at physical interactions. Furthermore, poor attentional spans might affect how people address different issues in their lives since they cannot stabilize and focus.

Reference

Colombo, G., Cullen, R., & Lisle, B. (2019). Rereading America Cultural Contexts for Critical Thinking and writing. Bedford/St. Martins.

Why I should be accepted into NHS

The values embedded within the four pillars of the National Honor Society (NHS) set the stage for developing a school life that grants purpose and meaning to the students throughout their educational trajectory. The four pillars of NHS, namely scholarship, leadership, service, and character, create the perfect foundation rooted in excellence to inspire spirited teamwork among students into pursuing their academic goals.

As a student, I have always aimed to excel in all aspects of my studies. I have always aimed to achieve better grades ever since I joined high school. I make it a top priority to work smart and diligently to further my learning over the trajectory of my studies in high school. I believe earning a scholarship will create a unique opportunity to circumvent financial hurdles that constrain my educational pursuits. Granted the chance and privilege to join the National Honor Society, I also intend to become a role model for other students.

I am a focused student with quality leadership skills and clear goals in mind. I always aim to inspire teamwork among my peers. I believe that working together sets the stage for each student to achieve academic excellence. My good leadership skills are also reflected in a diverse array of character traits ranging from integrity, diligence, accountability, confidence, consistency, and discipline.

I am a relentless person who constantly aims for success in all my endeavors. Most of all, I exhibit servant leadership because I find pride in making others also achieve excellence. I believe that good leadership resides in modeling the way for others to also succeed in their endeavors. I also believe that fostering cooperation and nurturing mutual respect among my peers creates a foundation for attaining academic excellence.

I believe that joining the National Honor Society would grant me the opportunity to inspire excellence in other students. My ultimate goal is to inculcate a culture of diligence and spirited teamwork among my peers to aspire for excellence in all our endeavors. Suffice to say, I intend to make the most out of being an NHS member if granted the chance.

Aristotle’s Function Argument Sample Essay

Aristotelian’s function argument has sparked controversial debates across varied forums, especially regarding its importance from a philosophical standpoint. Philosophers and academics alike have increasingly disputed the work of the argument, its validity, and its conclusion. Aristotelian Nicomachean Ethics seeks to offer insights into the discovery of human good. Aristotle describes this good as eudaimonia, which implies a life of happiness. However, several people have objected to his argument that the function of humans is contemplation and reasoning. A review of Aristotle’s function argument offers comprehensive insights into why humans have a function, what entails a good function, and an objection to the argument.

Aristotle’s Function Argument suggests that humans have a specific function

The beginning lines of Aristotelian’s function argument have received minimal attention, if any, compared to the rest of the argument. The opening bits in the philosopher’s argument are especially crucial in understanding the subject matter of the entire argument. The opening bits set the stage for the Aristotelian argument that humans have a function peculiar only to them (Evans, 2019). Aristotle suggests that the best way to understand the notion underlying the goodness of people is to develop a proper understanding of what constitutes the function of a person (humans). Before drafting his function argument, the philosopher argues that supposedly claiming that happiness denotes the chief good is rightly so but there is a need to establish clarity about what that statement truly implies in the sense of what constitutes good (Ross, n.d.). By this token of logic, Aristotle argues that mustering a clear account of what happiness or eudaimonia entails increasingly relies on appealing to the function of a person (Ross, n.d.). Appealing to ergon, a concept of function is helpful, as illustrated in one of the passages from his function argument. At the beginning of Aristotle’s function argument, he argues that man has a function just as everything else has a function (Evans, 2019, p. 8). In particular, he clearly states that goodness lies in the function of an activity wherein he claims that man must also possess a function just as a carpenter, a sculptor, a flute player, and any other artist (Ross, n.d.). Indeed, Aristotle presents several rhetorical questions to set the stage for addressing his primary notion of man’s function. He asks why a man would lack a peculiar function when even a tanner and a carpenter have specific functions of their own (Ross, n.d.). Aristotle seems to think that man must have a peculiar function just as artisans and bodily parts have their specific ergon (Ross, n.d.). For indeed, he argues that feet, hands, eyes, among other body parts, have a specific function. Ideally, the function of eyes is to see, that of feet is to walk, and so too does man possess a specific function.

Humans are endowed with the function of contemplation according to Aristotle’s Function Argument

Aristotle argues that human function is best understood by reviewing what their function is. He argues that the function of man is to be reasonable. Just as a good shoemaker makes good shoes and a good carpenter also makes good furniture, so too does a good human excel at something (Evans, 2019). A comparative assessment of bodily parts would also imply that a good eye makes clear vision because this is its final goal. Aristotle claims that things attainable by action must have an end and that people should not desire things for some specific thing as this could lead to infinite desire (Ross, n.d.). He claims in such a scenario all desire would seem futile and empty. People take action to achieve some kind of goodness (Ross, n.d.). Aristotle seems to think that the function of humans is to contemplate. In this respect, therefore, a good human makes proper reasoning.

Opponents of the Function’s Argument term the reasoning behind it feeble

While Aristotle’s function argument is widely debated across varied platforms, several people find it controversial. Notably, one of the objections to Aristotelian’s function argument is that it is induction based and, therefore, a feeble argument for providing grounds why man must have a peculiar function just by merely making comparative assessments to artisans and bodily parts. Any inductive reasoning is always weak because it entails using relatively fewer observations to justify broader assumptions that are probable at best (Evans, 2019). An example of inductive reasoning is claiming the rising of the sun tomorrow. It is not a guaranteed possibility that the sun will rise tomorrow regardless of its rise every other day since the beginning of life on Earth. Therefore, by this token of logic, a conclusion drawn from inductive reasoning thus lacks certainty provided by deductive reasoning (Evans, 2019). Therefore, the function argument of Aristotle is critiqued for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the use of bodily parts and artisans lack the capacity to provide representative conclusions to the argument that man has a peculiar function since these are only a few items that have ergon (Evans, 2019, p. 10). Therefore, the token of this analogy warrants the notion that making a conclusive induction that man has a function by comparing it to two factors – artisans and body parts – is weak because of inadequate data to support this assertion. Secondly, the examples used by the philosopher to surmise the functionality of man are dissimilar (Evans, 2019). In particular, the functions of shoemakers, carpenters, and tanners denote the commodities produced by their art. Nonetheless, the artisans only possess these functions only because they are crucial to society.

Conclusion

A review of Aristotle’s function argument offers an in-depth assessment into why humans have a function, what a good function is, and an objection to the argument. Aristotle claims that man must have a function just as bodily parts and artisans possess functions. He also claims that man’s peculiar function is reasoning, and a good man must reason properly. Other scholars, however, argue that there is no evidence to suggest that since artisans and bodily parts have peculiar functions, so humans too must have a function. With that said, it seems only fair for Aristotle to assess why people should justify his argument.

 

Reference List

Evans, L.E.J., 2019. Aristotle’s Function Argument: The Human Function and its Peculiarity (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London). pp. 1-78.

Ross, W., n.d. Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. [online] Classics.mit.edu. http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html

When the solar system formed some 4.6 billion years ago, how did the Moon form? Was the Moon captured by Earth’s gravity as it passed by? Was the Moon formed as a result of a planetary body impacting Earth and the core of the impacting body formed the Moon? Investigate and discuss the formation of the Moon.

The Formation of the Moon

The moon is one of the most fascinating natural phenomena of the Solar System. It is an object of great scientific interest and has been the subject of human curiosity for thousands of years. Throughout history, cultures have had their own stories to explain the origin of the moon. In modern times, science has allowed us to understand the details of its formation better. This article will discuss some theories explaining the formation of the moon.

The Giant Impact Hypothesis is one of the main explanations about the formation of the moon

One popular theory is known as the Giant Impact Hypothesis. This theory postulates that around 4.6 billion years ago, a Mars-sized protoplanet called Theia collided with Earth. The collision occurred at an angle and speed sufficient to break apart both bodies and form two orbiting discs around Earth’s center-of-mass – one made up mostly of material from Theia and another composed mostly of material from Earth itself. These two discs eventually merged under gravitational forces and cooled down over time, leading to the formation of the moon.

There is evidence to support the Giant Impact Hypothesis

Evidence supporting this theory comes from analyses of rock samples from the Apollo 11 mission in 1969. The evidential analysis of the rocks showed they contained chemistry similar to Earth’s but also contained an unusually high amount of tin. This suggests that some portion of Theia’s mantle was incorporated into the formation of the moon. Additionally, computer simulations attempted to reproduce such a collision event using modern physics principles.

Another hypothesis known as Fission Theory also explains the formation of the moon

Another hypothesis is known as Fission Theory or Daughter Moon Hypothesis. This idea assumes that about 4.5 billion years ago, when Earth formed, it was spinning so quickly that it began stretching out into an elongated shape before eventually splitting in two due to centrifugal forces acting upon its surface layers. This caused the formation of two separate planetary bodies: Earth with slightly less mass than before and a newborn moon composed mostly of material from Earth’s original outer layer (mantle). According to this theory, this fission event would have not only left telltale signs in terms of rotation rate (as opposed to what would be expected if accretion had occurred) but also should have left behind large amounts of primordial angular momentum in both bodies – something which has yet to be detected experimentally by astronomers looking at distant star systems sharing similar characteristics with ours (such as young stars surrounded by planets still gravitationally bound).

Multiple Impacts could have caused the formation of the moon

Finally, some scientists believe that instead of arising from either Theia or from fission processes within Earth itself, perhaps the formation of the moon resulted from multiple impacts over time. This means that billions of years ago, when Earth started taking shape through gravitational accretion processes (coalescing smaller planetesimals), occasionally, some bigger objects would impact into it, releasing large amounts of debris which formed a proto-moon in orbit around it. Afterward, other similar impact events could have kept adding more material until the moon as it appears today became a reality – thus explaining why our lunar companion lacks certain elements associated with forming planets, such as iron or nickel, despite being very close to Earth and having been formed during approximately same period as our home planet did (if any significant number had been present originally they should still be detectable today).

Conclusion

So far, all theories describing how the moon originated remain merely mathematical models. None has been conclusively proven true, and thus none can be considered absolute fact at this point in time (although much progress has been made over the last few decades regarding each individual one). No matter which one ultimately turns out to be correct, it is clear that understanding the origin/formation process for the moon remains key in achieving greater insight into how planetary systems come into existence throughout the universe. This would enable us to learn more about how the moon evolved and help us recognize common patterns among many celestial objects potentially harboring life elsewhere since they might share similarities related to their respective formation processes.

 

Get Essay Help

Are you finding difficulty writing your essay and feel like you could use some help? Consider ordering a custom essay from Master Papers Hub! Our team of Master’s Level Writers have years of experience in crafting original and well-formatted essays. Get the help you need today!