Phil 347 critical thining/ reasoning

     Discussion: What Do I Value?

Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:

Save your time - order a paper!

Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlines

Order Paper Now
  • Textbook: Chapter 13
  • Lesson
  • Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

Introduction
At the very end of Chapter 13, there  is a Group Exercise that asks: What ideals would you go to war to  defend? We are not going to ask you to go to war, but we are going to  ask you to think about what ideals or values you believe would be worth  defending – even to the point of risking your life in their defense.

When Nazi Germany overtook Europe in the early 20th  Century, resistance movements sprung up in the occupied countries, and  many civilians risked – and lost – their lives against Nazisim. Today,  in Saudi Arabia, women who protested restrictions on the rights of women  imposed by that country have been jailed, and remain jailed, even after  some of the rights they asked for have been granted.

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:

  • What core values would you risk your life and freedom to defend?
  • Could a nation going to war be appropriate in certain circumstances – or is war never an appropriate response?

This is not a group exercise – post your thoughts, considering the  scenarios proposed in the text or any others you find important. Be sure  to give your reasons for your answer.

Notice that this exercise requires deductive reasoning. You are  stating a position and supporting it with “top down” reasoning. Be sure  to review Three Features of Ideological Reasoning. Apply these concepts  as you create your own arguments and evaluate those of your peers.

Remember that you are using ideological reasoning here. Is your post  structured like an ideological argument, beginning with a general idea  (opinion, belief, or principle) and moving down from these abstractions  to their specific applications?

The text warns us that ideological arguments often fail the test of  Truthfulness of the Premises. Have you tested the truth of your  premises?