You have now written four (4) case analyses. You will develop ONE for your second, and final, essay in connection with the topic you choose from below. You must answer all parts of the question to rec

Rely on our professional academic writers and forget about missing deadlines. All custom papers are written from scratch.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

You have now written four (4) case analyses. You will develop ONE for your second, and final, essay in connection with the topic you choose from below. You must answer all parts of the question to receive credit. Your answers need to be written as short essays (1000-1200 words), so you need to include an introduction and conclusion and any quotations or paraphrases must be appropriately cited. In addition, it is important to think of this essay as a development of your previous work — you won’t merely copy over that previous work, and then add an introduction and a conclusion. Instead, you will use the feedback from me, along with your further reflections and review, to revise and expand the case analysis you’ve chosen for this final essay.


In this essay you have 5 tasks:

  1. Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand.
  2. Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Walzer’s and Murray’s arguments. (Click here for some tips on how to do a successful exegesis.)
  3. Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying who each philosopher would give the welfare to and why.
  4. Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
  5. In no more than one paragraph, explain what solution you would propose for Rebecca and Jimmy.

Consider Rebecca, a single mother of 4 who has been a long-term welfare recipient.  Rebecca is a weekend meth user who often spends her money on meth.  However, without her welfare money, her children would not have any food or medical treatment and would most likely be placed in foster homes where their lives would go worse than they currently are. Rebecca’s yearly welfare application is due.

Now consider Jimmy, a veteran of both Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom.  During the battle, Jimmy was wounded and now suffers from some moderate physical disability and post-traumatic stress.  Sadly, although Jimmy tried to find a job, there weren’t many systems in place to help him re-integrate or work through his issues.  Each day Jimmy begs for money at his local off-ramp.  Through no fault of his own, Jimmy has fallen through the proverbial cracks. Jimmy applies for welfare.

You are the welfare overseer.  At most one person can get welfare. You can make ONE of the following three decisions:

  1. Give the welfare only to Rebecca
  2. Give the welfare only Jimmy
  3. Don’t give any welfare


In this essay you have 5 tasks:

  1. Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand.
  2. Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Bradley’s and Peikoff’s arguments. (Click here for some tips on how to do a successful exegesis.)
  3. Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying in which world each philosopher would place Jim and why.
  4. Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
  5. In no more than one paragraph, explain what solution you would propose for Jim.

Consider Jim. Jim has worked in middle management his entire life.  He had the option of paying into his company’s managed healthcare system but decided he wanted to keep the money instead and invest it in case he ever needed acute medical treatment.  Unfortunately, on his 40th birthday, Jim decided to buy a red Corvette with that money.  6 months later, Jim went to a doctor to see why he was feeling so awful.  The doctor diagnosed Jim with emphysema, diabetes, and kidney failure.  All three of these conditions are the result of Jim’s lifestyle choices: smoking, poor eating and exercise habits, and excessive drinking.  These conditions are chronic and will require treatment for the rest of Jim’s life including cutting-edge lung and kidney treatments and weekly meetings with a nutritionist, endocrinologist, cardiologist, etc.

Here are the two possible healthcare “worlds” for Jim (he must be “placed” in one of them):

  1. Participate in a universal healthcare system, paid for by income taxes, which doesn’t provide Jim with the latest and greatest medical technology but does meet basic standards of care.
  2. Participate in a pay-for-service system, which allows Jim to pay for whatever treatment he wants and/or can afford but will not treat him unless he pays for the service.

Capital Punishment

In this essay you have 5 tasks:

  1. Explain your understanding of the case.
  2. Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Kant, the ACLU, and Van den Haag’s arguments.
  3. Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an account of what each philosopher would argue should happen to Bob.
  4. Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
  5. In ONE paragraph, explain how you think we should treat Jim.

Consider Bob. Bob was raised by wolves (literally – don’t ask me how). Although his IQ would probably be normal, there is no way to test it, since Bob doesn’t speak or read any human language. One day, Bob emerged from the wilderness and ended up in downtown Long Beach. He was hungry (presumably) so he “found” some food in the normal wolf way: he stalked a mother walking her baby and, deciding it was easiest to prey on the weaker, killed and ate the baby. There’s no question that Bob is “guilty” of the crime. He did it and there were lots of witnesses.

Affirmative Action

In this essay you have 5 tasks:

  1. Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand.
  2. Give a thorough philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Pojman’s and Mosley’s theories.
  3. Present an argument applying the philosophers’ arguments to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying to whom each philosopher would give the job.
  4. Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
  5. In no more than one paragraph explain who you would hire and why.

Consider a new position at the very prestigious Chronus Department of the Federal Government.  The Chronus Department examines how issues from the past have an impact on current affairs, and their new position aims at recruiting a new employee to be groomed to eventually because of the director of the department.  The ideal candidate would be someone who has a degree in some area of the humanities that deals with research, history, and culture, and who has a demonstrated ability to work well with others in a leadership capacity.  This position has an incredible benefits package including, healthcare, vacations, and a pension.

The Department has narrowed its selection down to two candidates:

  • Molly is an African American woman from a very affluent and politically active Texas family.  She attended Yale, where she earned an undergraduate degree in Anthropology with a minor in US Civics.  After graduating, she volunteered for two years in the Peace Corps, and then took a year off to tour around Europe.
  • Cameron is a third-generation Irish American from a working-class family in Pennsylvania.  After high school, he spent a year working with his father in a steel mill, but then decided he wanted to go to university.  He received a scholarship to Princeton, where he graduated with a degree in US History.  In his final year of school, Cameron was elected Student Body President and implemented a union for the teaching assistants.

You have now written four (4) case analyses. You will develop ONE for your second, and final, essay in connection with the topic you choose from below. You must answer all parts of the question to rec
Aristotle  Aristotle’s thoughts on the text are that the goal of life is for human beings to be happy. However, he believes that we must first determine our purpose to achieve this. Aristotle shapes his argument from this perspective and asserts that similar to the useful objects around us, we, too, must have a purpose (NE Bk. 1, Ch. 7). He follows this thought, arguing that our purpose must be to achieve rationality. However, he further defines human good as a virtue of the soul. Therefore, a good person executes his purpose when he engages in good actions or activities; however, since there is more than one virtue, to be good as a human is to have actions with the best virtues. Developing and practicing good deeds will develop virtuous habits within us (NE Bk. 1, Ch. 6).             Aristotle’s thoughts on this topic emphasize the value of good acts. He believes that since we are rational, we should use it to make decisions and ensure that our actions are grounded in reason. His train of thought concludes that if the goal of life is to achieve happiness, it can only be reached by doing good deeds. In addition, he also states that there are higher levels of happiness, and the highest are reserved for those with high moral virtue.                                                                                           Reference Aristotle. (n.d.). Nicomachean Ethics. Retrieved from to an external site. Kant The categorical imperative of duty and the concept of goodwill form the basis of deontological ethics, commonly known as Kantian ethics.  Goodwill, as viewed by Kant, is the world’s only absolute good (CrashCours, 2016).  Goodwill is the willingness to do one’s duty without regard for one’s own benefit or pleasure. The categorical imperative is the articulation of moral rule that inspires goodwill. The categorical imperative is a universal moral concept that should be used as a touchstone by all rational beings.  The duty-related categorical imperative can be stated in two different ways.  The initial version of this idea holds that we should only adhere to a maxim that we can intend to become a universal law. This means that we should always act in the way that we would hope others would act if they were in our shoes (CrashCours, 2016). According to the second version, we should never treat humanity, in ourselves or in others, as a means to an aim but rather as an end in and of itself. This means that we should not exploit other sentient beings and instead treat them with respect. To put it another way, the categorical imperative is the moral law’s way of saying that we should do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The moral law directs our conduct, and it is incumbent upon us to fulfill our responsibility to act in conformity with the principles of the categorical imperative (CrashCours, 2016). As a result, goodwill is the motivation to fulfill one’s duty simply because it is one’s duty, as enunciated in the categorical imperative. Reference CrashCours. (2016, November 15). Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35. [Video]. YouTube. Mill According to the utilitarian moral philosophy of John Stuart Mill, actions are right in proportion to the prospect that they will upsurge happiness and bad in proportion to the prospect that they would have the opposite impact. According to Mill, the only thing that is desirable as a goal is a happiness, which he defined as pleasure and the absence of pain (CrashCourse, 2016). Furthermore, he contended that everything desirable is either intrinsically pleasurable or acts as a means to foster pleasure and forestall suffering. Mill’s theory’s foundation is that morality should be based on promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals. The Greatest Happiness Principle, also referred to as Utility, is the cornerstone of utilitarianism. It infers that an action’s moral worth is determined by its capacity to minimize suffering as well as maximize happiness. For Mill, utilitarianism offered a thorough method for determining what is morally right or wrong. One of the critical aspects of Mill’s moral theory is its emphasis on impartiality. Utilitarianism requires individuals to consider the well-being of everyone affected by an action rather than just their own self-interest. Mill believed this impartial approach to morality was necessary for creating a just and fair society (CrashCourse, 2016). However, it is essential to note that Mill recognized that the concept of happiness is complex and cannot be reduced to simple pleasure-seeking. He agreed that higher pleasures, like those that are intellectual and moral, are preferable to lesser pleasures. In addition, Mill thought that people should be allowed to pursue their happiness as long as it doesn’t hurt others.                                                 Reference  CrashCourse. (2016, November 22). Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36. [Video]/ YouTube.
You have now written four (4) case analyses. You will develop ONE for your second, and final, essay in connection with the topic you choose from below. You must answer all parts of the question to rec
Applying Philosophy Theories I chose questions two and question three. I will start with questions two. The relevant aspect of Kant’s categorical imperatives is duty and goodwill. In performing our duty, we must act using the maxim that we would consider universal law (CrashCours, 2016). On the other hand, the most important consideration for Mill would be maximizing happiness. When applying Kantian ethics, the correct moral action would be executing the most recent will, as the lawyer must adhere to the law. However, when using Mill’s moral reasoning, executing the most recent will not necessarily lead to happiness for the greatest number of people. The niece will misuse the money, which is not necessarily beneficial. On the other hand, donating money to famine relief would bring more happiness to the vulnerable. The philosopher that gives the best moral guidance is Kant. The most important thing is performing one’s duty and acting in a way that you would consider universal. The lawyer would not want others to decide whether to implement or ignore their own will unilaterally. Mill’s theory can be modified by prioritizing individual rights rather than solely focusing on society’s happiness. For Aristotle, rationality is most at stake in this scenario. Aristotle believes that it is our purpose to use rationality to execute good actions to achieve happiness. (NE Bk. 1, Ch. 6) For Kant, the relevant aspect of the categorical imperatives would be that people are an end in themselves and not necessarily a means to an end. From Aristotle’s perspective, we should try to engage in virtues and good deeds and thus attempt to rescue the celebutante. The virtue that the rescue will demonstrate would be bravery and courage. Kant would also advocate for saving the celebutante because she has inherent value. The philosopher that gives the best moral guidance is Kant, who provides a reason why life is valuable while Aristotle’s primary focus is self-interest, performing virtuous deeds. Aristotle’s guidance may encourage people to take risks when Applying Philosophy Theories pursuing virtuous actions. It can be ameliorated by balancing respect for persons with promoting the greater good. References Aristotle. (n.d.). Nicomachean Ethics. Retrieved from CrashCours. (2016, November 15). Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35. [Video]. YouTube. Paper #2 Welfare Case Analysis Case Summary The case revolves around two potential welfare recipients: Rebecca and Jimmy. Rebecca is a meth addict who has four children. She is a single parent without any alternative sources of income, and all her money is spent on buying drugs. Therefore, she usually depends on welfare for food and medical treatment. Without this money, she could potentially lose her kids to the welfare system, where they would face worse outcomes. On the other hand, Jimmy is a military veteran who is physically disabled and has PTSD. Jimmy has failed to integrate into society and is unemployed and begs for money. Murray and Walzer’s Theory Murray’s theory is underpinned by the idea that social programs are fundamentally flawed. From his perspective, three laws demonstrate the failure of social programs and their potential to lead to unintended consequences. These three laws include the law of imperfect selection, the law of unintended rewards, and the law of net harm. Murray is keen on emphasizing that social programs lead to behavior changes that are ultimately harmful. For instance, he states that they may reward bad behavior that negatively affects the labor market. On the other hand, Walzer’s theory revolves around the idea that we, as community members, are entitled to certain provisions. We all live based on a social contract that requires community members’ needs to be met. However, there isn’t a particular individual right to welfare, and the specifics of that provision need to be hashed out by the community members. Walzer believes an American welfare state should attend to the needs of its members and distribute goods in proportion to need while recognizing and upholding the underlying equality of membership. Application Of the Philosophers’ Arguments Murray would make the decision not to give any welfare. In Rebecca’s case, Murray would likely argue that her drug use and long-term welfare dependence demonstrate that she has not made the necessary contributions to society to earn welfare benefits. Murray might argue that Rebecca’s children should be placed in foster care to encourage Rebecca to take responsibility for her actions and seek employment. Additionally, in Jimmy’s case, Murray would likely argue that his inability to find employment is due to his inadequacies and that he should not be entitled to welfare. On the other hand, Walzer would likely give welfare to Rebecca. As a community member and a single mother of four children, Walzer would argue that her need for welfare is significant. While her drug use is a concern, Walzer’s view is that a community cannot allow its members to starve to death when there is food available to feed them. Providing welfare to Rebecca would help ensure that her children have access to food and medical treatment, which is important for their well-being. It’s worth noting that Walzer would likely also support efforts to help Rebecca address her drug use and improve her situation in the long term. Philosopher With the Better Solution to The Case The philosopher with the better solution is Walzer. Walzer’s theory emphasizes the importance of recognizing the specific needs of each individual and the obligations that communities have to provide for their members. In the case of Rebecca, while she may have personal issues affecting her ability to use the welfare benefits in the best possible way, her children’s needs for food and medical treatment must be considered. Therefore, welfare benefits should be given to Rebecca with the understanding that they are intended to provide for her children’s basic needs. Individual Action I would recommend giving welfare only to Rebecca. Although Rebecca is a weekend meth user and spends her money on meth, her children depend on welfare to fulfill their basic needs, such as food and medical treatment. Denying her welfare would result in her children being placed in foster homes, which might worsen their lives. However, I would also recommend providing her with drug counseling and rehabilitation programs to help her overcome her addiction and become more self-sufficient. Paper #3 Healthcare Case Analysis The present case pertains to Jim’s decision to forego payment towards his employer’s healthcare program, opting instead to allocate the funds towards the purchase of an automobile. Subsequently, the individual in question developed various chronic ailments due to his unhealthy lifestyle decisions, necessitating ongoing medical intervention (Peikoff, 2007). The case outlines two healthcare alternatives available to Jim: enrolling in a tax-funded universal healthcare system that offers fundamental healthcare standards or enrolling in a fee-for-service system, which necessitates payment for any desired treatment and precludes treatment in the absence of payment. Bradley believes in the value of the community and emphasizes the role of the state in protecting individuals and promoting social justice. He argues that individuals are dependent on society, and society owes them certain benefits, including healthcare. Bradley believes that healthcare is a basic human right, and the state should ensure everyone can access basic healthcare services (Bradley, n.d.). On the other hand, Peikoff advocates individualism and the free market. He argues that the government should not interfere with the healthcare industry, and people should be responsible for their own healthcare needs. Peikoff believes that healthcare is not a right but a commodity that should be earned through individual effort and ability to pay. Bradley would place Jim in the universal healthcare system because he believes society owes everyone basic healthcare services, regardless of their ability to pay. Bradley would argue that Jim made a poor choice by not investing in healthcare and that society should still provide him with basic healthcare services (Bradley, n.d.). On the other hand, Peikoff would place Jim in the pay-for-service system because he believes that individuals are responsible for their Healthcare Case Analysis healthcare needs. Peikoff would argue that Jim should have invested in healthcare earlier and that he should pay for his own treatment. Bradley’s solution to the case is better because it prioritizes social justice and ensures everyone can access basic healthcare services. Peikoff’s solution, on the other hand, only benefits those who can afford to pay for healthcare and ignores the needs of those who cannot afford it (Peikoff, 2007). Bradley’s solution also promotes a sense of community and emphasizes the responsibility of society to care for its members, which is a more humane and compassionate approach. In my opinion, Jim should be covered by the universal healthcare system since all people should have access to essential medical treatment, regardless of their financial situation. It is unfair to deny someone access to healthcare only because they previously made a bad financial choice. A more fair and equitable option that guarantees everyone has access to fundamental medical care is the universal healthcare system. References Bradley, A. (n.d.). Positive rights, negative rights and health care. Retrieved from Peikoff, L. (2007). Peikoff’s “Healthcare. Retrieved from Paper #4 Case Analysis: Bob Raised by Wolves Case Analysis: Bob Raised by Wolves My understanding of the case is that Bob, having been raised by wolves, has had no prior contact with other humans or their cultural, social, or political norms. The only life he has known is that which was conditioned by the wolf “society.” Therefore, when he emerges from the wilderness, he has no context for how human beings relate to one another and the moral fabric of society. Bob acts as he would in the wolf community and attacks, kills, and eats a baby as he perceives this to be an easy meal. The crux of Kant’s argument on capital punishment is that it is justified. Proportionality is a fundamental principle of Kant’s argument of equal punishment. From his perspective, providing a criminal with a punishment proportional to his crime is the only way to respect his dignity. Therefore, if we are to respect a criminal and treat him as an autonomous agent, we must hold them accountable for their actions. In this light, someone who kills requires death as an appropriate and proportional punishment. On the other hand, Van den Haag is against capital punishment. His stance is that it is usually unfairly distributed, and it the past innocents have been falsely accused and killed (Van & Hagg, 1969). Moreover, Van den Haag is also not convinced that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. In essence, he views capital punishment as a way of dehumanizing a criminal and encouraging their suffering. In applying the philosophers to Bob’s case, Kant would argue that Bod deserves to be killed. The death penalty is the proportional and appropriate punishment that maintains Bob’s autonomy as a person. However, Van den Haag would call for restraint as the death penalty is morally degrading and will promote more suffering. It will dehumanize Bob and will also cause him to suffer more than his victim. The philosopher offering the best solution is Van den Haag as Case Analysis: Bod Raised by Wolves his argument acknowledges that Bob will suffer more as he has no understanding or context for what he has done. Bob ought to be held accountable for his actions and face consequences for killing a baby as he has caused much distress. Although he was raised by wolves and comes up short on comprehension of human ethics, this does not excuse his behavior. However, I do not believe that the death penalty is an appropriate response because it fails to address the underlying causes of the crime (American Civil Liberties Union, 2012). Bob should be integrated into the community and helped to understand the charges against him. Afterward, he should serve a sentence as a form of restoration. References American Civil Liberties Union. (2012). The Case Against the Death Penalty. American Civil Liberties Union; ACLU. Retrieved from Van, E., & Hagg, D. (1969). On Deterrence and the Death Penalty. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 60. Retrieved from Paper #5 Affirmative Action; Philosophy Case Application The case involves recruiting a new employee for the Federal government department. Since the present director will retire in a few years, the new post will develop the best replacement candidate. A desirable candidate is one with a humanities degree and a track record of working successfully with people in a leadership role. The department has shortlisted two candidates for the position. The first is Molly, an African American woman from a wealthy, politically active family. She has an undergraduate degree in Anthropology and has volunteered with the Peace Corps. On the other hand, Cameron is an Irish American from a working-class family. He received a scholarship and graduated with a degree in US History. Cameron served as a Student Body President and implemented a union for teaching assistants. According to Pojman, affirmative action is unfair because it involves reverse discrimination and goes against the meritocracy principle. He asserts that individuals should not be hired or promoted based on their race or gender but on their skills and qualifications. Pojman argues that affirmative action programs lead to treating people as a means to an end (Maurya, 2020). Giving people what they deserve and not merely because they are part of a group is essential for respecting their inherent worth. Furthermore, Pojman asserts that affirmative action policies are a form of reverse discrimination, leading to discrimination and more segregation. In contrast, Mosley contends that affirmative action is justifiable and necessary to end the systemic discrimination and historical injustices that minority groups have experienced. He asserts that addressing the structural inequalities restricting minority groups’ opportunities and prospects is necessary for substantive equality, which requires implementing affirmative action (Maurya, 2020). According to Mosley, affirmative action programs are meant to be transitional measures that encourage diversity and inclusion rather than long-term solutions. He argues that Affirmative Action; Philosophy Case Application affirmative action policies are based on the recognition that merit is context-dependent and that discrimination in the past has created obstacles that cannot be overcome without targeted interventions rather than quotas or reverse discrimination. Pojman’s theory of affirmative action would suggest that Cameron should be selected for the job based on his superior qualifications and abilities. Cameron’s degree in US History and experience as Student Body President demonstrates his strong leadership skills and knowledge of history, which aligns well with the focus of the Chronus Department. Additionally, his work experience in the steel mill shows his ability to work hard and succeed in a challenging environment. In contrast, Molly’s degree in Anthropology and her experiences in the Peace Corps and travelling may be less relevant to the specific focus of the department. On the other hand, Mosley’s theory of affirmative action would suggest that Molly should be selected for the job as a member of a systemically disadvantaged group to rectify past injustices and promote substantive equality. As an African American woman, Molly will likely face systemic discrimination and obstacles to accessing opportunities. She is part of two historically disadvantaged groups: women and African Americans. Affirmative action policies address systemic barriers by providing targeted support and opportunities to individuals from historically disadvantaged groups. Pojman’s theory offers a more successful solution to the case at hand. The reason is that Pojman’s theory prioritizes merit and qualifications over group membership. Cameron seems to be a more qualified candidate than Molly. Cameron’s degree in US History, experience as Student Body President, and work experience in the steel mill demonstrate his strong leadership skills, knowledge of history, and ability to work hard in a challenging environment. Furthermore, Affirmative Action; Philosophy Case Application selecting Cameron based on his merit and qualifications would be consistent with treating individuals as individuals rather than members of a particular group. I would hire Cameron for the position. Cameron’s background as a working-class family suggests that he has faced significant challenges and obstacles, making him more disadvantaged than Molly, who comes from an affluent and politically active family. Additionally, Cameron’s degree in US History, leadership experience as Student Body President, and work ethic make him a strong candidate for the leadership role at the department. Cameron’s qualifications and experience make him the best candidate for the job. Reference Maurya, S. K. (2020). A Reply to Louis P. Pojman’s Article “The Case Against Affirmative Action.” Conatus, 5(2), 87.

Needs help with similar assignment?

We are available 24x7 to deliver the best services and assignment ready within 3-4 hours? Order a custom-written, plagiarism-free paper

Order Over WhatsApp Place an Order Online