I’ve been busy writing philosophy papers for my MSc course. In case you’re interested, here they are:
1. ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger: Retaining Moral Responsibility Without Free Will’
In holding someone morally responsible, and blaming them, it seems we have two linked thoughts. Firstly, we feel that something regrettable or bad has happened. Secondly, we assign responsibility for that event to a particular agent – a wrongdoer who has done wrong. As Smart puts it, blame involves “a grading plus an ascription of responsibility” (Smart, 2003, p70). And in Smart’s view, such non-judgemental ‘grading’ is justifiable, even when we have the belief that our actions are not fully under our own control. I will return to Smart’s point on grading later in this essay. In a recent paper, David Shoemaker has argued that any effective theory of moral responsibility must “incorporate and explain three distinct conceptions of responsibility – attributability, answerability, and accountability.” (Shoemaker, 2011). I will not go into the detail of Shoemaker’s distinction. Suffice to say that my account accommodates the strongest reading of Shoemaker’s definition of moral responsibility (i.e. all three conditions), even when agents are fully determined.
Click here for the full essay [PDF]
2. Can one be a good citizen and conscientiously object?
In this paper, I will define ‘good citizen’ as someone who follows the laws and promotes the interests of their state. And the particular type of conscientious objection I will focus on is selective refusal to serve in the military. This kind of conscientious objection is more in tension with citizenship than other forms of conscientious objection (eg refusal by doctors to perform certain medical procedures), since military service is often seen as a key to the protection of the state, and is an obligation which could be performed by most able-bodied citizens, if the circumstances demand it.
Click here for the full essay [PDF]
3. Does the Lockean Proviso undermine Nozick’s account of distributive justice?
Nozick’s account of distributive justice depends on some interpretation of the Lockean proviso concerning initial acquisition. Therefore, in this paper, I will examine exactly which interpretation of the Lockean proviso is compatible with Nozick’s overall account, and whether an interpretation can be found which satisfies the conditions of justice (note that ‘justice’ is a matter of controversy between egalitarians and libertarians).
things that might have been otherwise 
Appreciate it for helping out, great information. “Job dissatisfaction is the number one factor in whether you survive your first heart attack.” by Anthony Robbins.
Truly when someone doesn’t be aware of afterward its up to other people that they will assist, so here it takes place.
I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here. The sketch is tasteful, your authored subject matter stylish. nonetheless, you command get got an shakiness over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come further formerly again since exactly the same nearly very often inside case you shield this increase.