Running late with the deadline for your work? Then we are your reliable assistant in paper help.
Get ready to ask for our assistance when you need essays, research or course works, reports, case studies, etc. Our experts have seen it all and are ready to start working on your assignment right away. Go for it!
With over 6 years of experience in the custom writing service, our team of support agents, managers, editors and writers has got a lot of knowledge about everything that may be required by you. Heres what you get for sure when cooperating with us:
Everyone needs some paper help from time to time, because we are only human.
Our prices start at $10 per page for works completed from scratch and from only $6 per page you need to be edited and proofread.
What factors influence the cost of our paper writing services? There are 5 of them:
Youre a lucky client! Why? Because you never pay for everything. You have lots of freebies to go with every single assignment. They are:
Asking for our paper writing help, you dont only pay us. We also pay you! You can receive up to 15% bonuses back and even earn money with our referral program.
We understand that sometimes you may want your deeds to go unknown. That is why we guarantee your complete privacy and security with our paper help writing service. After registration, you receive a unique ID and that is the only thing along with your instructions visible to our experts. Only our support team will see all the details you provide to be able to contact you in case any questions arise and send you a happy birthday discount on your special day.
Our custom writing service is completely ethical and provides busy students with great resources for their assignments. In the modern world when we need to do a lot of things at the same time, its nice to know you can count on someone for back up. We are always here to create the needed sample or perfect your work through editing/proofreading or explain the solutions to any problems you may have. Find out how much more free time you can get with our writing help.
Kpmg australia internet of things order master thesis international economics Eastman School of Music, internet of things home security system Weill Cornell Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Manhattan, Onondaga Community College 5th grade science project ideas magnets Essex. Margaret Warner Graduate School of Education and Human Development 6 traits writing rubric persuasive essay make report on criminal offense please W 123rd Street zip 10027. Orange County Community College (SUNY Orange) need someone to make my thesis on management plz paper on technology St. Lawrence Bethel Seminary of the East, Mannes College The New School for Music niagara falls fishing report 189th Street, West zip 10040.
Kpmg australia internet of things order capstone microturbine efficiency for money george foreman 14054 review of literature [Music] [Music] today I have guests joining me to talk about relationship between psychology philosophy and other disciplines so I have Joshua Rothman from Franklin Marshall College crystal avala from Carnegie Mellon University and Derek even from University of Pittsburgh Johnstown and so the thinking was today we're going to emphasize kind of the diversity of the Disciplinary background did you bring to bear topics about ethics and morality and you know one of the first questions that comes up when we think about some of this work how do you how do you see the relationship between empirical science and ethics how is your work from straddle that divided kind of what do you think about the possibilities for sure so I'm gonna say common just I think much more about the is thoughts generally um but my my aims in being pretty and I'll psychology and thinking about the topics I think about our really excited explore these questions that are going to have some implication for normative ethics and and so something that I tend to kind of err on the side of is thinking that most of the time what is is not going to have much influence on what might appear in many cases is actually going to debunk what we believe communicates so that the more we find out about how our moral lives work the more we might want to be skeptical about some of the conclusions we come to about how we ought to act but I also think that by understanding our moral psychology we can start to really get traction on how we can utilize our tendencies for good and really capitalize on those leverage to create better outcomes and then once we discover certain pains biases we can figure out how to try to suppress those or override them in some kind of way so that we're not necessarily translating from what is to what ought to be but we're using the tools of how we can understand what is the case these descriptions explanations of how our minds work to start coming to conclusions about how we can shake them for other kinds of conclusions we've made in other ways about how we ought to act so I'm also mainly a psychologist my the subfield level identify with judgment decision-making which is kind of a intersection of economics is interesting because it's also mostly is or descriptive field about how people behave but for historical reasons the economics probably theory does have these normative benchmarks different ones and what's interesting is that the field of government assuming I think breaks out into the judgment side with a benchmark is something like you know he's a person probably playing probably figure are they actually predict in the event that we later know they were didn't curve something right so there is a kind of an acht aspect to it the other normative benchmark on the decision-making side is the economic concept of rationality where it's not that a person can be right or wrong based on any single decision but it's the sort of collection decisions are they consistent or not so you have these two different benchmark one where you can say for any given judgment this person is right or wrong because you know the event you know they're accurate not and another where you can't say for anything like they were wrong to choose this over that but you know the combination of their choices might be consistory inconsistent what's interesting with my what I do it moral or any moral psychology is that there is an author that sort of treated a little bit like the first kind of the kind of you know that's wrong to choose this versus that um but I find that you know it's a little bit puzzling to me that it's a career but I feel like sometimes the what's interesting is the inconsistencies on the morality side whether or not we agree on what the person sugar does but but the fuel seems to be somewhere in the or I thought that's my perception so I so I'm a philosopher and most of my work is on the side of the odd but I am very interested in how the autumn is relate to each other so when I teach an intro to have these class what we'll be talking about are here are five or six different moral theories here's what each of them say about some topic let's say prostitution utilitarianism says well as long as everybody's happy and no one is harmed it's okay Immanuel Kant says no it's a violation of your dignity and so even if people agree to it it's still somehow destroying yourself as an agent other theories like natural rights theories they look long as it's consensual that it's acceptable and then we have to talk about what consented so that's all on the outside but a big problem in ethics the biggest problem in ethics is which moral theory is correct how do we pick from amongst these and there's an old idea in ethics going back to Hume that we can't easily move from just here's what everybody actually thinks that here's what people ought to think so just because people think that slavery or child abuse is acceptable doesn't mean it actually is acceptable they're just like you were saying incorrect however where do the arts come from that's one of the foundational questions in ethics and if we're a naturalist about the physical world and our place in it that is we think human beings are made of the same physical stuff as everything else in the world then there must altom utley be some way of moving from the is to the odd if aught exists at all and so there can't be a simple route to it but there has to be some route to it and the question is what is that route and that's where I think perhaps and I know we want to talk about this at some point where I think talking about the adaptive function of moral judgments can bridge that gap but there are other ways that it's something that I I really love about your work is that you point out a lot of really irrational kinds of decisions that people make that they think that it's much better to martyr yourself into fail abuse and costs in order to raise benefits what you're on the no firm consequential is kind of going to do that that make sense um do you think that so so you're kind of using wreck analogy is your benchmark for what we ought to do you might understand it or are you using more of a moral kind of utilitarian theory so greater so for that one thing we're finding this is the finding that people might say prefer someone who suffers and goes help building person and ends up having a smaller impact let's say saves your lives by suffering they prefer that to someone who kind of stays at home and takes enta champion one say it's more like I would say that violates almost theories that I can think of seems to violate so if your utilitarian it's a double validation because you're helping fewer people and you're also harming yourself so from many moral I guess I would think one of you that would be a violation or irrational but from an economic point of view were supposed to Mexico traditional sorry neoclassical economics we're supposed to maximize that the own utility doesn't make any sense to like you know so for those situations that they're interesting because there's no usually when you have these moral dilemmas you have a trade-off between goals like I want to you know help other people but I also the one like you know spend my own money right here is a situation where there's no conflicts it seems I mean yet people still feels very strongly about this kind of thing so now you could come up with in economics it can always have utility or anything right you could say Oh we'll have a utility for suffering that's it we're done I mean it would you know we go against people's intuitions with older models but there is an aspect to it can be circular and I think maybe that that could be an issue I could imagine that being an issue in some aspects of all philosophy work you can have a moral theory that just says it basically the concept of what's normal is so flexible that you can make it look whatever people do is moral and what they think is more or less what they'll do and you know there's some form of economic theory of expertise but it's basically like that that's almost unspecified will and that way the only way we're showing is wrong by showing inconsistencies in people's choices then you're saying something wrong with a theory that that assumes people are going to be consistent this is actually important in ethics consistency because a lot of the times it's it's actually a very powerful way of getting people to change their minds it's by just showing that their own beliefs are inconsistent this is a really powerful argument of ethics especially with things like animal rights if you say well you think it's wrong to kill any dogs and cats but it's okay to kill any cows and chickens why right you think it's okay to kill any farm animals but not humans why and they'll propose these suggestions like well there are different species and you'll say well so if mr. Spock or I'd honor that we could kill and eat him and I'll say well no it's because they don't have higher intellectual abilities and so we can kill young children and so just forcing them to be consistent is extremely powerful but I think it can narrow down a range of moral theories but it can't ultimately select from amongst a set of consistent theories there are a set of very good moral theories that we need some sort of external measurement like you were saying some sort of measurement of utility but what is that utility function for moral theories it clearly can't be self-interest in the case of classical economics because I think most of us want to say that moral judgments can't go against your self-interest and tell you to give up your sleeves even if it's not good for you so what is that outside measurement so this is fascinating considering different benchmarks for progress like requirements development moral education I mean I guess I follow up to them but the do you see any possibilities or plausible ways forward for augmenting the morality so what are the lessons we can learn from theorizing or from the empirical sciences to try to understand how we improve what that means things like you know attending to the relevant details that should kinds of decisions so I think the empirical science is going to not have a ton to say about what those benchmarks should be necessarily but part of the reason that I study moral development and try to understand I'm haja near that initial formation of a lot of children's beliefs is because I do really feel like understanding that I know trajectory is going to be crucial so there's a biologist 100 years ago there's the Thompson who published a book called convert important everything is the weight of it because it's not that way and I I think that that really simple kind of phrase drives love how I think about this so if everything is going to turn out the way it is because of some sort of process of development or evolutionary change it's only by understanding the descriptively empirically the way that we can form certain kinds of believes that we'll be able to push those beliefs around to get to certain benchmarks so so yeah I can't say too much from my own research about where those benchmarks should be but I think by understanding the biases and the ways in which we develop in ways that are and conforming to ideas that are maladaptive for the greater good we can start to figure out how to even change some of those ideas my response is that the question was would be entitled the toilet - to say I think it depends on so if we see people not behaving as morally as we think they should or even that they themselves think that they should like so we let's say we come to an agreement that would be better in some dimension some way in terms of how do we get them there I think the question depends on what's the source of that but why is there that gap right and I think broadly speaking I kind of distinguish three broad the sources of failures if you will so one would be the one that would be the hardest overcome is if they sort of knowingly this would not be in the case where they're thinking they think they're acting perfectly morally or they just whatever so if people just have a political rationale or you know consistent preference let's say for cheating or lying or slavery and it's not out of ignorance or biases that's gonna be hard to overcome that's gonna take generations then then that's what you mean like the institutional level or generational shifts in education so that's gonna be the hardest one to tackle but but I think many of the important problems the world unfortunate that another ethical major source is ignorant suburbs so maybe people aren't donating enough money to worthy causes because they don't realize the amount of need out there and that's a relatively easy one to tackle you do a lot of poor people I mean informing people done easy necessarily but and in the third class of I would say obstacles is the one that I would focus on most are these more cognitive biases where people it's not that they have a strong preference to be selfish let's say or that they're ignorant about the need out there so they know that they kind of thing wants to be better and offensive but they can't you know do a regulation and or kind of cognitive line spots they can't kind of get there I think that's where behavioral scientists would come in and try to find the whole trait external do but first identify those obstacles and then try to find little ledges or tricks to get them there and you mentioned educating people is providing them with information and as a as a moral philosopher at least my my maybe naive hope is that well if you have people come in and take an interim ethics class and actually try and justify their beliefs then perhaps that will help them actually change their activities change their lifestyle in some way but unfortunately there's this literature from behavioral economics having to do with motivated reasoning and it seems like oftentimes there's this backfire effect where if you challenge people on their beliefs very often that then we dig in their heels further and become more resistant to counter evidence and this is something that happens with even factual claims about climate change or evolution and this is something that we want to avoid I mean if we have crossed the is off gap somehow and we have decided that individuals have obligations to eat fewer animals to make more contributions to charity to drive hybrid or electric vehicles when they can or something like that how do we get people to change their their actions well my naive hope is just tell them about the harm that it's doing but I am I'm worried that as you were pointing out it might have to be more indirect this you know this idea of a nudge providing some kind of incentive or disincentive indirectly so clearly this is very very challenging problem in it this is a conversation these industry Tardelli kind of requires multiple disciplinary perspectives and people talking like us to really complex you capstone project and thesis titles order Lower Manhattan at 60 West Street (main campus).