need ideas for a philosphy paper

[RunForWord]

I need to do a 3 minute presentation tomorrow on a philosphy topic and hand in a 6 page paper in a week from now on said topic. It can be whatever we want but she said it has to be about something specific and not general. I can't even think of examples of what I could do with such the general specific instructions I've been given. Can you guys/girls help me out please? Thanks

edit: i posted at 11:11 so thats good luck right?

 

[TBerg]

Look up Sam Harris and argue against the is/ought distinction.

 

[ruminator]

I need to do a 3 minute presentation tomorrow on a philosphy topic and hand in a 6 page paper in a week from now on said topic. It can be whatever we want but she said it has to be about something specific and not general. I can't even think of examples of what I could do with such the general specific instructions I've been given. Can you guys/girls help me out please? Thanks

edit: i posted at 11:11 so thats good luck right?

Peter van Inwagen, determinism vs. free will

 

[Urakro]

It probably should be in the format of a good argument, supported by valid premises. That would make arguing for or against free-will..... .... challenging, or impossible.

Thinking about the deadline approaching, you could do something easier. I haven't taken a philosophy study in a long time, but (maybe) it would be better arguing against something in the media, or a science news article or something. You could probably find a lot of good claims to argue against.

For example, there was one where research showed that plants have feelings. Or a study about dogs feeling uncomfortable when hugged from analysing MRI scans. That last claim seems really easy to refute; most humans are uncomfortable when hugged as well, and I doubt that the finding wasn't a really bad inference.

Not completely sure what I'm talking about, but my main point is finding something that's actually easy and doable, then do a good job on it. After all, it's probably just a demonstration of your understanding of the subject learned thus far, and how you are applying it.

 

[ruminator]

Wait, are you supposed to argue for a specific side? Or can you take a neutral stance and explain both/all sides to an issue?

If it's the latter, you could pick a thought experiment and go through it, like the Trolley Problem

 

[RunForWord]

Look up Sam Harris and argue against the is/ought distinction.

I actually talked about this in the paper thanks for the idea. I ended up talking about everything that's wrong with the world that I could possibly think of and possible solutions to them and how there is probably no absolute truth to what is good or bad