philosophy essay

The point here is to provide an occasion and context for exploring the relevance and limits of concepts, positions, and questions advanced bu the philosophers we have been reading.The paper should be organized so as to address selected aspect, of course, reading in light of some specific text, the social phenomenon that you see in circulation today.
-In this paper should be a critical engagement in which you analyze and interpret prospective meanings and implications of ideas they have been advancing.
-To talk substantively about 2 to 3 different course texts ( at least on of which should be Descartes or Kant).
the paper should be( 800-1200 words) plus bibliography ( Author,Title, publisher, citation with reasonable)
Very Important- this to books 1) Rene Descartes . Discount on method by Pamela Kraus & Frank Hunt. 2) Kant Political Writing by H. S. Reiss.

Philosophy Essay
Order Description

‘ write essay about this topic:

1 Topics

1. If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.

Critically evaluate the following argument:

If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.
If you use encryption, you are hiding something.
_________________________________________________________
If you use encryption, you must be doing something wrong.
In your critical evaluation, explain why you think this argument is VALID or INVALID. Then, evaluate each of the premises. To help you evaluate the truth of the given premises, refer to at least THREE (relevant) arguments from our previous course readings (e.g. Bruce Schneier, Moxie Marlinspike, John McAfee, etc.). Summarize the THREE best (in your opinion) arguments and explain their relevance to the above argument. Given your conclusions regarding the truth of the given premises, do you think this argument is SOUND? Why or why not?

Philosophy Essay
Order Description

‘ write essay about this topic:

1 Topics

1. If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.

Critically evaluate the following argument:

If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.
If you use encryption, you are hiding something.
_________________________________________________________
If you use encryption, you must be doing something wrong.
In your critical evaluation, explain why you think this argument is VALID or INVALID. Then, evaluate each of the premises. To help you evaluate the truth of the given premises, refer to at least THREE (relevant) arguments from our previous course readings (e.g. Bruce Schneier, Moxie Marlinspike, John McAfee, etc.). Summarize the THREE best (in your opinion) arguments and explain their relevance to the above argument. Given your conclusions regarding the truth of the given premises, do you think this argument is SOUND? Why or why not?