question archive Instructions for the Response Paper This assignment requires you to write a critical response to another student’s paper – 800 words minimum
Instructions for the Response Paper This assignment requires you to write a critical response to another student’s paper – 800 words minimum
Subject:PhilosophyPrice:17.86 Bought3
Instructions for the Response Paper This assignment requires you to write a critical response to another student’s paper – 800 words minimum. Any paper under 800 will not be accepted for credit. That’s not a lot of space so pick your battles carefully. You may have written critical responses in other classes, but here your focus should be primarily on the ideas in your student’s paper – and nothing else. To give you an idea for what I’d like to see, I’m going to start with the downer-strategy and give you a bunch of “DON’Ts”: ? You don’t need to be giving grammar criticism. Save that for an English class. Here we’re trying to learn how to think better – that’s our focus. Your comments can possibly be a big help to the person you’re reviewing; giving them more ideas to work with, stimulating new ones, seeing other perspectives. ? Don’t MERELY give your opinion. This is not another paper YOU are writing. You want to be in dialogue with the AUTHOR’S ideas. Play on their turf. Don’t get astray in irrelevant tangents. Share your ideas but make sure that you 1) connect them in with what the author is up to and 2) defend them. Just stating that you disagree isn’t useful. Giving an argument for an objection helps IMMENSELY. ? Don’t just share the first 700 words of ideas you have. Pick and choose what you think is most significant to talk about. You’ll probably have more reactions that you have space for. Share what will be most helpful to your author. On the more positive side, here’s a couple ways to think about how to approach giving criticism. (you don’t have to follow these categories exactly, but if you’re having trouble finding things to talk about this might help): ? Identify places where clarification in the ideas needs to happen. If you’re confused, it may be your fault for misunderstanding, but most of the time the author shares the responsibility here. And regardless of the finger-pointing (which is not really the point here), your author will want to be as clear as possible and if there’s a communication breakdown, they should know about it. When sharing this kind of response be sure to include your guesses as to what they have in mind – this will really help the author know where things got off track. (Don’t make this category the entirety of your reaction!) ? When the author makes claims in their arguments, ask yourself if you think that those claims could be challenged – whether by you personally, or someone else less sympathetic to the position. If there is significant room for a challenge, indicate on what grounds someone might be suspicious of that claim or outright dispute it. ? Argument anatomy refresher: all arguments have a thesis or CONCLUSION that is being defended and PREMISES that are the claims that defend the truth of the conclusion. When looking at the arguments your author employs, ask if you could agree with all the premises and yet disagree with the conclusion. #1 THING FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT: HAVE PATIENCE! Your paper’s author is just trying out this whole philosophy thing for the first time too, so don’t expect freaking John Stuart Mill is writing the paper you’re reviewing. BE CHARITABLE and CONSTRUCTIVE. And don’t forget that “constructive” doesn’t mean you can’t be critical. But also: “critical” doesn’t license being abusive! Keep it friendly. So basically: don’t pull the punches but throw those punches as a friend and not as an enemy. Think about how two martial artists might spar with each other for their mutual benefit and with mutual respect. This is more like that than an all-out brawl. Detailed Outline ? The automation of jobs (replacement of people with robots for jobs), which has been a result of the ever fast evolution of technology, is not ethically sound. This shouldn’t be a result of innovation. ? There is no need to keep society and humanity from continuing to innovate, but without the access to jobs for certain, and maybe even most parts, of the population, this will accelerate our housing, unemployment, and financial problems already existent within our society. ? It can be argued that other theories, such as the theory that without the burden of jobs we would be able to live our lives in a better and more self fulfilling way, but in the modern world I just think that this idea is not realistic. ? In the best version of our world, where everyone is working together for the better of each other and aren’t highly devoid of selflessness and not forced to look out for one’s own self always, then this might be possible. Ideally, something like this would be possible. A way life can be lived for self enjoyment and not simply for the purpose of survival over all. ? People of the past believed automation would lead to a life of leisure, but we have seen that automation has actually made workers become more productive and forced them to work harder in our capitalist economy. This theory has been shown to not be applicable to our world. ? Additionally, many people tend to find their sense of self and happiness in their work. While some people may find it within other things in their lives that they find self fulfilling, there is the opposite end of the spectrum in that they will become despondent without the ability to identify with their professions and find value within that work. ? Change is not always for the better, innovation and progression does not mean something is getting improved in the long run. I think this is one of those situations. ? But it can also be argued that this work being replaced with automation will open up more opportunities for different types of work, and not simply take away the opportunities for human workers. About 80% of the population worked on farms at the turn of the 20th century, and now only about 5% work on farms in modern day. There are many examples that this replacement will not be a detriment, and it will simply allow for people to be able to further innovate and work different types of jobs now that the other jobs are being automated. Say manual farm work moving toward more knowledge-based work. ? But the point I am trying to make is that the most at risk that will be the biggest casualties of this automation, where will they run to? New jobs don’t become available at the drop of a hat, especially with the amount of people who will be displaced by this automation. And I’m not even touching on how much it costs to live, and how many people live paycheck to paycheck and wouldn’t survive a layoff for any extended amount of time. How do you justify that? ? Automation is quick, so this would hopefully only last a generation, but is that worth it? Can it be justified? And even if the effects don’t last a long time, what will be the repercussions and the lasting aftershocks that affect the following generations. Can they truly be justified? ? This all leads us to the question, what is the most ideal state for individuals, and what is the most meaningful way to live? ? In my opinion, if you are able to explore as much as you want, whether that be through literal travel, discovering new foods, venturing into hobbies, immersing yourself into the arts, or any other things that would give one pleasure and meaning, then you are living ideally. Obviously, you’d have to have your basic needs also met, but in my ideal world it wouldn’t be a struggle to fulfill those needs. Due to this lack of struggle, one would have time to discover and explore all of the things I mentioned previously. I mean, that’s what life is about right? Along with comradery, companionship, family, etc, it is in these other things that we can find our meanings and our drives in life. ? I don’t think this problem should halt humanity’s progression to keep our existing system functional. There are already enough problems with it, so it should progress and improve, it’s progress does not need to be impeded by this. ? But, that doesn’t mean this problem needs to be a casualty of progression. ? I don’t believe that we will ever truly reach a lifestyle in modern society that is utopian in the way we enjoy it and experience it, but keeping jobs available to people and not further muddying the socio economic problems of our world would be a closer step to a society that is more utopian.
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
Response Paper
In the paper, the author argues that job automation is not ethically sound. Throughout the reading, the writer has provided valued and convincing arguments against job automation. I agree with a majority of the ideas presented by the author, especially the relationship between automation and unemployment. Although some arguments are unclear, most of the content in the paper is well-presented and backed with coherent justifications.
The first point made by the author suggests that the lack of access to certain jobs will accelerate housing, unemployment, and cause other financial challenges. While I agree that automation will create unemployment for many people in different sectors, it is not clear what the author means by automation accelerating housing and financial problems. Since the author is arguing against job automaton, critics would argue that accelerated housing is a good thing, especially when there are many homeless people today. Besides, the statement that job automation will create financial challenges can be argued from different points of view. Some people may dispute that automation improves efficiency in production, leading to more revenues for organizations, which is good for financial development. Other critics may argue that automation of jobs has improved the financial wellbeing of many people due to increased accuracy, better costs savings, and less time wastage. Therefore, while I support the view that automation will create financial problems, the author should provide more clarification and evidence to back these arguments.
I agree with the author that change is not always for the better. Over the last few years, constant technological innovations have been triggered by the notion that the changes will essentially make the world a better place. For this reason, many organizations are striving to produce the most innovative products. For instance, the idea of industrial robots has been widely accepted in many places. However, the possible negative repercussions of these innovations should not be ignored. Like the author states, innovations do not necessarily create a platform for improvement. Unemployment rates have considerably increased in industries that rely too much on automation. Therefore, while new technologies improve the efficiency of production, and increase the profitability of organizations, they do not necessarily improve the living standards of people. Instead, they contribute to unemployment, which affects economic development.
I think the author makes sound arguments against the theory that states that jobs prevent people from living fulfilling lives. Many proponents of automation of jobs argue that the burden of jobs limit people from living fulfilled lives. However, like the author mentions, this is not accurate in the modern world, where jobs have become a source of satisfaction and fulfillment for many people. For instance, a majority of teachers, doctors, and engineers truly enjoy their profession, and work not only for monetary value derived from their jobs, but because they are passionate about what they do. Therefore, should such jobs be automated, the people who enjoy their professions would suffer from dissatisfaction and poor mental wellbeing.
However, the author argues that the automation of jobs has made workers more productive. I believe that this point needs further clarification because, ideally, as more jobs become automated, the need for mutual workers diminishes. The author also states that automation has made people work harder, a point that would attract criticism from many people. For instance, in companies that have deployed industrial robots, manual workers work less, not harder, because the machines do most of the work. While the author makes valid points, the lack of explanation on how automation increases productivity diminishes the weight of the arguments.
I commend the way the author has presented arguments supporting automation, and provided the various reasons why these arguments are simply not enough. The author states that automation has presented more job opportunities for more people, and allowed individuals to innovate other jobs that did not exist in earlier centuries. For instance, some of the jobs that have been created by automation include IT specialists, social media managers, cyber security personnel, and web designers. Notably, these jobs did not exist in the past, and are a result of innovation. The author further argues that despite these benefits of automations, the justifications are insufficient against limitations, such as unemployment and possible aftershocks for generations to come. I agree with these arguments, especially because many people have started losing their jobs in many organizations as a result of automaton. For instance, in the current digital era where self-driving cars are becoming a reality, it is hard to imagine the number of drivers who will lose their jobs, and the lack of alternatives for similar jobs. Therefore, the author has convincingly shown how the disadvantages of job automation outweigh the benefits.
Overall, the author has done a wonderful job of providing arguments against the automation of jobs. The opinions provided throughout the essay are valid and convincing. Some of the most important arguments against the automation of jobs include unemployment, reduced fulfillment, and minimized productivity of future generations. The author has also provided arguments for job automation, making the reader understand the possible benefits and challenges of each argument.
