What does it mean to you to be happy? Do you desire money or things? Do you want to travel? Does your happiness depend on your relationships with other? Feel free to use the “I” voice. Write a short paragraph as your response.

Learning Goal: I’m working on a philosophy writing question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

Please choose ONE of the following Ted Talks to respond to. Follow the questions related to each talk and answer using bullet point or essay format. This response does not require APA formatting (unless you are using citations). Please see rubric for further support.

Topic #1:

Watch the following Ted-Ed video Self-Driving Cars by Patrick Lin (2015) and answer the following questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixIoDYVfKA0

Links to an external site.

• At 1:19, Lin claims there’s a difference between an instinctual reaction and a conscious decision, and programmers of self-driving cars have a dilemma: they must choose what a self-driving car does when swerving into another vehicle to avoid a falling object. Lin claims, “If a programmer were to instruct the car [to hit another motorist] . . . well that looks more like premeditated homicide.” Is Lin’s argument an example of a hyperbole as rhetorical device? Explain your answers.
• A syllogism in Lin’s argument can be summarized as follows:
  • Major premise: Murder is the intentional, premediated killing of another human being.
  • Minor premise: Programmers of self-driving cars must intentionally and premeditatively program a car to kill another human being to protect the lives of the driver.
  • Conclusions: Programmers of self-driving cars are guilty of murder if they program a car to kill another human being to protect the lives of the driver.

Is this syllogism using deductive or inductive logic? Explain your answer. If deductive, test the logical validity and soundness of the syllogism. If inductive, explain if the syllogism is stronger or weaker.

• At 2:03 in the video, Lin offers another ethical test. Driving in a car, you have two motorcyclists, one on the right and one on the left. One is wearing a helmet; the other is not. A programmer must decide which motorcyclists to hit. Which kind of moral reasoning—consequentialism or deontology—best applies to this scenario. Explain why. Using the kind of moral reasoning you chose, play role of the programmer, and decide which motorcyclists gets hit. Explain why you choose that motorcyclist.
• After viewing the overall video, which rhetorical appeal—ethos, pathos, or logos—is the appeal used best by Lin? Explain how Lin references that appeal throughout the video.

Topic #2:

Watch the following Ted-Talk video Cultivating Collaboration: Don’t Be So Defensive! by Jim Tamm (2015) and answer the following questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjSTNv4gyMM

Links to an external site.

• At 1:02 in the video, Tamm claims, “We often see among the chicken something we occasionally see in human organizations and that is that the star performers become the stars not by being so good themselves but by suppressing the egg production of the other chickens.” Tamm is employing an analogy and an argument for comparison. In your own words, explain Tamm’s comparison and provide a real-world example of what he means. Then, decide whether or not Tamm’s analogy is a false analogy. Explain your answer.
• At 3:48 in the presentation, Tamm claims he has mediated more labor disputes than anyone in the country. He further claims he and his fellow researchers successfully instilled collaborative skills that lessened conflicts “in over a hundred organizations by almost 70%” (4:55). Examine Tamm’s experience and claims of success, and then argue whether Tamm’s use a proof surrogate as a rhetorical device is effective or ineffective. Explain your answer.
• A syllogism in Tamm’s argument can be summarized as follows:
  • Major premise: Red-Zone behavior (defensiveness and competition) encourages conflict in an organization.
  • Minor premise: Green-Zone behaviors (collaboration and listening) can reduce Red-Zone behavior in an organization.
  • Conclusions: Green-Zone behaviors can reduce conflicts in an organization.

Is this syllogism using deductive or inductive logic. Explain your answer. If deductive, test the logical validity and soundness of the syllogism. If inductive, explain if the syllogism is stronger or weaker.

• After viewing Tamm’s argument, reflect on your own experiences. Reflect on a time when you were a Red-Zone chicken. Explain what happened and why. What fallacies and biases did you employ in that situation? Do you think being a Green-Zone chicken in that scenario would have helped? How or how not?

Topic #3:

Watch the following Ted-Ed video The Burger Murders by George Siedel and Christine Ladwig (2020) and answer the following questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8O131s31Rg

Links to an external site.

• At 1:02, Siedel and Ladwig claim that the company you run has three choices: 1) do nothing, 2) pull the product and destroy them in the area affected, or 3) pull the product worldwide. Remember that the deaths resulting from the poison burgers are now headline news and profits are tumbling. Which of the three solutions is the best solution? In considering your answer, consider the kind or moral reasoning you would apply. Are you going to apply a utilitarian reasoning (what does the most good for the most people) or deontology (lying is never good, so one should never lie)? Are you going to apply moral egoism (what’s good for the company) or moral altruism (what’s good for society)? Consider the consequences of your choice to your stakeholders—employees, investors, and customers—in addition to the long-term and short-term affects. Be sure to explain your reasoning in detail.
• At 3:19, Siedel and Ladwig offer the viewer three tests: the family test, the newspaper test, and the mentor test. Examine your decision regarding your company’s poisoned burgers. Apply all three tests to your decision. How would you feel:
• Explaining your decision to your family
• Seeing your decision on the front page of the newspaper or posted everywhere online
• If someone you respected made the same decision

Do either of these tests make you second-guess your initial decision? Explain why or why not.

• According to the USDA “Food Waste FAQs” (https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs

• Links to an external site.
  ), it is estimated that Americans waste between 30%–40% of the food they produce. According to Siedel and Ladwig, Johnson & Johnson’s CEO James Burke saved the company by recalling and destroying millions of bottles of Tylenol even though only three tested positive for cyanide poisoning. If your company did the same with possibly poisoned burger meat, you would be wasting thousands of pounds of meat and contributing to food waste in a massive way. Siedel and Ladwig’s example only provides three solutions: destroy none of the meat, destroy some of the meat, and destroy all of the meat. What are some solutions that Siedel and Ladwig do not consider? How do those solutions better solve the problem?

Topic #4:

Before watching the next video, consider your definition of happiness:

• What does it mean to you to be happy? Do you desire money or things? Do you want to travel? Does your happiness depend on your relationships with other? Feel free to use the “I” voice. Write a short paragraph as your response.

After defining happiness, watch the following Ted video What Makes a Good Life? Lessons from the Longest Study on Happiness by Robert Waldinger (2016) and answer the following questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KkKuTCFvzI

Links to an external site.

• Waldinger is the fourth director of a study spanning 75 years that examines the roots of happiness. According to Waldinger’s on-going study, results suggest that relationships are involved. The data and reasoning explain whether relations are the cause of happiness or merely correlated to happiness. Make sure you explain you answers.
• While Waldinger’s study is certainly suggestive but carries with it certain flaws. Examine the process by which Waldinger and those previously involved with this study carried out their research. What choices regarding population, sample size, and method did the researchers make that give one pause regarding the veracity of Waldinger’s conclusion?
• Consider your own experiences. Does your experience support Waldinger’s conclusion insofar as you can evaluate your happiness at this time of your life, and why or why not? Provide details and examples from your personal experiences that you are comfortable sharing.