Instructions:
Main Post: Write a minimum of 200 words discussion about ONE of the topics below. (due date: Monday by 11:59 pm) (Part A of the assignment) (Worth 7.5 points)

Note: The peer response must contain relevant content as well. Avoid repeating (even in different words) what you wrote about in your main discussion as part of the response to the classmate. Whether you agree or disagree with your peer’s discussion, add new content to your peer’s post.
While you may add comments such as “or “Interesting findings,” that is not enough to receive a grade for the peer response. Your reaction to a peer’s discussion must contain relevant content taken from the material learned in class or external sources.
Topics for discussion (choose one):

Topic A:

Case Study: The Experience Machine
Suppose there exists a machine that stimulates a perfect reality based upon your preferences and interests. You upload your consciousness onto the machine, and it is able to generate an enhanced replica of reality which stimulates your feelings and thoughts. Essentially, it is indistinguishable from normal reality, but it is influenced by your personal style. The only downside is that once you upload your consciousness, you can never return to the real world.

Questions:

1) Would you commit to the experience machine or not? Give reasons for your decision.
2) If the previous answer is yes, then describe what general kinds of experiences you would stimulate. Appeal to the chapter sets of meanings for some influence. For instance, perhaps you want to experience life as an intense poker game, in which every game provides numerous rewards for the winner.
If the previous answer is no, then explain how this machine interferes with the meaning of life. Write how this life is more meaningful than any possible experience from this type of machine.
3) Lastly, explain what answer you think most people would choose in your opinion. Provide some reasons why you think this way.

Topic B:

Case Study: Altruism and “Good Samaritan” Laws
Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on November 1, 2004, according to the negligence lawsuit filed against Lisa Torti. Torti, who was travelling as a passenger in a car that was following behind Van Horn’s vehicle, stopped after the crash. When Torti stopped, she noticed that Van Horn required important medical treatment, so she moved her from her disabled vehicle. Torti testified that she placed one arm under Van Horn’s legs and the other behind her neck as support when she lifted Van Horn from the car. Van Horn blamed her injuries (including a lacerated liver and broken vertebrae) on Torti. Van Horn claimed that Torti grabbed her by the arm and pulled her from the car “like a rag doll.” Court documents said that the question of whether Van Horn was paralyzed during the crash or when she was pulled out of the car has been disputed.
The Second District Court of Appeal wrote in a decision that the “Good Samaritan” law only protects people from liability if they are administering emergency medical care. The court ruled, however, that Torti should not have perceived Van Horn’s danger of remaining in the wrecked car as an “emergency.” Attorney Robert Hutchinson, who represented plaintiff Alexandra Van Horn, said that, though the state’s Samaritan law did not require bystanders to render aid, if they choose to render aid, they must act reasonably. The end legal result was that Van Horn was permitted to sue Torti for rendering aid.

Questions:

Do you think that Torti performed an altruistic act?
Use this case and think of three potential criticisms of the view why altruistic acts are possible.

Using this case, imagine that you are a legislator writing an amendment to your state’s current Good Samaritan law. Write a persuasive argument that Good Samaritan laws should be extended to protect those who also are rendering nonemergency aid.

Last Completed Projects