2nd Paper Assignment Due Monday December 4th This is assignment is exactly like your previous assignment, but with an added step. In this assignment, you must find an argument and articulate the argument as an argument. You must then find a criticism of the argument, but you must also defend the original argument from this criticism. The first step, then, is to find an argument. Be sure to indicate exactly where in the text the argument was found – give the page number. The grade is contingent how much thought you have put into the argument as well as its criticism and its defense. The sooner you get starter, the more time you will spend thinking about the argument. This will reflect your grade on this assignment. The second step is to articulate the argument as an argument. Make sure that the premises lead you to the conclusion. Make clear what the conclusion is and what are the premises. Also, make sure that unstated assumptions are included in the argument, if necessary to produce the conclusion. This part of the assignment will take some time. Further, you might find upon criticizing the argument, you can find a better way to articulate it. Thus, this step might become more developed as the paper proceeds. The third step is to criticize the argument. There are two ways of doing this: you must either criticize a premise or show that the argument is invalid. Do not criticize the conclusion. You will simply set up a dilemma, where two arguments are presented, but one cannot judge which of the two is sound. Rather, you should criticize one of the premises. This involves constructing an argument where you prove the opposite of one of the premises, but you must use premises that the thinker will accept or should accept. Or, you can show that you can accept all the premises and not accept the conclusion, which is to show that the argument is invalid. The final step of the paper is to defend the original argument. This raises a problem in that if the criticism is any good, doesn’t that show the argument to be unsound? What is interesting about good philosophy is that one can find good criticisms and still they can defend themselves. This usually includes exploiting some idea that is presented later in the text that supports the argument. In other words, arguments connect up together to support each other mutually. The idea behind this assignment is that you see that philosophers can defend their arguments, and that any criticism is itself an argument that might have its own problems. Technicalities: As above, state where you found the argument. The idea of the assignment is that you can find an argument in the text and articulate that argument as an argument. Do not have any filler. Just discuss the argument, its criticisms, and its defense directly. You may find that with each step, you must develop more ideas before you present the argument. Just make sure that it is relevant and elucidates the argument. You are not allowed to an argument assigned as homework. Further, you are not allowed to start with an argument from Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, or Machiavelli. But you may use them to articulate a criticism of the argument. IDEAS ABOUT THE ARGUMENT: STEP 1: LOCKE’S ARGUMENT: The government must not decide how people use their religion practices because this is a human right and the government should only provide a stable environment where all citizens have access to positive life, liberty, health and property. Therefore, people have the right to pursue the beliefs of their choice. (add more details from the book & page number) STEP 2 MY THOUGHT: I articulate this argument as an argument because religion is part of a person’s way of expressing their feelings or their beliefs in regard to way of living, liberty refers to the right that people have to express their beliefs, property refers.to a person’s right to have their own land, the state of nature refers to all human being born with the same advantages in a workplace. Altogether, if the rights mentioned above are respected then the humans will feel that they live in a safe environment and they will be more willing to collaborate and follow the rules because they will agree that they are intended to promote their well-being, so they won’t oppose them. STEP 3: CRITICISM OF LOCKE’S ARGUMENT: **The opposing philosopher is Hobbes because his argument was that humans do not have the ability to make the right decisions for themselves and society as a whole. Therefore, they must agree to the government rules in all matters of life including moral and political issues. Page 311. Even though, Hobbes doesn’t directly mention religion in his argument. It can be inferred that religion is part of the moral matters that he refers to. (add more details from the book & page number) ***MY THOUGHT ABOUT HOBBES’ ARGUMENT: The government should not put an authoritarian power in the state because it can cause a rebellion against the government. this means that if society follows every governmental rule; society will not have the ability to know what they can experience on their own. (Why Hobbes is wrong?) Hobbes argument is not sound……. And then why… FINAL STEP: DEFEND THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT: Therefore, John Locks argument that the society should have access to life, liberty, health and property appointed by the government is appropriate. However, regarding their personal religions and believes, if they follow John Locke’s argument they should be able to be in the right path to find their happiness, rights and good standards for the creation of a great state. This will happen because humans will feel that their morals and personal thoughts are not being controlled by their government and they will be more open to following the other rules imposed to have a stable city and society as a whole. 1. Support of Locke’s argument: Page 365 Chapter II “Of the state nature” 
Purchase answer to see full attachment