Scaffolding Assignment 3: Objections/ Rebuttals While it might seem counterintuitive, a successful paper will raise objections to its own premises. In fact, the author will try to make these objections as strong as possible. By sincerely taking into account potential objections that the reader might have, the author can strengthen, not weaken, their argument. Their argument seems stronger for being able to confront and overcome signicant criticism. IN WRITING: Paper 1 must also include an assessment of two objections (one per premise), which you will draft this week. It should follow this format: Objections Objection to Premise 1 (two paragraphs) Objection to Premise 2 (two paragraphs) Rebuttals Rebuttal to Objection 1 (two paragraphs) Rebuttal to Objection 2 (two paragraphs) \"Make sure to include these exact headings (without the paragraph minimum) in your submission this week. A successful Assessment of Objections/rebuttals sections will include: 0 Strong objections that respond to the specic claims made in each of the premises. They are well developed and strong evidence is given in their support. The author makes clear how these criticisms offer real problems for their premises. 0 Unique rebuttals that do not simply restate the reasoning provided in thejustication section. The author uses this section as an opportunity to provide new evidence (reasoning, examples, thought experiments) in support of the premises. Objection to Premise 1: When looking at the good that therapy dogs do, there is hardly any room for consequences, it may seem like. However, therapy dogs are not for everyone. The rst premise states that, "if all therapy dogs help reduce stress, then it is morally permissible for people with stress to have therapy dogs." This would make the most sense, ethically, because it would amount to the highest overall happiness, unless having a therapy dog would cause more harm and pain rather than happiness. This instance would be true if a small amount of people with stress are allergic to dogs. Then, having a therapy dog would cause more harm than good because it would affect their health and day to day living. Therefore, the concept of having a therapy dog would only cause more stress and possible health issues. Objection to Premise 2: The second premise, that simply says that therapy dogs help reduce stress also has awed parts that must be addressed. Therapy dogs do help reduce stress. However, not everyone's stress levels are the same nor are their ways to cope with stress the same. There are people who fear dogs or are traumatized because of an encounter with a dog. Therefore, seeing a dog would just cause more stress than happiness. This would lead to more pain, emotional and psychological harm than the Thomas Sullivan Tran - this material does NOT reject premise one (but it will help with premise two). Premise one is about WHY use happiness to make moral choices. so vour obiection must shc [...] Thomas Sullivan not sure what your argument says (therapy dogs produce more net happiness?) but this seems to be on target Rebuttal/Answer to the Objections to Premise 1: Although there are people that are allergic to therapy dogs, there is a very common solution. If those who suffer from allergies to dogs take their medications specifically for those allergies, nothing bad will occur and their health will not be at risk. When someone is allergic to dogs, they are not allergic to all dogs, many times they are allergic to specific types of dogs. This could be solved by giving those with allergies to dogs, hypoallergenic dogs and this would be safe for their health. Therefore, there is no problem with allergies and therapy dogs. Rebuttal/Answer to the Objections to Premise 2: Even though there is a small percentage of people that are traumatized by dogs, this may seem like a problem. However, therapy dogs could be the solution to help this fear go away. There is a form of therapy, habituation, that helps people overcome their fears and traumas by making them embrace it first. Habituation refers to the fact that nervous system arousal decreases on repeated exposure to the same stimulus. This could help those with fear of dogs to no longer fear them and actually love them.RebuttalIAnswer to the Objections to Premise 1: Although there are people that are allergic to therapy dogs, there is a very common solution. If those who suffer from allergies to dogs take their medications specically for those allergies, nothing bad will occur and their health will not be at risk. When someone is allergic to dogs. they are not allergic to all dogs, many times they are allergic to specic types of dogs. This could be solved by giving those with allergies to dogs, hypoallergenic dogs and this would be safe for their health. Therefore, there is no problem with allergies and therapy dogs. RebuttallAnswer to the Objections to Premise 2: Even though there is a small percentage of people that are traumatized by dogs. this may seem like a problem. However, therapy dogs could be the solution to help this fear go away. There is a form of therapy, habituation, that helps people overcome their fears and traumas by making them embrace it rst. Habituation refers to the fact that nervous system arousal decreases on repeated exposure to the same stimulus. This could help those with fear of dogs to no longer fear them and actually love them. Therefore, they would have less stress by overcoming this fear and being able to interact with dogs without any problem. Thomas Sullivan Same problem - this addresses premise two material, and not premise one Thomas Sullivan Combine the material above with this, since this also addresses premise two! For this week, you are asked to construct justifications for both of your two premises. Each premise requires its own separate justification that is at least two paragraphs in length. You will be evaluated on the completeness of the submission as well as the strength of your reasoning. Most importantly, make sure that the reasoning you provide addresses the specific claims being made by the premises (and not the conclusion more generally). NOTE: Your submission should be at least four paragraphs in length (2 paragraphs of reasoning per premise). A successful justification section will include the following elements: . A clear topic sentence that concisely outlines the reason why the reader ought to accept the premise as true. . Sufficient evidence in defense of the premise including: expert opinion, facts about the world, an ethical theory or principle. Note: The justification for Premise 1 will always include reference to an ethical principle or theory, with QUOTATIONS from the primary author(!). . A clear connection made between the reasoning and the premise. In other words, it will answer the question, "How does this reasoning support the premise?"Justication for 2 Premises 1.lf allowing therapy dogs produces more net utility than not allowing them, then it is morally right to allow therapy dogs. 2.Al|owing therapy dogs produces more net utility than not allowing them. 3.Therefore it is morally right to allow therapy dogs. Justification of Premise 1: This argument was constructed using utilitarianism because the base of utilitarianism is pleasure and pain instead of rights and free will. The ultimate goal of therapy dogs is to provide aection and to generate more net utility for those who are suffering from stressful situations. It is proven that playing with or petting therapy animals, especially dogs, can increase levels of the stress reducing hormone oxytocin and decrease production of the stress hormone cortisol. Therefore, it is morally permissible for people with stress to have therapy dogs as it will help their cortisol levels to decrease and their oxytocin levels to increase. Utilitarianism provides the best basis for a moral discussion of the subject of therapy dogs. The best option must be done to receive the most overall happiness. The relationship between utility and action is already dened by utilitarianism and cannot be separated without changing the entire philosophy. Nevertheless, besides only the theory Thomas Sullivan This discusses premise two, not one Thomas Sullivan This is better. Quote JS Mill, explain what he means, and demonstrate how this works with an example that is NOT your topic of utilitarianism. society ought to pursue any alternative that will result in the most utility or happiness because that is what the sum of the interests of all people are. If society were to take a different course in relieving stress, people would be less happy or have Q greater pain. Justification of Premise 2: The second premise, which states "Allowing therapy dogs produces more net utility than not allowing them." explains that therapy dogs indeed can generate more net utility. One of the main reasons that people have therapy dogs is to unwind from their stressful daily jobs when they get home. Therapy dogs also help children with mental conditions to have a voice. For example, children with autism are often given therapy dogs to help them have a structured, routine environment. Teachers and therapists all over the country have found that including therapy dogs into their therapy sessions, shows a marked increase in the child's participation and functional level. It allows these children to have a sense of a "normal life". Therapy clogs cause the highest overall happiness outcome because both the dogs and the children are happy, which causes the dog owners and the families of these children to be even happier. Q Thomas Sullivan see last comment above Q Thomas Sullivan On the right track - evidence? Studies, polls, etc? And don't neglect the "cost" or unhappiness produced