Philosophy essay writing: There are two essay options: One essay of 3000-4000 words or two shorter essays of 1500-2000.There r 11 questions here and chose on to write 3000-4000 words essay or chose two to write each 1500-2000essay. 1.Evaluate Clarke’s critique of voluntarism (explain the voluntarist position and explain Clarke’s argument before you proceed to evaluate it). 2.Prichard and Scanlon argued (or would have argued – since Prichard lived many years before SON was written) that Korsgaard’s Normative Question cannot be taken seriously as a starting point for understanding the nature of normativity. Explain what the normative question is and present Prichard’s and Scanlon’s reactions to that question. Evaluate this debate. 3.The Euthyphro has been originally conceived as an argument against divine command theories. It was later often repurposed as an argument against voluntarism more generally. It is sometimes suggested that the argument can also be used against realist views in metaethics. Explain the Euthyphro; think and explain how it could be presented as an argument against realism; evaluate it as an argument against realism. 4.Is Korsgaard’s Normative Question fundamentally the same as Moore’s Open Question (In his open question argument)? Given the similarities why do they reach such different conclusions? 5.Does Korsgaard (in The Sources of Normativity – especially at the end of chapter 3) succeed in showing that we have in particular moral obligations? 6.Korsgaard’s approach incorporates a Voluntarist element. She thinks that we have obligations in part because we command ourselves (give ourselves laws). Cohen argues that Korsgaard cannot defend the voluntarist element in her approach. Present and evaluate his criticism and her replies. Evaluate the debate. 7.Bratman in his review of SON argues that the appeal to reflection in Korsgaard’s argument for the existence of obligations (moral or others) leads to an infinite regress. Explain Bratman’s criticism and assess the prospects of answering it successfully. 8.Evaluate the proposal to answer the Normative Question by appeal to Reflective Endorsement. Abstract from particular ways of cashing out the idea of reflective endorsement and ask yourself whether any successful endorsement on reflection – of a particular motivation or of our overall moral tendencies – could alleviate the doubts voiced by the Normative Question. 9.Williams in his “Internal and External Reasons” argues that our reasons are relativized to our motivational set or more exactly to what our motivational set would be after thorough fully informed imaginative reflection. Korsgaard points out (and Williams to a large extent would agree) that such reasons can only be the basis of non-objective reasons. Korsgaard argues that Williams’ position is unstable. Explain and evaluate her argument against Williams’ form of relativism. 10.Explain and evaluate Korsgaard’s objection to the realist answer to the normative question. 11.Cohen argues that the case of the Mafioso shows that Korsgaard cannot establish the objectivity of moral obligations. Explain his argument and evaluate the debate between him and Korsgaard about this argument.