In explaining the concept you should aim for a thorough explanation such that a reader who is unfamiliar with the material can completely understand the point. In this way, you can view your role as that of a teacher. Some tips on how to do that well:
First, explain the point colloquially, in your own words. What’s the basic idea? What’s the point, in a nutshell?
Then, explain the point as clearly and precisely as you can (in the lectures, as you’ll see, I’ll often use variables when doing this. E.g. "An act X is morally right on DCT if and only if and because…").
Then, illustrate the point with an example (bonus if your example is original).
You can test out your explanation on a friend who is not in the course. Are they able to come to have knowledge of that point from your explanation? Try to write so that it is absolutely impossible for a reader to misunderstand you.
The portion of your post in which you explain your own position on the issue or point should demonstrate that you understand and have critically engaged with the material. That is, you should clearly and precisely state your view and then provide reasons, evidence, or justification in support of your view. You are to critically engage with the posts of your fellow group members in your reply posts. This may involve asking for clarification about some point (and perhaps offering some possibilities: e.g. “Did you mean X or did you mean Y?”), suggesting further support for a view, or raising an objection to a point.
Remember that, in this course, we are philosophers. This means that any and all views are open to critical engagement (this can sometimes be frightening or disconcerting; that’s okay), though we will always do this with politeness and respect.
Please respond to one question from 1-4 AND respond to question 5.
(1) What does Kant mean when he says that moral requirements are rational requirements? Do you agree with him?
(2) Explain the HEI formulation of the categorical imperative.
(3) Explain the UL formulation of the categorical imperative.
(4) What is the problem of relevant maxims? What solution does Timmons propose? Is this a plausible solution?
(5) Do you find Kant’s theory plausible? Why or why not?