Send this outline to my email NO LATER THAN noon on Sunday, Feb. 16.
BASIC STRUCTURE FOR ESSAY 1
Use the topic sentences I give you. Then develop the paragraph following the structure in the left column: List your main points. Type your quotations.
INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH
· GENERAL TOPIC of this essay: UNIVERSAL LOVE
· SPECIFIC TOPIC of this essay: UNIVERSAL LOVE IN THE DIGITAL AGE
· Briefly introduce your SOURCES with “Title” and full authors’ names.
· WRITE THE BIG QUESTION FOR THIS ESSAY
· THESIS STATEMENT: Answer the BIG QUESTION in the thesis statement.
BODY PARAGRAPH 1: “The Myth of Universal Love” and your position.
· TOPIC SENTENCE
· THEY SAY: Your summary of Singer, Rifkin, and Asma’s positions + QUOTATIONS.
· I SAY: Which argument do you find most convincing? Why?
TOPIC SENTENCE: In “The Myth of Universal Love,” I find _____________’s argument to be most convincing.
BODY PARAGRAPH 2:
“In Defense of Technology” and “The Limits of Friendship”
· TOPIC SENTENCE
· THEY SAY: O’Hagan’s position – 1 or 2 sentences + QUOTATION
· THEY SAY: Konnikova’s position – 1 or 2 sentences + QUOTATION
· Are these authors’ perspectives on “universal love” in the digital age SIMILAR or DIFFERENT? Explain.
TOPIC SENTENCE: Two articles, “In Defense of Technology” and “The Limits of Friendship,” introduce digital technology to the controversy about universal love.
BODY PARAGRAPH 3: Your position after reading and thinking about all three sources.
· Answer THE BIG QUESTION in this paragraph
· Give your REASONS in this paragraph.
· Use TRANSITION WORDS to mark each REASON: first, second, next, moreover, finally, etc.
TOPIC SENTENCE: After reading the three sources and reflecting on the evidence and ideas presented in them, I find that digital technology makes “universal love” [more] [less] possible.
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH: Reflect on your answer to the BIG QUESTION. Did reading O’Hagan and Konnikova’s articles make you change your position on Asma’s article? Are you more or less hopeful now about the possibilities of “expanding our ethical care to include all of humanity” (Asma)?
ENG101-450 Essay 1 Overview
THE TOPIC FOR ESSAY 1: “Universal love” in the digital age
BIG QUESTION for Essay 1: After reading the three sources and reflecting on the evidence and ideas presented in them, do you think that digital technology makes “universal love” more or less possible?
SOURCES FOR ESSAY 1
“The Myth of Universal Love” by Stephan T. Asma
“In Defense of Technology” by Andrew O’Hagan
“The Limits of Friendship” by Maria Konnikova
Essay 1 is an exploration of a topic combining what other people think about our topic (They Say) with your perspective (I Say). We begin Essay 1 with “The Myth of Universal Love” by Stephan T. Asma. In this article, Asma sums up three views on how far we can (or should) extend our love, in other words, our significant relationships. We will then read two articles about how digital technology affects relationships – adding a new perspective to Asma’s ideas about universal love.
STEP 1 of writing this essay: Read and understand Asma’s article.
· Complete Essay 1 Log_1.
· Formulate your response to Asma’s article: this is your position on the theme of universal love. Which ideas in Asma’s article seem most convincing to you? Which ideas seem wrong to you?
· Summarize and quote the article and explain why you agree or disagree. This will be the starting point of your essay.
STEP 2 of writing this essay: Now we are going to introduce the DIGITAL AGE to Asma’s reflection on universal love. Indeed, the issue of “universal” love is increasingly relevant in a globalized world where digital technology makes global communication possible, leading to relationships with people far outside our family and communities.
· Read “In Defense of Technology” by Andrew O’Hagan (print it from Blackboard) and “The Limits of Friendship” by Maria Konnikova (I will give you a photocopy).
·
Find evidence in the articles that seems relevant to the theme of “universal love” (significant relationships outside of our family and local communities) in the digital age.
· Complete Essay 1 Log_2.
· Answer this question: according to these articles, how does digital technology affect relationships of love or friendship?
STEP 3 of writing this essay: End this essay with a reassessment of your position in Step 1 of this essay. Did O’Hagan and Konnikova’s articles make you change your position on Asma’s article — or not?
· Include the evidence from the two articles that contributed to your final position on the possibility of real universal love in the digital age.
Here is where you finally answer the BIG QUESTION: After reading the three sources and reflecting on the evidence and ideas presented in them, do you think that digital technology makes “universal love” more or less possible?
1/26/20, 10(11 AMThe Myth of Universal Love – The New York Times
Page 1 of 8https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/the-myth-of-universal-love/
Opinionator
A Gathering of Opinion From Around the Web
T H E STO N E
The Myth of Universal Love
By Stephen T. Asma January 5, 2013 1:54 pm
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both
timely and timeless.
Now that the year-end holidays have passed, so have the barrage of entreaties
to nurture a sense of “good will to all mankind,” to extend our love and care to
others beyond our usual circle of friends and family. Certainly, this is a message we
are meant to take to heart not just in December but all year long. It is a central
ideal of several religious and ethical systems.
In the light of the new year, it’s worth considering how far we actually can, or
should, extend this good will.
To some, the answer might seem obvious. One of the more deeply engrained
assumptions of Western liberalism is that we humans can indefinitely increase our
capacity to care for others, that we can, with the right effort and dedication, extend
our care to wider and wider circles until we envelop the whole species within our
ethical regard. It is an inspiring thought. But I’m rather doubtful. My incredulity,
though, is not because people are hypocritical about their ideals or because they
succumb to selfishness. The problem lies, instead, in a radical misunderstanding
about the true wellsprings of ethical care, namely the emotions.
1/26/20, 10(11 AMThe Myth of Universal Love – The New York Times
Page 2 of 8https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/the-myth-of-universal-love/
Two of the leading liberal social theorists, Jeremy Rifkin and Peter Singer,
think we can overcome factional bias and eventually become one giant tribe. They
have different prescriptions for arriving at ethical utopia.
Singer, who is perhaps the world’s best known utilitarian philosopher, argues
in his book “The Expanding Circle” that the relative neocortical sophistication of
humans allows us to rationally broaden our ethical duty beyond the “tribe” — to an
equal and impartial concern for all human beings. “If I have seen,” Singer writes,
“that from an ethical point of view I am just one person among the many in my
society, and my interests are no more important, from the point of view of the
whole, than the similar interests of others within my society, I am ready to see that,
from a still larger point of view, my society is just one among other societies, and
the interests of members of my society are no more important, from that larger
perspective, than the similar interests of members of other societies.”
Like mathematics, which can continue its recursive operations infinitely
upward, ethical reasoning can spiral out (should spiral out, according to Singer) to
larger and larger sets of equal moral subjects. “Taking the impartial element in
ethical reasoning to its logical conclusion means, first, accepting that we ought to
have equal concern for all human beings.”
All this sounds nice at first — indeed, I would like it to be true — but let me
throw a little cold water on the idea. Singer seems to be suggesting that I arrive at
perfect egalitarian ethics by first accepting perfect egalitarian metaphysics. But I,
for one, do not accept it. Nor, I venture to guess, do many others. All people are not
equally entitled to my time, affection, resources or moral duties — and only
conjectural assumption can make them appear so. (For many of us, family
members are more entitled than friends, and friends more entitled than
acquaintances, and acquaintances more than strangers, and so on.) It seems
dubious to say that we should transcend tribe and be utilitarian because all people
are equal, when the equal status of strangers and kin is an unproven and
counterintuitive assumption.
Singer’s abstract “ethical point of view” is not wrong so much as irrelevant.
1/26/20, 10(11 AMThe Myth of Universal Love – The New York Times
Page 3 of 8https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/the-myth-of-universal-love/
Our actual lives are punctuated by moral gravity, which makes some people (kith
and kin) much more central and forceful in our daily orbit of values. (Gravity is
actually an apt metaphor. Some people in our lives take on great “affection mass”
and bend our continuum of values into a solar-system of biases. Family members
usually have more moral gravity —what Robert Nozick calls “ethical pull.” [1])
One of the architects of utilitarian ethics, and a forerunner of Singer’s logic,
was William Godwin (1756-1836), who formulated a famous thought experiment.
He asked us to imagine if you could save only one person from a burning building.
One of those persons is Archbishop Fénelon and the other is a common
chambermaid. Furthermore, the archbishop is just about to compose his famous
work “The Adventures of Telemachus” (an influential defense of human rights).
Now here’s the rub. The chambermaid is your mother.
Godwin argues that the utilitarian principle (the greatest good for the greatest
number) requires you to save the archbishop rather than your mother. He asks,
“What magic is there in the pronoun ‘my’ that should justify us in overturning the
decisions of impartial truth?”[2]
Singer has famously pushed the logic further, arguing that we should do
everything within our power to help strangers meet their basic needs, even if it
severely compromises our kin’s happiness. In the utilitarian calculus, needs always
trump enjoyments. If I am to be utterly impartial to all human beings, then I
should reduce my own family’s life to a subsistence level, just above the poverty
line, and distribute the surplus wealth to needy strangers.
Besides the impracticalities of such redistribution, the problems here are also
conceptual. Say I bought a fancy pair of shoes for my son. In light of the one-tribe
calculus of interests, I should probably give these shoes to someone who doesn’t
have any. I do research and find a child in a poor part of Chicago who needs shoes
to walk to school every day. So, I take them off my son (replacing them with
Walmart tennis shoes) and head off to the impoverished Westside. On the way, I
see a newspaper story about five children who are malnourished in Cambodia. Now
I can’t give the shoeless Chicago child the shoes, because I should sell the shoes for
1/26/20, 10(11 AMThe Myth of Universal Love – The New York Times
Page 4 of 8https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/the-myth-of-universal-love/
money and use the money to get food for the five malnourished kids. On my way to
sell the shoes, I remember that my son has an important job interview for a clean-
water nonprofit organization and if he gets the job, he’ll be able to help save whole
villages from contaminated water. But he won’t get the job if he shows up in
Walmart tennis shoes. As I head back home, it dawns on me that for many people
in the developing world, Walmart tennis shoes are truly luxurious when compared
with burlap sack shoes, and since needs always trump luxuries I’ll need to sell the
tennis shoes too; and on, and on, and on.
~~~~
This brings us to the other recent argument for transcending tribe, and it’s the
idea that we can infinitely stretch our domain of care. Jeremy Rifkin voices a
popular view in his recent book “The Empathic Civilization” that we can feel care
and empathy for the whole human species if we just try hard enough. This view
has the advantage over Singer’s metric view, in that it locates moral conviction in
the heart rather than the rational head. But it fails for another reason.
I submit that care or empathy is a very limited resource. But it is Rifkin’s
quixotic view that empathy is an almost limitless reserve. He sketches a
progressive, ever widening evolution of empathy. First, we had blood-based
tribalism (in what Rifkin calls the time of “forager/hunter societies”), then
religion-based tribalism (after the invention of agriculture and writing), then
nation-state tribalism (circa the 19th century), but now we are poised for an
empathic embrace of all humanity — and even beyond species-centric bias to
Buddha-like compassion for all creatures. He argues that empathy is the real
“invisible hand” that will guide us out of our local and global crises.
Using a secular version of Gandhi’s non-attachment mixed with some old-
fashioned apocalyptic fearmongering, Rifkin warns us that we must reach
“biosphere consciousness and global empathy in time to avert planetary collapse.”
The way to do this, he argues, is to start feeling as if the entire human race is our
extended family.
1/26/20, 10(11 AMThe Myth of Universal Love – The New York Times
Page 5 of 8https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/the-myth-of-universal-love/
I have to concede that I want cosmic love to work. I want Rifkin to be right.
And in some abstract sense, I agree with the idea of an evolutionary shared descent
that makes us all “family.” But feelings of care and empathy are very different from
evolutionary taxonomy. Empathy is actually a biological emotion (centered in the
limbic brain) that comes in degrees, because it has a specific physiological chemical
progression. Empathy is not a concept, but a natural biological event —an activity,
a process. (Affective neuroscience, including research by Jaak Panksepp, Richard
Davidson and others, has converged on the idea that care is actually a mammal
emotion, part chemical, part psychological.)
The feeling of care is triggered by a perception or internal awareness and soon
swells, flooding the brain and body with subjective feelings and behaviors (and
oxytocin and opioids). Care is like sprint racing. It takes time — duration, energy,
systemic warm-up and cool-down, practice and a strange mixture of pleasure and
pain (attraction and repulsion). Like sprinting, it’s not the kind of thing you can do
all the time. You will literally break the system in short order, if you ramp-up the
care system every time you see someone in need. The nightly news would render
you literally exhausted. The limbic system can’t handle the kind of constant
stimulation that Rifkin and the cosmic love proponents expect of it. And that’s
because they don’t take into account the biology of empathy, and imagine instead
that care is more like a thought.
If care is indeed a limited resource, then it cannot stretch indefinitely to cover
the massive domain of strangers and nonhuman animals. Of course, when we see
the suffering of strangers in the street or on television, our heartstrings vibrate
naturally. We can have contagion-like feelings of sympathy when we see other
beings suffering, and that’s a good thing — but that is a long way from the kinds of
active preferential devotions that we marshal for members of our respective tribes.
Real tribe members donate organs to you, bring soup when you’re sick, watch your
kids in an emergency, open professional doors for you, rearrange their schedules
and lives for you, protect you, and fight for you — and you return all this hard
work. Our tribes of kith and kin are “affective communities” and this unique
emotional connection with our favorites entails great generosity and selfless
1/26/20, 10(11 AMThe Myth of Universal Love – The New York Times
Page 6 of 8https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/the-myth-of-universal-love/
loyalty. There’s an upper limit to our tribal emotional expansion, and that limit is a
good deal lower than the “biosphere.”
For my purposes, I’ll stick with Cicero, who said, “society and human
fellowship will be best served if we confer the most kindness on those with whom
we are most closely associated.”
~~~~
Why should our care be concentrated in small circles of kith and kin? I’ve tried
to suggest that it can’t be otherwise, given the bio-emotional origin of care, but
more needs to be said if I’m making a normative claim.
If we embraced our filial biases, we could better exercise some disappearing
virtues, like loyalty, generosity and gratitude.
Cultivating loyalty is no small thing. George Orwell, for example, considered
preferential loyalty to be the “essence of being human.” Critiquing Gandhi’s
recommendation — that we must have no close friendships or exclusive loves
because these will introduce loyalty and favoritism, preventing us from loving
everyone equally — Orwell retorted that “the essence of being human is that one
does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing to commit sins for the sake
of loyalty … and that one is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by
life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one’s love upon other human
individuals.”
In general we have circles of favorites (family, friends, allies) and we mutually
protect one another, even when such devotion disadvantages us personally. But the
interesting thing about loyalty is that it ignores both merit-based fairness and
equality-based fairness. It’s not premised on optimal conditions. You need to have
my back, even when I’m sometimes wrong. You need to have my back, even when I
sometimes screw up the job. And I have to extend the same loyalty to you. That
kind of pro-social risky virtue happens more among favorites.
I also think generosity can better flourish under the umbrella of favoritism.
1/26/20, 10(11 AMThe Myth of Universal Love – The New York Times
Page 7 of 8https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/the-myth-of-universal-love/
Generosity is a virtue that characterizes the kind of affection-based giving that we
see in positive nepotism. So often, nepotism is confused with corruption, when it
really just means family preference. And favoritists (if I can invent a word here) are
very good at selflessly giving to members of their inner circle.
Gratitude is another virtue that thrives more in a favoritism context. The world
of Singer’s utilitarianism and Rifkin’s one-tribism is a world of bare minimums,
with care spread thinly to cover per capita needs. But in favoritism (like a love
relation) people can get way more than they deserve. It’s an abundance of affection
and benefits. In a real circle of favorites, one needs to accept help gracefully. We
must accept, without cynicism, the fact that some of our family and friends give to
us for our own sake (our own flourishing) and not for their eventual selfish gain.
However animalistic were the evolutionary origins of giving (and however vigorous
the furtive selfish genes), the human heart, neocortex and culture have all united to
eventually create true altruism. Gratitude is a necessary response in a sincere circle
of favorites.
Finally, my case for small-circle care dovetails nicely with the commonly
agreed upon crucial ingredient in human happiness, namely, strong social bonds. A
recent Niagara of longitudinal happiness studies all confirm that the most
important element in a good life (eudaimonia) is close family and friendship ties —
ties that bind. These are not digital Facebook friends nor are they needy faraway
strangers, but robust proximate relationships that you can count on one or two
hands — and these bonds are created and sustained by the very finite resource of
emotional care that I’ve outlined. As Graham Greene reminds us, “one can’t love
humanity, one can only love people.”
FOOTNOTES
[1] See Robert Nozick’s Philosophical Explanations (Harvard University
Press, 1981).
[2] See William Godwin’s 1798 Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its
Influence on Morals and Happiness, Vol. I (Toronto University Press, 1946)
1/26/20, 10(11 AMThe Myth of Universal Love – The New York Times
Page 8 of 8https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/the-myth-of-universal-love/
Stephen T. Asma is a fellow of the Research Group in Mind, Science and
Culture at Columbia College Chicago, and author of, most recently, “Against
Fairness.”
A version of this article appears in print on 01/06/2013, on page SR3 of the NewYork edition
with the headline: The Myth Of Total Love.
but I wrote a whole book that way, my first, and it took forever and it didn’t add much to
most of the paragraphs. Yesterday, I had the information from an archive website in about
20 minutes. Then I made a list of winter clothes to purchase from Mr. Porter. Then I
ordered a car from Uber to take me to King’s College London to teach a class, and I
emailed my notes to my office computer from the car and I dealt with a dozen emails and
I read a review of a restaurant I was going to that evening and watched part of a video of
a ballet I was due to see before dinner.
What has been lost? Nothing. Has something gone out of my experience of life by
ordering all the shopping on Ocado rather than by pushing a cart around the aisles of a
supermarket for an hour and a half ? Yes: A pain in my backside has been relieved. It is
all now done by a series of small, familiar flutterings over the keyboard, which I can do at
my leisure, any time of day or night, without looking for the car keys or straining my
sense of sociability by running into hundreds of people who are being similarly tortured
http://www.ocado.com/webshop/startWebshop.do
2/2/20, 8’34 PMIn Defense of Technology – The New York Times
Page 5 of 6https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/t-magazine/in-defense-of-technology.html
by their own basic needs. I’ve always liked music, the sheer luxury of having a particular
recording there when you want to hear it, but nothing in my long years of hunting for and
buying records can beat Spotify. I’ve heard many a nostalgist say there was something
more, well, effortful, and therefore poetic, in the old system of walking for miles to a
record shop only to discover they’d just sold out. People become addicted to the weights
and measures of their own experience: We value our own story and what it entails. But
we can’t become hostages to the romantic notion that the past is always a better country.
There’s a few million girls with flatirons who will happily tell you the opposite.
Getting better is getting better. Improvement is improving. There will, of course, always
be people who feel alienated by a new thing and there might be a compelling argument to
suggest all this availability is merely a high-speed way of filling a spiritual gap in our
lives. Yet I can assure you there was no lack of spiritual gap in the lives of people living in
small towns in 1982. It was just a lot harder to bridge that gap. We used to wait for years
for a particular film to come on television, thinking we might never see it. One had
practically to join a cult in order to share a passionate interest. I can still remember
Tupperware parties, when — Oh, the good old days! — women would meet at each other’s
houses on rain-soaked evenings to try out and buy pastel-colored breakfast bowls. And
that was a good night! Communication was usually a stab in the dark: You might find
someone to talk to about your favorite book, but more likely you wouldn’t, unless you
moved to New York or took to wearing a sandwich board. And now you can find the love
of your life by posting a picture and proving you’ve got a GSOH (great sense of humor).
Every day now there’s something new to replace the old way of doing a crucial thing that
was hard to do. Is it the middle of the night and you live in Idaho and you want to talk to
someone about your roses? Is it Christmas Eve in Rome and you want to know where to
hear some music and light a candle?
Physical loneliness can still exist, of course, but you’re never friendless online. Don’t tell
me the spiritual life is over. In many ways it’s only just begun. Technology is not doing
what the sci-fi writers warned it might — it is not turning us into digits or blank
consumers, into people who hate community. Instead, there is evidence that the
improvements are making us more democratic, more aware of the planet, more interested
2/2/20, 8’34 PMIn Defense of Technology – The New York Times
Page 6 of 6https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/t-magazine/in-defense-of-technology.html
in the experience of people who aren’t us, more connected to the mysteries of privacy and
surveillance. It’s also pressing us to question what it means to have life so easy, when
billions do not. I lived through the age of complacency, before information arrived and the
outside world liquified its borders. And now it seems as if the real split in the world will
not only be between the fed and the unfed, the healthy and the unhealthy, but between
those with smartphones and those without.
Technology changed my character. It didn’t change my parents’. My mother says she
wasn’t touched by the moon landing or the Internet, though she admits that having a
fridge has made a wonderful difference. She’s not nostalgic for the days when they would
place the milk bottles out on the window ledge overnight — that does the trick, in
Scotland — though she has a general feeling that life was cozier and friendlier years ago. I
must have taken some of that from her, but the more I think of it the more I see it as an
affectation. For me, life did not become more complex with technology, it’s became more
amenable, and what a supreme luxury it is, being able to experience nowadays your own
reach in the world, knowing that there truly is no backwater, except the one you happily
remember from the simple life of yore.
My daughter was right to laugh. Because what she was hearing was a hint of vanity and a
note of pride in my stories of the unimproved life. In point of fact, we sat in the past and
burned with the desire to get out, to meet people, to find our voices, to discover the true
meaning of luxury in our confrontation with a panoply of genuine choices. Our wish
wasn’t to plant a flag on the ground of what we knew and defend it until death, but to sail
out, not quite knowing what was past the horizon but hoping we might like it when we got
there. My favorite record when I was a teenager, trapped in a box bedroom in a suburban
corner of old Europe, was “How Soon Is Now?” by the Smiths. I had taken a bus and a
train and walked for miles to buy the record, and it told a story about giving yourself up to
experience. I don’t know where the physical record has gone. It’s probably still in my
mother’s attic. But the song is right here at the end of my fingertips as I’m typing, and in
the new, constantly improving world around us, it took me just under 15 seconds to locate
it. Would anyone care to dance?
ENG101 Essay 1 Log: Part 2
You may type or write by hand. Before you fill in this log, READ the articles again; then use your pencil to UNDERLINE or use your highlighter pen to HIGHLIGHT sentences in the articles.
Complete this log by the end of class on Wednesday, Feb. 12.
Write your ideas and TYPE QUOTATIONS
“In Defense of Technology” by Andrew O’Hagan
· ISSUE: this is the “conversation” (and controversy) the author is responding to.
· THESIS. This is the main idea he supports in this article.
“In Defense of Technology”
Copy QUOTATIONS (+ page numbers) from this article that from this article that help you explain O’Hagan’s argument in this article. Focus on O’Hagan’s ideas SPECIFICALLY RELATED to the focus of your essay: “universal love” in the digital age.
“The Limits of Friendship” by Maria Konnikova
· ISSUE: this is the “conversation” (and controversy) the author is responding to.
· THESIS: This is the main idea she supports in this article.
“The Limits of Friendship”
Copy QUOTATIONS (+ page numbers) from this article that help you explain Maria Konnikova’s argument. Keep in mind the focus of YOUR essay: “universal love” in the digital age.
ENG101 Essay 1 Log: Analyzing and Responding to
“The Myth of Universal Love”
PART ONE: Use the outline below to break down (analyze) Asma’s article into its parts. Find key quotations that sum up the MAIN POINTS of that part of the article. Number the paragraphs before you begin the log.
1. Introduction to the issue and thesis: Paragraph __ to __
What is the issue (the problem or debate) that is addressed in this article?
Copy Asma’s thesis statement. This is his claim, the main point that he will support in his argument.
2. Singer’s argument: Paragraph __ to __
Copy some quotations from this section that best state Singer’s argument.
3. Asma’s response to Singer: Paragraph __ to __
Copy some quotations from this section that best state Asma’s rebuttal.
4. Rifkin’s argument: Paragraph __ to __
Copy some quotations from this section that best state Rifkin’s argument.
5. Asma’s response to Rifkin: Paragraph __ to __
Copy some quotations from this section that best state Asma’s rebuttal.
6. Asma’s final points: Paragraph __ to __
Copy some quotations from this section that best state Asma’s final points.
PART TWO: Now, write your response to the three thinkers who express opinions in “The Myth of Universal Love.” Do you agree or disagree with them? Why? Just write quickly what comes to your mind. Refer to what you wrote in Part One to review each thinker’s main points.
1. Your response to Singer’s position.
2. Your response to Rifkin’s position.
3. Your response to Asma’s position.
What Will You Get?
We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.
Premium Quality
Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.
Experienced Writers
Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.
On-Time Delivery
Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.
24/7 Customer Support
Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.
Complete Confidentiality
Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.
Authentic Sources
We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.
Moneyback Guarantee
Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.
Order Tracking
You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.
From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.
Preferred Writer
Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.
Grammar Check Report
Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.
One Page Summary
You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.
Plagiarism Report
You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.
Free Features $66FREE
Most Qualified Writer
$10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report
$10FREE
Unlimited Revisions
$08FREE
Paper Formatting
$05FREE
Cover Page
$05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography
$10FREE
Dedicated User Area
$08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking
$05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts
$05FREE
Our Services
Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.
On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources
Academic Writing
We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.
Professional Editing
We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Thorough Proofreading
We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.
Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals
Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!
We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing
We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.
Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.
We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services
We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.
Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.
We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades
We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.
Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.
