This paper focuses on achieving an infinite regress structure that can be a basis for knowledge justification. To achieve this, mathematical proofs are taken to be paradigm cases that can show how infinite regress can justify. Taking each of these proofs as examples of how an infinite regress may function, three different belief statements are shown, and have a justification with an infinite regress given to them. Afterwards critiques on this regress structure are discussed as well as ways in which a mind could comprehend an infinite regress.

This paper follows the case a young woman named Ashley and the physical procedures that her parents had done in order to improve her standard of living. I argue that these procedures are a violation of Ashley's dignity given that they do not treat her as an ends, but merely as means to improve the parents standard of living. I also argue that the justifications given for each procedure are insufficient evidence that Ashley is actually seen as a dignified individual worthy of greater considerations.

In this paper I take a contemporary version of Aristotle's form matter distinction. This view by E.J. Lowe is then placed against Eleatic challenge which Aristotle's form matter distinction was supposed to correct. I argue that Lowe's theory may be able to answer the Eleatic challenge, but not without changing the theory and allowing for a more loose interpretation