Ethics

FIRST SUMMARY:
Please select ONE of the following primary source readings:

“Utilitarianism” by John Stuart Mill (starting on page 111)
-or-
“A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls (starting on page 115)
-or-
“The Entitlement Theory of Justice” by Robert Nozick (starting on page 122)

Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

SECOND SUMMARY:
Please select ONE of the following primary source readings:

“Nichomachean Ethics” by Aristotle (starting on page 179)
-or-
“The Need for More than Justice” by Annette C. Baier (starting on page 188)

Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

THIRD SUMMARY:
Please select ONE of the following primary source readings:

“Feminist Ethics” by Alison M. Jaggar (starting on page 201)
-or-
“The Ethics of Care as Moral Theory” by Virginia Held (starting on page 209)

Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

Fourth Summary:
Please select ONE of the following primary source readings:

“Feminist Ethics” by Alison M. Jaggar (starting on page 201)
-or-
“The Ethics of Care as Moral Theory” by Virginia Held (starting on page 209)

Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

Post on at least three separate days. This week our main discussion will focus on explaining and evaluating the deontological ethical theory as discussed in Chapter 4 of the textbook. Your instructor will be choosing the discussion question and posting it as the first post in the main discussion forum. The requirements for the discussion this week include the following:
You must begin posting by Day 3 (Thursday).
You must post a minimum of four separate posts on at least three separate days (e.g., Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, or Thursday, Friday, and Sunday, or Thursday, Saturday, and Monday, etc.).
The total combined word count for all of your posts, counted together, should be at least 600 words, not including references.
You must answer all the questions in the prompt and show evidence of having read the resources that are required to complete the discussion properly (such as by using quotes, referring to specific points made in the text, etc.).
In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, posts must be made by Day 7 (Monday); posts made after Day 7 are welcome but will not count toward the requirements.
Be sure to reply to your classmates and instructor. You are encouraged to read posts your instructor makes (even if they are not in response to your own post) and reply to those as a way of examining the ideas in greater depth.
All postings (including replies to peers) are expected to be thought out, proofread for mechanical, grammatical, and spelling accuracy, and to advance the discussion in an intelligent and meaningful way (i.e., saying something like “I really enjoyed what you had to say” will not count). You are also encouraged to do outside research and quote from that as well.
For more information, please read the Frequently Asked Questions.
This discussion will be assessed on a 10-point scale and is worth 4% of your final grade.

Discussion: Applying the Categorical Imperative
Please read the general discussion requirements above, as well as the announcements explaining the discussion requirements and answering the most frequently asked questions. If you are still unsure about how to proceed with the discussion, please reply to one of those announcements or contact your instructor.
Please carefully read and think about the entire prompt before composing your first post. This discussion will require you to have carefully read Chapter 4 of the textbook, as well as the assigned portions of Immanuel Kant’s (2008) Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.

Kant’s text and the textbook discuss two formulations or ways of expressing Kant’s Categorical Imperative, the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity. For each formula, Kant considers four test cases to explain how it applies: Suicide, False Promises, Cultivating One’s Talents, and Beneficence.
Engage with the text:
Choose one of these test cases (it can be from either formula), and explain in your own words the reasoning that leads to the conclusion Kant defends. You should first explain the Categorical Imperative itself, focusing on the particular formula you are considering, and then carefully show how that principle leads to a particular conclusion.
Reflect on the theories:
Would a utilitarian come to a different conclusion? If so, explain why. If a utilitarian would come to the same conclusion in this case, could there be a variation in the case that would lead the utilitarian and Kant to come to different conclusions?
Reflect on yourself:
Do you agree with Kant’s conclusion? If not, explain the flaws in his reasoning. If you do agree, and you think a utilitarian would come to a different conclusion in this or a slightly varied case, why do you think that Kant’s reasoning is superior to the utilitarian’s? (You may want to consult section 4.3, “Challenges to Kant’s Theory” for help with this section).

Discuss the ETHICAL dilemmas associated with stem cell research.
Discuss the LEGAL dilemmas associated with stem cell research.
Present 3 articles from recent publications to demonstrate the reality of stem cell research. These articles should highlight the ETHICAL and LEGAL dilemmas in stem cell research. You should include all details of the articles. These can be court cases as well. MUST BE DONE IN AMERICAN LANUAGE, and no plagiarism, the paper will be checked though Turnitin.

In the Ancient Greek world (the world of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, often regarded as the birthplace of philosophy) a “symposium” was a banquet held after a meal, an “after party” of sorts that usually included drinking, dancing, recitals and engaging conversations on the topics of the day.
For our purposes in this course, the Symposium discussions will not involve dancing, recitals or a banquet, but they will provide food for thought on current ethical issues and direct application of the ethical theory discussed in each of these weeks.
It is almost impossible these days to turn on the news or log onto social media without encountering a controversy that cries out for ethical discussion. For these Symposium discussions, your instructor will choose a topic of current ethical interest and a resource associated with it for you to read or watch. Your task is to consider how the ethical theory of the week might be used to examine, understand or evaluate the issue.
This week, you will consider how deontology applies to a controversy, dilemma, event, or scenario selected by your instructor. It is a chance for you to discuss together the ethical issues and questions that it raises, your own response to those, and whether that aligns with or does not align with a deontological approach. The aim is not to simply assert your own view or to denigrate other views, but to identify, evaluate, and discuss the moral reasoning involved in addressing the chosen issue.
Your posts should remain focused on the ethical considerations, and at some point in your contribution you must specifically address the way someone with a deontological view would approach this issue by explaining and evaluating that approach.
If you have a position, you should strive to provide reasons in defense of that position.
When responding to peers, you should strive to first understand the reasons they are offering before challenging or critiquing those reasons. One good way of doing this is by summarizing their argument before offering a critique or evaluation.
You must post on at least two separate days, must include at least one substantial reply to a peer or to your instructor, and your posts should add up to at least 400 words.
Your instructor may include additional requirements, so be sure to pay attention to the prompt.
This discussion will be assessed on a 10-point scale and is worth 3% of your final grade.

Week 3 Symposium

Please read the description above and/or watch the video explaining the symposium and its requirements. If you are still unsure about how to proceed with the discussion, please contact your instructor.

This week, we will consider how deontology applies to rights.
Please read “What We Owe to Others: Simone Weil’s Radical Reminder
(Links to an external site.)
” by Robert Zaretsky
(If you have difficulty accessing the link, go through the Ashford Library.)

Use these questions to guide your reflection:
What is the difference between the “personal” and the “impersonal,” according to Weil?
Can you see elements of the Categorical Imperative in Weil’s way of thinking of rights?

Please review your textbook reading, Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart carefully. Then, please discuss the following questions:

1. The Court in Roe v. Wade, and all courts subsequently have refused to clearly define when life begins. The Court in Roe indicated a time in the fetal development when abortions should be elective and when they should not. What time did they indicate as the cutoff for elective abortion? Does this timeframe seem to be a logical decision? Why or why not?

2. Roe v. Wade, along with many other cases that shaped America’s current abortion laws, discuss legitimate and illegitimate state interests. What State interests were appropriate and what state interests were not appropriate?

3. Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld Roe, but rejected its three-trimester framework in favor of a different standard. What standard did PPH v. Casey set for abortion regulations moving forward? What has been determined not to be an undue burden since Casey?

4. What reasoning did the proponents of the D&X procedure use to advocate for the use of the D&X procedure over the use of the D&E procedure for late-term abortion in Stenberg v. Carhart? Did the Supreme Court ultimately allow the use of the D&X procedure in this case? What reasoning did they provide for their decision?

5. Under Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions, must a state impose any regulation on abortion? If a state wanted to allow elective abortion through the third trimester, could they do so legally? Why or why not?

I need to write an essay about the Terra Blight documentary reflecting the questions below: http://www.terrablight.com/ 1. What are the primary ethical issues in the video? 2. Who are the stakeholders we should consider as we work through the issues in the video? 3. What responsibilities do the corporations involved have? Are the corporations meeting those responsibilities? Why or why not? 4. What responsibilities do the governments involved have? Are the governments meeting those responsibilities? Why or why not? 5. How, if at all, should our society respond to these challenges?

In this assignment, you will practice the skill of evaluating an argument. To evaluate an argument is to critique it and determine whether it is sound or unsound. Write at least 400 words evaluating one of Kant’s four arguments listed below. ARGUMENT- Kant’s argument from the categorical imperative in response to the Inquiring Murderer case evaluation should include each of the following elements: 1. Begin with a very brief restatement of Kant’s argument. 2. Explain at least one reason why someone might think this argument is invalid and/or unsound (or, at least one reason why you think this argument is invalid and/or unsound). (You can come up with one on your own or look at the examples offered in FOE and the Module 3 Slides.) Note that to succeed, you will need to: a. have a good understanding of the concepts of validity and soundness (see Intro Slides). b. offer details from Kant’s argument (the premises and/or conclusion) to show, specifically, how this argument might meet the definition of invalidity or unsoundness. 3. Consider how Kant might respond to this objection. Use what we learned about Kant and deontological ethics, as well as what we read from Kant, to inform your thinking about how Kant might try to defend his argument against the criticism you are offering. 4. Conclude with your evaluation. After considering this potential objection and Kant’s potential response, do you think this argument is weak or strong? Is the argument valid and sound? Your assignment should demonstrate that you have read the relevant reading from Kant very carefully. It must include citations to the specific parts of Kant’s argument you discussed must include CITATIONS from the argument

After watching When They See Us, please write a 2-3 page paper on the many areas of ETHICS that was violated throughout the case.  Why do you think it happened?  What went wrong?  Aside from the many legalities that were violated, how should it have been handled from an ethical standpoint?

ETHICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES IN HEALTHCARE LONG PAPER ASSIGMENT For your long paper assignment, you will be asked to write a persuasive paper on a legal or ethical issue of your choice related to the healthcare industry. The topic of the paper needs to be a narrow issue that you can research thoroughly and develop a persuasive position. The requirements for the paper are as follows: The paper needs to be typed, double-spaced, and written in 12-point, Times New Roman font. The paper margins need to be 1-inch all around. The paper needs to be 8-10 pages and needs to be written in APA format with citations. You will need to include a Title, Abstract, Introduction, Body and Conclusion. You will need to have at least 5 appropriate and credible references. You will most likely find that you will use several more. They can be books, journal articles, legal documents, medical or law review articles, etc. They can all be found online if you would prefer, just make sure you include a reference to the website so that I can find them when I check your citations. You are always welcome to ask me if you are uncertain about a source! (Wikipedia is never an acceptable source!) The paper must be written in Standard English. This means that spelling, grammar, punctuation, subject-verb agreement, and tense all need to be edited and need to be consistent throughout the paper. If you are not fully confident with appropriate grammar within your writing, I would suggest you visit the Writing Center. There are excellent instructors there who are happy to help! I am also more than happy to help! Please remember that the paper MUST be persuasive. You may (and should) present both sides of the argument you are making, but you must eventually pick a position and do your very best to convince me that your position is the correct one.

The purpose of this assignment is to prepare you for the 4-5 page Essay that you will write for this course. The essay is an opportunity for you to engage in more extended analysis and criticism of the areas of ethics that we have covered this far in the course. Your paper should be based on the readings from the course and should demonstrate the following learning outcomes: Read, analyze, and critique philosophical texts. Explain and assess major arguments in ethics. Present well-reasoned ethical positions in writing. Apply ethical concepts and principles to address moral concerns Task: First, examine the following topics and consider the readings and assignments that you have completed in the course up to this point. Select one of the following topics or create your own. Topics: Aristotle argues that happiness is the ultimate good and purpose of human action. He believes that virtue is the way to achieve happiness. Does this view offer a reason for thinking that ethics might have a general character that can be applied to all people, places, and times? Can someone be fully happy (in Aristotle’s sense, that is, fulfilled, excellent, flourishing) even though others might consider them wicked? Does virtue or piety capture what we mean by morals and ethics or is something lost in these characterizations? When Plato and Euthyphro discuss piety, they seem to treat piety as if it were another word for ethical, that is, if a person is pious then they do the right thing while an impious person does not. Similarly, Aristotle’s entire work on ethics is concerned with the development of virtue. But is virtue or piety all there is to ethics? Are there other rules, guidelines, or moral principles that are not captured by the concepts of virtue and piety? What are they? What is missing? Euthyphro tries to ground morality in the statements of the gods; Aristotle grounds it in human nature (the soul, its purpose and it’s function). Which of these two approaches to grounding ethics seems more likely to succeed as an ethical theory? Do they both miss something? Is there another way to ground our notions of ethics? Why would one or the other fail to provide an adequate theory of ethics? Second, think about how you will write a persuasive argument addressing the topic of your choosing. This argument should be based on the readings and on your own critical reasoning. You will need to explain the arguments and positions presented in the readings. You will need to analyze and critique those positions. And you should consider how they apply to concrete situations. Third, after you have thought about this for a while, you should compose a short abstract or proposal (no more than four or five sentences) and an outline demonstrating for your paper.