Category: Ethics

Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapters 9, 10
Lesson
Minimum of 5 scholarly sources (in addition to the textbook)
Instructions
First, return to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.
Answer this question: What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side in that debate?
Next, articulate and then evaluate the ethical positions using Kantian ethics (that is, the categorical imperative) relative to the long standing debate (that is your topic chosen in the week three assignment).
Finally, create a complete annotated bibliography for 5 academic scholarly sources. You will annotate each source. The sources should be relevant to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.
Include the following:
Publication details
Annotation (a detailed reading of the source)
Each annotation section should include the following:
Summarize key points and identify key terms (using quotation marks, and citing a page in parentheses).
Describe the controversies or “problems” raised by the articles.
State whether you agree or disagree and give reasons.
Locate one or two quotations to be used in the final research project.
Evaluate the ways in which this article is important and has helped you focus your understanding.
Use the following as a model:
APA Reference
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58-63.
Annotation Example
In this article, Mezirow (2003) makes a distinction between “instrumental” and “communicative” learning. “Instrumental learning” refers to those processes which measure and gauge learning, such as tests, grades, comments, quizzes, attendance records and the like. “Communicative learning,” on the other hand, refers to understanding created over time between individuals in what Mezirow calls “critical-dialectical-discourse,” (p. 59) which is a fancy way of saying, important conversation between 2 or more speakers. Another key idea Mezirow discusses is “transformative learning,” (p. 61) which changes the mind, the heart, the values and beliefs of people so that they may act better in the world. Mezirow argues that “hungry, desperate, homeless, sick, destitute, and intimidated people obviously cannot participate fully and freely in discourse” (p. 59). On the one hand, he is right: there are some people who cannot fully engage because their crisis is so long and deep, they are prevented. But, I don’t think Mezirow should make the blanket assumption that everyone in unfortunate circumstances is incapable of entering the discourse meaningfully. One thing is certain: if we gave as much attention to the non-instrumental forms of intelligence–like goodness, compassion, forgiveness, wonder, self-motivation, creativity, humor, love, and other non-measured forms of intelligence in our school curriculums, we’d see better people, actors in the world, and interested investigators than we currently have graduating high school.
Requirements
Length: 4-7 pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
Grading
This activity will be graded based on the Assignment Grading Rubric.
Outcomes
CO 5: Analyze the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side given a contemporary debate, such as those concerning animal rights, euthanasia, stem cell research, abortion, and so forth.
CO 6: Evaluate the ethical positions arrived at by using a key moral theory (such as Kantian ethics) relative to the long standing debate surrounding the death penalty, cloning, or some other key topic of moral controversy.

Welfare
**Be sure to include ideas from readings on what grounds our basic human rights. 
You must answer all parts of the question to receive credit. Your answers need to be written as short essays (200-350 words for each question and 1000-1500 words total). You must include an introduction and conclusion, and quotations or paraphrases must be appropriately cited.
In this essay, you have five tasks:
Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand.
Give a thorough, philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Walzer’s and Murray’s arguments. (Click here for some tips on how to do a successful exegesis.)
Present an argument applying the relevant philosophers to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying who each philosopher would give the welfare to and why.
Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the case at hand.
In no more than one paragraph, explain what solution you would propose for Rebecca and Jimmy.
Consider Rebecca, a single mother of 4 who has been a long-term welfare recipient. Rebecca is a weekend meth user who often spends her money on meth. However, without her welfare money, her children would not have any food or medical treatment and would most likely be placed in foster homes where their lives would go worse than they currently are. Rebecca’s yearly welfare application is due.
Now consider Jimmy, a veteran of both Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. During the battle, Jimmy was wounded and now suffers from some moderate physical disability and post-traumatic stress. Sadly, although Jimmy tried to find a job, there weren’t many systems to help him re-integrate or work through his issues. Each day, Jimmy begs for money at his local off-ramp. Jimmy has fallen through the proverbial cracks through no fault of his own. Jimmy applies for welfare.
You are the welfare overseer. At most, one person can get welfare. You can make ONE of the following three decisions:
Give the welfare only to Rebecca.
Give the welfare only to Jimmy.
Don’t give any welfare.

To begin to understand how this period began, this assignment focuses on watching a PBS documentary called Foreigners on Their Own Land. 
The documentary title makes use of the actual words expressed by Juan Seguin, who was from an elite Tejano family that welcomed Anglo Americans and even fought along the side of Anglo Americans for Texas independence from Mexico. Seguin’s expression captures the essence of a larger process of becoming a foreigner on his own land of Texas and reflects the process of Mexicans becoming less included in the future of the southwest as Anglo domination and control increased with Mexico having lost the war imposed by the United States in 1848. 
After you watch this documentary respond to following major question and the questions below in number order: 
What does this expression of becoming Foreigners on Their Own Land mean as understood though the experiences of Juan Seguin? Or put another way, what did he go through that would provoke him to express such statement? How does his experience reflect this process? Explain your response and support with details of how you are understanding this statement to mean.  
Can you find a similar parallel of becoming a foreigner on their own land with the experiences of another historical figure or events discussed in this documentary such as Apolenaria Lorenzana, Mariano Vallejo, and/or Las Gorras Blancas, the Gold Rush etc. told through this documentary? Explain your response and support with details of how you are understanding this statement to mean.  
Why did the Seguin family, and other Tejano families, decide to welcome Anglo families to Texas when it was still part of Mexico? 
What do you think about Prof. David Montejano’s statement about Juan Seguin having a conflicted identity for referring to himself as John? 
What is the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? When was it created and what kind of protections was it supposed to provide Mexicans living in what would be considered new US territory?

Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapters 3, 4
Lesson
Minimum of 2 scholarly sources (in addition to the textbook)
Instructions
Review the following ethical dilemmas:
John Doe has decided to clone himself. He is sterile. He cannot find anyone to marry him. He wishes to have children. He knows that he will not be able to love a child that is adopted or not connected directly to him biologically. He will be making use of a new procedure that involves taking his skin cells to produce a twin. The twin starts out as an embryo and grows into a child. The child in this case will have the same genetic information as John Doe. John Doe and his child will be twins.
Jane Doe is eighteen. For as long as she can remember she has been sexually attracted to other females. Her parents belong to a religion that has a religious text stating that God forbids one to be a lesbian. This religion goes on further to say that lesbians will be punished in the afterlife. Jane Doe is debating whether she should tell her parents about her sexual attraction. She has not yet decided if she should come out to her parents and live as a lesbian now that she is a legal adult.
Joe and Mary are a couple. Before becoming sterile, they had a child. This child died of a rare disease. Joe and Mary miss their child terribly. They have heard that there is a new IVF procedure that can ensure that they can have another child. However, their religion forbids using IVF.
Use the resources assigned for this week and additional research,
Select two of the situations above and then address 2 of the following:
What is the relation between ethics and religion? Formulate and investigate the relation.
For each case, determine the ethical path of conduct. Then, determine what paths of conduct would be unethical
For each case, what would an emotivism say to appraise what you determine is the ethical form of conduct?
For each case, would a natural law ethicist agree with what you say is the ethical form of conduct? Why or why not?
Articulate, explain, and evaluate in each case an approach that makes use of divine command ethics.
Requirements
Length: 2-3 pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (minimum of 2 scholarly sources)
Grading
This activity will be graded based on the rubric provided.
Outcomes
CO 2: Examine the relation between ethics and religion via a valuation of divine command and natural law ethics as ways of determining the morality of actions
CO 3: Argue the importance of subjectivity in ethics and interpret the significance of emotivism as an explanation of moral propositions.

Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 5, 6
Lesson
Minimum of 2 scholarly sources (in addition to the course textbook)
Instructions
This assignment is the first step in a three part project. You only need to focus on part one at this point. Each step will build on earlier steps. However, it is not a matter of providing a rough draft of all or even part of the entire project here in week three. That is, further steps might require completely new and original text. At the same time, completing each step will aid you in completing a future step or future steps. And, you should use the same topic in all steps.
First, select a topic of moral controversy, debate, disagreement, and dispute, Examples of such topics are euthanasia, the death penalty, abortion, cloning, etc. You can pick any such topic. It need not be listed here.
Next, detail the positions of each side of the ethical debate. Note at least two moral reasons each side presents to show their view on the topic is correct.
Now, we want to evaluate these positions using the moral theories we studied this week:
What would an Ethical Egoist say about this topic? What side would the Ethical Egoist take? What would the Ethical Egoist say to justify their moral position? Is there a conflict between loyalty to self and to community relevant to your topic? If so, how so? Note what you feel is the best course of action.
What would a Social Contract Ethicist say about this topic? What side would the Social Contract Ethicist take? What would the Social Contract Ethicist say to justify their moral position? Does your topic involve a collision between personal obligations and national ones? If so, how so? Note what you feel is the best course of action.
Finally, reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, or any other pertinent professional code. State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties.
Cite the textbook and incorporate outside sources, including citations.
Requirements
Length: 3-4pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (minimum of 2 scholarly sources in addition to the course textbook)
Grading
This activity will be graded based on the rubric provided.
Outcomes
CO 4: Select the best course of action based on moral theories, values, and logical reasoning given conflicting moral duties (loyalty to community or to self, professional or familial duties, national or personal obligations) and a situation in which a choice has to be made.
CO 6: Evaluate the ethical positions arrived at by using a key moral theory (such as Kantian ethics) relative to the long standing debate surrounding the death penalty, cloning, or some other key topic of moral controversy.

This assignment is a research paper based on the topic: “Ethical Analysis and Implications of Elderly Healthcare Across Cultures with Particular Reference to Guatemala”. It must be in times new roman, 12pt font, double spaced for 7 pages NOT INCLUDING the biblography page. You must consider the topic in terms of different ethical principles/approaches/ideas, which include Deontology, Utilitarianism, Teleology, Paternalism/parentalism, patient autonomy, beneficience/nonmaleficence, first principle of natural law: Good must be done, evil must be avoided, cleanliness. I have attached a file explaining the meaning of all of these.
In writing this assignment, you may compare elderly healthcare of Guatemala to the USA, but the comparisons should be used to supplement the main topic. 

Instructions
For this assignment propose a scenario where you or someone you know are confronted with a moral dilemma relating to cultural diversity and multiculturalism. It cannot be the same as what was covered in the week one discussion.
Cultural diversity refers to religious, sexual, racial, and other forms of social difference. A moral dilemma is a situation in which one must make a decision between two or more options such that the options involve seemingly ethical and/or unethical conduct. Address the following questions:
What was the situation? What did the dilemma involve?
What would a subjective moral relativist say is the right approach to the dilemma? Why would that kind of relativist say that?
What would a cultural relativist say is the right approach to the dilemma? Why would that kind of relativist say that? Is that approach correct?
What did you or the person confronting the dilemma decide to do? What moral justification did you or they give? Is that approach morally correct?
Was there an objective moral truth (the objectively right thing to do) in this situation? Why or why not?
Remember, the dilemma should be detailed with description and dialogue. Regard the questions as requirements. This is an essay, so rather than simply providing a list of brief answers to questions, provide an in-depth reflection regarding a difficult ethical situation..
Cite the textbook and incorporate outside sources, including citations.
Requirements
Length: 1.5-2 pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (minimum of 2 scholarly sources)

Please complete the following self-assessments (Johnson, 2021) and report your findings in your journal:
SA5.1 (The Organizational Justice Scale)
SA5.2 (The Self Report Altruism Scale)
Questions to consider as you write your journal reflection:
SA 5.1: What does your score reveal about your perception of justice in your organization? How can your organization act more justly? Do you think others in your organization share your perspective?
SA 5.2: What does your score reveal about your willingness to help others? How can you engage in more altruistic behavior?

An 10 page case study that provides a synthesis of the case at hand, defines and discusses key topics of organizations, applications, and technology found within the case study, and answers questions posed in the text using a minimum of 10 academic sources outside of the textbook. 
This paper should include at least 10 academic references with in-paper citations and a reference/bibliography section and be 10 pages in length (11 – 12 point font, 1 – 1.15 line spacing).
The study case is: Facebook privacy: your life for sale.
The attached book contains the study case on page 188.

Document: Word (not pdf!!!!!); 12-point font, Times New Roman; double spaced
Pages: 6-8
Formatting and Sources:
Must use APA for formatting and style
Must have title page and bibliography (not included in the 6-8 page requirement); your bibliography (References Page) does not need to be annotated.
You do not need an abstract
Must have at least 5 sources (must use in the text to get creditd (don’t forget page numbers)); Use APA style for citations (in-text parenthetical documentation).
Type of sources: I ONLY accept books (including ebooks) or journal articles as sources. The journal articles need to be published from peer-reviewed journals, NOT newspapers, websites, magazines, notes, etc