Category: Ethics

You will research and write about one of the case studies connected with at least one central philosophical system, and one or more of the more modern political philosophers and their readings and thoughts. That means you must apply one of the following systems of ethics: Virtue Ethics, Natural Law, Utilitarianism of Mill (not Bentham), and the Deontology of Kant. Also, you must integrate at least one (if not more) of the Political philosophers, social scientists, and policy advocates (Rawls, Walzer, Nozick, Peikoff, etc.)   However, you can not select the pairing of Kant and Capital Punishment – as that has been covered in detail. However you can add Virtue ethics and or natural law to that write up below. Before embarking on this exercise, review the relevant discussions and previous case studies you’ve written. Rember to use in text citations and end text references.  Take all the words you need to do well / cover the concepts and terms of the thinkers and systems. 
**Explain how the theorist you chose would evaluate one of the following cases we analyzed: Welfare, Healthcare, or Capital Punishment.

You are going to discuss affirmative action in terms of a current event. This week take all the words you need, but not less than 150. This is the last new topic or scenario you will be asked to analyze in this course. You will not be provided with the key concepts, terms, or ideas in this unit. Part of your grade will be based on your ability to identify and explain both readings’ key concepts and ideas in week seven. Also, you will be expected to pull ideas from previous units and previous thinkers. Use in-text citations and end-of-text references.  

Below I will copy and paste the sources I have to use and all the instructions that come for the paper. I have to use the primary source given and then at least 3 secondary sources which I will list. There is a paragraph in the instructions below about this being the first ethical theory paper I’ve done so it does not have to sound professional…this is definitely my first ethical class and very last ethical class I will take. The irony of using this service for this paper is not lost on me but I’m in the middle of an anatomy class that is more important for my degree. Thank you!
Primary source: Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
Secondary sources (2 or 3 required): One source that can help with reading Aristotle is the ebook “The Essence of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.” This book walks through Aristotle’s writing and puts it in terms that are easier for readers today. It also has a nice introduction to Aristotle’s writing and a short biographical sketch on Aristotle.
Dimmock, Mark and Andrew Fisher, “Aristotelian Virtue Ethics” from Ethics for A-Level
Abelson, Raziel and Kai Neilson, “Ethics, History of” from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy; use section on Aristotle.
Joe, Sachs, “Aristotle: Ethics”from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Kraut, Richard, “Aristotle’s Ethics” from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Purpose of this assignment
The Ethical Theory Paper is designed to give you the opportunity to:
1. Part 1: Explain and analyze the writing of at least one philosopher about an ethical theory to which that philosopher was a major contributor. In your explanation you show you comprehend and can interpret both primary and secondary sources on the philosopher’s ethical theory. You also demonstrate understanding of the historical and cultural context in which it arose.
• Part 2: Either: o Examine the response of another philosopher to your chosen philosopher’s work on the ethical theory OR
o Apply your chosen philosopher’s ethical theory as a way to deal with a major ethical concern
• Part 3: Assess the ethical theory based on your own ethical thinking and either assess the responding philosopher’s perspective or the adequacy of the ethical theory to deal with the ethical concern, depending on which option you chose for Part 2 Your paper must also include a short introduction and conclusion (2-3 paragraphs each)
Skills to be gained:
In completing this assignment, you will build skills that will benefit you in school, as you produce a formal paper, as well as in your professional work. You also will be on your way to earning an A or a B in class, depending on the rest of your class work. Specifically, you will:
• Gain a deeper understanding of ethical concepts, and some of the ways philosophers approach and think about ethical concerns
• Describe the importance of the historical and cultural contexts in which a theory is developed
• Apply what you have learned in class to a specific ethical theory
• Analyze one ethical theory and either a response to it, or its application to an ethical concern
• Evaluate the theory and the response or application
Knowledge to be gained:
This assignment help you become familiar with important content knowledge in philosophy, such as
• The details of a particular ethical theory and one philosopher’s version of that theory
• The ways other philosophers respond to a theory, or the ways a theory can be put into practice. In both cases, you will see more pros and cons in relation to the theory under consideration
• The terminology used by philosophers in working on ethical theory
Note that if you have not taken a Philosophy class before, this may be your first time doing formal philosophical writing. As such, you are expected to not sound like a professional philosopher, but rather to show you are engaged with philosophical ideas. The Task to complete this assignment
• You choose one philosopher from the provided list. • You read two secondary sources from the list in the appendix about the philosopher’s ethical theory
• You read at least some of the primary source listed in the appendix written by the philosopher
• You look at either: o a secondary source provided where a later philosopher responds to the ethical theory OR
o you identify an issue of major ethical concern and read on how this theory can be used to address that concern
• You produce a draft of your paper. The draft should have at least an outline and abstract of the paper, and ideally will include some or all of the text of the paper as well. It must include all sources (one primary source, three secondary sources), in full MLA format. It should include at least an outline of all three major parts of the paper listed above. • You get feedback on the draft
• Once you have feedback, if your draft score is high enough, you produce your paper, using the feedback; if there is too much missing from the draft and/or there are major errors or problems in the writing, you may have to resubmit the draft before being able to submit the final version
• Important note: you cannot submit a final version of the paper without an acceptable draft version. The Final Version is only accepted in Moodle.
Details of Your Assignment:
• Write a 1250-to-1500-word essay—roughly 5-6 typed, double-spaced pages. • You may choose any one of the five theories/seven philosophers listed in the appendix • You are to read and make use of two of the secondary works listed in the appendix, to help you write about the philosopher’s ethical, as well as looking at the positives and negatives of the theory. • You must also use the piece of the philosopher’s own writing on ethics found in the appendix.
• For Part 2, you can either read one of the secondary sources indicated in the appendix, or if you want to look at a major ethical concern, you can find a credible source that discusses the philosopher’s ethical theory in relation to the concern. In your paper, you are answering the following questions: • Part 1: What is my philosopher’s theory about how people “do ethics”, or how they should “do ethics”?
Use secondary sources to help you understand the primary source of the philosopher’s writing; be sure you are also using the primary source, including quoting it directly. Write at least two pages for this section.
• Part 2 Either: What does at least one other philosopher say about my philosopher’s theory of ethics? In this part of the paper, you are evaluating the approach of your philosopher, using the writing of that other philosopher. Or Part 2: How would my philosopher’s ethical theory guide someone in making decisions in relation to a major ethical concern? Write at least two pages for this section.
• What do I think about this theory? How do the ideas of my philosopher challenge my own ideas about Ethics? If I chose a second philosopher, how do those ideas challenge my own ideas about Ethics? Or how does my philosopher’s ethical perspective help in thinking ethical about a concern? How do I assess the ethical ideas I am working with? Do not merely echo what other people say; use your own creative and informed philosophical judgment to move beyond what you have read. This is your chance to build your own philosophic skills, and should be at least one page.
Important points
• Your paper needs to be at least 1250 words, but no more than 1625, which is 5-6 pages of content, based on about 250 words/page. Titles and works cited should not be included in the word count. Aim for a standard academic writing style, with correct spelling and inclusive language.
• You need to include a “Works Cited” page, separate from the text of the paper. In it, include any source of both ideas about the topic and actual quotes used in the paper. These should be done in MLA style (see the library homepage for a guide).
• If you use materials for background research beyond those given in class, include, below the ‘Works Cited’, a list, in MLA format, of “Other Works Consulted.” • Your paper must include an introduction and conclusion, summary sentences, clear antecedents for pronouns, and solid reasons to support your conclusions.

In this essay you have 5 tasks:
Give a clear and concise explanation of the case at hand.
Give a thorough philosophical exegesis of the relevant aspects of Pojman’s and Mosley’s theories. Also, this week you will be expected to pull ideas from previous units and previous thinkers. This week part of your grade will be based on your ability to identify and explain both readings’ key concepts.
Present an argument applying each thinker (Pojman and Mosley) and thier ideas arguments to the case at hand. This should include an argument justifying to whom each philosopher would give the job.
Present an argument explaining why one of the philosophers can be viewed as offering a more successful solution to the  case at hand in your view.  Give reasons.
In no more than one paragraph explain who you would hire and why.
Case
Consider a new position at the very prestigious Chronus Department of the Federal Government.  The Chronus Department examines how issues from the past have an impact on current affairs, and their new position aims at recruiting a new employee to be groomed to eventually assume the position of Director because the director of the department will retire n several years.  The ideal candidate would be someone who has a degree in some area of the humanities that deals with research, history, and culture, and who has a demonstrated ability to work well with others in a leadership capacity.  This position has an incredible benefits package including, healthcare, vacations, and a pension.
The Department has narrowed its selection down to two candidates:
Molly is an African American woman from a very affluent and politically active Texas family.  She attended Yale, where she earned an undergraduate degree in Anthropology with a minor in US Civics.  After graduating, she volunteered for two years in the Peace Corps, and then took a year off to tour around Europe.
Cameron is a third-generation Irish American from a working-class family in Pennsylvania.  After high school, he spent a year working with his father in a steel mill, but then decided he wanted to go to university.  He received a scholarship to Princeton, where he graduated with a degree in US History.  In his final year of school, Cameron was elected Student Body President and implemented a union for the teaching assistants. 

Task: Write a 3-4 page (approx. 1200-1500 words) argumentative essay in which you support a position on a current social-political issue. 3 sources must be used, the ones i provided below. My stance is pro eating meat and the main argument is that, it is ethical and moral to eat meat. We are going against the vegetarian stance, that eating meat is unethical because it causes harm to animals. One paragraph should counter this claim to strengthen the argument. The sources provided below support my stance and claim that eating meat is ethical and moral. The 3 sources must be used below, feel free to add another source that you find may support my argument. source 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/the-ethicist-contest-winner-give-thanks-for-meat.html ; This article discusses the ethics of eating meat and how it is ethical. source 2: https://allthatsinteresting.com/plants-defense-mechanism ; this article is about how plants also feel pain in their own way. Can be used to counter argue the stance that killing animals causes them pain and is therefore unethical. source 3: https://myislam.org/quran-verses/eating-meat/ ; this article is showing verses from the quran that state and prove eating meat is ethical and moral from a religious standpoint because god created animals and cattle for us to use.

of 1
View as TextDownload
Automatic Zoom                     Actual Size                     Page Fit                     Page Width                                          50%                     75%                     100%                     125%                     150%                     200%                     300%                     400%                   
For your book review paper, you will follow the attached rubric in terms of the outline and overall
content. Here, I provide some additional guidance…
1. Your papers should be a minimum of 5 pages in length, utilizing Times New Roman 12-point
font, with 1 inch margins. You should also include a cover page, which does not count towards
your minimum number of pages.
2. Regarding the author/sources section- this need not be very extensive, however you must
provide an overview of the author, his/her qualifications and discuss from where the
information was derived. This does not mean conducting a thorough review of each of the
sources/references, but a general overview since these are non-fiction works.
3. Your critique section is the main section of your paper, and should be broken up into 2 parts.
The first consists of an overview of the contents of the work, the emerging themes, and subject
of the book. In addition you will discuss the quality of the work (how well it is written and the
overall ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of the work to convey the main points/themes. The second section
involves your action thoughts, responses and reactions to the book. These should relate to the
content/themes identified and discussed above. In addition, this is where you critically evaluate
the intersection of ethics and policy throughout the work. You will identify clearly the policy
implications of the work, and evaluate these policies from an ethical standpoint. Draw from
your text in terms of ethical frameworks, and various concepts that may emerge that we have
discussed in class. Your summary/conclusion will draw upon these as you provide your overall
critique/opinion on the work.
4. Be sure to reference the other items on the rubric regarding use of quotes, organization,
mechanics, spelling and format.

Rawlsian Justice
John Rawls claims that justice comes down to a notion of fairness. He proposed a thought experiment wherein he proffers an ideal “original position.” The idea is that representatives of the people operate behind a “veil of ignorance” when determining what policies are in the best interests of all of the citizens. In brief, representatives are ignorant of their “The race, ethnicity, gender, age, income, wealth, natural endowments, comprehensive doctrine, etc. of any of the citizens in society, or to which generation in the history of the society these citizens belong” and “The political system of the society, its class structure, economic system, or level of economic development” (Wenar 4.6). They do understand different people have different life plans, that even if resources are scarce, “there is enough to go around,” and have good common sense.
Discussion task: Imagine you are a representative behind this veil. Discuss and defend several measures you would take to ensure a fair and equitable redistribution of resources.
Wenar, Leif, “John Rawls”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  Edited by Edward N. Zalta 9 January 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/

Most employers tout being an “Equal Opportunity Employer.” In America, we promote both multiculturalism and diversity, but may not fully understand the differences. While multiculturalism may be great when thinking about cuisine and festivals, present an argument that some cultural practices should not be embraced for America to maintain its identity. Also, does it not make more sense to recognize diversity and promote a “fair” opportunity rather than an equal one?

Pick one of the topics 
Topic A: Morality Without God? 
Watch the two videos by Stephen Darwall and discuss whether you find his arguments convincing or if you see some holes or flaws. If so, discuss those flaws. If not, discuss what some of the ramifications can be of his conclusions. Please try to find some scholarship to back up your assertions.
Topic B: Natural Law
Based on all you have read about Natural Law present an argument for the notion that there is a natural law humans can follow to determine the right things to do in most cases or that such a law does not exist or is exaggerated. Be sure to address the differences in beliefs about morality.

Forgiveness and Reconciliation
Discuss one aspect of forgiveness or reconciliation that is meaningful to you. How does it change your perspective?
This course has provided you with extensive information about the nature of conflict. List three elements you found most significant in this course and why. In addition, what personal changes have you made in your own conflict approach?