Category: Ethics

Describe a news story or professional experience in which someone claimed that a doctor, nurse, hospital, nursing home, or other healthcare provider did not treat them with the appropriate standard of care. Briefly discuss what happened. How was the situation handled? Do you believe the standard of care was violated? If so, how?

Assignment: Answer these questions:
(1) Why, according to Epicurus, ought we not to be disturbed by the fear of death. And what does Epicurus mean by “prudence” Download “prudence”(Source: https://zcosmos.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/epicurean-prudence-for-the-pleasant-and-happy-life/Links to an external site.) and why is it a greater virtue than philosophy? Your answer to question (1) should be twenty to thirty sentences.
(2) How does Epictetus distinguish between things that are in our power from things that are not in our power? What are some of Epictetus` suggestions in achieving peace of mind? Your answer to question (2) should be twenty to thirty sentences.
(3) Discuss two or three insights you gained while reading Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. Your answer to question (3) should be twenty to thirty sentences.
Each of your answers should be twenty to thirty sentences. Because there are three questions to this assignment, a conscientious student will aim at 90 or more sentences. Please integrate both the assigned readings and the videos into your assignment submission and make sure you make at least two direct connections to specific items in the readings and videos. Failure to do this will result in a lower grade and a successful one that refers to specific readings and videos will receive a higher assignment grade.

Epicurean Prudence for the Pleasant and Happy Life

In this assignment, you will write a personal code of ethics. In the code of ethics, you will state your professional goals and the ethics that guide you. This should be about 1-2 pages and at least 300-400 words..
ASSIGNMENT: Perhaps you’ve heard the quote, “If you don’t know what you stand for, you’ll fall for anything.” Your personal code of ethics is your own statement of what you stand for, establishing a set of principles that guide your decision making and behavior. It serves as a moral compass, helping you navigate challenging situations with integrity and purpose. Including a personal code of ethics in a job application package can demonstrate to potential employers a candidate’s commitment to ethical conduct and values alignment.
This assignment can help you during interviews and throughout your professional career, as you are more likely to make ethical decisions that align with your personal values, and it can help prepare you for interview responses.
It stands as a written document of what you believe in, what you are willing to devote your time and energy to, and what you value. In times of conflict and confusion, it can serve as a Touchstone for you to review, grounding you in your own personal code of ethics.
Your personal code of ethics will include:
A personal ethical statement naming three values.
At least 3-4 sentences of support for each value statement.
At least 3-4 sentences aligning each value with your professional goals.
At least three references to academically appropriate articles with appropriate and correct APA citations and references.

In this assignment, you will write a personal code of ethics. In the code of ethics, you will state your professional goals and the ethics that guide you. This should be about 1-2 pages and at least 300-400 words..
ASSIGNMENT: Perhaps you’ve heard the quote, “If you don’t know what you stand for, you’ll fall for anything.” Your personal code of ethics is your own statement of what you stand for, establishing a set of principles that guide your decision making and behavior. It serves as a moral compass, helping you navigate challenging situations with integrity and purpose. Including a personal code of ethics in a job application package can demonstrate to potential employers a candidate’s commitment to ethical conduct and values alignment.
This assignment can help you during interviews and throughout your professional career, as you are more likely to make ethical decisions that align with your personal values, and it can help prepare you for interview responses.
It stands as a written document of what you believe in, what you are willing to devote your time and energy to, and what you value. In times of conflict and confusion, it can serve as a Touchstone for you to review, grounding you in your own personal code of ethics.
Your personal code of ethics will include:
A personal ethical statement naming three values.
At least 3-4 sentences of support for each value statement.
At least 3-4 sentences aligning each value with your professional goals.
At least three references to academically appropriate articles with appropriate and correct APA citations and references.

WRITER_ U284525
Answer the Discussion Questions: Week 9: Assigned Discussion Question — Cloning, Being a Person, Stem Cell Research, and the Bible using your own ideas but also incorporating (or at least not ignoring) any articles or material you choose from the textbook that is especially and reasonably relevant.
If you do use or refer to something from the book (or anywhere) as you should, because not everyone will read what you do, you have to explicitly state, explain, and support any material you use. Do not just quote something from your sources (and particularly not out of context). With each of you choosing what you want to read, I expect you all to bring different ideas from the book to the discussion.
Answer both A and B. Question A is more about the concept of what makes two things the same thing or not, and particularly the same person or not than it is about the moral concepts that seem to be involved. Many students have said that murder is wrong, but what if you are not murdering someone by simply deleting one of the forms of them? Question B is just about whether one can consistently hold that the Bible (and particularly) Christianity make it wrong to sacrifice children for the greater good of all, especially if one also believes that war is justified. Give evidence and reasons for your answers to the following:
A) Suppose that we could clone you as an adult — instantly reproducing you whole, intact with memories and everything so that at the moment of formation of the clone, you and your clone are totally identical in all ways. Would it be okay to destroy you, now that your exact duplicate can go on with your life? How about destroying him/her? It is my view that the way the transporter worked on Star Trek was not to transport you anywhere, but to reproduce you at the destination while then destroying the original, and no one seemed to mind that, because they thought they were being teleported. It is just like radio, tv, and phones, which don’t transport anything anywhere; they simply recreate the sounds and images fed into them. You never hear your friends’ voices over the phone; you hear a reproduction of their voice, created from analog or digital signals. So it seems reasonable that if a teleporter is ever developed, it will operate on the same principle. Is it okay then to destroy the original once the copy is created and confirmed? Why or why not? Also, no one minded that people being teleported were disintegrated and then recreated, whereas in my scenario you will be recreated and then disintegrated — mine is a safer process since we confirm the recreation before disintegrating the original. On Star Trek, periodically the teleportation process went awry and the person was lost in transmission; but my way prevents that.
Would it be okay if the clone is intimate with your spouse, whether you are destroyed or not? (Assume you still love your spouse in answering this question.) Why or why not?
For those of you not familiar with Star Trek or who have trouble imagining this whole process, let me state it a different way: You are walking down the street one day, when suddenly you split into two identical “you”, and both are the continuation of the “you” from a second earlier, just as the real individual “you” now is the continuation of the you a second ago. It is not that one is a copy and the other the original, it is simply that you have split into two. Now imagine this happens periodically to us, but each time it does, one of the bodies just vaporizes immediately, and the other one goes on just as you do now (because you don’t notice this process happening). Would you not say that the one that continues on is still “you”? But suppose further now, that instead of you splitting into two right there in the same place, one of the bodies is created in some distant city where you need to go for a business trip, or it is created in Disneyworld or Paris, France where you always wanted to go. If the body that is created with it in the same place is now vaporized, isn’t the one in the other city just you by yourself now? So would it be okay if it comes back home and is intimate with your spouse, etc. Would it be okay to vaporize it immediately if it didn’t vaporize spontaneously? Explain and justify your answers.
The point of the above: there are both pro and con arguments about real scientific cloning that presume clones will be the same person as the parent. The pro side says it will be great that people will be able to make multiples of themselves; the con side says that would be terrible. But is the presumption even true? What would be required for a clone to be the same person as the parent? The scenario above is meant to help you have some insight into that because in that fictitious scenario the clone is a perfect replica in all ways of the original. What would make it be or not be the same person then? What about less perfect replicas, as in real scientific cloning?
B) Many conservative Christians are opposed to stem cell research and to reproduction techniques that do not involve sex between a wife and her husband. They oppose stem cell research on the grounds that one human being should not be sacrificed for others, no matter how much good it might do. However, in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” it would appear that God thinks sacrifice of a child for the benefit of others is right. Moreover, many of these same people are conservative in regard to national defense and believe it is honorable and admirable for someone to be sacrificed as a soldier in war, even when the war may not do all that much good. And in Genesis 2:22 “Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man” Eve was not created by sex, nor was Adam. So even though people can procreate by means of sex, that does not seem to mean they have to procreate by that means alone, or does it? Now remember, this is not a question about what God thinks is right or about the truth of the Bible. It is not even about whether stem cell research is acceptable or not or whether it is okay to sacrifice one person’s life for the potential good of many. This is simply a question about whether there is any Biblical reason to oppose stem cell research or non-sexual methods of reproduction, including cloning.
I do not have this book
The Required Textbook is DOING ETHICS By Lewis Vaughn. It is an excellent book with many good articles. I will also supply free supplementary material. You can use the 4th, 5th, or 6th (eText) edition:
DOING ETHICS
By Lewis Vaughn.
EDITION: 4th, 5th, or 6th (eText)
DoingEthics4thEdition.jpg
4th Edition
5thEditionDoingEthics.jpg
5th Edition
6thEditionDoingEthics.jpg
6th Edition (eText)
PUBLISHER: NORTON
ISBN of 4th edition: 9780393265415
ISBN of 5th edition: 978-0-393-64026-7
ISBN of 6th edition (eText): 9780393885903

please see the chapters that i uploaded, my class is about research method and we need to do critique article. i uploaded the article that wee need to do Article Critique, i need to write the strength and weakness and questions in SIMPLE AND EASY WORDS PLEASE. i uploaded example do same thing (bullet points) please. be clear please. choose the easiest point please. thank you
Comments from Customer
Discipline: hospitality

WRITER_ U284525
Answer the Discussion Questions: Week 9: Assigned Discussion Question — Cloning, Being a Person, Stem Cell Research, and the Bible using your own ideas but also incorporating (or at least not ignoring) any articles or material you choose from the textbook that is especially and reasonably relevant.
If you do use or refer to something from the book (or anywhere) as you should, because not everyone will read what you do, you have to explicitly state, explain, and support any material you use. Do not just quote something from your sources (and particularly not out of context). With each of you choosing what you want to read, I expect you all to bring different ideas from the book to the discussion.
Answer both A and B. Question A is more about the concept of what makes two things the same thing or not, and particularly the same person or not than it is about the moral concepts that seem to be involved. Many students have said that murder is wrong, but what if you are not murdering someone by simply deleting one of the forms of them? Question B is just about whether one can consistently hold that the Bible (and particularly) Christianity make it wrong to sacrifice children for the greater good of all, especially if one also believes that war is justified. Give evidence and reasons for your answers to the following:
A) Suppose that we could clone you as an adult — instantly reproducing you whole, intact with memories and everything so that at the moment of formation of the clone, you and your clone are totally identical in all ways. Would it be okay to destroy you, now that your exact duplicate can go on with your life? How about destroying him/her? It is my view that the way the transporter worked on Star Trek was not to transport you anywhere, but to reproduce you at the destination while then destroying the original, and no one seemed to mind that, because they thought they were being teleported. It is just like radio, tv, and phones, which don’t transport anything anywhere; they simply recreate the sounds and images fed into them. You never hear your friends’ voices over the phone; you hear a reproduction of their voice, created from analog or digital signals. So it seems reasonable that if a teleporter is ever developed, it will operate on the same principle. Is it okay then to destroy the original once the copy is created and confirmed? Why or why not? Also, no one minded that people being teleported were disintegrated and then recreated, whereas in my scenario you will be recreated and then disintegrated — mine is a safer process since we confirm the recreation before disintegrating the original. On Star Trek, periodically the teleportation process went awry and the person was lost in transmission; but my way prevents that.
Would it be okay if the clone is intimate with your spouse, whether you are destroyed or not? (Assume you still love your spouse in answering this question.) Why or why not?
For those of you not familiar with Star Trek or who have trouble imagining this whole process, let me state it a different way: You are walking down the street one day, when suddenly you split into two identical “you”, and both are the continuation of the “you” from a second earlier, just as the real individual “you” now is the continuation of the you a second ago. It is not that one is a copy and the other the original, it is simply that you have split into two. Now imagine this happens periodically to us, but each time it does, one of the bodies just vaporizes immediately, and the other one goes on just as you do now (because you don’t notice this process happening). Would you not say that the one that continues on is still “you”? But suppose further now, that instead of you splitting into two right there in the same place, one of the bodies is created in some distant city where you need to go for a business trip, or it is created in Disneyworld or Paris, France where you always wanted to go. If the body that is created with it in the same place is now vaporized, isn’t the one in the other city just you by yourself now? So would it be okay if it comes back home and is intimate with your spouse, etc. Would it be okay to vaporize it immediately if it didn’t vaporize spontaneously? Explain and justify your answers.
The point of the above: there are both pro and con arguments about real scientific cloning that presume clones will be the same person as the parent. The pro side says it will be great that people will be able to make multiples of themselves; the con side says that would be terrible. But is the presumption even true? What would be required for a clone to be the same person as the parent? The scenario above is meant to help you have some insight into that because in that fictitious scenario the clone is a perfect replica in all ways of the original. What would make it be or not be the same person then? What about less perfect replicas, as in real scientific cloning?
B) Many conservative Christians are opposed to stem cell research and to reproduction techniques that do not involve sex between a wife and her husband. They oppose stem cell research on the grounds that one human being should not be sacrificed for others, no matter how much good it might do. However, in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” it would appear that God thinks sacrifice of a child for the benefit of others is right. Moreover, many of these same people are conservative in regard to national defense and believe it is honorable and admirable for someone to be sacrificed as a soldier in war, even when the war may not do all that much good. And in Genesis 2:22 “Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man” Eve was not created by sex, nor was Adam. So even though people can procreate by means of sex, that does not seem to mean they have to procreate by that means alone, or does it? Now remember, this is not a question about what God thinks is right or about the truth of the Bible. It is not even about whether stem cell research is acceptable or not or whether it is okay to sacrifice one person’s life for the potential good of many. This is simply a question about whether there is any Biblical reason to oppose stem cell research or non-sexual methods of reproduction, including cloning.
I do not have this book
The Required Textbook is DOING ETHICS By Lewis Vaughn. It is an excellent book with many good articles. I will also supply free supplementary material. You can use the 4th, 5th, or 6th (eText) edition:
DOING ETHICS
By Lewis Vaughn.
EDITION: 4th, 5th, or 6th (eText)
DoingEthics4thEdition.jpg
4th Edition
5thEditionDoingEthics.jpg
5th Edition
6thEditionDoingEthics.jpg
6th Edition (eText)
PUBLISHER: NORTON
ISBN of 4th edition: 9780393265415
ISBN of 5th edition: 978-0-393-64026-7
ISBN of 6th edition (eText): 9780393885903

INSTRUCTIONS
Begin your paper with a brief introductory paragraph that clearly states your goals, thesis, and
method. State what metaethical theory you are defending, the issue in applied ethics you are
addressing, the conclusion(s) you want to defend.
Next, provide a lengthy and detailed defense of the metaethical theory you defended in
Discussion: Compare and Contrast Metaethical Theories (Natural Law Theory) This will likely reflect what you
argued for in your thread and the feedback that you received from the professor and/or
classmates who responded to your thread. Here you can go into much more detail than you could
in the discussion, which was limited to 600 words. This section of the Capstone Essay Assignment would be roughly half
of your paper (three to four pages).
Next, proceed to the applied ethics issue that you discussed in your Discussion: Ethical
Application thread (Stem-cell research). Here you should greatly expand upon your argument. Add detail, nuance,
and argumentation, providing a fairly complete and comprehensive application based on the
theory you defend in the first half of the paper. You may illustrate the application with real-life
examples, but please do not fill your paper with anecdotes. You should anticipate possible
objections to your approach to the issue and respond to them in an objective and informed
manner. (For ideas on how others might object to your approach, a good place to begin would be
your classmate’s reply to your thread, but you need not stop there. Many books and articles have
been published on issues in applied ethics, and these can provide a wealth of possible arguments
relevant to every issue.) You are encouraged to use quotes from sources as a way to support your
arguments, but quotes should not make up more than one and a half pages of your essay.
Your conclusion should reflect what you have argued in your thesis. It should recap what you
have accomplished and how you have accomplished it.
This paper is not required to utilize any sources outside of those that were used in the class (the
two textbooks, the videos, and the PointCast presentations), but use of additional resources is
permitted and encouraged. At the minimum the paper should utilize the resources from the class.
All resources used must be listed in the bibliography and any resources quoted, paraphrased, or
alluded to must be documented via footnotes formatted according to Turabian. Sources such as
Wikipedia and online dictionaries do not count as academic sources and should not be used.
Biblical references are encouraged, but will not count as an academic source.
Class textbooks are “Moral Choices” by Scott Rae, and “Talking About Ethics” by David Farnham, Michael Saxon, and Mark Jones.

Videos to watch

– After watching the videos and reading the chapter, explain how you could utilize the information to be a better ethical communicator in your organization.

After watching Fighting Indian Film, we will have a class discussion on this discussion board. I want you to hear your perspective, ideas, and impressions of the video on this discussion board. Here are some questions that can help with answering the discussion board questions. What surprised you the most about the mascot debate? Why do you think there is much pride in picking a Native American mascot? Why do you think sports team fans fight so hard to keep a Native American as a mascot, even if the Native American community says it is offensive to them? What was the most important lesson you took from the mascot debate? Response to the video and question should be 200-250 words responses