Category: Ethics

Use your own ideas but also incorporate (or at least don’t ignore) anything relevant from the reading. Answer this question or “Option 1 about the Justification of Punishment”. Except that: Students who have taken a previous ethics course from me should answer the “Alternative question for Week 7: Active versus Passive Euthanasia.”
Read this selection from Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov Download this selection from Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov that makes the case that no one, not even God, can or should forgive a person for a harm that person did to another — that one can only forgive a person for a harm that person did to oneself. 1) Do you think that is true or not? Why or why not? 2) Are there criteria that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for someone to deserve forgiveness or that make it right to forgive someone, or is forgiveness just up to anyone to forgive another for any reason s/he decides or any way s/he feels? 3) Is there any way a person who has murdered an innocent person can deserve forgiveness, if forgiveness is something that has criteria that can make it deserved? Why or why not? 4) If you choose not to let another person’s wrong or terrible actions “consume you” or “eat you up with venom and anger” and keep you in a state of anger or frustration, but instead you choose to put it out of your mind and “go on with your life”, is that to “forgive” the person? Why or why not? 5) If out of a sense of love for all other human beings, you immediately say you forgive someone who has wronged you, even terribly, is that actually forgiving them? Why or why not?
To try to make this easier for you, consider a fairly easy, non-emotional kind of case and see whether you can figure out what you should do to deserve forgiveness and then try to generalize from there. Consider the following: your dog gets out of your yard and goes into the neighbor’s yard and poops on his driveway and tears up some of his flowers in a flower bed. What do you need to do in order to deserve forgiveness for this? There are at least four things. What are they? Generalize then about any wrongdoing. And, can a different neighbor forgive you for what your dog did to this neighbor’s yard? Why or why not?
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
Comments from Customer
Discipline: ETHICS

Judge the medical case studied in class during Week 8 in the Discussion Board. In the video, philosophers applied the three major ethical principles you learned in this class: Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics. In a five paragraph essay, apply ONE ethical theory to decide the moral course of action in the medical case of the premature twins studied in class. Apply the ethical theory in each paragraph to support your arguments throughout the entire essay. Not using the ethical theory results in an automatic zero. Using more than one ethical theory results in an automatic zero. (50 points) You have 4 hours to complete this exam. You only have ONE attempt to complete this exam.

After studying the course materials located on Module 7: Lecture Materials & Resources page, answer the following:
Cure / care: compare and contrast.
Basic care: Nutrition, hydration, shelter, human interaction.
Are we morally obliged to this? Why? Example
Swallow test, describe; when is it indicated?
When is medically assisted N/H indicated?
Briefly describe Enteral Nutrition (EN), including:
NJ tube
NG tube
PEG
Briefly describe Parenteral Nutrition (PN), including:
a. Total parenteral nutrition
b. Partial parenteral nutrition
Bioethical analysis of N/H; state the basic principle and briefly describe the two exceptions.
Case Study: Terry Schiavo (EXCEL FILE on Module 7: Lecture Materials & Resources page). Provide a bioethical analysis of her case; should we continue with the PEG or not? Why yes or why not?
Read and summarize ERD paragraphs #: 32, 33, 34, 56, 57, 58.

Submission Instructions:
The paper is to be clear and concise and students will lose points for improper grammar, punctuation, and misspelling.
If references are used, please cite properly according to the current APA style. Refer to your syllabus for further detail or contact your instructor.
attached are the resources and
video:

Overview:
As you have seen in this week’s required resources, cultural factors and biases affect the decisions we make about ethical issues. This is true for us, and it is also true for characters in books, movies, and television shows. Now you will take time to reflect on an ethical issue that you have encountered in a movie, book, or television show. For instance, Disney offers a variety of media that have examples of ethical ideologies.
Directions
In this short paper, you will explore how cultural factors and biases affect decision making regarding ethical issues.
Specifically, you must address the following:
Describe a Western, Eastern, or Indigenous Tribal ethical issue from a movie, book, or television show.
Be sure to specify whether the example is a Western, Eastern, or Indigenous Tribal ethical issue.
If the example contains elements of more than one ethical ideology (Western, Eastern, or Indigenous Tribal), be sure to specify what the ethical ideologies are.
Describe how you see bias affecting the decisions the characters made in your example.
Be sure to state what you think the bias is.
Remember that bias can be positive or negative. Everyone has bias.
Explain what cultural morals and values appeared to be guiding the decisions the characters made about the ethical issue.
Be sure to give examples to support your opinion.
What to Submit:
Submit your paper as a one- to two-page Microsoft Word document with double spacing, 12-point Times New Roman font, and one-inch margins. Use at least one source to support your short paper. Follow APA citation guidelines when citing sources both throughout and at the end of your paper.

Please answer discussion questions numbers 1 and 2 at the end of chapter 1. The responses should be prepared in a narrative form The discussion questions will help to assess what you learned in Chapter 1.
1.Critically examine the reasons for studying ethics discussed in this chapter, modify as needed, and offer additional ones.
2.Critique these statements:
*A technically incompetent manager is as unprofessional as an ethically incompetent one.
*An ethically competent manager will be working on technical competence; the opposite may not be true.
*Ethical competence may be more important, harder to come by, and more difficult to recognize than technical competence.
“A professional is someone who can do his best work when he doesn’t feel like it.”—Alistair Cooke

After studying the course materials located on Module 5: Lecture Materials & Resources page, answer the following:
Name some very important organs that are not vital organs.
List the functional descriiption of all the normal vital organs, including today’s exceptions.
Is it possible to live without a vital organ? Why? Example?
Distinction between assisting or substituting vital organs. Bioethical analysis.
Do the following practices assist or substitute the vital organ? Why?
Dialysis
Respirator
Ventilator
Tracheotomy
CPR
Read and summarize ERD PART FIVE Introduction.
Unconscious state: Definition.
Clinical definitions of different states of unconsciousness: Compare and contrast
Benefit vs Burden: bioethical analysis.

Submission Instructions:
The paper is to be clear and concise and students will lose points for improper grammar, punctuation, and misspelling.
If references are used, please cite properly according to the current APA style. Refer to your syllabus for further detail or contact your instructor.

Explain the difference between the public and private spheres;
2) Why is there so much controversy relative to religion in the public sphere?; and
3) What do you think about this?
HELPFUL LINKS:
Casanova, Jose. Public religion in the modern world, Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 1994. Accessed May 1, 2016. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/233615726?pq-origsite=summon.
Habermas, Jürgen. “Religion in the Public Sphere.” European Journal of Philosophy, vol.14, no 1 (2006). Accessed July 19, 2019. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-0378.2006.00241.x.
Marx Karl. On the Jewish Question. 1844. Accessed May 1, 2016. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
Mendieta, Eduardo, Vanantwerpen, Jonathan (eds.). The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere. Essays by BUTLER, HABERMAS, TAYLOR, and WEST, New York, Columbia University Press, 2011. Accessed May 1, 2016. http://www.roeduseis.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Judith_Butler_J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas_Charles_Taylor_BookZZ.org_.pdf.
Rawls, John. “The idea of public reason revisited.” Chicago Law Review, vol.64, no. 3 (1997). Accessed July 19, 2019. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5633&context=uclrev.

1) In Dale Jacquette’s work, A Dialogue on the Ethics of Capital Punishment, chapter three explores the conditions for the right to life. What are they? What do you think about them?
2) What does retribution mean to you? Is capital punishment just retribution? Why?

What obliges the public to obey the laws?
Their sense of morality and ethics? Religion? Social acceptance?

Starting Something Versus Finishing What You Started, Including Life
Be sure you support your views with one or more underlying moral principle(s) that have not already been shown to be flawed unless you can say why and how the flaws do not apply or are not really flaws.
Read the set of questions carefully. It is not about abortion, but is primarily about conception versus euthanasia (of an adult). The principle to be developed will apply to abortion, but the question itself is not specifically about abortion.
Keep this in mind while answering the set of questions below: The whole purpose of these questions is to understand whether the criteria that justify finishing something you started and have put time and energy into are the same criteria that would justify beginning it in the first place. Address that general question in answering #10 below.
Suppose you go to a 3 hour and 20 minute play on Broadway that your parents have given you tickets they received for free as part of some advertising promotion they could not attend and were not really interested in anyway, and that they thought you and your spouse might enjoy. The first three hours are somewhat okay, but not all that great, with some of it pretty boring, and the last intermission is about twenty minutes before the end of the show. The last twenty minutes may tie it up real well and make it worthwhile having gone to or it may not. I won’t tell you which way that works out, but the overall experience was not anything to rave about, though it was also not the worst night of your life. On your way out of the theater, the management selects you to give two free tickets to give to friends.
1) Should you accept the tickets and give them to your friends? If you do, you are not allowed to tell them anything about the play or your experience and feelings about it. You either give them the tickets or you do not. If you give them the tickets, they will go (because they will take it as a recommendation and because they won’t want to spurn your offer or offend your apparent generosity). Basically you are controlling whether they go or not, so you have to decide for them by deciding whether to give them the tickets or not. The idea is that this is just like conceiving a child, where what you do doesn’t give the child any real choice in the matter and you don’t get to consult with it, to see what it wants, and it can’t research to see whether it wants to be born or not. (And remember, we are talking here only about conception — which is about fertilizing the egg and creating a pregnancy in the first place, not about abortion. If you conceive the child, you will carry it through to birth. This is not an abortion question. So you have to decide whether to conceive and therefore bring a child into this world or not, and in the same way you have to decide whether to send your friends to this play or not. Giving them the tickets is analogous to conceiving the child.)
The play is not about a subject they are known to be any more or less particularly interested in then you are, so you have no reason for thinking they will enjoy the play any more than you did. They may or may not, but the odds are they won’t like it any more than you did. So, would you accept the tickets to give to your friends or not? Why or why not?
2) Should you stay for the last 20 minutes, or should you have just leave during that intermission at the end of the first three hours? Why?
3) Would you have gone to the show in the first place if you had known it was going to be like this, or would you have told your parents you couldn’t go and suggest they give the tickets to someone else or sell or return them? Why? It will not hurt their feelings if you can’t accept the tickets.
4) Would it make any difference in your decision to give your friends the tickets if you were also given $1,000 on the condition you gave them the tickets and they went to the show? Why or why not? But again you are not allowed to tell them anything about the play or how much or little you liked it. And you are not allowed to share any of the money with them or use it to buy them anything to make up for sending them to this play, even if they do not enjoy it.
5) What if your friends were disabled and though they could go, it would be a hardship for them to travel and get into the theater, and they had to secure a baby sitter for their children, go out on a weeknight, etc? Would you give them the tickets? Why or why not?
Explain and justify your answers. Then suppose that this is an analogy, where the play represents life in general, and giving your friends the tickets represents conceiving and giving birth to a child. The $1,000 represents any pleasure you get at having the child regardless of what pleasure or pains the child finds in life (or the couple has in going to the play). 6) Should you conceive a child and give birth to it under any of these conditions? Why or why not?
To help make clear the premise of the scenario, consider this scenario also, which is supposed to be the same basic problem: Tickets go on sale two months ahead of time for a concert by a band you are somewhat interested in seeing, but it is not a must-see band for you, not one of your favorite bands. You go to the box office (because the tickets are not on sale online) and the line is long but should move quickly. However, it does not move quickly, and after various promising starts you find you have been waiting in line for nearly three hours, but it will be just twenty more minutes (for sure). 7) Should you wait the twenty minutes, or should you leave and do without the tickets? 8) If you had known the total wait would have been 3 hours and 20 minutes, should you have gone to get the tickets in the first place? 9) Should you call a friend to come down to get in line at the end of the line (so the friend has to wait 3 hours and 20 minutes to get his/her tickets — because you can’t let the friend cut in and you can’t buy more than your own ticket at the window) or not? If you call the friend, you are not allowed to tell him/her about the length of the wait in line. The friend has about the same level of interest in this particular band that you do, as far as you know.
10) The purpose of these questions is to understand whether the criteria that justify finishing something you started and have put time and energy into are the same criteria that would justify beginning it in the first place. Why or why not? Are the grounds for remaining alive, for someone who suffers, the same grounds for their being conceived in the first place? What about when they are still in the womb with regard to being born or carried to term? Explain and justify your answer, and use an underlying general moral principle for support (as I used my principle for support in the “supermarket examples” in the Introduction to Ethics).