Category: Ethnic Studies

(1) Search the internet, books, etc., for a passage, sound/video-bite, etc., that contains a moral/ethical argument.
(2) Quote the passage, sound/video-bite in full. For example, if you want to use an argument that appears within a lengthy youtube video, then you need only quote the part of the video containing the argument and include the minute-marks/timestamps surrounding it, i.e., “The argument I found starts at 3:45 and ends at 4:27.”
(3) Provide answers to the following questions about your selected passage, sound/video-bite.
(a) What ethical/moral question is the argument in your passage, etc., offering an answer to?
(b) What is the author’s major claim/conclusion, i.e., what is the author’s proposed answer to the ethical/moral question that you stated in (a).
(c) What reasons, examples, etc., does the author offer in support of his/her major claim.
(d) Which moral/ethical values/disvalues (or principles) does the author’s reasoning seem to be assuming, prioritizing, countering, etc.?
(e) Do the author’s reasons, examples, etc., provide adequate and/or plausible support for his/her major claim? Or, might more reasons, evidence, examples, etc., be needed? Why/why not?
(d) Has the author provided us with sufficient information and reasoning to make an actual –decision– about the particular moral/ethical issue/question? Why/why not?
(4) Finally, include all relevant bibliographic, search engine, etc., information. That is, if your passage is from a book, then make sure to include the author’s name, book title, copyright date, publisher, and relevant pages numbers. If your passage appears within a youtube video, then include the video title, name of the speaker within the video (or if that isn’t known, then the youtube channel name), the youtube keywords you typed within the search bar to find the video, the relevant minute-marks/timestamps, and web address. If your passage appears on a particular webpage, blog, etc., then include the page/blog title, author’s name, search engine keywords you used to find the page/blog, and the web address.
Restrictions:
— Your passage must be from an outside-of-class source, not from our textbook.
— Your passage must contain an ethical/moral argument. That is, your passage must contain an argument that relies upon, implies, assumes, prioritizing, etc., one or more ethical, moral values/disvalues.
— Your passage should not be too lengthy. Search for passages, sound/video bites that are no longer than 15 to 20 sentences.

I do think the treatment of animals matter. As much as animals hold a value in this world, I don’t think they should be treated like that. It does make me uncomfortable knowing that animals are being treated that way. If only food animal farmers would treat the animals better before selling them off.
2) I buy Cohen’s reasoning for the most part. Animals do not have human-like reasoning or a human-like conscience. His reasoning that some animals are “right holders” like pets make a lot of sense. But some have been put in the unfortunate position of getting sold off for food.
3) No, I don’t think they are. In America and especially in America, there will always be a demand for meat products. Just because a person may be uncomfortable with seeing an animal be mistreated, that doesn’t always mean that they’re gonna stop eating meat altogether. In some cases, that may happen, but not to the average person. People will have their own idea of what is moral and extremely immoral. People just need to eat and provide for their families. So calling every person who buys meat immoral is a bit much. It may sound harsh, but most people could care less about food animals being treated bad. As long as they see they meat they want at a decent price.
4) Well, it is unreasonable to say that there needs to be a drastic change in how people eat meat. As long as humans are alive there will always be a demand for meat products and that means demand for more workers, animal farmers, etc.. If one considers the mistreatment of food animals immoral, then they could choose to go vegan or vegetarian. They can choose not to buy or consume any meat products. Perhaps food farmers could treat their animals better like, giving them space to roam, giving them the nutritious food, and providing them with comfortable living spaces before they sell them off.

I think the treatment and well-being of food animals such as pigs, cows, and chickens most definitely matters in a moral sense. These animals have as much capacity for social domestication as we consider cats and dogs having, which is evident by the multitudes of Americans who keep rescued cows and pigs as pets, or who keep chickens on their property and care for them as members of the family. Humans can make a connection with almost anything, and the potential for social behavior and affection displayed by many food animals makes it very difficult to argue that treating them badly and as a mere means to a human end is a moral thing to do. They experience pain, sadness, discomfort, and loss the same way humans do, and if we insist on continuing to include these animals in a typical diet (or at least one that many people partake in), then the least we can do for them is give them a nice life prior to the slaughter. From the moment these animals step into the world, their sole fate is to be one day killed and eaten- does morality not require at least some degree of kindness towards these sentient creatures to the extent that we give them a comfortable and pleasant life until that fateful day? I think it does, and any person who would not want to live a starved and painful life in an overcrowded facility with no connection to nature is likely to agree with me.
I buy into Regan’s reasoning as I do not believe that degree of mental capabilities determines the level of kindness and respect that a being deserves in its life. Cohen’s reasoning immediately makes me wonder how he feels about members of our society who live with a disability or condition that causes them to function on a lower mental or physical level. These people are still people, they still feel things, and they still know if they are being treated badly. The same goes for food animals who may not be able to do math problems or drive a car but still have a capacity for love, happiness, comfort, family, and the antitheses of those pleasant concepts. The wellbeing of food animals is valuable because they are the ones who will feel all of the pain and consequences of mistreatment and an inhumane system, and I think it goes against all forms of morality to argue that their real feelings and experiences do not matter just because they aren’t humans.
I do think that Norcross’s analogy is accurate in claiming that buyers of factory-produced meat products are partially morally responsible for the mistreatment and conditions of those animals during their lives. The buyers may not have been the ones to start the practice, but because they support it by purchasing the products, the factories will continue to treat their food animals badly until some other factor steps in. It’s simple boycott philosophy: if the business makes profit off of immoral behavior, the immoral behavior will continue until it stops producing a profit.
It’s probably a team effort as far as making the switch to moral and sustainable farming practices goes. We as consumers can make a difference by refusing to buy factory-made meat products from companies who mistreated their animals, but this has to be a large-scale agreement among consumers or it will not have much of an impact. The government is definitely a major player as it alone has the power to set limits and standards for the treatment of food animals in the US and countries to which American food companies outsource their factories and products. This should be a pressing issue to the federal government in my opinion as it concerns the health and wellbeing of not only the food animals but of the people eating them, as well as the natural environment. There probably is some merit to the idea of individual citizens leaving behind their urban paths to become small-scale farmers, but that kind of action isn’t necessary in order for us all to contribute to a slightly more healthy and moral world. It’s more of a nice thing to do if that’s the individual’s cup of tea.

There has been much debate about the moral status and proper treatment of the animals that many people eat, e.g., pigs, cows, chickens, turkeys, etc. Some claim that food animals have significant moral status and in turn deserve decent treatment from birth to the moment of death. Others claim that food animals have minimal to no moral status and in turn can be treated most any way humans might want. Defenses for these claims appear within articles by Regan, Cohen, and Norcross.
Regan argues that all living beings (humans and non-humans) are ‘experiencing subjects of a life’, each has an awareness, life, expectations, well being, etc., that matter to it. All experiencing subjects of a life have a form of inherent value. All inherently valuable beings deserve respectful and decent treatment. Many current “factory” farming practices fail to demonstrate the proper amount of respect and decent treatment to our food animals, many food animals are abused and treated as mere means to human ends. Thus, many current factory farming practices are immoral and should be changed.
Conversely, Cohen argues that nonhuman animals lack the mental abilities necessary to understand and to participate in human morality and moral decision making. Humans are not morally required to respect or decently treat beings that lack such mental abilities, it’s morally okay to treat these beings as mere means to human ends. Thus, regardless of how current “factory” farming practices disrespect and/or mistreat food animals, there’s no cause for moral concern. That is, factory practices are not necessarily immoral and likely don’t need to be changed.
Norcross offers an analogy between the behavior of a person (Fred) that tortures puppies for mere gustatory pleasure and the meat purchasing behavior of average grocery store shoppers. He contends that if we think that Fred’s behavior is morally terrible, then we are likewise committed to accepting that the behavior of average shoppers purchasing meat products is terrible as well. Essentially, average meat eaters and shoppers directly share in any and all moral shame and blame for the poor and disrespectful treatment of the animals they are purchasing and eating.
Consequentialist style arguments can be used to support either side of this debate. It all depends on whether or not the respectful/decent or disrespectful/indecent treatment of food animals results in the better overall consequences for the majority of —beings (human and nonhuman)— affected/effected by them. If the majority of beings are made better off by the mistreatment of food animals, then a consequentialist would be committed to saying that mistreatment is morally okay. If the majority of beings are made better off by decent treatment of food animals, then a consequentialist would be committed to saying that decent treatment is the morally better course of action. Either way, for consequentialists, the morality/immorality of current “factory” practices will be decided by how the consequences of such positively or negatively impact the majority of beings affected/effected by them.
This week’s questions:
1) Does the better or worse treatment of food animals, e.g., pigs, cows, chickens, etc., seem to morally matter? That is, does it seem to morally matter whether or not pigs, cows, etc., must, e.g., endure a life of near constant foot pain, infections, etc., due to being forced to live and walk on concrete/metal floors? Or, that pigs, cows, etc., must endure a life of near constant overheating and discomfort due to overcrowding, etc.? Your reasoning?
2) Do you buy Regan’s or Cohen’s reasoning? That is, might it be immoral to use food animals as a mere means to humans ends due to their possession of a form of inherent value? Or, might it be morally okay to use food animals as mere means to human ends due to their lack of certain mental abilities? Your reasoning?
3) Do you buy Norcross’ argument-by-analogy and his contention that the purchasing behaviors of average meat eaters and grocery store shoppers are morally responsible for how food animals are treated/mistreated prior to arriving at grocery stores? That is, are those that buy “factory” produced meat products (around 95 to 97% of all meat products) at least partially morally responsible for how the animals were treated prior to arriving at the store? Your reasoning?
4) If one considers the mistreatment of food animals to be a significant moral problem, then what needs to be changed? And, more importantly, precisely who is responsible for making such changes happen? The government? You (the average shopper)? Etc. Might there be some merit to the idea that more people should leave their urban jobs/career paths to become smaller-scale farmers? Your reasoning?

For the first reflection:
Double space, two-page reflection on your topic of interest.
*Address the following questions:
Why did you select the topic?
How is your topic addressing issues learned in class on Ethnic Studies?
Which community or communities are highlighted on your project?
Which in-class article will you use, and how will you use it? (focus on ideas and theories
presented in the article).
What do you hope to teach your classmates about? Find two other articles:
two academic articles you are going to be using for your final. Your article must be
entirely annotated and printed. It should be highlighted and underlined, defined by unknown vocabulary, and include plenty of side notes and reflections.
Additionally, you must bring a whole page front and back (double-sided) of notes for each article. You
should be bringing to class thoughtful and specific notes that will help you in the process of completing
your project.
Ensure you take detailed notes and avoid bullet points with few words because that will result in
failing the assignment. If you use quotes, just put the page number; do not write the entire quote, as it
will not count towards your notes.
The topic is Latinas in Higher Education. For the first reflection, use the article attached. For each reflection, be very detailed. Please do not make it general. For the annotations, you can do them digitally but write on them, then send me the articles with the annotations visible. Make sure the two other articles make sure they are scholarly sources.
DO NOT put “titles” in the reflection, do not put it into sections, make sure it’s all writing.
You can put the notes into sections but do not have a lot of empty space. I need those pages to be filled with as much writing as possible.

Here is a prompt: Write 400 words analyzing Augusta Savage’s sculpture in light of W.E.B. DuBois’ comments on art. Use quotations and provide MLA Works Cited.
Here is an AI-generated response:
Augusta Savage’s sculptures, notably her iconic work “The Harp” (1939), resonate profoundly with W. E. B. Du Bois’ perspectives on art as a tool for cultural expression and racial uplift. Du Bois, a prominent African American scholar and activist, emphasized the role of art in fostering a positive racial identity and challenging racial stereotypes.
Savage’s “The Harp” exemplifies Du Bois’ ideas by capturing the essence of African American heritage and resilience. The sculpture depicts a harp with strings that transform into the profiles of black individuals, symbolizing the interconnectedness of African American lives and the richness of their cultural contributions. Du Bois, in his famous essay “The Souls of Black Folk,” contends that art should serve as a means of representing the complex and multifaceted nature of the black experience. He argues that art can be a powerful force in shaping public perceptions and breaking down racial prejudices.
Savage’s work aligns with Du Bois’ belief in the importance of cultural representation. The harp, a symbol of harmony and beauty, becomes a metaphor for the potential unity and strength of the African American community. Du Bois’ assertion that “the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line” finds expression in Savage’s sculpture, as she confronts racial issues through her art.
In conclusion, Augusta Savage’s sculpture, particularly “The Harp,” serves as a visual manifestation of W. E. B. Du Bois’ ideas on the transformative power of art in addressing racial challenges. By merging the aesthetic and the cultural, Savage contributes to the ongoing dialogue about African American identity and the pursuit of equality.
Works Cited:
Du Bois, W. E. B. “The Souls of Black Folk.” Project Gutenberg, 1996, www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/408. Accessed 13 Nov. 2023.
Your job: Using the analytical skills, vocabulary, and concepts we’ve been learning this semester, critique ChatGTP’s response in specific detail and explain how your own analysis is better. Use quotations from ChatGTP and from our course’s specific sources. Do not cite works we have not read or studied in our our course. (400-600 words).
Here is the Works Cited entry for the AI-generated text:
“Analyze Augusta Savage’s sculpture in light of W.E.B. DuBois’ comments on art” prompt. ChatGPT, OpenAI, November 13, 2023. chat.openai.com/chat.
When you quote portions of the chatbot’s products, integrate the quotation as you normally would. For example, if you draw our attention to the final paragraph’s transition, you would note the clunky “In conclusion” (“Analyze,” ChatGTP) and then say whatever you have to say about that transition to the conclusion. As always, note that the in-text citation matches up with the Works Cited entry.

In this assignment, you will select a current medical ethics issue to research and write about for your research paper. Use the template attached
Select a topic related to one of the following current medical ethics issues:
End of Life
Eugenics and Human Genetics
Medical Research
Reproductive Issues
Organ Donation and Transplantation
Public Health Issues
Access to Health Care
Biotechnology
One of your own choosing (with approval)
Complete and submit the template attached stating your specific issue (for instance, if you choose to write about End of Life, the particular case might be physician-assisted suicide) and explain why you have chosen this issue to research. Make sure there are competing positions on this issue that reflect differing ethical principles or interpretations.
Include references for three sources that could be used in the final paper. All sources should be less than five years old unless recent research is not available, and at least one reference must be a peer-reviewed article from a professional journal. Do not use Wikipedia or an encyclopedia as they are not considered reliable academic sources and will not be accepted.
Submissions should follow APA when citing.
Requirements: Fill the Template

Please write a 850 words reflection addressing the following questions:
According to the resources, how were Indigenous/Native Americans assimilated into U.S. society?
According to the resources, did Indigenous/Native Americans become restricted U.S. citizens?
!Remember, you must provide details, examples and reference or cite the materials and information.
Please visit resources/websites below to answer the questions for this assignment:
https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/code-talkers/boarding-schools/Links to an external site.
https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/code-talkers/code-talking/Links to an external site.
https://americanindian.si.edu/nk360/code-talkers/coming-home/Links to an external site.
https://www.history.com/news/native-american-voting-rights-citizenshipLinks to an external site.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-indian-citizenship-actLinks to an external site.
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/06/1155723922/federal-indian-boarding-schools-still-existLinks to an external site.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/our-children-deserve-to-be-found-the-painful-legacy-of-native-american-boarding-schools/Links to an external site.

Define and What is the Significance:
State of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987)
Reference attached
Define: (Feminism: A Transformational Politic)
Reference for Feminism:

As noted in Pornography, Harm, and Censorship (SE), censorship can be simply defined as an effort to suppress purportedly “harmful” expression. Some claim that censorship is morally justified due to the “harms” it stops/prevents. Others claim that censorship is not morally justified due to the “harms” it causes. We have encountered reasons for each claim. In the end, it’s possible that each group is at least partially right. It could be that censoring/suppressing some expressions/actions is morally okay. While at the same time censoring/suppressing other types of expressions/actions could be morally wrong.
Determining which expressions to give ‘free rein’ to and which to cast into the banned rubbish bin is often a bit more challenging than one might think. Suppose that one is certain that, e.g., social media posts and/or social media accounts that encourage/glorify real human trafficking via including images of real traffickers and trafficked people need to be censored/banned. Now suppose that an advertisement for a new video game includes games images of certain game characters being trafficked, enslaved, etc. The game is cast in a fantastical setting where elves are trafficking, enslaving, etc., dragons. The promotional material for the game definitely seems to be promoting how fun, exciting, etc., the game is and seems to be encouraging everyone to play it. Would these types of promotional materials also need to be censored/banned? They don’t seem to be encouraging the trafficking, enslavement, etc., of real people, just dragons. But then, might some viewers of the material get the “wrong message” and not be able to clearly separate video game fiction from real world fact and begin to think that if it’s okay in the game, then why not give it a try in reality, etc.? What is one to morally do?
Banning the real trafficking posts might still seem like the “right” move but what about the fantasy game promo posts? Would it be “fair” to ban one and not the other? What kind of “message” might that send to users of the site, platform, etc.? Might consistency demand that, if any banning is to happen, then both must go? If both, then where does the banning stop? What if a few days later a new song is released that seems to include allusions/metaphors to human trafficking but never explicitly mentions such. But, it’s possible that someone might, after listening to it, walk away with the “wrong message” yet again. Must this song now be banned as well? Not to mention the accounts of the real traffickers, video game developers, musician/band. Surely, if their posts must go, then they must go to….correct? Although these scenarios may seem ‘far-fetched’, they and many more like them are precisely the sort of judgement calls that social media, website, etc., censors must make on a daily basis. During this week’s discussion, everyone in the class will have the opportunity to ‘play censor’ and determine whether or not it’s morally okay to ban certain expressions and/or types of expressions.
In all cases, assume that you have total censorious control. You don’t have a manager telling you what to allow or censor, no corporate guidelines, definitions, rules, etc., that you must follow, etc. Assume that you are the sole owner/operator of the website, social media platform, etc.
This week’s questions:
1) Should social media posts that include images/videos of real people in real places engaged in illegal activities (e.g., prostitution, drug dealing, gang violence, bank robbery, murder, etc.) be suppressed/banned? Your reasons? What if the images/videos of real people/places were replaced with images/animations of video game characters engaged in the same types of activities (as one will encounter in games in e.g., the Grand Theft Auto franchise)? Should posts containing those also be suppressed/banned? Your reasons?
2) What about posts between real people that could be perceived as “bullying”? Would it be morally okay to censor/ban those as well? If so, why so? If not, why not? For an added challenge, assume that you do not know the age, country of origin, culture, etc., of the people making the posts. What counts as “normal”, “acceptable”, etc., communication can differ from culture to culture, country to county, etc. How certain could one truly be that “bullying” was actually occurring within the posts? If uncertainty is present in a potential “bullying” post situation, would it be morally best to not censor/ban? Or, might taking a more ‘err on the side of caution’/”harm”-prevention approach be better? Essentially, ‘let it go if you don’t know’ or ‘ban them all and never look back’? Your reasons?
3) Finally, what about posts that contains ideas, claims, images, etc., that you very strongly disagree with and find very “offensive”, “hateful”, etc.? Would it be morally okay to censor/ban them? Your reasons?