All posts should be written using full sentences in paragraph form. The use of philosophical concepts, wherever relevant, is highly recommended to earn full points. Please provide both in-text citations and post-text references.
Discuss the moral implications of eating nonhuman animals.
Is it morally permissible to raise and kill animals to eat them in our society, where nutritious alternatives to animal foods are readily available?
If we were somewhere where there were inadequate non-animal foods, would that make a difference to the morality of using animals for food?
Which ethical theory (utilitarian, social contract, Kantian, etc.) is most consistent with your outlook on consuming animals?
All posts should be written using full sentences in paragraph form. The use of philosophical concepts, wherever relevant, is highly recommended to earn full points. Please provide both in-text citations and post-text references. Do not bother claiming that you did not provide in-text citations and post-text references because everything came from your head. You are required to include textual evidence for your claims, which includes using specific ideas from our readings to support your ideas, and you must also cite those readings using APA Style both in the body of your response and at the end on a References list. We wouldn’t want to plagiarize in an Ethics class! 🙂
use the Ethics for A-level book
first initial post need to be 205 words after that i will send you 2 of my peers post for you respond 100 words each.
Select one of the three prompts below to respond to in your initial post this week. You are encouraged to respond to peers that explored prompts that you did not.
Discuss the implications of moral consideration on some of the following practices involving nonhuman animals: meat-eating habits, pet ownership, the use of nonhuman animals in experimentations, and keeping animals in zoos.
In what ways, if any, do any of the above actions represent incompatible, even contradictory, moral values?
Do humans have a moral obligation to modify our lifestyle in order to recognize the moral status of nonhuman others?
Do you believe any of the nonhuman animals mentioned above (pets, farmed animals, zoo animals, etc.) would qualify as moral subjects, and perhaps even moral agents?
Which ethical theory (utilitarian, social contract, Kantian, etc.) is most consistent with your outlook on animals?
(USLOs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
4-6 pages double spaced 12-point font. Chicago style citations/reference page.
This paper should be formulated from a revised Reflection Paper (Hamza.docx) in which you expand upon your initial thesis to include one or two more of the readings.
2 Sources provided
1st Source Defending Deaf Culture: The Case of Cochlear Implants.
2nd source Disability Studies Reader-
pg. 100 Disability, Democracy, and the New Genetics.
pg. 246 Deaf Studies in the 21st Century: “Deaf-Gain” and the Future of Human
Read the seminar, “A Comprehensive Moral Autonomy.” This seminar provides information necessary to understand and complete the final assignment of the semester, “What Do I Know Now? – Objective Essay 15.”
After reading the Seminar, “A Comprehensive Moral Autonomy,” write a one-page Objective Essay 15 given the following scenario:
Hurricane Harvey has just blown through, flooding your town. Water is in your house, one foot deep. You and your spouse take a boat and float through your house saving everything above that one-foot level. That very night your whole house is flooded to the ceiling. Everything you leave inside is washed away and only the things that you saved with the boat remain. Your flood insurance adjustor will pay for anything lost in the flooded house and, as he sees it, you have a total loss. No one but you and your spouse know that you saved many items and put them in a safe, hidden place. Do you list the safe items for the adjustor, knowing that no one but you and your spouse know of their existence, and take the extra insurance money? Or do you list only those things that were actually lost in the flood, a much smaller amount?
1. First, write how you immediately feel and what decision you would probably come to without giving it much extra thought.
Now, in your mind, set this aside. Instead:
2. Using the file, “Intro to Ethics – Comprehensive Moral Autonomy Download Intro to Ethics – Comprehensive Moral Autonomy,” write out the twelve questions and answer them (in this box) according to all that we have learned in our study of ethics this semester.
3. Once you have answered all twelve questions from the form, what choice do your answers lead you to make?
4. Describe what you think and how you feel about the choice that the questions and answers lead you to make. Is it the same answer that you came into in question 1? If it is the same, did you allow your own prior decision to influence how you answered the twelve questions? If it is not the same, what do you think caused it to be different?
5. Describe how these twelve questions either helped or hindered your final decision.
See rubric for specific requirements.
1.Watch the 10-minute excerpt of the film, A Simple Plan, using this link:
2. Afterwards, write a description of how EACH of the nine main ethicists that we have studied (see below) would have acted in this moral dilemma, using their own key ideas.
ethical relativist moral objectivist gender theorist
religious ethicist ethical egoist social contractarian
utilitarian deontologist virtue theorist
Write a paper of five to six pages on the following topic.
Topic: Is there a universal right for healthcare? Do states and private industries have the responsibility of ensuring everyone gets healthcare? Give an argument that we do not have a right to healthcare. Give one argument that we do have a right to healthcare. Draw on Papadimos and Baumrin to make your arguments. Which do you think is better? Why? What, if any, moral theory does your argument appeal to? Why?
Below I have attached a link to papadimos
& a link to Baumrin
Your pages should contain about 300 words each, and the font should be 12pt. Times New Roman. You may use outside sources in this paper, though you must cite material from the class. Please cite in accordance with MLA.Citations should be subordinate to your own discussion. Do not cite from Wikipedia, SparkNotes, or YouTube (other than lecture). Do not cite from religious sources or holy texts. This is a philosophy course, not a theology course or a religious studies course: our goal is to see how we can answer philosophical questions from reason alone.Citations should be subordinate to your own discussion. Do not cite from Wikipedia, SparkNotes, or YouTube (other than lecture). Do not cite from religious sources or holy texts. This is a philosophy course, not a theology course or a religious studies course: our goal is to see how we can answer philosophical questions from reason alone.
Please indicate on your paper which question you are answering. You do not have to reproduce the text of the question in your paper. Number your pages! All summary must demonstrate that you understand the arguments—do not depend too much on the authors! Make sure that your paper has a clear thesis, and that you state that thesis at or close to the beginning of your paper. Be sure to answer each question in the prompt. Do not copy and paste the arguments from the PowerPoint into your paper; show you understand them by explaining them in your own words.
1. Provide an overview of a civilian oversight committee. What are their typical functions and duties?
2. Do civilian oversight committees have “teeth”? In other words, can they take meaningful action if they believe that a police officer has acted inappropriately? Explain.
3.What obligation does a police department have to listen to the recommendations of a civilian oversight committee? Explain.
4. Examine an internal ethics model for a police department. Would that model easily comply, or conflict with the purpose and scope of a civilian oversight committee? Explain where they might conflict and where they are in agreement and why.
NO PLAIGIARISM !!!!!
You have now completed a number of reading assignments in applied ethics. Which applied ethics reading did you find most interesting?
Why did you find the reading in question interesting? Please summarize the basic argument of the reading you have selected. Then identify and explain the normative ethical theory that its author used to reach his/her conclusion. Finally, connect the author’s argument to your own point of view on the subject of the reading. Did this reading lead you to change or reevaluate your point of view? Did it reinforce a point of view you already hold? Did it help you to better understand the point of view of someone with whom you disagree?
Don Marquis: Why Abortion Is Immoral
Marquis argues that abortion is, with rare exceptions, seriously immoral. He begins with an uncontroversial assumption: It is seriously wrong to kill healthy adult human beings. Why is this wrong? After considering several possible explanations, Marquis concludes that killing normal adult humans is wrong because it deprives them of a valuable future, a future like ours. Because most fetuses have futures like ours and abortion would deprive them of these valuable futures, Marquis claims that abortion is seriously morally wrong, on a par with killing an adult human being. Marquis concludes his paper by defending his account from objections. In particular, he denies that his theory commits him to the view that contraception is morally wrong because in the case of contraception, there is no identifiable subject who has been deprived of a future like ours.
Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion
Unlike many pro-choice advocates, Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus is a person with full moral rights. Even given this assumption, Thomson argues that it does not follow that abortion is always immoral. To make her case, she presents a vivid thought experiment. Suppose you wake up one morning to find that you have been attached to a machine that is using your body to provide life support for a famous violinist. If you detach yourself and go about your business, the violinist will die. But if you stay in bed with the unconscious violinist for nine months, he will recover and can be detached from you without incident. Thomson claims that although it would be nice of you to stay attached to the violinist, you are not obligated to do so. She draws the conclusion that having a right to life (as the violinist has) does not entitle one to the use of another’s body, even if one needs to use that body in order to survive. Even if fetuses are considered persons, Thomson concludes, abortion is often morally permissible.
1. Why does Marquis think abortion is immoral? What is his argument?
Thomson argues that abortion is permissible, at least in a wide range
of cases. What are those cases and what is/are her arguments?
Do Marquis’s arguments challenge those of Thomson, or can one endorse
both positions without contradiction? Justify your answer in either
Cite all the texts you employ. This is at 4 to 5 page paper, though
you may certainly write more. In offering your own judgment and
defense, use course concepts.
Choose your favorite moral theory and in one paragraph, tell me why it is your favorite. This paragraph will be the introduction to your paper.
Avoid explaining what a moral theory is, what ethics is, etc.
Instead, begin with a definition of your favorite moral theory. Then provide a clear reason for why you gravitate toward this theory. Next, list 3 strengths of your favorite moral theory, to support your reason. Finally, finish with a thesis statement that details what to expect from your final paper.
This paragraph should not exceed 8 sentences. 1-2 for your theory definition. 1-2 for your reasons why it is your favorite. 1 sentence for each supporting reason for a total of 3 sentences. 1 thesis statement.
Then, write one paragraph for each strength. In the paragraph, identify a weakness of the moral theory and how the strength overcomes this weakness.
For example, if I chose Ethical Egoism, I might say: A strength of ethical egoism is that it maximizes my self-interest. However, some may argue this does not provide a clear way to resolve conflicts of interest between myself and others. As a reply, ethical egoism rejects the idea that a moral theory should provide this guidance and stands firm that one’s self interests remain the ultimate goal of morality.
Aim for your paragraphs to be a minimum of 4 sentences to provide good discussions, reasoning and your use of one quote to support your statements. (I realize my above example does not contain a quote, but yours will.) Use quotation marks at the beginning and ending of a quote ” ” and place quotes inside punctuation marks.
Write your conclusion to wrap up your paper and recap your main points. Read your paper OUT LOUD to determine if it flows well or if there are any changes you need to make to help transition between paragraphs.
Aim for a conclusion paragraph of 4 to 6 sentences.