Use my moral ID which I attached to write an applied ethics paper. Everything needed is attached. Instructions, what is expected etc. I added something where I did a thesis and anit thiesis but I dont think it was good. Feel free to chose your own moral topic. It has to be a LIFE (in ethics terms) issue or a Justice (in ethics terms) issue.
Starting on page 242 of the reading, "Puppies, Pigs, and People," Norcross discusses "moral agents" and "moral patients". This is medieval language that is unusual outside of philosophy, so it might have been a bit unclear. You can think of an agent as "the one who acts" and a patient as "the one who is acted upon." (This is the original sense of a patient in a medical setting, too.) In general, agent and patient need not be human or even sentient; they can be any two beings. The key point is that one is active and the other passive.
The last section of Norcross's article argues that the fact that animals are not (and cannot be) moral agents does not mean they are not moral patients. That is, even though they are not moral beings (i.e., we cannot judge them as behaving morally or immorally), nevertheless, because we are moral agents, we owe moral duties towards animals. In other words, there is no guarantee that just because something has moral standing that it therefore has
The prompt for the essay is: With specific reference to current public debates surrounding hate speech and freedom of speech, discuss the strengths or weakness of Mills own position in chapter 2 of On Liberty. What are the dangers of silencing false, dangerous, or morally repugnant positions? Be sure to include in your discussion an explanation and assessment of Mills harm principle and the role of rights in assessing limits to speech.
The essay is supposed to be between 1700-2000 words. Using the source J.S. Mill On Liberty. Specifically pgs. 1-5, 9-22, 33-36, 44-52.
For this weekly check-in, read the first chapter, "Introduction" on pp. 3-7 in your book What Does It All Mean by Thomas Nagel. On p. 6, you see a list of the 9 problems that are going to be considered in the following chapters.
Which of the 9 problems listed do you think is most interesting? Why do you find it most interesting? At this time, what do you think is the answer to the problem? It is perfectly acceptable if you are not sure of the answer, just do your best to say what beliefs you have held or heard about related to the problem. You will have an opportunity to reconsider your answer once we have finished the book.
Post your answers in least a paragraph using your own new thread. After doing so, reply to at least two students to let them know whether you have ever shared their ideas.
Qn 1. LOGIC AND HATE SPEECH FALLACIES
Identify a common informal fallacy from Chap 32 that has the potential to increase hostility, and disunity in your country or community. Describe the fallacy and show why you think it could lead to the social problems. Finally show how people in your country could avoid or minimize the impact of the fallacy.
[ 1 full page NO HEADER]
The fallacy I choose is Slippery Slope and have added readings from the book
Criminal Justice :
describe what Retributivism and decarceration is, what might be appealing about it, and then present what you think is the strongest objection against it. Then, given what you said, which view do YOU think should guide
our legal system and why?
Objection 1 Retributivism views:
Retributivism is a form of revenge.
It urges us to bring further unnecessary harm upon the world.
It focuses on justice, but what we really need from legal punishment is social order and safety. Retributivism is willing to sacrifice this for the sake of justice.
Objection 1 Utlitariam views:
Utilitarian principles sometimes call for punishing the innocent (as a deterrent) which is unacceptable.
Utilitarian principles sometimes call for unreasonably harsh punishments.
Utilitarian principles sometimes call for differential & inequal treatment for similar offenses, which is unjust
* The last part of this q
For this assignment, you will view the Dr. Jolly scenario and then submit a one- to two-page paper that follows APA Style guidelines. At a minimum, address the following questions in your paper submission: What ethical issues do you see in the Dr. Jolly/Mr. Dawson situation? If Dr. Jolly were practicing at Anywhere Medical Clinic, discuss the decision-making approach you could use to advise Dr. Jolly on identifying an ethically sound decision for Mr. Dawson. If you were Dr. Jolly, how would you respond to Mr. Dawson? Your paper must have at least two APA Style references and citations from the textbook or outside sources. Below is the Narrative of Story:For years anywhere medical clinic has provided exceptional medical care. Today we are pleased to announce an all new concierge medical unit. For a $50,000 annual membership fee, your entire family can be covered by a concierge service which means less wait time for medical appointment, private waiting rooms, luxury medical supplies and
Write about the arguments FOR AND AGAINST EUTHANASIA:
A. Present what you see as the strongest argument FOR voluntary active euthanasia, along with the strongest potential objection to that argument.
ARGUMENT FOR EUTHANASIA :
ARGUMENT 1: It reduces suffering in the world
P1. VAE reduces the pain and suffering in the world
P2. Whatever reduces pain and suffering in the world ought to be permitted
--------------------------------------------
C. VAE ought to be permitted
ARGUMENT AGAINST EUTHANASIA :
B. Present what you see as the strongest argument AGAINST voluntary active euthanasia from the arguments we discussed, along with the strongest potential objection to that argument.
ARGUMENT : It goes beyond the expertise of doctors (Callahan)
P1. The decision of whether to live or die primarily involves the patients values about death and the meaning of life.
P2. Doctors are trained to respond to physical
a) What is Descartes argument in favor of an affirmative response to this question? I
expect that it will take you more than one paragraph to complete this task.
b) Name at least one of the objections made by Princess Elisabeth and explain how it is
meant to disprove Descartes position.
c) Who do you agree with?
If you agree with Princess Elisabeth, I want you to consider at least one of the
replies that Descartes offers in his defense and why it is insufficient.
If you agree with Descartes, I want you to explain why Princess Elisabeths
objections do not hold.
If you do not agree with either author (or agree with them in part) I want you to
provide an alternative explanation to support your position.
Write about the death penalty . below are arguments FOR and AGAINST the death penalty as well as their OBJECTIONS.
THE DEATH PENALTY:
agreeing for death penalty :
A. Present what you see as the strongest argument FOR of the death penalty "
Argument #1: for Protection of society: dead murderers cant kill again.
Objection #1 :there are less drastic means to this end e.g. life imprisonment without parole.
Against death penalty :
B. Present what you see as the strongest argument AGAINST the death penalty
Discrimination: bias in the U.S. justice system results in disproportionately many blacks being executed, which is unjust.
Support:
80% of death penalty cases involve white victims
99% of those sentenced to death are poor and rely on public defenders.
Objection 1: (van den Haag): these inequalities dont make executions any less deserved, hence just.
Reply 1: B
