How would someone using the principlist paradigm explain the moral failings present in Travis’s case?What moral failings might they miss
How would someone using the principlist paradigm explain the moral failings present in Travis’s case?What moral failings might they miss if they were using this paradigm? In other words, think about how Fiester might analyze Travis’s case; how does this perspective lead to an enhanced understanding of Travis’s situation? What other obligations or duties were violated that the principlist paradigm might not capture?
Just WarAre drone strikes ethical?Are soldiers behaving ethically when following orders in an unjust war?Is the killing of noncombatants in
Just WarAre drone strikes ethical?Are soldiers behaving ethically when following orders in an unjust war?Is the killing of noncombatants in a war ever justified?Environmental IssuesDo human beings have ethical obligations to the environment?How should we balance the environmental needs of current human beings against those of future generations?Is it ethical to eat meat as it is currently produced?Should animals be used for medical research that saves human lives?Medical EthicsShould physician-assisted suicide be legal?Is there a moral difference between euthanasia and legally medicating for pain to a point that ends life?Should families have the right to withdraw life support for patients who are not likely to regain consciousness?Gender and Sex IssuesWhat is an appropriate ethical response to the global problem of violence against women?Was it just for the US to legalize same sex marriage?Is pornography unethical?Does the #MeToo movement handle the issue of sexual harassment and predation ethically?Censorship and Freedom of SpeechShould governmental offices in the south display the confederate flag?Is it just for law enforcement to demand an end to peaceful protests that seem likely to erupt in violence?Is it just for the government to permit vocal public meetings of racial hate groups?
Some of the information you have been given in your courses in school
Question Get Answer Some of the information you have been given in your courses in school is, inevitably, not true. How would you start to prove to yourself that all of it is not false? Suppose a friend were to challenge you, “How do you know that 2 2=4?” How would you answer? (Simply “doing the math” is not the point here!)
Use handouts for majority of the information, if external resource is needed please cite. I expect your final answers for
Use handouts for majority of the information, if external resource is needed please cite. I expect your final answers for the entire test to take between 2 or 3 pages, single spaced. Do not write a book! (although a book could be written about some of these issues). The goal is for you to show me that you understand the issues and the implications of these theories (I am not asking how you feel about these, I am not asking for your personal opinion or personal reaction to these issues).1. Augustine argued that all moral behavior which is not based in the Christian religion is immoral. Explain the reasons he provided for this conclusion. (10 points)2. Based on his understanding of God, St. Augustine argued that every single human being deserves eternal torture in hell because of something terrible. Why did Augustine think that every one of us, without exception, deserve hell? Was it because human beings were responsible for the death of Jesus? Was it because the God of Christianity is an angry god and will hurt everyone? Was it because not all human beings had converted to Christianity yet? Was it due to something that happened in human history in the past? Explain Augustine’s reasoning. (10 points)3. One way that Augustine tried to account for the existence of evil is to claim that it is good that evil exists. (a) Explain as clearly as you can how “it is good that evil exists” is supposed to solve the problem of the existence of unnecessary evil. Then, (b) explain as clearly as you can one strong or important objection to that solution. (15 points)4. One important doctrinal position held by St. Augustine is Predestination.(1) Explain the Augustinian doctrine of Predestination, and why he thought it must be correct. (5 points)(2) Explain two reasons why the majority of later Christian sects rejected the doctrine of Predestination. What are the unwelcome consequences (potential problems) which follow from this doctrine? (10 points)5. St. Thomas Aquinas thought that humans could understand the structure and nature of the physical universe, even if they never read the Christian Bible. Yet Aquinas believed that the Bible is the word of God telling us things we could never know. Explain what reasons Aquinas provided to argue that we do not need the revelations of God in the Bible to understand the structure and nature of the physical universe. (10 points)6. Aristotle had argued that all human behavior is action to achieve goals, and that eudaimonia was the chief goal, the ultimate goal. Thomas Aquinas also argued that all human behavior is action to achieve goals, and that there must be some ultimate goal, but it is not eudaimonia. In one or two sentences, what is the ultimate end or goal at which all human behavior aims, according to Aquinas? (10 points)7. In his philosophical writings, Thomas Aquinas kept stressing the concept of “natural inclinations.” (1) Briefly explain what Aquinas meant by natural inclinations (10 points).(2) Briefly explain how these natural inclinations are related to ethics, according to Aquinas (5 points).8. Aquinas made a distinction between God’s Eternal Law and what he called Natural Law. Explain (1) what he means by Eternal Law, explain (2) what he means by Natural Law, explain (3) how are non-human creatures related to Natural Law, explain (4) how are human beings related to Natural Law. (15 points)
Research ethics examines the ethical obligations and duties involved in conducting research. For the most part, it is concerned with
Research ethics examines the ethical obligations and duties involved in conducting research. For the most part, it is concerned with the treatment of test subjects. Historically, there have been many instances of experiments that violated the dignity of their test subjects (e.g. Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, the Willowbrook Experiments, the “Monster Study,” and the Stanford Prison Experiment, to name a few). As a discipline, research ethics emerged to prevent such experiments from ever being performed again. Still, they are the subject of some debate. For some, since research ethics places limits on potential experimental models, it hinders knowledge production, thereby harming both science and society. For others, research ethics are necessary to protect humanity, society and the natural world. Indeed, for some, the use of research ethics may lead to stronger results. For example, consider the infamous Milgram Experiment. As Dan McArthur notes, for many psychologists, the inability to gain approval to redo the Milgram Experiment exposes a weakness of research ethics – namely, that it forces us to forgo knowledge for the sake of ethics. McArthur, however, disagrees. On his account, in their originally ‘unethical’ form, the results of Milgram Experiment are inconclusive since, in many cases, the subjects were pressured/coerced into continuing the study. As such, it is unclear whether they continued administering shocks because an expert instructed them to do so, or because they thought they had no other choice (or panicked, or were stressed, etc.). Aside from that issue, there are debates about the scope of research ethics – in particular, should research ethics apply to non-human animals. The use of non-humans in scientific experiments raises novel challenges for research ethics. First, while one of the most important ethical duties of research is acquiring informed consent, with regards non-human subjects, such consent is impossible. Second, in many cases, the research being pursued is not, ultimately, to the benefit of the non-human animal in question. Rather, they are being used as an intermediary between theoretical considerations and human trials. Third, there is the question of moral status – or how much moral consideration do we even owe non-human animals. The current standard for research on non-human animals is represented by the Three R’s – the Principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement. Jointly, they are intended to balance the harm to non-human animal subjects with the amount of knowledge that be acquired from any given study. So, what do you all think? Should we always maximize knowledge production, even if the means are unethical? Or should we always – irrespective of the species of the test subject- try to conduct scientific research in the most ethical manner possible? Or do you think that how we balance ethics and science will depend on the research in question and the stakes involved? Either way, be sure to defend your position.
Essay Writing at AllEssays.Online
Review This Service