Capella BIO FP2000 – Making A Moral Decision Details Attempt

11/12/2016 Assessment 2 – PHI­FP2000 ­ Summer 2016 ­ Section 02 ASSESSMENT 2Making A Moral Decision Details Attempt 1 Available Attempt 2 Attempt 3 Overview Write 4–6 pages in which you invent a practical circumstance that illuminates differences between thethree approaches to normative theory.There may be times in life where doing your duty might cause lasting harm or where caring aboutpeople requires breaking the rules.By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the followingcourse competencies and assessment criteria:Competency 1: Explain the nature of ethical issues.Describe a concrete situation that calls for making an ethical decision….petency 2: Critically examine the contributions of key thinkers from the history of ethics.Apply traditional theories of normative ethics to a concrete situation….petency 3: Engage in ethical debate.Describe the advantages and disadvantages of each approach to ethical theory….petency 4: Develop a position on a contemporary ethical issue.Defend a coherent personal conviction about the best foundation for ethical conduct….petency 5: Communicate effectively in the context of personal and professional moral discourse….municate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and consistent with expectations forprofessional communities. Competency MapCheck Your ProgressUse this online tool to track your performance and progress through your course. Context The three approaches to normative theory—virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and teleological ethics—have unique advantages and disadvantages.Virtue ethics has some obvious benefits. By emphasizing character traits instead of particular actions,this approach encourages us to see ourselves as making progress toward the goal of becoming better,even if we occasionally make mistakes. In this view, it is easy to see how moral education contributesto the development of virtue, by promoting the formation of good habits of thinking and acting. Aboveall, virtue ethics makes it plain that respect for ourselves and for each other is at the very heart ofethical thought.But there are some difficulties, too. It is not always clear how the commitment to virtue guides conductin particular circumstances. How, exactly, does who you are entail what you should do? More seriously,if you aim at your own happiness, it might be easy to let that devolve into an egoistic pursuit of yourselfish interests, which is bound to clash with other people’s virtuous goals for themselves. The successof this approach to ethical theory depends upon our ability to resolve problems of this sort. 1/5 11/12/2016 Assessment 2 – PHI­FP2000 ­ Summer 2016 ­ Section 02 Deontological ethics claims to provide perfect certainty about what we should do in every circumstance—there is nothing to calculate or predict? we just do what the rules prescribe. It relieves us of anyresponsibility for the results of our actions, since those outcomes are not relevant to the moral worth ofwhat we do. Deontologists usually hold that we have a right to demand that other people live up to theirduties with respect to us.The nice thing about consequentialism is that it keeps us focused on the fact that what we do reallydoes have consequences for the world as a whole. Since those outcomes can be recognized byeveryone, this kind of theory promises to provide a public basis upon which to assess ethical actionobjectively. In addition, this theory offers some flexibility in making decisions with an eye toward howour actions will turn out in the long run.There are problems, too, of course. Because we cannot simply fall back on formal rules here, theconsequentialist approach demands that we calculate the likely effects of our actions with great care.This is not an easy task, since we sometimes cannot predict with any confidence exactly what outcomeswill be produced by our actions. In fact, since we do not know for sure what is going to happen, thistheory seems to imply that we will not know whether or not we did the right thing until later on, whenall of the relevant information has come in.But these features give rise to corresponding difficulties with the deontological approach. Such theorieshave trouble explaining what we should do about conflicting duties, cases in which our rules do notagree with each other. Nor does this view make it easy to allow for the possibility that some actions aremore wrong than others. Most crucially, by ignoring the results of our actions, deontology implies thatour actions in obedience to the rules may sometimes have disastrous consequences.In sum:Virtue ethics gives full voice to our intuition that personal growth toward greater moral perfection is a vital aimin life. The choices we make and the actions we perform contribute to who we are.Deontological ethics seems rather rigid in its adherence to strict moral rules, but it nicely captures our sensethat what is simply right is right for everyone.Although the practical value of a teleological approach can generate questions, we often rely upon utilitarianconsiderations as we debate matters of public policy. Questions to Consider To deepen your understanding, you are encouraged to consider the questions below and discuss themwith a fellow learner, a work associate, an interested friend, or a member of the business community.How do you understand the questions of relativism, a neutral moral understanding, or the imposition of basicand universal human rights for all people? Why do many philosophers believe that there should be some basicrights for all people? And what right would you impose by force, if necessary, to the rest of the world?People who advocate virtue ethics often draw a distinction between what it means to be a virtuous humanbeing and what it means to be virtuous within one of the many roles that we play in our lives (such as parents,employees, employers, soldiers, or politicians). What kinds of virtues and character traits do you believe that allhumans should have? What character traits should a politician or a businessperson have, in order to be avirtuous politician or businessperson? Resources Suggested Resources 2/5 11/12/2016 Assessment 2 – PHI­FP2000 ­ Summer 2016 ­ Section 02 The following optional resources are provided to support you in completing the assessment or to providea helpful context. For additional resources, refer to the Research Resources and SupplementalResources in the left navigation menu of your courseroom. Capella MultimediaClick the links provided below to view the following multimedia pieces:Relativism and Virtue. Library ResourcesThe following e­books or articles from the Capella University Library are linked directly in this course:Aristotle, & Henry­Lewes, G. (1890). The ethics of Aristotle: Withintroductory essay by George Henry Lewes(the Nicomachean ethics) (D. P. Chase, Trans.). London, GBR: Walter Scott Publishing Company.Brabeck, M. M. (Ed.). (2000). Practicing feminist ethics in psychology. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.May, H. (2010). Aristotle’s ethics. London, GBR: Continuum International.Stephens, W. O. (2007). Stoic ethics. London, GBR: Continuum International.Epictetus. (1996). The enchiridion, or manual (J. Fieser, Ed., & E. Carter, Trans.). South Bend, IN:Infoomotions, Inc.Babcock, W. S. (1988). Focus on Augustine’s ethics: Introduction. Journal of Religious Ethics, 16(1), 3–9.Callahan, J. C. (1995). Reproduction, ethics and the law: Feminist perspectives. Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press. Course Library GuideA Capella University library guide has been created specifically for your use in this course. You areencouraged to refer to the resources in the PHI­FP2000 – Ethics Library Guide to help direct yourresearch. Internet ResourcesAccess the following resources by clicking the links provided. Please note that URLs change frequently.Permissions for the following links have been either granted or deemed appropriate for educational useat the time of course publication.Kemerling, G. (2011). Aristotle: Ethics and the virtues. The Philosophy Pages. Retrieved fromhttp://www.philosophypages…./hy/2s.htmKemerling, G. (2011). Hellenistic philosophy. The Philosophy Pages. Retrieved fromhttp://www.philosophypages…./hy/2w.htmKemerling, G. (2011). Medieval philosophy. The Philosophy Pages. Retrieved fromhttp://www.philosophypages…./hy/3b.htm#moralityGowans, C. (2008, December 9). Moral relativism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from­relativism/Hursthouse, R. (2012, March 8). Virtue ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from­virtue/Kraut, R. (2014, April 21). Aristotle’s ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from­ethics/Graver, M. (2013, February 19). Epictetus. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from, R. (2009, May 4). Feminist ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrievedfrom­ethics/Ethics Updates. (2012, February 18). Aristotle and virtue ethics. Retrieved from Updates. (2010, November 2). Gender and ethical theory. Retrieved from Bookstore Resources 3/5 11/12/2016 Assessment 2 – PHI­FP2000 ­ Summer 2016 ­ Section 02 Bookstore ResourcesThe resources listed below are relevant to the topics and assessments in this course and are notrequired. Unless noted otherwise, these materials are available for purchase from the CapellaUniversity Bookstore. When searching the bookstore, be sure to look for the Course ID with the specific–FP (FlexPath) course designation.Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2012). The elements of moral philosophy (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw­Hill.Chapter 2, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.”Chapter 3, “Subjectivism in Ethics.”Chapter 12, “Feminism and the Ethics of Care.”Chapter 13, “The Ethics of Virtue.” Assessment InstructionsFor this assessment, you will invent a practical circumstance of your own choosing that illuminatesdifferences among the three approaches to normative theory? a circumstance in which the duties,consequences, and virtues do not align with each other. It does not need to be a grand, controversial socialissue? an everyday moral dilemma will make the conflict clearer. Just look for an example where doing yourduty might cause lasting harm, or where caring about people requires breaking the rules.Write a paper addressing this topic, supporting your statements with credible research on the threeapproaches to normative theory. You may begin your research with the Suggested Resources for this unit,but you are also expected to conduct your own independent research into the scholarly and professionalresources of the field.Begin by describing a concrete situation that calls for someone to make an ethical decision about what to do.Choosing your example carefully will make it easier to draw an interesting contrast between the theoreticalapplications. Be sure to describe the situation with enough detail to provide adequate information for arrivingat a responsible choice. You are welcome to choose a case in which you are personally involved, but youmay find it easier to think objectively with a little detachment.Next, think about the kinds of normative theory that could be applied to the situation you have chosen. If weare not to surrender to ethical relativism, what should guide our decision here—duties, outcomes, or virtue?You should select the approaches in a way that heightens the dilemma of deciding on a course of action thatwould be right or wrong. Support your presentation by considering alternative ways of applying each theoryto the case. Use your example to compare and contrast the theoretical approaches in practical terms.Finally, discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these normative theories as methods for making moraldecisions in practical cases. Use what you have written about the application of each theory to your exampleas evidence of the merits of each way of thinking about everyday choices. What makes the most sense, andhow would you decide yourself? State your own position on which normative theory works best, and defendthat position with clear arguments in its support. Additional RequirementsWritten communication: Written communication should be free of errors that detract from the overall message.APA formatting: Include a title page and a references page, formatted according to APA (6th edition) style andformatting.References: A typical paper will include support from a minimum of 3–5 references. You may use some of thematerials recommended in the Resources, but you should also include support from your independent research ofscholarly or professional materials.Length: A typical paper will be 4–6 typed, double­spaced pages in length.Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12­point. Making a Moral Decision Scoring GuideView Scoring Guide Use the scoring guide to enhance your learning. How to use the scoring guide 4/5 11/12/2016 Assessment 2 – PHI­FP2000 ­ Summer 2016 ­ Section 02 [U02a1] Making A Moral Decision <Link Type=”Text/Css” Media=”Screen” Rel=”Stylesheet” Href=”//Media.Capella.Edu/Blackboard9/Css/Patch_manifesto.Css”/>Write 4–6 pages in which you invent a practical circumstance that illuminates differences between the threeapproaches to normative theory.Submit AssessmentThis button will take you to the next available assessment attempt tab, where you will be able to submit yourassessment. U02a1: Making A Moral Decision>> View/Complete U02a1: Making A Moral Decision: Revision 1>> View/Complete U02a1: Making A Moral Decision: Revision 2>> View/Complete 5/5

Order Solution Now

Similar Posts