What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma?

/in /by

Return to the topic you chose in the week three assignment. Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.
• Summarize the dilemma.
• Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.
• Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.
Revise and rewrite based on any feedback you received in your previous draft (week three). Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc. State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.
What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing? Use moral values and logical reasoning to justify your answer
Next, apply the following:
• Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma
• Utilitarianism to the dilemma
• Natural Law ethics to the dilemma
Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?
Why do the other two not work or not work as well?
Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?
Use the 5 articles from your annotated bibliography to support your answers. (Additional academic scholarly research from the past 5 years can be included as well.)
Include a reference page at the end of your paper in APA format that includes your bibliography with the annotations removed and any other sources used in your final paper.

How does Lorenzini understand the distinction? Is this a defensible understanding?

/in /by

1.Cite three criterion that Austin uses to distinguish between illocutions and perlocutions. Illustrate these with an example of your own.

2. How does Lorenzini understand the distinction? Is this a defensible understanding?

3. What does Lorenzini means by ‘perlocutionary responsibility’? How does this relate to the example you provided in 1?

Discuss the history of child protection in N Ireland.

/in /by

‘The main focus of social work practice with children and families should be on the
protection of children at risk from ‘significant harm’ rather than on the provision of
support for ‘children in need’ and their families’. Please refer to relevant literature, theory,
research, and NI law and policy to critically discuss this statement. the assignment should look at the childrens order northern ireland 1995. it should consider how legislation has developed over the year. should take in inquiries such as victoria climbie, baby p etc and how these have impacted child protection and family support. voluntary organisations in N Ireland such as safe guarding board ni. the assignment should be critically analysed. discuss the history of child protection in N Ireland. The UK can also be discussed but more so NI. the refocusing debate should be mentioned. i have attached guidance below

What is philosophy and what should philosophy be?

/in /by

What is philosophy and what should philosophy be? Some examples of what it is or should be are linguistic analysis, critique of all other disciplines (philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, etc.), applied ethics, metaphysics, proofs of God, history of ideas, discussions of paradoxes, ontology (study of Being), critique of society, economics, politics, etc. What is it, if anything that separates philosophy from the other disciplines? Is there any value in continuing to read the “classics” of Western philosophy (such as Plato, Aristotle, etc.)? If so why, if not why not? Is philosophy only someone’s opinion or worldview, or is it/should it be provable or objective? In short, why bother with philosophy?

Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

/in /by

After reading all of Chapter 10, please select ONE of the following primary source readings:
* “Active and Passive Euthanasia” by James Rachels (starting on page 300)
-or-
* “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia” by J. Gay-Williams (starting on page 304)
-or-
* “Voluntary Active Euthanasia” by Dan. W. Brock (starting on page 307)
-or-
* “Euthanasia” by Philippa Foot (starting on page 315)
-or-
* “Killing and Allowing to Die” by Daniel Callahan (starting on page 329)
-or-
* “Euthanasia for Disabled People?” by Liz Carr (starting on page 332)
Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

Reading summary 10
After reading all of Chapter 15, please select ONE of the following primary source readings:
* “Plain Sex” by Alan H. Goldman (starting on page 548)
-or-
* “Sexual Morality” by Roger Scruton (starting on page 557)
-or-
* “Why Shouldn’t Jimmy and Johnny Have Sex? A Defense of Homosexuality” by John Corvino (starting on page 564)
-or-
* “Seduction, Rape, and Coercion” by Sarah Conly (starting on page 571)
-or-
* “Sex Under Pressure: Jerks, Boorish Behavior, and Gender Hierarchy” by Scott A. Anderson (starting on page 581)
Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

Reading summary 11
STEP 1 – After reading all of Chapter 13, please select ONE of the following primary source readings:
* “People or Penguins” by William F. Baxter (starting on page 442)
-or-
* “It’s Not my Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations” by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (starting on page 446)
-or-

* “Are All Species Equal?” by David Schmidtz (starting on page 458)
-or-
* “The Land Ethic” by Aldo Leopold (starting on page 465)
STEP 2 – Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

Reading summary 12
STEP 1 – After reading all of Chapter 20, please select ONE of the following primary source readings:
* “The Morality of Migration” by Seyla Benhabib (starting on page 766)
-or-
* “The Moral Dilemma of U.S. Immigration Policy Revisited: Open Borders vs. Social Justice?”  by Stephen Macedo (starting on page 768)
-or-
* “Selecting Immigrants” by David Miller (starting on page 781)
-or-
* “Immigration and Freedom of Association” by Christopher Heath Wellman (starting on page 787)
-or-
* “Freedom of Association is Not the Answer” by Sarah Fine (starting on page 808)
STEP 2 – Write a short, objective summary of 250-300 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

Reading summary 13
STEP 1 – After reading all of Chapter 21, please select ONE of the following primary source readings:
* “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” by Peter Singer (starting on page 829)
-or-
* “Lifeboat Ethics” by Garrett Hardin (starting on page 835)
-or-
* “A Critique of Lifeboat Ethics” by William W. Murdoch and Allan Oaten (starting on page 841)
-or-
* “The Case for Aid” by Jeffrey Sachs (starting on page 850)
STEP 2 – Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

Support your interpretations and your arguments with textual evidence and explain why you interpret and argue as you do by reference to the text

/in /by

-There isn’t a set number of sources needed but there needs to be a reasonable amount
– No plagiarising
– needs to have primary and secondary sources
– references and bibliography
– An assessed essay that is more than 5% over-length will automatically be penalised by the deduction of marks.
-Start with an introduction that explains why the issue raised is important and what particular problems are encountered in discussing it. If the title is in the form of a question, indicate briefly what answer you are going to give to it.
-The body of the essay should then be a systematic review of the issue, or reasoned arguments for your answer to the question
-Do not cite views of modern scholars as if they are ‘facts;’ they are opinions with which you should agree or disagree, giving your reasons why.
-References to ancient works can be put in round brackets at the end of the relevant sentence or clause
-References to modern works should be given in footnotes
-bibliography listing, in alphabetical order of the surnames of the author or editor, the modern works which you consulted while preparing the essay, including any online resources at the end of the list. The bibliography should not include ancient authors, unless you want to list an edition, translation or commentary
-important for your essays to be framed by a close and detailed engagement with that ancient text or
texts about which you chose to write and by your own reflections about this material
-, support your interpretations and your arguments with textual evidence and explain why you interpret and argue as you do by reference to the text

Some recommend materials:
-Xenophanes Article by Lesher, James
-Presocratics Book by James Warren c2007 pp 41-56
-Fragments Book by J. H. Lesher; Xenophanes 2001
– Epistemology Book by Stephen Everson 1989 pp 11-38
-The Oxford handbook of presocratic philosophy Book by Patricia Curd; Daniel W. Graham 2008

Sorry for the overload of information but this is the majority of what my university recommends:)

Identify a contentious topic or case study which raises questions about justice and fairness.

/in /by

This is an essay about the justice of town and regional planning, housing, regeneration and urban management. In an essay of 3000 words you need to identify a contentious topic or case study which raises questions about justice and fairness. You should explain and critically discuss the values that are exposed by this topic or case study and develop an argument on the ethical action that a reflective practitioner should take. In doing this you should apply the ideas of a particular theorist or develop a particular theoretical stance to interpret the issue and questions of justice and fairness. You should take sides in this essay, argue for a particular approach or set of values and explore the position of the practitioner in seeking to ‘do the right thing’.

What does Bauer think is wrong with the standard view

/in /by

What is the ‘standard view’ that Bauer is arguing against?

What does Bauer think is wrong with the standard view

What is Bauer’s alternative view

How successful do you consider Bauer’s argument here? Why?

Give an account of the allegory and briefly explain its meaning.

/in /by

Please read the Cave Allegory (the last installment on Plato in BB Contents). Give an account of the allegory and briefly explain its meaning. To what extent do you find it congruent with the argument of Descartes’ First Meditation?

1. This assignment is to be written in paragraph form, not in point form.

2. You don’t have to consult sources beyond the readings for our course.

3. As in all university courses, you are expected to have a good command of the mechanics of writing—grammar, spelling and organization.

4. Structure your answer to the question topic as a mini essay. Start your essay with an introduction that states the question you are asked to explore. This initial paragraph is sometimes called a “thesis statement,” and for such a short form as our commentary it is to be a sentence or two.

Then develop your argument and present your evidence in the body of the essay. The body of the essay is the main section in which you must present and develop ideas; in our case, you need to address the question whether you would condemn or exonerate Socrates. Choose one or two arguments to support your view. Naturally, if you are in favour of condemning Socrates, you should discuss one or two (depending on the length and depth of your analysis) weakest – in your view – arguments raised by Socrates against his accusers. Alternatively, if in favour of exonerating Socrates, you should discuss one or two strongest – in your opinion – arguments he brought in his own defense.

When your argument is complete and well-presented, end your essay with a conclusion that summarizes the problem/question at stake and re-states the verdict that has emerged from your discussion of Socrates’ arguments. The conclusion of your essay, like the introduction, should be brief.