ETHC 445 Principles of Ethics Full Course DeVry
Just Click
on Below Link To Download This Course:
ETHC 445 Week 1 Ethics and
Aristotle DeVry
ETHC 445 Week 1 Discussion
Each week,
you are provided with possible topics for discussion and a third area to
reflect on collaborations and progress you make as a group, in teams, or in
partnerships. This week, you are required to work on a meaningful introduction.
The topics on Group Think, and Formal Study of Ethics are optional—you may
interact in one, or the other, or both. You should work in teams or with
partners collaboratively to discuss and exchange ideas to help you. Please
refer to the threaded discussion rubric, so that you are in full compliance.
Topic
Introduce
yourself to the class in a discussion, using an ethical dilemma you experienced
and share it with your peers. Your introduction should be detailed, use
description, dialogue, and should center on a specific ethical problem you
faced. Read and comment on each other’s ethical memoirs. Create a VoiceThread
or narrated PowerPoint slide show that orally presents your ethical memoir. Use
your work in discussions and your collaborations to draft a formal, revised,
and extended version for your assignment this week.
ETHC 445 Week 1 ETHICAL MEMOIR
Compose
a 2-page paper, accompanied by a 2-minute narrated slide presentation that
describes a particular moral-ethical dilemma that you encountered and what the
outcome of that dilemma was. Did you solve the dilemma? If so, how? If not,
what were the repercussions or consequences? What would you do differently if
faced with the same problem today? What is the importance of good ethics? Why
should we be concerned about our actions?
Regard
the questions as prompts, not an ordering of your responses. This is not a
Q&A essay, but rather a graceful reflection regarding a difficult ethical
dilemma you faced.
ETHC 445 Week 2 Human
Nature in Ancient & Medieval Ethics DeVry
ETHC 445 Week 2 Discussions
WEEK 2: MAJORITY THINK
Each week,
you may use the threads to draft your current work, interact with your peers,
document the progress you have made as a result of your team collaborations,
and address course content using the topics below. Please refer to the threaded
discussion rubric, so that you are in full compliance.
As our
opening page states, Mark Twain warned that “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is
time to pause and reflect.” It is likely that your parents
warned you “not to follow the crowd,” or your school counselors warned you
about “peer pressure.”
The
United States utilizes a democratic republic form of government, which espouses
the “majority rule” in many instances. For example, when passing laws, Congress
and state Legislators use majority voting. When electing our officials, the
majority rules. But, is our government unethical?
This
week’s thread will look at two or three “examples” of majority findings or
rules. We will bring new ones in throughout the week, so be sure to visit back
at least every other day and post your thoughts.
Here is our
first one for the week:
The great majority of people seem to find nothing objectionable about the use of commercials in children’s television programming. Yet a distinguished panel commissioned by the National Science Foundation found reason to disagree. After reviewing 21 relevant scholarly studies, they concluded:
The great majority of people seem to find nothing objectionable about the use of commercials in children’s television programming. Yet a distinguished panel commissioned by the National Science Foundation found reason to disagree. After reviewing 21 relevant scholarly studies, they concluded:
It is clear
from the available evidence that television advertising does influence
children. Research has demonstrated that children attend to and learn from
commercials, and that advertising is at least moderately successful in creating
positive attitudes toward and the desire for products advertised. The variable
that emerged most clearly across numerous studies as a strong determinant of
children’s perception of television advertising is the child’s age. Research
clearly establishes that children become more skilled in evaluating television
advertising as they grow older, and that to treat all children from 2 to 12 as
a homogenous group masks important, perhaps crucial differences.
- Do you think the majority view is
correct in this case? What difference would it make that a majority thinks
this way?
- Do you think the use of commercials in
children’s television programming raises any ethical questions? Do
explain.
- Do you wish
to place evidence for what you say before your classmates?
https://bit.ly/2DhBre2
55
unread replies.1313 replies.
Personal
struggles with one’s own tendencies, desires, lusts, and self-interest have
placed people in conflict with other people and their own communities farther
back than any of us can read. We read about the struggles of others in
history — what about ourselves? Yes, us! What about our experiences
of being ourselves?
When
we look back in history, we find people who are not so different from us —
struggling with their human nature — and trying to live ethical lives in
whatever way they can do so. They aspire to live ethical lifes and find
themselves failing again and again.
St.
Augustine in the 5th Century held that although we feel free to make
choices in life, our true nature as human beings includes a persistent
disregard for what is good. On this view, we are sinners whose only hope for
redemption lies in the gracious love of a merciful deity. Whatever I do on my
own, Augustine would argue, is bound to be wrong; whatever I do right, must be
performed by God through me.
St. Thomas
Aquinas in the 13th Century brought Aristotle’s theories back into “vogue,”
soon after St. Augustine’s death (if 800 years is soon, that is.) He
allowed humanity to have a bit of secularity along with faith, and his ethics
allows for a Natural Law which can be found in the heart of man. Please be sure to listen to our Saints’ Debate on the lecture tab
before working in this thread.
So,
here we are in the 21st Century with all the sophistication and technology of
the age. Does this account of human nature fit well with your own
experience of human action? That is, do you observe (in yourself and others) an
inclination toward evil instead of toward good? Bring in examples of
scenarios which bolster your view, or which tend to bring your view (or others)
into question.
ETHC 445 Week 2 ETHICAL DILEMMA ANALYSIS
Collaborate
with your team, using Cisco Spark, email, phone meetings, or any collaboration
tool you find useful or prefer. In your collaboration, consider the ethical
dilemmas below and select 1 in which to conduct a deep drill.
Ethical
Dilemma 1: A
newspaper columnist signs a contract with a newspaper chain. Several months
later, she is offered a position with another newspaper chain, offering a
higher salary. Because she would prefer making more money, she notifies the
first chain that she is breaking her contract. The courts will decide the
legality of her action, but what of the morality? Did the columnist behave
ethically?
Ethical
Dilemma 2: An
airline pilot receives his regular medical checkup. The doctor discovers that
he has developed a heart murmur. The pilot only has a month to go before he is
eligible for retirement. The doctor knows this and wonders whether, under these
unusual circumstances, she is justified in withholding information from the
company regarding the pilot’s condition.
Ethical
Dilemma 3: An
office worker has had a record of frequent absence. He has used all his
vacation and sick-leave days, and has frequently requested additional leave
without pay. His supervisor and co-workers have expressed great frustration
because his absenteeism has caused bottlenecks in paperwork, created low morale
in the office, and required others to do his work in addition to their own.
However, the individual believes he is entitled to take his earned time and
additional time off without pay. Is he right?
Ethical
Dilemma 4: Rhonda
enjoys socializing with fellow employees at work, but their discussions usually
consist of gossiping about other people, including several of her friends. At
first, Rhonda feels uncomfortable talking in this way about people she is close
to; but then she decides it does no real harm, and she feels no remorse for
joining in.
In
conjunction with the readings, and within your teams, decide which ethical
dilemma you believe is most problematic and why. In your teams, discuss the
ideas of “good vs. evil,” “wrong vs. right,” and “ought/should be vs. what is.”
Form the readings, discuss the ways in which Augustine and Aquinas would have
solved the problem based on lecture and course reading material. In what ways
do Augustine and Aquinas differ and why?
You
may wish to meet throughout the week to share ideas. Create a report of your
findings as individuals and as a team. The report should be approximately 2
pages accompanied by a 2-minute oral presentation, using VoiceThread or a
PowerPoint narrated slide show.
Rubric
Ethical
Dilemma Analysis
|
Ethical Dilemma Analysis
|
||||
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
||
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning
OutcomePurpose
The paper
has a clear purpose that begins with a solid introduction/thesis, and compels
the reader forward.
|
|
25.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport/Development
The
analysis shows depth of critical thought. Readings, collaborations, and
course materials are leveraged powerfully in support of writer’s evident
effort to understand ethical problems. Good use of theoretical underpinnings
are used.
|
|
25.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, Style
Grammar
refers to correct Standard American Usage, e.g., subject/verb agreement and
use of correct parts of speech. Mechanics refers to correct idiomatic usage,
e.g., capitalized proper nouns, word choice, and word order. Style refers to
dynamic writing, avoiding passive constructions, writing that shows,
describes, and compels the reader’s interest.
|
|
25.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSlides
|
|
15.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOral Narration
|
|
10.0 pts
|
||
|
Total
Points: 100.0
|
||||
ETHC 445 Week 3 Living
Ethically through a Social Contract DeVry
https://bit.ly/2DhBre2
WEEK 3: THE DEATH PENALTY
Each week,
you may use the threads to draft your current work, interact with your peers,
document the progress you have made as a result of your team collaborations,
and address course content using the topics below. Please refer to the threaded
discussion rubric, so that you are in full compliance.
Topic
First,
here is a word of caution. With this discussion comes a tasking to discuss the
death penalty in two ways: first, as an expression of the social contract,
where one person has killed another in a violation of that other person’s right
to peace and safety, and second, as a rules-based function of the justice
system being applied to a difficult situation.
What do you
see going on that is a violation of the Hobbes/Locke social contract idea?
And you might also connect it with any of the Three Schools, plus Aristotle, that you have read in past weeks—and especially with the rules-based ethics model.
And you might also connect it with any of the Three Schools, plus Aristotle, that you have read in past weeks—and especially with the rules-based ethics model.
Here’s
the situation: In Manatee County, Florida, a judge sentenced a man to death—the
first time this had happened in the county for over 19 years. Sentenced to
death was a 25-year-old man for the January 7, 2004, murder of both of his
parents by bludgeoning them to death in their bed with a baseball bat.
Now, with
your social contract ethicist hats on, tell us what you make of this quote by
the judge at the sentencing, quoted from the front page of the November 17,
2007 Bradenton Herald: “You have not only forfeited your
right to live among us, but under the laws of the state of Florida, you have
forfeited the right to live at all.”
Have
at it, good folks. But, rather than running off with reactions and opinions
about the death penalty in general, please do keep it in the context of our
social contract discussion for this week and also connected with ethics of
justice.
WEEK 3: THE SOCIAL
CONTRACT
Social
Contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how
people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for
their mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules
as well.
Hobbes runs
the logic like this in the form of a logical syllogism:
1) We are all self-interested,
2) Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests,
3) We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order,
1) We are all self-interested,
2) Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests,
3) We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order,
Therefore,
self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.
Thomas Hobbes looked to the past to observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was “nasty, brutish, and short” — a kind of perpetual state of warfare
Thomas Hobbes looked to the past to observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was “nasty, brutish, and short” — a kind of perpetual state of warfare
John Locke disagreed,
and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of
its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and
sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Listen to Locke’s audio on the lecture tab and read his lecturette
to be able to answer this thread.
Locke
addressed Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though
he attribute this claim to “some men” not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing
to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature. For
this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to
resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action to themselves punish
wrong doers, as in a state of nature.
Which
philosophy do you espouse?
In
coming to grips with the two and considering your experience of society as it
is today, think out loud about what you experiences as the State of
Nature, and tell us what you would be willing to give up in exchange for
civil order and personal security?
You
might consider what you have already given up in exchange for security as well
as what might be required in coming days.
ETHC 445 Week 3 GREATER GOOD ANALYSIS
Working
in teams, consider the following three problems. In writing a paper about each
problem, identify the consequences of the actions taken, and then determine
whether the actions taken represented a greater good, who would benefit from
the good, and whether the consequences ethically justify the decisions and
actions.
The
Mayor of a large city was given a free membership in an exclusive golf club by
people who have received several city contracts. He also accepted gifts from
organizations that have not done business with the City, but might in the
future. The gifts ranged from $200 tickets to professional sports events to
designer watches and jewelry.
A
college instructor is pursuing her doctorate in night school. To gain extra
time for her own studies, she gives her students the same lectures, the same
assignments, and the same examinations semester after semester without the
slightest effort to improve them.
Todd
and Edna have been married for three years. They have had serious personal
problems. Edna is a heavy drinker, and Todd cannot keep a job. Also, they have
bickered and fought constantly since their marriage. Deciding that the way to
overcome their problems is to have a child, they stop practicing birth control,
and Edna becomes pregnant.
Using
what you have learned from collaborations, discussions, and readings up to this
week, explore your answers to these ethical dilemmas. How would Locke
have addressed or solved the problem? Explain how his ethics and the answer he
may have given are different from or the same as yours.
Compose
a 2 page paper and oral narration of 2 minutes, discussing all three ethical
dilemmas in depth.
Rubric
Greater Good
Analysis
|
Greater Good Analysis
|
||||
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
||
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning
OutcomePurpose
The
analyses have clear purpose that begins with a solid introduction/thesis, and
compels the reader forward.
|
|
30.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport/Development
Writer
plumbs the depth of the ethical dilemmas with evident granular detail. Team
input and course materials are leveraged powerfully and with reflective
detail.
|
|
30.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, StyleDescription
of criterion
Grammar
refers to correct Standard American Usage, e.g., subject/verb agreement and
use of correct parts of speech. Mechanics refers to correct idiomatic usage,
e.g., capitalized proper nouns, word choice, and word order. Style refers to
dynamic writing, avoiding passive constructions, writing that shows,
describes, and compels the reader’s interest. Evident care has been taken in
composing; there are few errors, and they do not significantly interfere with
meaning.
|
|
30.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSlides
|
|
20.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOral Narration
|
|
15.0 pts
|
||
|
Total
Points: 125.0
|
||||
ETHC 445 Week 4 Kant’s Ethics and Our Duty DeVry
ETHC 445 Week 4 Discussions
WEEK 4: DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS
11 unread reply.1515
replies.
Each week,
you may use the threads to draft your current work, interact with your peers,
document the progress you have made as a result of your team collaborations,
and address course content using the topics below. Please refer to the threaded
discussion rubric, so that you are in full compliance.
Topic
Increasing
food supplies are necessary to sustain growing populations around the world and
their appetites for great food, quality products, and continuous availability.
A
great deal of expensive research is invested in developing technologies to
deliver productive agriculture. Horticultural efforts to breed hybrid crops are
seen as far back as history can observe, and there have been efforts to
domesticate improved animals, as well. Gene splitting was a 1990s technology to
improve the health and productivity of farm crops. With the 21st century have
come genetically modified foods (GMF) through the use of nanotechnology to
cause changes at the genetic and even molecular levels. These are very
expensive technologies, and many new products have been patented and otherwise
protected as proprietary products of intellectual property.
Drive
out to the country during growing season, and you will see signs identifying
that the crop has been grown with a protected seed that cannot be used to
produce retained seed for planting in the next growing season.
In
terms of this week’s TCOs, what ethical issues are raised by this legal process
of patent protection, and how do we see the primary schools of ethics used in
these proprietary measures? What, in this deontological week and in our
learning to date, informs our understanding of this situation, and what should
be done about it?
https://bit.ly/2DhBre2
Kant’s
famous First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative reads:
“Act
only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.” Kant taught morality as a matter of following
maxims of living that reflect absolute laws. “Universal” is a term that allows
for no exceptions, and what is universal applies always and everywhere. Lying,
for any reason, is universally wrong.
Be sure to
listen to Kant’s audio lecture before posting this week!
So,
consider the famous case of the Crazed Murderer. In your town the Crazed
Murderer comes to your door looking for your friend and wanting to kill him.
You know that your friend went home to hide. What do you tell the murderer?
When he leaves and runs up the street to your friend’s house, what do you do?
ETHC 445 Week 4 ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIP
Using
academic scholarly research, find an article that addresses an ethical dilemma
from the past five years and annotate it thoroughly. What are the key
points to the article? Summarize the dilemma. What are the key
terms of the article? What conflicts or controversies does it
raise? Where can you offer analysis or an original point of view?
Once you have a handle on the article and your reaction to the issues it
raises, use it as a foundation to
- Create your own 2-4 paragraph “dilemma.”
- Apply Kant’s Categorical Imperative to
the problem you invent.
- Apply any other method you have
encountered in lecture material and the readings.
- State which method you prefer and why.
- Work with a
partner collaboratively to share and divide this work for optimal results.
Your
paper should be 3 pages. You MUST provide the source of the foundation
dilemma, and thus this paper will require 1 reference using at least 1 correct
in-text citation (indicating quoted or paraphrased material from the article
and where to locate it). Use APA format in citing the source. Refer
to course resources for details and help in achieving APA style.
Work
with a partner to share this assignment collaboratively and create a combined
oral presentation. Consider creating a youtube video, MP3 podcast (if you
have those skills) or a video presentation.
Rubric
Academic
Scholarship
|
Academic Scholarship
|
||||
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
||
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning
OutcomeIntroduction
Writer
provides a solid example of academic scholarship, related to a specific
real-world problem. The source is written by a professional ethicist,
scholar, appears in a peer-reviewed journal, and has ample references of its
own.
|
|
30.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation Quality
The writer
annotates the source fully, considering the main points, key terms used (with
in-text citation of pages); s/he analyzes content for implications,
consequences, and subtle problems and controversies. S/he establishes points
of agreement/disagreement and gives cause. S/he locates 1 or 2 pithy
quotations that will serve as evidence in his/her analysis. Course material
and team input is leveraged powerfully.
|
|
40.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, Style, Format,
Quality of Thought
Grammar
refers to correct Standard American Usage, e.g., subject/verb agreement and
use of correct parts of speech. Mechanics refers to correct idiomatic usage,
e.g., capitalized proper nouns, word choice, and word order. Style (5 pts)
refers to dynamic writing, avoiding passive constructions, writing that
shows, describes, and compels the reader’s interest. Evident care has been
taken in composing; there are few errors, and they do not significantly
interfere with meaning. APA format has been followed scrupulously.
|
|
35.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeVisual Presentation
|
|
25.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOral Narration
|
|
20.0 pts
|
||
|
Total
Points: 150.0
|
||||
ETHC 445 Week 5 What about Choices & Consequences? DeVry
ETHC 445 Week 5 Discussions
WEEK 5: LIFE & DEATH;
POLITICS & ETHICS
Each week,
you may use the threads to draft your current work, interact with your peers,
document the progress you have made as a result of your team collaborations,
and address course content using the topics below. Please refer to the threaded
discussion rubric, so that you are in full compliance.
There
are three basic propositions in standard Utilitarianism (Please be sure to
listen to Mill’s audio lecture before joining this threaded discussion):
- Actions are judged right and wrong
solely on their consequences; that is, nothing else matters except the
consequence, and right actions are simply those with the best
consequences.
- To assess consequences, the only thing
that matters is the amount of happiness and unhappiness caused; that is,
there is only one criterion and everything else is irrelevant.
- In
calculating happiness and unhappiness caused, nobody’s happiness counts
any more than anybody else’s; that is, everybody’s welfare is equally
important and the majority rules.
In
specific cases where justice and utility are in conflict, it may seem expedient
to serve the greater happiness through quick action that overrules
consideration for justice. There is a side to happiness that can call for
rushed decisions and actions that put decision-makers under the pressure of
expediency.
Here
is a dilemma for our class:
You
are the elected district attorney. You receive a phone call from a nursing home
administrator who was a good friend of yours in college. She has a waiting list
of 3,000 people who will die if they don’t get into her nursing home facility
within the next 3 weeks, and she currently has 400 patients who have asked
(or their families have asked on their behalf) for the famous Dr. Jack
Kevorkian’s (fictitious) sister, Dr. Jill Kevorkian, for assistance in helping
them die. The 3,000 people on the waiting list want to live. She (the nursing
home administrator) wants to know if you would agree to “look the other way” if
she let in Dr. Jill to assist in the suicide of the 400 patients who have
requested it, thus allowing at least 400 of the 3,000 on the waiting list in.
- How would we use Utilitarianism to
“solve” this dilemma?
- What ethics did your friend, the nursing
home administrator, use in deciding to call you?
- What ethics
are you using if you just “look the other way” and let it happen?
WEEK 5: DEALING WITH
EMERGENCIES AND OUTCOMES
Chapter
9 of our text includes the terrorism situation at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and
it needs to be read before engaging this discussion.
The
principle of utility involves maximizing happiness as a desirable outcome of
decisions. Although it does not get directly said, there is an inverse
intention to minimize the undesirable outcome of disaster. Utilitarian
decisions are directed toward outcomes—that is, the consequences of decisions.
The
Olympic hostage situation was a high-tension moment, full of dangerous
surprises and strategies to deal with the situation that did not work out for
the best. Among the strategies was the idea to kill the leader of the
terrorists so as to disrupt the terrorist plot and to allow a good outcome in
which the hostages would be saved. In the situation it was also entirely
possible that a terrible outcome might occur in which all would die. The
situation was an emergency.
The
German legal system might eventually take the terrorists and their leader to
trial, but first there was the need to end the hostage situation. The account
in our text ends with, “But it was the lesser of two evils.”
As
utilitarian ethicists this week, how shall we reason through to the decision of
the law enforcement authorities at the 1972 Munich Olympics?
ETHC 445 Week 5 YOU DECIDE
The
“You Decide” assignment presents a difficult and painful dilemma, with you in
an imagined professional role. Go through the You Decide presentation, make the
decision it calls for, meet you’re your team or partner to discuss, and compose
a paper and presentation that explains your decision and your reasoning and
justification for it.
You
are called upon to make a painful medical decision and to explain it both
orally and in writing. Who benefits from what you decided, who gets
denied a needed benefit, and why? You will compose an official memorandum
that will be kept for the record and could potentially be read not only by your
Peer Review Committee, but also by those involved in charitable fundraising,
which supports hospital development, as well as by others with financial
interests in the decision.
You
will see notice that there is time pressure in the simulated situation, so
remember that you would not have the luxury to dawdle in the decision-making
process, and as the decision-maker, you would not have the luxury of consulting
a broad spectrum of advisors. It falls on you and your team or partner to
decide!
Include
in the document and presentation the utilitarian ethical philosophy of John
Stuart Mill (from the lecture and audio for this week) and one other ethical
philosopher of your choosing that we have studied to date, and use both of
those philosophies to bolster your decision. This paper will be at least 2
pages and no more than 3 pages with a 2-3 minute oral presentation on which you
and your team or partner may (ideally and preferably) collaborate. Remember,
both professional written form and potential audience, as well as tone when
writing this sensitive memorandum.
Outside
sources are not required, but if used, must be cited properly.
Rubric
You Decide
|
You Decide
|
||||
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
||
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning
OutcomeIntroduction
Writer
summarizes a difficult situation sensitively and offers a compelling purpose
for writing.
|
|
40.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport/Development
Course
material and team or partner input is leveraged powerfully. Theoretical
underpinnings are well understood and used to bring an argument/justification
of choice forward. Both Locke and another philosopher are used.
|
|
50.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, Style, Format,
Quality of Thought
Grammar
refers to correct Standard American Usage, e.g., subject/verb agreement and
use of correct parts of speech. Mechanics refers to correct idiomatic usage,
e.g., capitalized proper nouns, word choice, and word order. Style (5 pts)
refers to dynamic writing, avoiding passive constructions, writing that
shows, describes, and compels the reader’s interest. Evident care has been
taken in composing; there are few errors, and they do not significantly
interfere with meaning. APA format has been followed scrupulously.
|
|
40.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeVisual Presentation
|
|
25.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOral Narration
|
|
20.0 pts
|
||
|
Total
Points: 175.0
|
||||
ETHC 445 Week 6 Ethics in Human
Relationships Week DeVry
ETHC 445 Week 6 Discussions
WEEK 6: APPLYING RAND’S
OBJECTIVISM
Each week,
you may use the threads to draft your current work, interact with your peers,
document the progress you have made as a result of your team collaborations,
and address course content using the topics below. Please refer to the threaded
discussion rubric, so that you are in full compliance.
Ayn Rand’s
Objectivist philosophy has been touted by
her detractors as the philosophy of self-interested selfishness.
Her four
epistemological principles are:
1. Metaphysics: Objective reality of the world and the objects in it.
2. Epistemology: Reason as the one and only key to understanding.
3. Ethics: Self-interest in what behavior is but also what it should be.
4. Politics: Capitalism through the performance of deeds by individuals who are self-interested.
1. Metaphysics: Objective reality of the world and the objects in it.
2. Epistemology: Reason as the one and only key to understanding.
3. Ethics: Self-interest in what behavior is but also what it should be.
4. Politics: Capitalism through the performance of deeds by individuals who are self-interested.
In the early
1960’s, a student asked a spokesman for Objectivism what would happen to the
poor in an Objectivist’s free society.
The spokesman answered, “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped.”
The spokesman answered, “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped.”
If one reads
Rand’s works, Atlas Shrugged, or The Fountainhead, one will
conclude that this would be the answer Ayn would have given to that student as
well.
- What do you conclude from the answer
given by the Objectivist spokesperson?
- Is Objectivism, like Moral Relativism,
the opposite of ethics?
- And what
clue in what she taught leads to your conclusion?
WEEK 6: WORKING CONFLICT
RESOLUTION METHODS
Different
ways to analyze ethical behaviors and dilemmas exist, and many of them will
help direct you to the correct or “best” solution to a problem.
As we
discussed in week 1 in the “tough choices” .pdf, sometimes right vs. right or
wrong vs. wrong decisions have to be made.
In the
lecture this week, you are given three ethical dilemma
resolution models to try out on a dilemma provided there. Please review that
interactive before posting to the threads this week, and let’s bring your
questions and comments about the “proposed” solutions here to the
threads. We will talk about that through mid-week, and then I will post a
new dilemma here where we will, as a group, begin analyzing it using the
different methods.
You
will need to be able to use these three models (Blanchard and Peale, Laura Nash
and Front page of the Newspaper) on the final exam … so let’s be sure to
practice all three of them together this week.
So,
to start this off, let’s address the dilemma in the Week 6 Lecture interactive
(in the middle of the page). You MUST read the lecture and run the interactive
in order to participate in the threads this week!
- Review the sample solution to the Laura
Nash method. Do you agree with that analysis? If so, what parts do you
think really helped you work through the dilemma? If not, which parts do
you not agree with?
- Review the sample solution to the Front
Page of the Newspaper method. Do you think this is one of those types of
dilemmas for which this model works? If not, why not? If so, why? How did
using this method help you work through the dilemma?
- Review the
sample solution to the Blanchard and Peale method. Do you agree with the
analysis? If not, why not? If so, in what way did this help you analyze
this dilemma?
Pick ONE of the
above 3 questions and let’s get started. Or, respond to another
student with details about why you agree or disagree with their analysis. Feel
free to kindly debate with each other. Do not take things personally if someone
disagrees. Be sure to show that you have viewed the lecture and interactive and
that you attempted an analysis for “high quality” posts this week. After
Wednesday, I will bring in another scenario and we can analyze that one
together as a class.
ETHC 445 Week 6 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
Examine
the Case Study for your analysis about professional responsibilities and
decision-making during a crisis called “Command at Sea.” In teams or partners,
discuss the decision possibilities within the case study and create a report of
your findings. Be sure to read and understand the case thoroughly.
Rubric
Case Study
Analysis
|
Case Study Analysis
|
||||
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
||
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning
OutcomeIntroduction
Writer
summarizes the case, showing in-depth understanding and a compelling purpose
for writing. Introduces possible perspectives to be detailed in the report.
|
|
30.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis Quality
Both team
collaboration and individual critical thought are evident and are clearly and
compellingly presented.
|
|
40.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, Style, Format,
Quality of Thought
Grammar
refers to correct Standard American Usage, e.g., subject/verb agreement and
use of correct parts of speech. Mechanics refers to correct idiomatic usage,
e.g., capitalized proper nouns, word choice, and word order. Style (5 pts)
refers to dynamic writing, avoiding passive constructions, writing that
shows, describes, and compels the reader’s interest. Evident care has been
taken in composing; there are few errors, and they do not significantly
interfere with meaning. APA format has been followed scrupulously.
|
|
30.0 pts
|
||
|
Total
Points: 100.0
|
||||
https://bit.ly/2DhBre2
ETHC 445 Week 7 Discussions
WEEK 7: CODES OF ETHICS
Each week,
you may use the threads to draft your current work, interact with your peers,
document the progress you have made as a result of your team collaborations,
and address course content using the topics below. Please refer to the threaded
discussion rubric, so that you are in full compliance.
This week, we
looked at two more ethical codes—one for the Project Management Institute, and
one for Engineers.
(Find links to these professional codes in the Week 7 Assignment tab along with the Week 7 readings.)
(Find links to these professional codes in the Week 7 Assignment tab along with the Week 7 readings.)
You
can see that both of them are much simpler than the Legal code we looked at
last week, and even simpler than the Medical code of ethics. Appropriate
professional behavior, practice, and discipline varies among professions and
reflects the needs and values of the professional society in question.
Let’s
then assume professional roles as we work on this fictional scenario:
It’s 2020,
and General Foryota Company opens a plant in which to build a new mass-produced
hover-craft. This hover-craft will work using E-85 Ethanol, will travel up to
200 mph, and will reduce pollution worldwide at a rate of 10 percent per year.
It is likely that when all automobiles in the industrial world have been
changed over to hovercrafts, emission of greenhouse gasses may be so reduced
that global warming may end and air quality will become completely refreshed.
However, the
downside is that during the transition time, GFC’s Hover-Vee (only available in
red or black), will most likely put all transportation as we know it in major
dissaray. Roadways will no longer be necessary, but new methods of controlling
traffic will be required. Further, while the old version of cars are still
being used, Hover-vee’s will cause accidents, parking issues, and most likely
class envy and warfare. The sticker price on the first two models will be about four
times that of the average SUV (to about $200,000.) Even so, GFC’s marketing
futurists have let them know that they will be able to pre-sell their
first three years of expected production, with a potential waiting list
which will take between 15 and 20 years to fill.
The Chief
Engineer of GFC commissions a study on potential liabilities for the
Hover-vees. The preliminary result is that Hover-vees will likely kill or maim
humans at an increased rate of double to triple over automobile travel because
of collisions and crashes at high speeds — projected annual death rates of
100,000 to 200,000. However, global warming will end, and the environment will
flourish.
The U. S.
Government gets wind of the plans. Congress begins to discuss the rules on who
can own and operate Hover-vees. GFC’s stock skyrockets. The Chief Engineer
takes the results of the study to the Chief Legal Counsel, and together they
agree to bury the study, going forward with the production plans. The Chief
Project Manager, who has read the study and agreed to bury it, goes ahead and
plans out the project for the company, with target dates and production
deadlines.
Our class is
a team of young lawyers, project managers, engineers, and congressional aides
who are all part of the process of helping get this project off the ground. In
fact, according to the first letter of your last name, you are the following
team:
A-G: Attorney
on the GFC team
H-N: Project Manager on the GFC team
0-S: Engineer on the GFC team
T-Z: Congressional Aide
H-N: Project Manager on the GFC team
0-S: Engineer on the GFC team
T-Z: Congressional Aide
Somebody sent
a secret copy of the report to you at your home address. It has no information
in it at all, except for the report showing the proof of the increase in
accidents and deaths. The report shows, on its face, that the CLO, CE, CPM, and
your Congressional Representative have seen copies of this report. On the front
there are these words typed in red: They knew — they buried
this. Please save the world!
Each
of you feel a very loyal tie to your boss and your company/country. You all
have mortgages, and families to feed. It is likely if you blow the whistle on
this report, you will lose your job and your livelihood. You’re not even sure
who wrote the study in your envelope or who actually sent it to you.
Now to the
task at hand:
Utilizing your profession’s code of ethics, what would be your first step? Who would you talk to first? Would you go to the press? Would you go to your boss? Should you do anything at all?
Utilizing your profession’s code of ethics, what would be your first step? Who would you talk to first? Would you go to the press? Would you go to your boss? Should you do anything at all?
WEEK 7: PERSONAL ETHICS
Please be
sure to read the Week Seven Lesson in its entirety before posting to
this discussion.
This week we
will work on creating your own statement of personal ethics.
To get started, read summarizing review of our great and famous ethics and what they have taught us — found in our lecture this week.
To get started, read summarizing review of our great and famous ethics and what they have taught us — found in our lecture this week.
Then,
let’s work on creating one for you.
Your goal for
the end of this thread is to have created a personal ethical philosophy and be
able to tell your classmates from which philosophies you created it and why the
contents are important and meaningful for you. List its precepts. (You
will need to do this on the Final Exam.)
After you
have assembled and posted your personal ethics statement, responded to what
others may have said to you and thought about what you have posted to others,
then take your statement and use it to work through the famous case of the Ring
of Gyges.
One of the
great examples of ethics and morals in all of literature comes from Plato who
wrote about the Ring of Gyges in
The Republic, Book II, starting at paragraph 359a.
For those who wish to read the whole story, it is in the Doc Sharing tab and here is a link to the story — Ring of Gyges (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
The Republic, Book II, starting at paragraph 359a.
For those who wish to read the whole story, it is in the Doc Sharing tab and here is a link to the story — Ring of Gyges (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
The
story goes that Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the King. In a most
unusual circumstance he came upon a dead man, removed the man’s ring, and
discovered that it made him invisible. He conspired to take the periodic report
of the shepherds to the King — once there he seduced the Queen and eventually
took control of the Kingdom by conspiring with the Queen. Plato continues the
story:
“Suppose
now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and
the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that
he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not
his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into
houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison
whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of
the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to
the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is
just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him
individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely
be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that
injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who
argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right.”
This story
raises up the question of what sanctions prevent people from just taking any
liberties they are inclined to take.
The whole subject of ethics, seen in large scale, is that of accepting and living under moral standards.
The whole subject of ethics, seen in large scale, is that of accepting and living under moral standards.
- Using YOUR
personal ethical statement that you have created, what would you do if you
had that second ring?
2. What else within this course helps in responding to this fictitious situation or in explaining it?
3. Respond to your classmates’ posts. Are they holding true to their own personal ethical philosophies in their resolutions of this dilemma?
Pick one or
more of the above, and post below!
Imagine that! ;o)
Imagine that! ;o)
ETHC 445 Week 7 MAKE-UP WORK
There
is no new homework due this week. However, if your grade is not where you would
like it to be, consult with your professor about revising an earlier assignment
or creating a missing assignment. Revisions are to be substantive and show
quality and improvement.
ETHC 445 Week 8 Final Exam
DeVry
ETHC 445 Week 8 Discussion
WEEK 8: REFLECTION
This is our
final week. Use this week’s threaded discussion and your collaborations
together to draft a Reflective Assessment to be formally finalized for grade as
an oral presentation.
This
is a good time to be looking back over this course and thinking ahead to what
comes next for you.
Courses
like this one intend to expand your horizons by bringing new ideas and more
refined ways of thinking about the kinds of decisions and commitments that you
will make both in career and in life as a whole.
This
course is Foundations of Ethics. Whatever you do and wherever you do it, you
have gained tools of thinking and analysis that will serve you well. Keep these
tools handy and at the forefront of your attention — whatever it is that will
come into your hands in the future. You are far more equipped for leadership
than you were a few short weeks ago.
So,
here are a few questions for this final week in class to help you reflect for
the last formal assignment:
- What of all that you have learned and
practiced in this class will make the most significant impact(s) in your
study of your declared major here at DeVry and in your career as you
envision it?
- How might this course experience connect
with and inform what you are looking forward to learning more about
throughout your education and career as a lifelong learner?
- Consider how one learns: how much
learning is individual? How much learning is socially achieved by
discussing with one or more people in a variety of roles?
- To what extent is knowledge something
one finds? To what extent is knowledge something one creates through
interpretation, application, and analysis?
- What are the
differences between information and knowledge?
ETHC 445 Week 8 REFLECTIVE ASSIGNMENT
You began
this session considering a moral-ethical dilemma you yourself faced that you
either resolved or failed to resolve, but hopefully learned from. You may never
have given much thought to ethical theory nor what ethical premises/paradigms
you have unconsciously held.
Now
that you’ve had an opportunity to explore ethics formally, create a reflective
assessment. Revisit your ethical memoir: what ethical theory best applies to
your experience? Which significant author you have studied most speaks to your
own ethical paradigm as you are (re)forming it now? If you didn’t resolve your
ethical dilemma when you experienced it, what would you do now and why?
Additionally,
explore your process of transformation in this course. Discuss your experiences
of the course, your beginnings, and where you are at now with your team or
partners and create an oral presentation that reflectively assesses your
learning experience and the collaborations you engaged in throughout this
session. Are we a society of learners who greatly benefit from interactions? Or
are we islands, whose individual systems and beliefs are exclusive to
ourselves? [Note: You may find it useful to write your thoughts out in an essay
form, but the essay is not required in the drop box. Instead, focus on visual
and audio quality, poise, and grace in the execution of this assignment. Let
your content and stylistic choices reign creatively, and let your message be
compelling, persuasive, and convincing.]
Rubric
Reflective
Assignment
|
Reflective Assignment
|
||||
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
||
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning
OutcomeAssessment Content
Includes,
but is not limited to the following: • Time spent in collaboration • Time
spent on the course • Challenges encountered • Solutions • Research takeaway
• Organization strategies with teams • Collaboration and the modern workplace
• Overall value of the time spent
|
|
40.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeVisual Presentation Quality
Slides are
attractive. Items are bulleted and spoken to (rather than typed out). Visual
images are graceful and support the content.
|
|
30.0 pts
|
||
|
This
criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOral Presentation Quality
Student
speaks with clarity, authority, and is eloquent. The audio is clear. The
student does not sound as if s/he is reading a text, but is orally prepared
and graceful, poised, and convincing.
|
|
30.0 pts
|
||
|
Total
Points: 100.0
|
||||
Comments
Post a Comment