ETHC 445 Week 3 Complete DeVry
Just Click
on Below Link To Download This Course:
ETHC 445 Week 3 Living
Ethically through a Social Contract DeVry
ETHC 445 Week 3 Discussions
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
|
||||
Comments
Post a Comment