ETHC 445 Week 5 Complete DeVry
Just Click on Below Link To Download
This Course:
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
|
||||
Comments
Post a Comment