Answer the Discussion Questions: Week 9: Assigned Discussion Question — Cloning, Being a Person, Stem Cell Research, and the Bible using your own ideas but also incorporating (or at least not ignoring) any articles or material you choose from the textbook that is especially and reasonably relevant.
If you do use or refer to something from the book (or anywhere) as you should, because not everyone will read what you do, you have to explicitly state, explain, and support any material you use. Do not just quote something from your sources (and particularly not out of context). With each of you choosing what you want to read, I expect you all to bring different ideas from the book to the discussion.
Answer both A and B. Question A is more about the concept of what makes two things the same thing or not, and particularly the same person or not than it is about the moral concepts that seem to be involved. Many students have said that murder is wrong, but what if you are not murdering someone by simply deleting one of the forms of them? Question B is just about whether one can consistently hold that the Bible (and particularly) Christianity make it wrong to sacrifice children for the greater good of all, especially if one also believes that war is justified. Give evidence and reasons for your answers to the following:
A) Suppose that we could clone you as an adult — instantly reproducing you whole, intact with memories and everything so that at the moment of formation of the clone, you and your clone are totally identical in all ways. Would it be okay to destroy you, now that your exact duplicate can go on with your life? How about destroying him/her? It is my view that the way the transporter worked on Star Trek was not to transport you anywhere, but to reproduce you at the destination while then destroying the original, and no one seemed to mind that, because they thought they were being teleported. It is just like radio, tv, and phones, which don’t transport anything anywhere; they simply recreate the sounds and images fed into them. You never hear your friends’ voices over the phone; you hear a reproduction of their voice, created from analog or digital signals. So it seems reasonable that if a teleporter is ever developed, it will operate on the same principle. Is it okay then to destroy the original once the copy is created and confirmed? Why or why not? Also, no one minded that people being teleported were disintegrated and then recreated, whereas in my scenario you will be recreated and then disintegrated — mine is a safer process since we confirm the recreation before disintegrating the original. On Star Trek, periodically the teleportation process went awry and the person was lost in transmission; but my way prevents that.
Would it be okay if the clone is intimate with your spouse, whether you are destroyed or not? (Assume you still love your spouse in answering this question.) Why or why not?
For those of you not familiar with Star Trek or who have trouble imagining this whole process, let me state it a different way: You are walking down the street one day, when suddenly you split into two identical “you”, and both are the continuation of the “you” from a second earlier, just as the real individual “you” now is the continuation of the you a second ago. It is not that one is a copy and the other the original, it is simply that you have split into two. Now imagine this happens periodically to us, but each time it does, one of the bodies just vaporizes immediately, and the other one goes on just as you do now (because you don’t notice this process happening). Would you not say that the one that continues on is still “you”? But suppose further now, that instead of you splitting into two right there in the same place, one of the bodies is created in some distant city where you need to go for a business trip, or it is created in Disneyworld or Paris, France where you always wanted to go. If the body that is created with it in the same place is now vaporized, isn’t the one in the other city just you by yourself now? So would it be okay if it comes back home and is intimate with your spouse, etc. Would it be okay to vaporize it immediately if it didn’t vaporize spontaneously? Explain and justify your answers.
The point of the above: there are both pro and con arguments about real scientific cloning that presume clones will be the same person as the parent. The pro side says it will be great that people will be able to make multiples of themselves; the con side says that would be terrible. But is the presumption even true? What would be required for a clone to be the same person as the parent? The scenario above is meant to help you have some insight into that because in that fictitious scenario the clone is a perfect replica in all ways of the original. What would make it be or not be the same person then? What about less perfect replicas, as in real scientific cloning?
B) Many conservative Christians are opposed to stem cell research and to reproduction techniques that do not involve sex between a wife and her husband. They oppose stem cell research on the grounds that one human being should not be sacrificed for others, no matter how much good it might do. However, in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” it would appear that God thinks sacrifice of a child for the benefit of others is right. Moreover, many of these same people are conservative in regard to national defense and believe it is honorable and admirable for someone to be sacrificed as a soldier in war, even when the war may not do all that much good. And in Genesis 2:22 “Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man” Eve was not created by sex, nor was Adam. So even though people can procreate by means of sex, that does not seem to mean they have to procreate by that means alone, or does it? Now remember, this is not a question about what God thinks is right or about the truth of the Bible. It is not even about whether stem cell research is acceptable or not or whether it is okay to sacrifice one person’s life for the potential good of many. This is simply a question about whether there is any Biblical reason to oppose stem cell research or non-sexual methods of reproduction, including cloning.
I do not have this book
The Required Textbook is DOING ETHICS By Lewis Vaughn. It is an excellent book with many good articles. I will also supply free supplementary material. You can use the 4th, 5th, or 6th (eText) edition:
DOING ETHICS
By Lewis Vaughn.
EDITION: 4th, 5th, or 6th (eText)
DoingEthics4thEdition.jpg
4th Edition
5thEditionDoingEthics.jpg
5th Edition
6thEditionDoingEthics.jpg
6th Edition (eText)
PUBLISHER: NORTON
ISBN of 4th edition: 9780393265415
ISBN of 5th edition: 978-0-393-64026-7
ISBN of 6th edition (eText): 9780393885903
Category: Ethics
Suppose that we could clone you as an adult — instantly reproducing you whole, intact with memories and everything so that at the moment of formation of the clone
Answer the Discussion Questions: Week 9: Assigned Discussion Question — Cloning, Being a Person, Stem Cell Research, and the Bible using your own ideas but also incorporating (or at least not ignoring) any articles or material you choose from the textbook that is especially and reasonably relevant.
If you do use or refer to something from the book (or anywhere) as you should, because not everyone will read what you do, you have to explicitly state, explain, and support any material you use. Do not just quote something from your sources (and particularly not out of context). With each of you choosing what you want to read, I expect you all to bring different ideas from the book to the discussion.
Answer both A and B. Question A is more about the concept of what makes two things the same thing or not, and particularly the same person or not than it is about the moral concepts that seem to be involved. Many students have said that murder is wrong, but what if you are not murdering someone by simply deleting one of the forms of them? Question B is just about whether one can consistently hold that the Bible (and particularly) Christianity make it wrong to sacrifice children for the greater good of all, especially if one also believes that war is justified. Give evidence and reasons for your answers to the following:
A) Suppose that we could clone you as an adult — instantly reproducing you whole, intact with memories and everything so that at the moment of formation of the clone, you and your clone are totally identical in all ways. Would it be okay to destroy you, now that your exact duplicate can go on with your life? How about destroying him/her? It is my view that the way the transporter worked on Star Trek was not to transport you anywhere, but to reproduce you at the destination while then destroying the original, and no one seemed to mind that, because they thought they were being teleported. It is just like radio, tv, and phones, which don’t transport anything anywhere; they simply recreate the sounds and images fed into them. You never hear your friends’ voices over the phone; you hear a reproduction of their voice, created from analog or digital signals. So it seems reasonable that if a teleporter is ever developed, it will operate on the same principle. Is it okay then to destroy the original once the copy is created and confirmed? Why or why not? Also, no one minded that people being teleported were disintegrated and then recreated, whereas in my scenario you will be recreated and then disintegrated — mine is a safer process since we confirm the recreation before disintegrating the original. On Star Trek, periodically the teleportation process went awry and the person was lost in transmission; but my way prevents that.
Would it be okay if the clone is intimate with your spouse, whether you are destroyed or not? (Assume you still love your spouse in answering this question.) Why or why not?
For those of you not familiar with Star Trek or who have trouble imagining this whole process, let me state it a different way: You are walking down the street one day, when suddenly you split into two identical “you”, and both are the continuation of the “you” from a second earlier, just as the real individual “you” now is the continuation of the you a second ago. It is not that one is a copy and the other the original, it is simply that you have split into two. Now imagine this happens periodically to us, but each time it does, one of the bodies just vaporizes immediately, and the other one goes on just as you do now (because you don’t notice this process happening). Would you not say that the one that continues on is still “you”? But suppose further now, that instead of you splitting into two right there in the same place, one of the bodies is created in some distant city where you need to go for a business trip, or it is created in Disneyworld or Paris, France where you always wanted to go. If the body that is created with it in the same place is now vaporized, isn’t the one in the other city just you by yourself now? So would it be okay if it comes back home and is intimate with your spouse, etc. Would it be okay to vaporize it immediately if it didn’t vaporize spontaneously? Explain and justify your answers.
The point of the above: there are both pro and con arguments about real scientific cloning that presume clones will be the same person as the parent. The pro side says it will be great that people will be able to make multiples of themselves; the con side says that would be terrible. But is the presumption even true? What would be required for a clone to be the same person as the parent? The scenario above is meant to help you have some insight into that because in that fictitious scenario the clone is a perfect replica in all ways of the original. What would make it be or not be the same person then? What about less perfect replicas, as in real scientific cloning?
B) Many conservative Christians are opposed to stem cell research and to reproduction techniques that do not involve sex between a wife and her husband. They oppose stem cell research on the grounds that one human being should not be sacrificed for others, no matter how much good it might do. However, in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” it would appear that God thinks sacrifice of a child for the benefit of others is right. Moreover, many of these same people are conservative in regard to national defense and believe it is honorable and admirable for someone to be sacrificed as a soldier in war, even when the war may not do all that much good. And in Genesis 2:22 “Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man” Eve was not created by sex, nor was Adam. So even though people can procreate by means of sex, that does not seem to mean they have to procreate by that means alone, or does it? Now remember, this is not a question about what God thinks is right or about the truth of the Bible. It is not even about whether stem cell research is acceptable or not or whether it is okay to sacrifice one person’s life for the potential good of many. This is simply a question about whether there is any Biblical reason to oppose stem cell research or non-sexual methods of reproduction, including cloning.
I do not have this book
The Required Textbook is DOING ETHICS By Lewis Vaughn. It is an excellent book with many good articles. I will also supply free supplementary material. You can use the 4th, 5th, or 6th (eText) edition:
DOING ETHICS
By Lewis Vaughn.
EDITION: 4th, 5th, or 6th (eText)
DoingEthics4thEdition.jpg
4th Edition
5thEditionDoingEthics.jpg
5th Edition
6thEditionDoingEthics.jpg
6th Edition (eText)
PUBLISHER: NORTON
ISBN of 4th edition: 9780393265415
ISBN of 5th edition: 978-0-393-64026-7
ISBN of 6th edition (eText): 9780393885903
Select a dilemma related to one of the moral dilemmas we have recently covered in class (voting, vegetarianism, experimentation on animals, capital punishment, Trolley problem, distribution of public resources,).
Select a dilemma related to one of the moral dilemmas we have recently covered in class (voting, vegetarianism, experimentation on animals, capital punishment, Trolley problem, distribution of public resources,). This controversy must come from class or course readings.
Second, select one of the moral theories that we have studied in class this semester (Utilitarianism, Kant’s Principle of Universalizability or Humanity from the Categorical Imperative, or Scanlon’s Contract theory). Third, write an essay in which you apply your chosen moral theory to your chosen dilemma, defending a position about what the moral theory entails about how the dilemma should be resolved.
A few things to note:
Remember a dilemma is open to different solutions – it cannot have only one clear solution. But you must choose your solution and support it with your argument.
A strong paper will address objections. It will shows criticisms or weaknesses of the argument from within that theory.
Be sure to have a clear thesis #thesis
Note: The LOs that ought to be exercised in this essay will differ across students, depending on their chosen topics. #Moralstatus will only be necessary if the essay is discussing the different ethical rights of people or animals
Use APA formatting, use footnotes for LO’s. Make sure you have a reference list. You do NOT need a Contents page but you must have a Cover page with your name, ID, Course name and number, essay title.
You must only use sources from the course materials to support your arguments. This will be assessed using #Evidencebased
The LO #Professionalism will be applied to assess correct use of in-text citations, references, effective paraphrasing – using your own words and essay structure.
Important: You do not need to use Generative AI tools to write your essay. The writing is expected to be your own – in your words. You can only use Generative AI such as Grammarly if your instructor gives permission. If this is the case, you must acknowledge where and how it has been used in your essay – either in footnotes or in the reference list.
Assignment Information
Length:
1000-1200 Words
Weight:
15%
Learning Outcomes Added
#Thesis: Write a clear declarative sentence that takes a firm position on the topic under consideration and serves to organize the rest of the work.
#EvidenceBased: Identify and appropriately structure the information needed to support an argument effectively.
#Professionalism: Ensure that your communication follows established guidelines and use a careful editing process.
#EthicalTheory: Identify the main claims, concepts, criticisms and justifications of an ethical theory.
#MoralStatus: Assess the moral status of different stakeholders and evaluate what course of action should be taken given their status.
#EthicalDilemmas: Discuss specific ethical dilemmas posed by the distribution of a public good, international issue, and taking or saving a life.
— !!! I will attach the outline, do it the same as the outline.
Also, only use sources that I provide (this is very important )
I will give you my email and password for the website
app.perusall.com
Go to Ethical Systems, moral dilemas
then go to assignments or library (assignments would be easier since it shows what we covered so far) here you will find all the readings, again, only use these don’t do any outside research.
Videos to watch https://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ricard_how_to_let_altruism_be
Videos to watch
https://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ricard_how_to_let_altruism_be
Videos to watch
– After watching the videos and reading the chapter, explain how you could utilize the information to be a better ethical communicator in your organization.
A key skill in philosophy is the ability to critique an argument, but you must f
A key skill in philosophy is the ability to critique an argument, but you must f
A key skill in philosophy is the ability to critique an argument, but you must first be able to correctly
and succinctly describe the argument at hand. Hence, you will write a brief summary (précis) of one of
two articles (Altman or Arthur) from the free speech topic of no more than 500 words. Start by asking:
what is the conclusion of the article? then work your way backwards to understanding the reasons given
for the conclusion. Finally, write a succinct and purely descriiptive (i.e., not evaluative) essay.
choose one of the following topics to respond to for your initial post. When you
choose one of the following topics to respond to for your initial post. When you
choose one of the following topics to respond to for your initial post. When you respond to your peers please respond, if possible, to a learner who has posted a contrary view on the topic you selected and then, at a minimum respond to at least one learner who has posted on the topic you did not select.
Topic A: Rawlsian Justice
John Rawls claims that justice comes down to a notion of fairness. He proposed a thought experiment wherein he proffers an ideal “original position.” The idea is that representatives of the people operate behind a “veil of ignorance” when determining what policies are in the best interests of all of the citizens. In brief, representatives are ignorant of their “The race, ethnicity, gender, age, income, wealth, natural endowments, comprehensive doctrine, etc. of any of the citizens in society, or to which generation in the history of the society these citizens belong” and “The political system of the society, its class structure, economic system, or level of economic development” (Wenar 4.6). They do understand different people have different life plans, that even if resources are scarce, “there is enough to go around,” and have good common sense.
Discussion task: Imagine you are a representative behind this veil. Discuss and defend several measures you would take to ensure a fair and equitable redistribution of resources.
Wenar, Leif, “John Rawls”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edited by Edward N. Zalta 9 January 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/
Topic B: Ayn Rand’s Rational Egoism
Option 1: Share your thoughts on the notion of ethical egoism as presented in the material under Readings and Resources. Or, with regard to either Peter Singer, who defends altruism as morally and practically superior to egoism, or with regard to Plato’s Ring of Gyges story and morality of self-interestedness (see my first post).
Option 2: Do some research into Rand’s rational egoism and then either defend her theory as a reasonable way to make moral judgments or argue that her way of thinking about morality is untenable. Pick a situation like charity, community service or government assistance (Welfare) and, after providing what you feel would be her attituded toward the action, discuss if you feel she is morally right.
INCLUDE AN ABSTRACT Body of your paper: 5-6 page Paper Answer the following five
INCLUDE AN ABSTRACT
Body of your paper: 5-6 page Paper
Answer the following five
INCLUDE AN ABSTRACT
Body of your paper: 5-6 page Paper
Answer the following five questions:
1. What are some of the most common forms of unethical behavior in our workforce today? How could leadership in organizations help to minimize this ethical misconduct? Explain and support your positions with relevant course content and outside sources.
2. As our businesses have developed over the last 100 plus years, have our modern day businesses evolved to be more ethical today? What are some of the factors that helped you come to your conclusion? Take a position and support your thoughts.
3. Would you describe the financial meltdown in our 2007-2008 financial markets as a failure of “people” or of our “capital market processes”? Why? Support your thoughts with ethical theory and examples. Use our library for added research if needed.
4. Tell me about why diversity and discrimination are two important ethical factors that leaders should focus on while attempting to manage their workforce? Provide one example of how mismanaging these issues have had an impact on an organization. How would you explain the importance of these to your employees?
5. Are corporate outreach and company sponsored volunteer programs a good idea for organizations to implement? Why? From an ethical leadership perspective, why would you choose OR not choose to implement these programs? Use course theory and specific examples to support your conclusion.
Please answer all three questions below. There is no limit/guidance on the ans
Please answer all three questions below. There is no limit/guidance on the ans
Please answer all three questions below. There is no limit/guidance on the answer length as long as you answer all parts of the question clearly.
1.) Of the five theories we have studied (Mills, Kant, Aquinas, Aristotle & Gilligan), it is clear that some theories are more flexible (open ended in judging if an action is morally right or wrong; hint think of the nursing field!) and some are more structured (rigid in judging if an action is morally right or wrong; hint think of how some theories have tools). Which of these two approaches (flexible or structured) do YOU think is better when faced with ethical dilemmas? Why? Now choose ONE of the theories that fits into the category you chose, and explain how the theory works, including a specific example of what it would say should be done in a medical dilemma of your choosing (i.e. pulling life support under a structured theory).
2.) Compare and contrast the theories developed by Mill, Aquinas & Aristotle. Tell me ways in which they are similar and different, and remember that each is trying to say what is mean to be moral, so the fact that they are all ethical theories doesn’t count as a similarity. Think of the standard of each and the way each one works, and that should inform your answer (Hint – it is helpful to shortly summarize each theory’s main point!).
3.) Read the case below. Then, write an essay which says whether or not YOU believe that Maria should take hormone treatments. Support your answer by using one of the five theories we studied (Mill, Kant, Aristotle, Aquinas or Gilligan).
Case: Dr. Marshall Marino talks to couples every day at the fertility clinic where he works. All of his patients are there because they have infertility problems, which are usually due to one of three things: not enough sperm, not enough eggs, or problems holding the embryo in the uterus. Both partners are tested for infertility problems. Today, Dr. Marino is speaking to the Hernadezes. They have been trying to get pregnant for four years, but are still young, in their thirties. The doctor explains that Maria’s ovaries are not producing eggs on a regular schedule. He suggests they begin hormone treatments as soon as possible. The hormones will stimulate the ovaries to make eggs. Mark and Maria have done their homework though. They read about the McCaughey septuplets born in Iowa and wonder if that might happen to them. Dr. Marino wants to be honest with all of his patients, so he explains the side effects of taking the hormone treatments. Often the ovary responds to the hormone by giving off a number of eggs at one time. If these eggs are all fertilized, the result is a multiple birth. Maria thinks a multiple birth would be good. With their problems, who knows if she will get pregnant again? But Mark has read that the more embryos in the uterus, the more danger there is of premature birth, brain damage and possibly death. This frightens him.
After watching Fighting Indian Film, we will have a class discussion on this dis
After watching Fighting Indian Film, we will have a class discussion on this dis
After watching Fighting Indian Film, we will have a class discussion on this discussion board. I want you to hear your perspective, ideas, and impressions of the video on this discussion board. Here are some questions that can help with answering the discussion board questions. What surprised you the most about the mascot debate? Why do you think there is much pride in picking a Native American mascot? Why do you think sports team fans fight so hard to keep a Native American as a mascot, even if the Native American community says it is offensive to them? What was the most important lesson you took from the mascot debate? Response to the video and question should be 200-250 words responses
Throughout the semester, each student is writing a 6- to 7-page essay in which y
Throughout the semester, each student is writing a 6- to 7-page essay in which y
Throughout the semester, each student is writing a 6- to 7-page essay in which you explain and defend your stance on an applied ethical issue related to your possible future profession.
Before submitting your final, complete paper, you are writing this essay in three partial drafts throughout the semester. Your instructor will provide feedback on each of these partial drafts that you hand in. The final draft of this paper is due by the end of Unit 8.
In Unit 2, you wrote section two of the paper. In Unit 4, you wrote section three of the paper. This Unit, you are writing section four of the paper. For instructions on the partial draft that is due this Unit, open the “PHIL 2300 Unit 6 AS – Third Partial Draft of Paper.pdf.”
AS Instructions: To see the complete instructions for the partial draft that is due this Unit, open “PHIL 2300 Unit 6 AS – Third Partial Draft of Paper.pdf Download PHIL 2300 Unit 6 AS – Third Partial Draft of Paper.pdf.” To see complete instructions on all drafts due throughout the rest of the semester, open “PHIL 2300 All Drafts of Paper Guideline.pdf. Download PHIL 2300 All Drafts of Paper Guideline.pdf.”