Choose either utilitarian or deontological ethical theory to apply to the ethical question.
Explain the core principles of that theory.
Demonstrate how the principles of the theory support a certain position on that question.
Articulate a relevant objection to that position.
Write a five-paragraph essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be at least 1,000 words in length (excluding title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines:
The introduction should clearly state the ethical question under consideration, and define the essential issues. You may build upon the question and introduction you provided in the Week One Assignment; or you may choose a different question, but it must be based off the list of acceptable topics. Your introduction should include a brief remark about the kind of theory you will be using to approach this question. The last sentence of the introduction should briefly summarize the or position on the issue you think is best supported by this theory and succinctly state what the objection will be. Bear in mind that your essay will not be concerned with your own position on this issue, but what someone reasoning along the lines of the chosen theory would conclude; this may or may not be the position you took in the Week One Assignment.
Each paragraph in the body should start with a topic sentence that clearly identifies the main idea of the paragraph.
Explain the core principles or features of the deontological or utilitarian theory and the general account of moral reasoning it provides.
You must quote from at least one required resource other than your textbook that defends or represents that theory. Refer to the list of acceptable resources.
Demonstrate how the principles or features of the deontological or utilitarian theory apply to the question under consideration and identify the specific conclusion that results from applying the reasoning characteristic of that kind of approach.
Your application should clearly show how the conclusion follows from the main principles and features of the theory as addressed in the previous paragraph. Please see the associated guidance for help in fulfilling this requirement.
Raise a relevant objection to the argument expressed in your application. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument problematic. This can be a false or unsupported claim or assumption, fallacious reasoning, a deep concern about what the conclusion involves, a demonstration of how the argument supports other conclusions that are unacceptable, etc. You should aim to explain this objection as objectively as possible, (i.e., in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with the argument from the previous paragraph).
Note that this does not necessarily mean that the objection succeeds, or that the conclusion the theory supports is wrong. It may be an obstacle that any adequate defense of the conclusion would have to overcome, and it may be the case that the theory has the resources to overcome that obstacle. Your task here is simply to raise the objection or present the “obstacle.”
The conclusion should very briefly summarize the main points of your essay.
You must use at least two resources to support your claims.
At least one of the resources should be one of the Required or Recommended Resources that represent the theory you have chosen, and must be drawn from the list of acceptable resources available in your online classroom.
The other source should pertain to the particular issue you are writing about and should be drawn from the required or recommended readings in the course, or be a scholarly source found in the Ashford Unversity Library.
You are encouraged to use additional resources, so long as at least two conform to the requirements above.
LIST OF ACCEPTABLE RESOURCES
*Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, in the original version in the textbook, or in the version by Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved
Haines, W. (n.d.). Consequentialism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
Singer, P. (2003). Voluntary euthanasia: A utilitarian perspective. Bioethics, 17(5/6), 526-541.
*Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in the original version in the textbook, or in the version by
Jonathan Bennett. Retrieved from www.earlymoderntexts.com
O’Neill, O. (1993). A simplified account of Kant’s ethics. In T. Regan (Ed.) Matters of Life and Death, 411-415.
Retrieved from http://users.manchester.edu/Facstaff/SSNaragon/Online/texts/201/O’Neill, Kant.pdf
*Aristotle. (1931). Nicomachean ethics. (W.D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford, GBR: Clarendon Press. Retrieved from
Hursthouse, R. (2012). Virtue ethics. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.