Ethical question - is it ok to do biased journalism.

1.Identify the act central to your ethical question.

(Note: you are analysing the ethics of this specific act.)Act is usually linguistically associated to a verb. Do you have a verb in your 'ethical question'? that is the act. Need a short explanation of that verb. Not too much. If the ethical question is clear to you it will also be clear to the reader...

2.Identify 2 virtues relevant to the morality of the act central to your specific ethical question.Define each virtue in no more than one sentence.[this means that you can paraphrase each virtue in a different subheading,i.e2.aand 2.b

What virtues? Check slides on Virtue Ethics or find a good source on the web, refer ALWAYS either to ARISTOTLE or Confucius. Only these two philosophers pls!!]

Discuss the morality of the act central to your ethical question by comparison with your 2 chosen virtues.

With part 2 you have already completed the first part of the assignment. This means that if you have done well you are already close to a mark of 40% of the total!!! This first half of the task is the easier one and you must NOT fail this!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you start the second part of the task....

3.Apply Kant's categorical imperative by completing the following tasks. You need to support any yes/no answers with reasons.

i)Define a specific rule which authorises the act central to your ethical question.

ii)Define the general rule which authorises the act central to your ethical question.

[Remember that the central act is associated to a sentence with a verb: i.e. Is it ethical to allow the State to apply the death penalty? The verbs here are two: to allow and to exercise. The subject is the State. In steps I and ii you can rewrite the central act so that it the State is ALWAYS capable of inflicting the death penalty (i) and it is UNIVERSALLY acceptable that the STATE can kill (ii) a citizen / an individual).

This part on Kant is very logical, you just demonstrate the logic of the whole sequence ok? Noparticular referenceis needed!]

iii)Is the general rule inherently self-contradictory? Why or why not?

[with the sentence stating step ii you have a general / universal RULE that is verylikelyaparadox. i.e. aContraddiction. Now EXPLAINherethis strange result of you reasoning! Do not be afraid of the possible result...]

iv)Does the general rule violate Kant's practical imperative or any of Kant's other absolute moral rules?

[Kant practical imperative is:"Act to treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end-in-itself and never as a means." People are not to be used unjustifiably in order to obtain your goals or seek an edge or unfair advantage.

Watch this very short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgIwfl4MBk

You will also find other useful videos...

Now elaborate your central act comparing to theCatagoricalimperative. It is very likely that your general act will not accept Kant's idea of morality

v)Is the general rule contrary to its fundamental purpose?

vi)Is the act ethical according to Kant's ethical system?