Overview

In the Week One Assignment, you formulated a concrete ethical question, took a position on that topic, and identified a reason supporting and a reason opposing that position. In the Week Three Assignment, you discussed either deontological or utilitarian theory, applied that theory to the question, and raised a relevant objection.

By engaging with the course material, you now have had a chance to refine your thinking and broaden your understanding of the problem by approaching it from the perspective of multiple ethical theories.

In this paper, you will demonstrate what you have learned by writing an essay in which you

• Present a revised formulation of the ethical question and introduction to the topic.
• Explain the kind of reasoning you think is the best way to approach this question, and how that reasoning supports the position you think is strongest.
• Raise an objection, and be able to respond to it.

Instructions

Write an essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be 1500 to 2000 words in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines:

• Introduction
• Your first paragraph should begin with the topic question, suitably revised. It should be focused, concrete, and on a relevant moral problem. You should then introduce the topic in the way described by the Week One instructions, but reflecting the developed understanding and information you have gained about the topic and any necessary refinement of the scope.
• Follow this with a thesis statement that states your position, and a brief description of the primary reason(s) supporting your position. (See the handout on thesis statements provided). Finally, provide a brief preview of the overall aim and procedure of your paper.
• Explanation and Demonstration of Moral Reasoning
• This section of the Final Paper will explain and demonstrate what you believe to be the best way of reasoning about the question you have chosen, and showing how that reasoning supports the position you have taken on the question. You might explain the principles, rules, values, virtues, conceptions of purposes and ends, and other general ideas that you find persuasive, and show how they support concrete judgments.
• In the course of doing so, you must make reference to at least two of the approaches that we have examined in the course (such as deontological, utilitarian, or virtue-based), and utilize at least one resource off the provided list for each of the two approaches. One of these theories may be the theory you discussed in your Week Three Assignment, but your discussion here should be more refined.
• For example, you might find the reasoning associated with Aristotelian virtue ethics to be the most compelling, and reference Aristotle in the process of showing how that reasoning supports a certain conclusion. In the course of this, you could contrast that with a utilitarian approach, referencing Mill for instance.
• Objection and Response
• After explaining the ethical reasoning that supports your position, you should raise an objection and respond to it. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument weak or problematic. You should explain how it brings out this weakness, and do so in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with your own argument. Then, provide the best response you can to the objection, showing how it does not undermine your position. Your response should not simply restate your original position or argument, but should say something new in support of it.
• Conclusion
• Provide a conclusion that sums up what you presented in the paper and offers some final reflections.

Resource Requirement

You must use at least four scholarly resources. Two of the resources must be drawn from the list of acceptable primary resources on each of the two theories you discuss. For example, if you discuss deontology and virtue ethics, you would need at least one resource under the "Deontology" list and at least one resource under the "Virtue Ethics" list. The other two may be from either the Required or Recommended Resources, or scholarly resources found in the Ashford University Library.

• The textbook may be cited, but it does not count toward the resource requirement. If you cite the textbook, you will still need to cite at least four more sources that fulfill the requirements stated above.
• If you need help with finding additional resources, or are unsure about whether a particular resource will count toward the requirement, please contact your instructor.
• For sources to count toward the resources requirement, they must be cited within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Sources that are listed on the references page, but not cited within the paper, do not count toward fulfilling the resources requirement.
• For information regarding APA, including samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center.

Could you take a look at my attached files of week one and three assignment; they will help you with this assignment. Thank you a lot!!

Running head: SHORTENED TITLE The Title of the Paper First name Last name PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning Prof. Heraclitus of Ephesus January 1, 2014 SHORTENED TITLE Title 2 Begin with the ethical question you are addressing. The rest of your first paragraph should introduce the topic by briefly but precisely discussing the concrete topic under which this question falls, including any necessary context, background information, etc. This should draw upon your work in the Week One Assignment, but should be more succinct and reflect the development of your understanding of those ideas throughout the course, as well as any revision, narrowing, and focusing of the problem under consideration. Your introduction should include a preview of what you plan to do in the paper, and how you will proceed. Conclude your introductory paragraph with a thesis statement that states your position on the question and the primary reasons in such a way that the reader should have a clear sense of how the reasons support the position, which is what will be spelled out and explained in the body of the paper. Demonstration Moral Reasoning This section of the Final Paper is more open-ended than other parts of the papers you have been working on (including other parts of this paper). By now you will have seen how moral reasoning involves moving back and forth between general ideas, such as principles, rules, values, purposes and ends, and so forth, and particular concrete judgments. We have examined different forms that can take, where the general ideas might be utilitarian principles, deontological duties, or Aristotelian ideas about the human telos and the virtues. Your job here is demonstrate that you have acquired a sense of how that kind of reasoning proceeds, and that you have understood and considered the examples that were studied in the class. SHORTENED TITLE Along the way, you will need to relate what you are doing to these other theories. 3 For example, you might be taking a utilitarian approach, or an Aristotelian one, and would make reference to Mill or Aristotle in the course of doing so, and contrast your approach with Kant's. Or you might model your approach on the reasoning of one of the contemporary readings that dealt with specific issues. Also, you will likely need to provide factual evidence to support the movement from general ideas to concrete particulars. Objection and Response Each of the assignments involved examining a possible objection to the main argument, and this paper will do so as well, but follow up with a response to the objection. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument weak or problematic. Or it might raise a consideration supporting a rival position, or a counterexample that seems to go against certain claims you have made. You should explain how it represents and objection, and do so in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with your own argument. You would then provide the best response you can to the objection, showing as clearly and persuasively as you can how it does not undermine your position, without simply making the same argument you have already made over again (that is, your response should say something new). Conclusion Provide a conclusion that sums up what you showed in the paper and offers some final reflections, including a revised statement of the thesis (do not simply repeat your thesis, but rephrase it in light of the discussion you just had). SHORTENED TITLE 4 Total Word Count: 1500 to 2000 words (note: that's at least twice as long as this outline). SHORTENED TITLE References 5 Required: Primary text in support of theory 1, drawn from the list of acceptable resources. Required: Primary text in support of theory 2, drawn from the list of acceptable resources. Required: Scholarly resource drawn from either the required or recommended readings or from the Ashford University Library. Required: Scholarly resource drawn from either the Required or Recommended Resources or from the Ashford University Library. Suggested: Other resources as needed. Note that resources must be cited in the text as well as included in the bibliography to satisfy the requirement. The textbook and guidance do not count toward the resources requirement, though you are free to use them as additional resources. Running Head: Is Physician-Assisted Suicide Justified? Is it just to allow the use physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients? By Stephanie Hollins PHI 208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning Instructor Stephen Carter April 3, 2017 1 Is Physician-Assisted Suicide Justified? 2 Introduction The ethics surrounding a physician assisting a patient die is increasingly becoming a hot topic. In its simple definition, physician-assisted suicide refers to the intentional act of killing oneself with the assistance of a qualified physician who provides the advice or the means to do so. In a more concrete definition, PAD refers to the process in which a qualified doctor/physician provides, upon the request of the patient, a lethal dose prescription which the patient intends to use to end his/her life. Throughout history, several terms have been used to describe the situation or the practice of a patient using a lethal dose, prescribed by a qualified physician, to end his/her life. Before the enactment of the ODG Act (Oregon Death with Dignity Act) in 1996 physicianassisted suicide (PAD) was the commonly used term whose intention was to tie the traditional role of a doctor assisting someone to kill themselves. Several countries later enacted several Acts legalizing the physician-assisted death but specifically in relation to terminally-ill patients. However, the debate surrounding PAD is increasingly growing hotter. While some people take PAD as being synonymous to the typical suicide thus considering it as immoral; others consider it as a moral act which is necessary for some circumstances. Many faith groups such as Jews, Christians, and Muslim sincerely believe that life is God-given; thus, only God can take that life. They consider physician-assisted death as negating God's sovereign plan of human life. Although these groups believe that each individual serves as a steward of his/her life, they should never take suicide as an option (Wang 2015). Proponents of the legalization of PAD argue that terminally-ill patient experience intractable pain Running Head: Is Physician-Assisted Suicide Justified? 3 and poor quality life with little or no possibility of recovery. Should it not be fair to just allow them to die? Position Statement Given the mental capacity of terminally-ill patients especially while making decisions, it is not just to use physician-assisted death on terminally ill patients. Supporting Reason Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) provides a dangerously ethical slippery slope. Once a state approves PAS for terminally-ill patients, it creates loopholes for offering the same lethal prescriptions to patients who are not terminally ill such as those suffering from distress or depression and spiritual sufferings where individuals face the reality of death (Wang 2015). The case of a 24-year old lady from Belgium provides a perfect illustration on how PAD can be exploited. Besides, what is the mental capacity or condition of terminally ill patients? Inarguably, they lack the capacity to make independent and rational decisions meaning that they really do not know what they are doing nor do they know the consequences of their actions. As such, their decision to kill themselves might be ill-advised. Opposing Reason By definitions , a terminally-ill patient refers to patients who a competent physician believe that they have less than six months to live. Coupling this with the provision of natural justice and the rule of law which provides for the \"treatment of all people alike,\" terminally-ill patient has a right to object to medications intended to extend/prolong their lives (Orentlicher 2015). As such, completely prohibiting the use of physician-assisted suicide would serve as an Is Physician-Assisted Suicide Justified? excess limit on personal liberty. As such, it would be just for a state to allow the use of physician-assisted death on terminally ill patients. References Orentlicher, D., Pope, T., & Rich, B. (2015). \"Clinical Criteria for Physician Aid in Dying,\" Journal of Palliative Medicine. 18(x): 1-4 Wang, S., Aldridge, M., Gross, P., Canavan, M., Cherlin, E., and Johnson-Hurzeler, R., (2015). \"Geographic Variation of Hospice Use Patterns at the End of Life\1 Just War/Military Ethics Applying Deontological Theory to an Ethical Question Stephanie Hollins PHI: Ethics and Moral Reasoning Professor Stephen Carter April 17, 2017 2 Just War/Military Ethics Introduction Is it appropriate for a junior military soldier to disobey unjust or illegal orders given by the superiors? This is a common question that disturbs not only soldiers but also employees in different industries. They have an obligation to obey their superiors who may issue unjust or illegal orders. Soldiers believe that orders are more important than the one who issues, thus forcing them to pursue unethical acts. Some choose to obey unjust or illegal orders of their superiors to preserve their jobs although they contradict their interests. This essay will use deontological theory to approach this key question in the contemporary workplace. This theory posits that people have a moral obligation to act based on certain rules and principles regardless of the consequences. Deontological theory provides important concepts that will help to address the question to provide an understanding concerning appropriate decision that a military soldier should pursue in such situations. Based on this theory, military soldiers have a moral obligation to disobey illegal or unjust orders of their superiors regardless of the outcome. An objection to this argument states that the action is inappropriate because it can affect the soldiers and the success of the military organization. Explanation of Deontological Theory Deontological theory states that we have a moral obligation to ensure that our actions comply with certain set rules and principles despite the outcome. It differs from other theoretical perspectives such as utilitarianism, which explains that a person should pursue an action or decision that produce the most positive results or consequence. Deontological theorists argue that an act is perceived as morally good because of some features of the action, and not its positive outcome (Pizarro & Tannenbaum, 2011). They argue that some actions have moral obligations 3 Just War/Military Ethics regardless of their negative consequences for human welfare. The first feature of deontological ethics indicates that people should perform duty for the sake of the duty (Bowen, 2004). Kant' argued that human beings have a unique capacity to make rational decisions, making it necessary for them to act for the sake of or in accordance with moral duty or law. He believed that human emotions, consequences, and inclinations should not define a moral action. Morality should provide the society with a framework of rational policies that direct and inhibit certain actions, and does not depend on personal desires and intentions (Bowen, 2004). Another feature of deontological ethics is evident in the manner it expresses the need to treat human as objects of intrinsic moral value. A true moral action should not be linked to any given conditions such as the identity of the decision-maker. Kant argued that a person's act should treat humanity as an end but not a means to an end. This implies that we have an obligation to pursue an act that benefits all people, rather than exploiting them for self-interest. Bowie and Bowie (2004, p. 58) explain \"you can never use human beings for another purpose, to exploit or enslave them\". Lastly, deontological ethics shows that a moral act is universal, implying that it should be applicable to every person experiencing a similar moral situation. Application of Deontological Theory Based on the three features of the deontological theory, it would be appropriate for military soldiers to disobey the orders given by their superiors if they are unjust or illegal. The first principle of this theory shows that a person should do his/her duty for the sake of that duty (Bowen, 2004). Human beings have a distinctive ability to pursue coherent decision, and this shows the need to act for the sake of a moral duty. A moral action should consider the principles or rules that the society sets to direct or prevent certain behaviors of its members. This concept is applicable to the question, indicating that soldiers should pursue the acts that value the societal 4 Just War/Military Ethics principles. In this case, disobeying unjust or illegal order is appropriate because they have a moral obligation to observe the set law. They should understand that it is intrinsically wrong to pursued illegal acts, and they have a moral duty not to do them. The second principle of the deontological ethics emphasizes the need to treat human beings as objects of inherent moral value, implying the need to treat people with dignity (Bowen, 2004). This principle provides important concepts that can direct the behaviors and actions of the soldiers regarding the question in this essay. Implementing illegal orders of their superiors would suggest that they are using human beings as a means, which should not be the case. Therefore, it is permissible disobey the unjust or illegal orders of their superiors because it considers people as an end. Lastly, a moral action is applicable to many similar moral situations. However, unjust or illegal orders are not universal, which shows that disobeying them is morally right. Soldiers should disobey these commands without considering the consequences of their actions. Objection to the Argument Permitting soldiers to disobey their superiors' orders because they are unjust or illegal is unacceptable. Ziv (2014) does not support the idea of encouraging soldiers to disobey their superiors because it will encourage them disobey even the legal ones. Disobedience in the military is dangerous because the enemy can gain a competitive advantage. Order is usually more important than the one who issues it, and every soldier has an obligation to comply appropriately (Estlund, 2007). Disobeying an order can result in severe consequences, including termination of the soldier's services in the military. The superiors may find it necessary to issue illegal orders to satisfy an important interest for the entire group. In this case, it is appropriate to disobey the orders to attain a high level of pleasure as supported by the utilitarianism theory (Toner, 2013). This theory suggests that a soldier should consider the outcome of his or her 5 Just War/Military Ethics action to pursue the one that can results in high satisfaction level. Therefore, disobeying the unjust orders is appropriate because it maximizes utility. Conclusion Deontological ethics support that a soldier can disobey unjust or illegal orders of his superiors because it is a moral obligation. They have a duty to ensure that their actions their actions are universally acceptable. They should not consequence the outcome of their action including termination of employment, but should ensure that their acts value human as an end. Utilitarianism approach opposes this argument on the basis that an outcome matters a lot when making decisions. It argues that disobeying the commands can lead to a serious problem in the military, allowing the enemy to obtain victory. 6 Just War/Military Ethics References Bowen, S. A. (2004). Expansion of ethics as the tenth generic principle of public relations excellence: A Kantian theory and model for managing ethical issues. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(1), 65-92. Bowie, B., & Bowie, R. (2004). Ethical Studies. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes. Estlund, D. (2007). On Following Orders in an Unjust War. Journal of Political Philosophy, 15(2), 213-234. Pizarro, D. A., & Tannenbaum, D. (2011). Bringing character back: How the motivation to evaluate character influences judgments of moral blame. The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil, 91-108. Toner, J. H. (2013). True Faith and Allegiance: The Burden of Military Ethics. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Ziv, B. (2014). The Superior Orders Defense: A Principal-Agent Analysis. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 41(1), 1-74