• The following short essay assignment is designed to help prepare you for an important part of the Final Paper. In this essay, you will do the following:Choose either the same ethical question you formulated and introduced in the Week One Assignment, or a different one based off the list of acceptable topics.
• 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.

Instructions

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

• Introduction
• 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.
• Body Paragraphs
• Each paragraph in the body should start with a topic sentence that clearly identifies the main idea of the paragraph.
• Theory explanation
• 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.
• Application
• 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.
• Objection
• 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.?
• Conclusion
• The conclusion should very briefly summarize the main points of your essay.

Running head: SHORTENED TITLE The Title of the Paper First name Last name PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning Prof. Immanuel Kant January 1, 2014 SHORTENED TITLE Title 2 Your first sentence should establish the question that orients the essay, taking account of any ways in which you may need to modify or refine it. The rest of this paragraph provides an introduction to the topic. Your introduction should focus on setting out the topic and scope of the discussion in a way that clearly establishes what exactly you will be talking about and why it is significant, and provides any necessary context such as the background, current state of affairs, definitions of key terms, and so on. You want to try to do this in a way that stays as neutral as possible, avoids controversial assumptions, rhetorical questions, and the like. In other words, you should try to construct an introduction to the topic that could be an introduction to a paper defending any position on the question at issue. 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 conclusion or position on this issue that you think is best supported by this theory, and succinctly state what the objection will be. Theory Explanation You should explain the core principles or features of either utilitarianism or deontology and the general account of moral behavior it provides. \"You must quote from at least one Required Resource that defends or represents that theory, drawn from the list included with the assignment instructions\" (Author, YEAR, p. ###). Make sure that you first understand the theory that you are using, and that you have read the Instructor Guidance and any additional resources from the Required and Recommended Resources as needed. If you do not adequately understand and explain the theory, you will not be able to apply it adequately to the topic. You will need to explain the core principles in SHORTENED TITLE such a way that the theory's application to the question raised in the Week One 3 Assignment will be as straightforward and clear as possible. Theory Application Explain how the core principles or features of this theory apply to the problem or question under consideration and identify the specific moral conclusion that results. Your application should clearly show how the conclusion follows from the main tenets of the theory as explained in the previous paragraph(s). An application involves showing how general ideas about how to live and act ethically, when combined with the specific circumstances under consideration, lead to conclusions about how one should act in those circumstances. A very simple, non-moral example of such reasoning might start with the general idea that \"if I'm hungry, I ought to eat,\" apply that to the specific circumstances in which \"I'm hungry,\" leading to the conclusion that \"I ought to eat.\" The application of an ethical theory to an actual moral problem will be much more complicated, nuanced, and detailed, but that should give you a sense of how to proceed. For example, if you were examining capital punishment from a utilitarian perspective, you might start by explaining the general principle that we should do that which leads to the greatest happiness. You would then consider the effects of capital punishment, including not just the suffering and death of the punished, but also the positive and negative effects on other individuals and society as a whole. You could compare that with the effects of abolishing capital punishment, and demonstrate which policy has the best overall outcomes. Remember that when applying utilitarianism, you want to explain the benefits and harms that would result from one action or policy, what the overall utility of that would SHORTENED TITLE be, and compare that with the same analysis of the available alternative action(s) or 4 policy. Doing this carefully will allow you to demonstrate the utilitarian conclusion as clearly as possible. On the other hand, if you were applying a deontological argument, you might apply Kant's Categorical Imperative, examining whether a maxim that involved capital punishment could be willed as a universal law, or whether capital punishment treats persons as ends-in-themselves. Remember that when applying deontological theory, what you are looking for is a kind of argument that say that we have a duty to do or not do to thus-and-such regardless of the consequences. In other words, while doing something may indeed lead to a better overall state of affairs, that's not the primary reason why we ought to do it. Similarly, even if doing something leads to a better overall state of affairs, if it violates a duty we have not to do a certain kind of action, we ought not do it. You might show this by providing an explanation of Kant's Categorical Imperative, and an application of the "Categorical Imperative" test. For example, you might consider the relevant maxim involved, and whether that is something that could be willed to be universal law; or, you could determine whether people's humanity is being respected as an end-it-itself or being used as a mere means. You may have to provide evidence for your views, in which case, \"I would expect you to quote from the required resources on this topic, and any other relevant scholarly resources\" (Author, YEAR, p. ###). See the Required and Recommended Resources, as well as the textbook and Instructor Guidance, for examples. By the end of your SHORTENED TITLE discussion, it should be clear what conclusion utilitarian or deontological reasoning 5 would lead to on the issue. Objection Raise a relevant objection to the argument expressed in your application. A relevant objection is one that exposes a weakness in the argument or the theory, and so you should explain how it brings out this weakness. 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. On the other hand, you may find this objection to be a pretty conclusive argument against that theory's approach to the problem (and perhaps the theory itself). However, you shouldn't attempt to draw such larger conclusions from the objection (that's for the Final Paper). Your task here is simply to raise the objection or present the \"obstacle.\" For example, if you were writing on capital punishment, you might find that utilitarianism entails a certain position that you think is completely wrong, and so you may find the objection to be persuasive. Or, you may agree with the utilitarianism approach and think that ultimately the objection does not undermine it. Or, you might think that utilitarianism's conclusion is right but their approach is wrong (sort of like what Tom Regan thought regarding animal ethics), and so you think the objection is strong, even though you end up agreeing with the conclusion. Again, you should not be trying to explain whether you think the objection succeeds. Rather, the task is to show that you can think critically about an issue from the perspective of the moral theory, and to raise SHORTENED TITLE questions and concerns about that theory based on how it applies to a concrete issue. Please see the \"notes and guidance\" for additional direction on this part of your essay. Conclusion Conclude your paper with a brief review the main claims and accomplishments of your essay. 6 SHORTENED TITLE References 7 Required: Primary text in support of the theory, drawn from the list of acceptable resources provided with the assignment instructions. Required: Resource pertaining to the moral problem that is the primary topic of the paper, drawn from the required or recommended readings in the course, or found in 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\