You only need to summarize, in your own words, the conclusion of your first progress report (a virtue ethics perspective on your topic), the conclusion of your second progress report (a deontological analysis), and a utilitarian analysis. Next, share your, overall conclusion on your topic (“I think the death penalty is unethical because…”). Finally, share your thoughts on which of the 3 ethical schools of thought to be most compelling or most helpful for thinking through ethical questions (“I find the Categorical Imperative most helpful because…”, “I am a convinced utilitarian because…”—Note: you don’t have to agree with just 1, or with any, school of thought). It should be about five minutes long.
only cite primary sources (ex: do not cite an article about Kant’s ethics). When citing a broad idea (such as “moderation”) you can just cite a chapter (sans translator, publisher, etc.). When citing a direct quote or a specific idea (such as the Formulation of Autonomy), cite the page number. Use a full citation (translator, publisher, year, etc.) for direct quotes and specific ideas if you are not citing from the common texts (the Bartlett & Collins translation of the Nicomachean Ethics and the Hackett editions of the Grounding for a Metaphysics of Morals and Utilitarianism).present on the perspective of each school, compare &contrast the schools of thought (the benefits of each, how convincing each is, etc.), and conclude with your opinion. The final paper consists of the same, but more thoroughlydemonstrated.
your presentation will consist of six (though, not necessarily equal) parts:
An introduction to your topic
A virtue ethics/Aristotelian analysis of your topic
A deontological/Kantian analysis
A utilitarian analysis
Your conclusion on the topic (The death penalty is/is not ethical because…)
Your reflection on the different schools of thought (which school of thought you found most helpful/which parts of each you thought were most compelling/etc.)
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Robert C. Bartlett & Susan D. Collins, University of Chicago Press – ISBN: 0226026752
Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant, trans. James W. Ellington, Hackett Publishing Company, 3rdedition – ISBN: 087220166X
Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, Hackett Publishing Company, 2ndedition – ISBN: 087220605X
First report :
~500 words. An analysis of your topic from the perspective of virtue ethics. Attached are samples from former students. You do not need citations or technical terminology (though you will need citations for the final paper).
A successful analysis will explore:
What is the relation of your topic to human excellence and flourishing (in the individual and/or the community)?
Who are the persons acting? What are their character-traits? Who is being affected (if any)? What tools are being used, what is the manner of acting (ex: gently or cruelly), and what is the desired end result?
If it is a matter of law, what sort of habits would it encourage or discourage? What character-traits would describe a community with said law?
What are the relevant virtues? What would the excesses and deficiencies look like? For example, if bodily pleasures are involved, they would be Moderation and Self-Restraint. If 2 or more people are affected, the social virtues (friendliness, truthfulness, and wittiness), justice (certainly if external goods are being distributed or exchanged), and/or friendship might be related.
Second report :
Apply the Categorical Imperative to your ethical topic! Remember, each formulation of the Categorical Imperative is supposed to be the same idea expressed in different ways (which is why they are repetitive). Some formulations will be more helpful for tackling certain topics, and other formulations for other topics (still consider them all, even the ones which do not seem to help).
First, consider its universalizability: what if everyone committed theft/murder/lied/etc.? or nobody?
Then, consider each rational beingas an end-in-itself: a person is never to be treated merely as a means/a tool, but as the end/goal of actions. You cannot manipulate, exploit, or use a person. Ex: if you lie about paying back money, you are also using someone solely as a means to get free money.
Next, consider autonomy (which follows from universalizability and is the reason why rational beings are ends-in-themselves). Similar to the first question, would the person acting lay this down as a law for himself/herself to be subjected to? AND are they (whoever is deciding) acting heteronomously (driven by some desire or outcome instead of a purely rational goodwill)? Remember, for Kant what matters is the intention (or “maxim”), not outcomes, consequences, feelings, incentives, fears, desires, etc. The only truly good actions are done for the sake of duty.
Finally, if your choice was laid down as a law, would it harmonize with the “ideal community” of humankind? This is helpful for considering imperfect duties (things which are praiseworthy, but not indispensable. For example, it might be possible to imagine everyone not giving to charity, but it is hard to reconcile this with the notion of each person as a thing of infinite worth. It is also helpful for indirect duties. Indirect duties, as the name implies, are duties which are not inherently good, but performing them helps us fulfill our true duties. For example, we have an indirect duty to not be cruel to animals because people are who are cruel to animals eventually become cruel to persons. If the above three formulations do not help you reach a conclusion, chances are this final one will.
FORMULATIONS OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
Formula of Universal Law p.30
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Formula of End-in-Itself p.36
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”
Formula of Autonomy p.38
“The idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law.”
“A will which is subject to law… nevertheless a will that is itself a supreme lawgiver.”
Formula of Kingdom of Ends p.39-40; 43
“Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”
Slide 1 of 2
UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW
Aristotle’s Perception on Same-Sex Marriage It is evident that man is one of the social beings. Despite being a social being, man must reason and make rational decisions that will make him happy. Men strive for happiness; hence, one will use different ways to reach for that happiness. Aristotle argues that same-sex marriage allows individuals to fulfill their happiness and function. Happiness is the most desirable aspect that makes human beings to socialize, which is a desirable trait across the world. Therefore, why should one deny one to achieve the desirable thing? Same-sex marriage according to Aristotle is final end. In the Nicomachean Ethics and same-sex marriage, Aristotle indicates that what is right is considered to be the final end. The ultimate good is the happiness which allows individuals to experience pleasure. Pleasure is the happiness that individuals who advocate samesex marriage look for; hence, they experience happiness since they are with someone they love. Therefore, their goal is to get full happiness so that they can realize their function. Generally, individuals need to be happy and enjoy life. Same-sex marriage makes a person devoted to it happy; thus, no one should deny one the opportunity to enjoy life with other partners. Individuals should not be denied happiness because they fear gossips that he or she loves a person who is of similar sex. Enjoy full happiness, and nobody should hinder one to enjoy total happiness. Aristotle asserts that individuals choose happiness because they like it and not for something else. Therefore, those who favor or embrace same-sex marriage do not make other people angry. In fact, they are looking for happiness. Aristotle indicates that when human are socializing, they are looking for happiness; hence, no one should deny them that happiness they want to enjoy. Marry whoever you think is right and a person who will love you so that happiness is attained. What a human being considers moral should perfect his or her rationality since he or she engaged brain when reasoning. Aristotle indicates that man was created so that he or she can socialize with others. Despite same-sex marriage not being legally sanctioned Aristotle does not condemn it. Aristotle argues that nowhere is written that it is unnatural because the relationships that are formed by same-sex partners grow. A man should exercise his faculty so that he can be happy. If happiness can only be found when individuals of same-sex marry then, no one should separate them since one would be interfering with man function. It will be unethical to separate people who love each other. It is significant to note that there are three types of good. These goods are; external goods, soul and body goods. Love is associated with the soul; hence, homosexuals and lesbians are denied the best good. Do not deny someone what is considered as pleasurable experience since if one has chosen an individual to marry it is unethical to deny him or her opportunity on the basis of same-sex. This will be regarded as discrimination against a particular group. “Aristotle stated that a man who loves a horse loves a horse because that is what he finds pleasure in” therefore, do not hinder others from marrying people of similar sex since he or she has found pleasure on him or her. Do not force people to remain alone in their life since human beings are social beings. Denying an individual’s right to marry the same sex is telling them to stay alone in their lifetime; hence, they will not find happiness and pleasure. Same-sex marriage according to Aristotle increase happiness among the people who practice it; therefore, let them fulfill their happiness. Feedback to Learner4/8/19 10:52 AM Well done! But there are a few things you should add. First, although you implicitly make this argument, you should note that denying same-sex couples marriage would be the vice of injustice (as described in Book V). You should also consider same-sex marriages are complete friendship (as described in Book VIII), which would mean both partners make each other virtuous. Finally, you should consider child-rearing (which is a major topic in the gay marriage debate). Childhood is essentially for shaping character (as described in Book X) and some people suggest children need a man and woman (I think studies have been done to show to refute this–you should find one). Great job over all! Same Sex Marriage by Immanuel Kant In the context of the same sex marriage, Kant argues that, any sexual activity between adults is morally right, as long as consent exists. In essence, Kant’s philosophy is clear that insofar as sexual actions are attributable to persons who are legally responsible and voluntarily undertaken, they are morally right and legally justifiable. The universal application of same sex marriage can be approached in two different ways (Marino, 2010). First is to allow same sex marriage and second is to make it illegal. If same sex marriage is allowed, men are going to marry men and women will marry their fellow women. If on the other hand same sex marriage is made illegal, some men will either stay single or keep their fellow men in secret relationships. Let’s look this issues rationally as an end in itself. Based on this point, Kant says that the right of the same sex couple to marry is less of an equal rights concern. It is more of the right of two individuals, whether man and man or otherwise, to establish a rightful domestic sphere with one another. Based on Kant’s doctrine of right it is possible to understand the conditions under which a person’s choice can be reconciled with the choices of other people (Marino, 2010). Following its universalizability and the idea of rational beings, the autonomy of same sex marriage is end in itself as opposed to a means. The universal doctrine of right advocated by Kant clearly explains that an action is considered moral if it can exist within the freedoms of everyone else. On the contrary, an action is immoral if it contradict with other people’s freedoms or if it is a stumbling block to the other people’s capacity to exercise their rights and freedoms. Kant mostly borrowed his reasoning from contract law under capacity of one person to the contract. So, his argument is that same sex marriage is a matter of mutual agreement. Therefore, no one buys the concert of another but purely a full freedom of choice is in play. As such Kant laments that same sex marriage is supported by a law of freedom and common will. The Kant’s arguments would not harmonize with ideal agreement of the community. Kant laments that the same sex marriages are part of the human state of nature. He also says that it is part of the man’s goal to attain his personal good and in a quite unique manner. It can therefore be concluded that, while restricting actions that potentially poses community security concerns, it is always important to consider that some events merely violate universal social values, thus are not inclusive enough (Marino, 2010). Reference Marino G. D. (2010). Ethics: The Essential Writings, ed. New York, Modern Library. Feedback to Learner4/21/19 10:52 PM One of the worst reports I have read. We did not talk about Kant’s doctrine of right (which is separete from his moral philosophy). This is not based on what we have been reading and talking about in class, both of which I’m doubting you engaged with. Some sentences also just don’tmake sense, including your conclusion. You just had to follow the prompt and the different formulations of the Categorical Imperative. What if everyone engaged in gay marriage? Extinction. Is love or desire to be happy an autonomous reason to get married? No. And so on