Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
or this discussion board I’ve put together a list of five questions for you to consider. Answer only oneyou don’t need to do more than one, and you can choose your favorite. 1ST QUESTION
It’s a wonderful thing to do to protect innocent people from an attack, but is it morally expected of us? To put it another way, we have a moral obligation not to injure others, but do we also have a moral obligation to defend those who are being damaged by others? (These concerns arise when we consider humanitarian intervention warfare.)
What are your thoughts?
2ND QUESTION
On humanitarian grounds, we consider going to war on occasion. To put it another way, we are going to war to protect someone else, not to protect ourselves. Here’s an argument for why this is morally acceptable:
1. It is possible to justify war in the defense of others.
2. Humanitarian intervention wars are conflicts fought to protect others.
As a result, humanitarian intervention warfare can be justified. (1) and (2)
Consider the following argument: Is it true? Is it in good condition?
3rd QUESTION
Some people believe that having nuclear weapons to discourage other countries from attacking us is immoral. They say that while it is illegal to use nuclear weapons, it is also illegal to threaten to use them.
They appear to be making the following argument:
1. It is immoral to use nuclear weapons.
2. As a result, threatening to use nuclear weapons (or actually planning to use them) is unethical.
Examine this argument for flaws and objections…
4TH QUESTION
Another argument for humanitarian intervention warfare being morally permissible is this:
1. Sovereignty is necessary simply because it allows a state to protect its inhabitants’ rights.
2. As a result, we can disregard the state’s sovereignty if it violates those rights.
As a result, humanitarian intervention wars are not considered illegitimate invasions of sovereignty.
Consider the following argument: Is it true? Is it in good condition? Keep an eye out for objections…
5TH QUESTION
The majority of those who want nuclear disarmament want it to be mutual. Some argue, however, that we should get rid of our nuclear weapons regardless of what other countries do. To put it another way, they support unilateral nuclear disarmament.
To most of us, that sounds insane and far too dangerous. But let’s give the concept a shot. One could argue that while the chance of attack is higher if we unilaterally eliminate our nuclear weapons, the risk of nuclear war is lower, and that we are thus safer overall.
What are your thoughts?
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Discussion on Morally Right and Wrong Thinking |
Discussion on Morally Right and Wrong Thinking