Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Moral Relativism is a theory that holds that morality is relative.
Moral Relativism is a theory that holds that morality is relative.
Moral relativism is discussed in Section B of Chapter 8. (also called moral subjectivism). After reading the text and watching the video, explain what you think the moral relativist position is, explain any problems you see with accepting moral relativism, and then discuss at least two specific points from the Gilbert Harman reading in our text with which you agree or disagree, and why. Finally, do you consider yourself a moral relativist? Do you believe in moral relativism, or do you reject it? Make a case for your position. NB: While students frequently discuss cultural relativism, a subset of moral relativism, we will be discussing moral relativism in general rather than cultural relativism in this thread. Make sure to follow the instructions for making specific references to texts, videos, and podcasts in Unit 1 in the Discussion Forums: Protocol and Grading Criteria folder; posts that do not follow these instructions will not receive full credit. Works What is Ethical Relativism? is linked/cited. Philo-notes uploaded this video to YouTube on December 11, 2019. What is Ethical Relativism, and What Does It Mean? – PHILO-notes YouTube – Whiteboard Edition On the 3rd of June, 2020, I was able to get a hold
Board of Discussion
responsibilities to others
responsibilities to others
Egoism and altruism are discussed in Section C of Chapter 8. Peter Singer, who appears in the video below, is a contemporary utilitarian (altruistic) who believes that we should use our disposable income to help others, including the poor in other countries. Tara Smith, who you met in Chapter 8, talks about egoism, which is the opposite of altruism. Respond to the following questions after watching the video below and reading the Smith text in Chapter 8: What was one point in the video that particularly struck you, and why? What was one point in Smith’s reading that struck a chord with you, and why? Explain how you feel about egoism and altruism. Be specific; give reasons and examples to support your point of view (s). Make sure to follow the protocol and grading instructions in Unit 1 of the Discussion Forums. Criteria folder for making specific references to texts, videos, and podcasts; posts that do not reference texts, videos, or podcasts in accordance with these guidelines will not be given full credit. Peter Singer – Effective Altruism, an Introduction. is a linked/cited work. Science, Technology, and the Future uploaded this video to YouTube. Peter Singer – Effective Altruism, an Introduction – YouTube, 28 August 2014. On the 19th of August, 2020, I was able to get a hold of some information
The Trolley Issue
The Trolley Issue
The trolley problem, a well-known moral dilemma analyzed from a utilitarian perspective, is depicted in the video below.
The switch dilemma is a term used to describe the first version of the problem. This is based on the concept of a speeding trolley barreling down the tracks toward a group of five people who will be killed if the trolley continues on its current path. By pulling a switch and diverting the trolley onto a different set of tracks, you can save these five people. This switch also places the trolley on a different track with only one person on it; however, if you pull the switch, that person will be killed. Is it morally acceptable to divert the trolley in order to save five lives at the expense of one? Regardless of culture, gender, ethnicity, religion, or nationality, the majority of people say it is. Then there’s the “footbridge conundrum,” as it’s known. In this case, the trolley is heading for five people once more. You are, however, now standing on a footbridge that spans the tracks. A very fat man is leaning over the side of the bridge (fat enough to stop the trolley). You’re standing on the footbridge next to him when you realize the only way to stop the trolley and save the five people is to push him off the footbridge and onto the tracks. Is this morally acceptable? Regardless of culture, gender, ethnicity, religion, or nationality, the majority of people say it isn’t. Please respond to the following questions: What are your thoughts on these two cases from a moral standpoint? Justify your position with reasons (s). If you agree with the majority of people in both cases, what makes it acceptable to sacrifice one person in the switch dilemma but not in the footbridge case? What explanation do you offer if you disagree with the majority of people in these cases?
NB: In this thread, students frequently state what they would or would not do, what they could or could not do, and then explain their feelings about their decision (e.g., I would pull the lever in the first scenario, but I could never push the man off the bridge because I would feel too guilty.’) Or, if I didn’t have to touch anyone, I’d push the lever, but I couldn’t push the man off the bridge because I didn’t want to murder him directly.) A moral analysis, on the other hand, is a reasoned examination of why an action might be moral or immoral. While we do have emotional responses when deciding what to do, these responses do not allow us to reason about the morality of a particular action. So, don’t respond to the question “How would you feel about each scenario?” in your response. but rather, in each scenario, what would be the morally correct action?’ To avoid simply saying what you would or wouldn’t do, what you could or couldn’t do, start with something like ‘the morally right action in the first scenario is to do x because’….(justify what you claim is the morally right action), and ‘the morally right action in the second scenario is to do x because’.. (and again give your justification for what you claim is the morally right action). Make sure to follow the instructions for making specific references to texts, videos, and podcasts in Unit 1 in the Discussion Forums: Protocol and Grading Criteria folder; posts that do not follow these instructions will not receive full credit. And, just for kicks, here’s a scene from The Good Place that deals with the trolley issue: Works The Trolley Problem. Linked/Cited The Trolley Problem – YouTube, uploaded by Patrick Donovan on 7 February 2008. On the 15th of August, 2019, I was able to get a hold of some The Good Place. The Trolley Problem. The Trolley Problem | The Good Place | Comedy Bites – YouTube, uploaded by Comedy Bites on 28 January 2020. Date accessed: 28
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
Moral Relativism in Philosophy and Other Issues |
Moral Relativism in Philosophy and Other Issues