ETHC 445 Week 5 Complete DeVry

Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:

https://www.coursetutor.us/product/ethc-445-week-5-complete-devry/

ETHC 445 Week 5 What about Choices & Consequences? DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 5 Discussions

WEEK 5: LIFE & DEATH; POLITICS & ETHICS

Each week, you may use the threads to draft your current work, interact with your peers, document the progress you have made as a result of your team collaborations, and address course content using the topics below. Please refer to the threaded discussion rubric, so that you are in full compliance.

There are three basic propositions in standard Utilitarianism (Please be sure to listen to Mill’s audio lecture before joining this threaded discussion):

  1. Actions are judged right and wrong solely on their consequences; that is, nothing else matters except the consequence, and right actions are simply those with the best consequences.
  2. To assess consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness and unhappiness caused; that is, there is only one criterion and everything else is irrelevant.
  3. In calculating happiness and unhappiness caused, nobody’s happiness counts any more than anybody else’s; that is, everybody’s welfare is equally important and the majority rules.

In specific cases where justice and utility are in conflict, it may seem expedient to serve the greater happiness through quick action that overrules consideration for justice. There is a side to happiness that can call for rushed decisions and actions that put decision-makers under the pressure of expediency.

Here is a dilemma for our class:

You are the elected district attorney. You receive a phone call from a nursing home administrator who was a good friend of yours in college. She has a waiting list of 3,000 people who will die if they don’t get into her nursing home facility within the next 3 weeks, and she currently has 400 patients who have asked (or their families have asked on their behalf) for the famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s (fictitious) sister, Dr. Jill Kevorkian, for assistance in helping them die. The 3,000 people on the waiting list want to live. She (the nursing home administrator) wants to know if you would agree to “look the other way” if she let in Dr. Jill to assist in the suicide of the 400 patients who have requested it, thus allowing at least 400 of the 3,000 on the waiting list in.

  1. How would we use Utilitarianism to “solve” this dilemma?
  2. What ethics did your friend, the nursing home administrator, use in deciding to call you?
  3. What ethics are you using if you just “look the other way” and let it happen?

 

WEEK 5: DEALING WITH EMERGENCIES AND OUTCOMES

Chapter 9 of our text includes the terrorism situation at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and it needs to be read before engaging this discussion.

The principle of utility involves maximizing happiness as a desirable outcome of decisions. Although it does not get directly said, there is an inverse intention to minimize the undesirable outcome of disaster. Utilitarian decisions are directed toward outcomes—that is, the consequences of decisions.

The Olympic hostage situation was a high-tension moment, full of dangerous surprises and strategies to deal with the situation that did not work out for the best. Among the strategies was the idea to kill the leader of the terrorists so as to disrupt the terrorist plot and to allow a good outcome in which the hostages would be saved. In the situation it was also entirely possible that a terrible outcome might occur in which all would die. The situation was an emergency.

The German legal system might eventually take the terrorists and their leader to trial, but first there was the need to end the hostage situation. The account in our text ends with, “But it was the lesser of two evils.”

As utilitarian ethicists this week, how shall we reason through to the decision of the law enforcement authorities at the 1972 Munich Olympics?

ETHC 445 Week 5 YOU DECIDE

The “You Decide” assignment presents a difficult and painful dilemma, with you in an imagined professional role. Go through the You Decide presentation, make the decision it calls for, meet you’re your team or partner to discuss, and compose a paper and presentation that explains your decision and your reasoning and justification for it.

You are called upon to make a painful medical decision and to explain it both orally and in writing.  Who benefits from what you decided, who gets denied a needed benefit, and why?  You will compose an official memorandum that will be kept for the record and could potentially be read not only by your Peer Review Committee, but also by those involved in charitable fundraising, which supports hospital development, as well as by others with financial interests in the decision.

You will see notice that there is time pressure in the simulated situation, so remember that you would not have the luxury to dawdle in the decision-making process, and as the decision-maker, you would not have the luxury of consulting a broad spectrum of advisors.  It falls on you and your team or partner to decide!

Include in the document and presentation the utilitarian ethical philosophy of John Stuart Mill (from the lecture and audio for this week) and one other ethical philosopher of your choosing that we have studied to date, and use both of those philosophies to bolster your decision. This paper will be at least 2 pages and no more than 3 pages with a 2-3 minute oral presentation on which you and your team or partner may (ideally and preferably) collaborate. Remember, both professional written form and potential audience, as well as tone when writing this sensitive memorandum.

Outside sources are not required, but if used, must be cited properly.

Rubric

You Decide

You Decide
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction

Writer summarizes a difficult situation sensitively and offers a compelling purpose for writing.

40.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport/Development

Course material and team or partner input is leveraged powerfully. Theoretical underpinnings are well understood and used to bring an argument/justification of choice forward. Both Locke and another philosopher are used.

50.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

50.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, Style, Format, Quality of Thought

Grammar refers to correct Standard American Usage, e.g., subject/verb agreement and use of correct parts of speech. Mechanics refers to correct idiomatic usage, e.g., capitalized proper nouns, word choice, and word order. Style (5 pts) refers to dynamic writing, avoiding passive constructions, writing that shows, describes, and compels the reader’s interest. Evident care has been taken in composing; there are few errors, and they do not significantly interfere with meaning. APA format has been followed scrupulously.

40.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeVisual Presentation
25.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOral Narration
20.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

20.0 pts
Total Points: 175.0

 

Download File Now