I believe i want to talk about abortion in deontology
textbook if needed for support: https://www.upscsuccess.com/
Deontology (these passages might be helpful?) – Christine Korsgaard Introduction (p. 481)
Kant’s Formula of Universal Law (p. 499)
Judith Jarvis Thomson Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem (p. 543)
Throughout the term we’ve read and discussed material that addresses key areas within the field of ethics, and the problems, claims, and arguments that participate within them. For your final, you are to pull from as many of these areas we’ve worked with to formulate a position related to a societal issue that you feel needs to be addressed. This assignment should be understood as challenging you to synthesize material that we’ve been working with over the term into a coherent and cogent argument.
To develop your 900-1250-word paper, you should consider the following stages:
First, find a contemporary moral issue in society that you feel ought to be addressed so as to improve our lives in some manner. You’ll want to begin with a few different ideas so that you can find one that is most fruitful for your paper. Similarly, if you find an idea you want to work with but are struggling with it in relation to the size and scope of the paper, consider looking at a broader issue that contains the one you are interested in. For example, if you’re interested in discussing Facebook’s selling of user data, consider the broader issue of privacy and presence on social media, and the appropriate or inappropriate profiting off of user data in general.
Next, out of the different normative systems we’ve discussed, find one that you feel most comfortable with. Bear in mind that you will be using this system as a format for your argument, so understanding how the particular system functions, and how it is different from the other systems is crucial. Logical consistency in your argument is important. Each of these systems for approaching ethical issues has a central tenet. Understanding what that central tenet is is necessary for a logically consistent, and sound argument. If you like deontology, you can’t use hypothetical outcomes of societal benefit as the primary thrust of your argument. That would be utilitarianism. Likewise, you cannot argue that something is implicitly wrong with the issue you are addressing without addressing theoretical outcomes if you’ve chosen utilitarianism. All systems are available: feminist ethics, deontology, utilitarianism (act and rule), particularism, prima facie duties, virtue ethics, contractualism, and contractarianism (be mindful that contractarianism and contractualism may be utilized by other systems, i.e., deontology, utilitarianism).
Next, consider the issue and the system you’ve chosen in relation to the larger scope of material we’ve covered over the term. The status of morality, what has moral standing, our moral responsibilities (if any and at all possible), the relation of religion to ethics, why we should be morally obligated, how we know that something is right, and what has value, and what kind of value, all of these participate in the issue you’ve chosen, you need only uncover them. You’ll need to address these other issues within your paper as well. By now, you should at least be intuitively aware that the other areas that we’ve discussed participate to some degree in these systems. For example, Kant’s deontology and the lack of moral standing of animals. Most recently, this week we read a piece wherein W.D. Ross argues for prima facie duties, and previously we read a piece wherein W.D. Ross argues that certain things are intrinsically good, i.e., actions and/or outcomes can have intrinsic value. Thus, if you are arguing animal rights from a deontological position, you’d have to take into account Kant’s position about the moral standing of animals. Or, as it relates to Ross, any ethical claim utilizing prima facie duties would have to presume that certain actions are intrinsically good if it is to be consistent, and any effective argument that is made would need to address the intrinsic goodness of the action being discussed. In other words, the system you choose commits you to some of the nuances of issues and/or positions we’ve been working with. These should be addressed at some point in your paper.
Lastly, I cannot stress enough the importance of a thesis statement. The thesis statement should be a short, two to three sentence statement about the issue you’ve chosen, its relevance, the position you’re taking, and the nuances of that position. (IMPORTANT INFO): *****Cited material and quotations should be kept at an absolute minimum. This paper is to be in your own words. If you are citing or quoting, it must be appropriately done. If not, points will be taken off your final grade. Simply using what others have written displays the least amount of effort on your part; your grade will reflect that.******
- Sufficient: Whatever issue you choose to write about, you should present sufficient information to explain and support your position. Doing so shows me that you have read and carefully considered the material. That said, the ethical positions we’ve covered can be complex; narrowing down to the key elements and presenting all relevant information may be exceedingly difficult if you don’t fully understand the nuances. If you feel uncomfortable with the complexity of some of the ethical positions we discussed, choose a simpler topic and sufficiently present your answer.
- Consider what is most important to fully explain and present the argument you’ve chosen to make.
- Consider the larger relationship between the topic you’ve chosen and other ideas we’ve covered. Would introducing another position so as to contrast your position be helpful in explaining your topic?
- Concise rather than long-winded. In contrast to being sufficient, your response should also strive to be concise. This is a delicate balance, achieved when you (sufficiently) present necessary information without repetition and/or editorializing. If you can succinctly restate three sentences in one, do so. Though important, your own views or opinions about the topic should be integrated with the ethical position you are taking. You have a limited amount of space to show me what you understand. Repeating yourself, and overly sharing how you feel about the topic, anecdotal statements, etc., diminishes the amount of space for re-presenting your understanding, and ultimately diminishes its effectiveness.
- Consider what is most and least important; choose the former over the latter.
- Consider means for expressing your personal feelings in the larger context of the argument, and utilize the conclusion and introduction to address your personal feelings.
- Accurately represent the material. It should go without saying that accuracy, i.e., you understand what you are writing about, is crucial for this assignment. Thus, if you limit your own views (mentioned above) and re-present the material, in your own words, as accurately as to what has been discussed in class and what is presented in the material itself, then your response will be effective. If you don’t understand the material, you should definitely choose one that you feel you have a better grasp of.
- Is what you’ve written true to the ethical position/topic?
0 comments