In your paper, you should explain in clear detail all of the readings you’re covering. The first reading by Vaughn is just an overview of the debate. Summarize that briefly. The second and third readings are debating with each other. They offer a “pro” argument and a “con” argument. Explain both sides of this debate. In your paper, you should make sure to explain, in detail, how the two sides of the debate you’re covering are connected to the bigger ethical theories. Here’s what I mean. In your readings on a topic like “euthanasia” or “capital punishment,” two of the authors will be arguing with each other, taking opposite sides on the issue. What ethical theories are the authors using? Virtue ethics? Kantian ethics? Utilitarianism? Natural law ethics? Explain in detail, using the readings on those ethical theories we did earlier in the course! Your paper should respond to the readings you’ve analyzed in order to create a rational argument of your own about which side of the debate is right and why. Which author is right, and which one is wrong, about the topic, and why? Or are both sides wrong, or right, somehow? Why? But no matter what, you must not simply state what you believe. You should respond to the two sides of the debate you’re covering. And you should back up your stance with reasons to justify your position and convince others you’re right. (In other words, you must give an argument, not an opinion.) Then, your paper should offer a “counter-claim.” That is, offer a potential objection that someone could have to the stance you’ve chosen. Let’s say you are arguing that euthanasia is morally wrong. An objection would go against your position, and try to find weaknesses in your argument Then, respond to the potential objection to defend yourself. Why are you still right? Are there any aspects of the objection you’d be willing to agree with? Why or why not?
The post Kantian ethics
Assignment status: Solved by our experts