For Brilliant Answers
Due on 12/19/2020 Saturday @7pm EST
3 – 4 pages
APA Format
Minimum of 2 scholarly sources and must provide a link to the FULL articles or journals that is in English
Submit through Turnitin and provide the report (Must be less than 10%)
Due on 12/19/2020 Saturday @7pm EST
3 – 4 pages
APA Format
Minimum of 2 scholarly sources and must provide link to the FULL article or journal that is in English
Submit through Turnitin and provide the report (Must be less than 10%)
Introduction
In this session, you have been considering moral-ethical dilemmas you yourself faced or that you know of that you either resolved or failed to resolve, but hopefully learned from. You may never have given much thought to ethical theory nor what ethical premises/paradigms you have unconsciously held.
You will be focusing on this case for this assignment:
Jane Doe is a nursing student at University X. Jane is in week eight of a course entitled: “Introduction to Ethics”.
For the week one discussion, Jane copied work done by her friend John Doe in the same class two months ago (with a different professor). John told Jane it was okay to use his work as John’s professor never checked any work in the class using Turnitin.com. John claimed to have earned an A on the work also.
In week two, Jane went to StudentPapering.com and paid ten dollars for a week two essay done by a student (not John Doe) who took the same course four months ago. StudentPapering promises that all its archived work is of excellent quality and cannot be detected as copied. Jane then uploaded an exact copy of the work for the week two assignment.
In week three, Jane paid a worker at PaperingStudent.com ten dollars to write for Jane a brand-new essay after Jane shared with the worker the essay assignment instructions.
In week four, Jane relied on her knowledge of Esperanto. She felt pressed for time and found an article by a professor from Esperanto on the week four topic. She translated Esperanto into English using Moogle Translate, and the translated text served as her week four paper.
In week five, Jane was running late again. Jane purposely uploaded a blank paper hoping that she would later claim it was an innocent mistake and not be assessed a late penalty. In a previous course on History, she had done the same (with an earlier paper from the History class rather than simply a blank) and had not seen any late penalty assessed.
In week six, Jane took work she did in a nursing course from a year ago and submitted that for her discussion posting in her current class. She simply copied and pasted the work she had labored intensively on a year ago (even though University X forbids this practice as ‘self-plagiarism’). Jane was confident her Nursing instructor never checked that work using Turnitin.com or another method.
In week seven, Jane copied, and pasted work found on website.com for the paper. Jane did not use any quotation marks or other documentation to show the text was not by Jane.
Since Jane’s Ethics professor did not check papers and posting for any issues by using Turnitin.com or another method, the professor graded all of Jane’s work unaware of Jane’s actions throughout the weeks of the class. Jane feels her actions are morally justified both because her economic situation requires her to work too much to devote time to school (although other students are well-off enough to have such time)and her religion forbids cheating, but Jane ignores her religion’s teachings.
Instructions
Now that you have had an opportunity to explore ethics formally, create a reflective assessment of your learning experience and the collaborations you engaged in throughout this session. You will submita written reflection.
For the written reflection, address Jane Doe’s and respond to ALL the following:
Articulate again your moral theory from week eight discussion (You can revise it if you wish). What two ethical theories best apply to it(virtue ethics, Kantian ethics, utilitarianism, virtue ethics, or social contract ethics)? Why those two?
Use week 8 discussion that is attached separately to help you with this part
Apply to Jane Doe’s case your personal moral philosophy as developed in week eight discussion and now. Use it to determine if what Jane Doe did was ethical or unethical per your own moral philosophy.
Consider if some of these examples are more grave instances of ethical transgressions than others. Explain.
Propose a course of social action and a solution by using the ethics of egoism, utilitarianism, the “veil of ignorance” method, deontological principles, and/or a theory of justice to deal with students like Jane. Consider social values such as those concerning ways of life while appraising the interests of diverse populations (for instance, those of differing religions and economic status). Week 8 Discussion used to help with the first part of the assignment
My personal philosophy is that you should treat others the way that you would like to be treated. I created this philosophy from the Kantian perspective which asserts that we should do things that are an end and not just a means. In his first categorical imperative, Kant talks of one acting in a way that you would like others to act towards you (Mizzoni, 2017). Rachels & Rachels (2019) asserts that the main point by Kant is that what you feel is right for you to do must be right for everyone else. This is important for me because I feel we should not just do things because they benefit us, instead we should consider others and how it affects them.
John Doe used the app to access the book even when he knew it was against his religion, and there was no honesty because the publisher and other people involved in the book were not aware. Therefore, following my philosophy Doe should have not downloaded nor used the app because if everyone acted the way he did, the world will not be a better place. Doe could have found other means to get the book like borrowing it or borrowing money to purchase the book.
The utilitarian theory will best solve Does case. The utilitarian perspective believes that an action is morally right when it brings happiness to the greatest number. Therefore, Doe using the book benefits him as an individual by negatively affects the publisher, his religion, and other stakeholders. His action deprives happiness to the greatest number therefore it is morally wrong.
References
Mizzoni, J. (2017).Ethics: the basics. John Wiley & Sons.
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019).The elements of moral philosophy(9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education. Running header: PERSONAL MORAL THEORY 1
2
PERSONAL MORAL THEORY
Personal Moral Theory
University
Name
Course
Date
Personal Moral Theory
In my personal ethical theory, I base it off of the utilitarian approach and Kants ethics. The utilitarian view is that principle requires us, in all circumstances, to maximize happinessin other words, to produce the greatest total balance of happiness over unhappiness, or of pleasure over suffering (Rachels, 2020). Although we want to maximize happiness should be moral rules such as honesty, trust, and gaining your happiness by not using malicious ways. We all want to reduce suffering, but we shouldnt make others suffer for our own gain. I believe the utilitarian has a great approach but there are moral limits that should not be crossed. Kants ethics provide some limitation to our own moral gain. Kant characterized the Categorical Imperative as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary (Johnson, 2019). This meaning that we should respect humanity and that we should all act according to the rules that we hold for everyone. Such as lying, stealing, or cheating is viewed as immoral so we should hold everyone to the same standard that we hold ourselves. This gives limitation to the utilitarian approach that could possibly lead to disaster. When using these two together we can maximize happiness for everyone but still maintain a balance without being immoral. Without conducting a moral code everyone who use each other for personal gain and become deceitful. This would fuel hate and untrustworthiness in the world which would ultimately be a disaster. So, by Kants categoric imperative we can see that by adding moral conducts we would see happiness.
In Jane Does case she is being deceitful to the teacher by copying work done by other students. This is using his kindness of not using turn it in and abusing the system for personal gain. She copied work and paid other people to write her papers as well as self-plagiarized. She feels morally justified because her economic situation requires her to work more and not give enough time for school. Other students in her same situation manage to give a fair amount of time to school. She also states that her religion approves of her action since this will benefit her whole family by earning a degree. She notices that other students religions forbid such acts. This is immoral when I compare it with my own moral philosophy. She is intentionally taking advantage of the teachers kindness. He does not use the turn it in method or deducts points when she accidentally submitted a blank paper. This is lying when she gives in a blank paper intentionally to give herself time to do and turn in the correct paper. Which when looking at the utilitarian and Kant ethics is immoral. We want to maximize our happiness which she can do but taking advantage of people is a line that the Kants categorical imperative cannot cross. She is also using excuses to justify her actions which I think is immoral in itself. She wants to say her socioeconomic status doesnt allow her to have enough time to study because she has to work but, she pays for people to write her paper. Her fellow classmates do what she does and has enough time to do their own work which makes her excuse eliminated. Which in terms is not fair to her other students that she makes the same grades with little effort put in. I believe plagiarism is a pretty big ethical transgression as well as using other people to get what you want. Technically this is lying, cheating, and using other people to your advantage and that is immoral. It is essentially hurting others for personal gain and I believe that is one of the most immoral things a person can do.
Social Action and Solution
If Jane were to get caught in the matter of the immoral things she did as well as use the excuses, her fate would look at the different ethical beliefs. Looking at the utilitarianism she is maximizing happiness for herself but causing suffering for others, such as them having to put in more work while still obtaining the same grades. This therefore contraindicated the utilitarian belief of maximizing happiness. The veil of ignorance is a moral reasoning device designed to promote impartial decision making by denying decision makers access to potentially biasing information about who will benefit most or least from the available options (Huang, 2019). By using this method, we can take out her religious beliefs and socioeconomic status. This leaves her with no excuses of why she acted upon these immoral values. A deontological principle can be seen such as the divine command theory. Actions that God commands us to do are morally required; actions that God forbids us to do are morally wrong; and all other actions are morally neutral (Rachels, 2019). God does not condone lying, cheating, or harming others in any way. I dont know of a religion that condones cheating or using others for personal gain. John Rawls was an American philosopher who introduced the theory of justice as fairness. His theory ofjustice as fairnessdescribes a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights and cooperating within an egalitarian economic system (Wenar, 2017). This meaning that everyone is treated fair and there is no discrimination. If someone were to do an immoral act against their basic rights of their economic system, then they shall have consequences. Therefore, Jane Doe should have consequences to her immoral actions. Whether it be to have her retake the entire class or maybe just redo all her assignments that were plagiarized. If her actions go unpunished, she may graduate but she will have immoral values that may catch up to her after repeatedly doing things. For instance, if she takes credit for someone elses work again it may get her fired and a bad reputation. Which could ultimately lead to her not being able to get a job she went to school for.
References
Huang, K., Greene, J., Bazerman. M., (November 26, 2019). Veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good. Retrieved June 24, 2020. From:https://www.pnas.org/content/116/48/23989
Johnson, Robert and Cureton, Adam, “Kants Moral Philosophy”,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.), URL =
Rachels, J. (2019).The Elements of Moral Philosophy(9th ed.). New York: NY, McGraw Hill Education.
Wenar, Leif, “John Rawls”,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta(ed.), URL =
