ETHC 445 Week 7 Complete DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 7 Complete DeVry

Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:

https://www.coursetutor.us/product/ethc-445-week-7-complete-devry/

ETHC 445 Week 7 Wrapping it up and Making it personal DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 7 Discussions

WEEK 7: CODES OF 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.

This week, we looked at two more ethical codes—one for the Project Management Institute, and one for Engineers.
(Find links to these professional codes in the Week 7 Assignment tab along with the Week 7 readings.)

You can see that both of them are much simpler than the Legal code we looked at last week, and even simpler than the Medical code of ethics. Appropriate professional behavior, practice, and discipline varies among professions and reflects the needs and values of the professional society in question.

Let’s then assume professional roles as we work on this fictional scenario:

It’s 2020, and General Foryota Company opens a plant in which to build a new mass-produced hover-craft. This hover-craft will work using E-85 Ethanol, will travel up to 200 mph, and will reduce pollution worldwide at a rate of 10 percent per year. It is likely that when all automobiles in the industrial world have been changed over to hovercrafts, emission of greenhouse gasses may be so reduced that global warming may end and air quality will become completely refreshed.

However, the downside is that during the transition time, GFC’s Hover-Vee (only available in red or black), will most likely put all transportation as we know it in major dissaray. Roadways will no longer be necessary, but new methods of controlling traffic will be required. Further, while the old version of cars are still being used, Hover-vee’s will cause accidents, parking issues, and most likely class envy and warfare. The sticker price on the first two models will be about four times that of the average SUV (to about $200,000.) Even so, GFC’s marketing futurists have let them know that they will be able to pre-sell their first three years of expected production, with a potential waiting list which will take between 15 and 20 years to fill.

The Chief Engineer of GFC commissions a study on potential liabilities for the Hover-vees. The preliminary result is that Hover-vees will likely kill or maim humans at an increased rate of double to triple over automobile travel because of collisions and crashes at high speeds — projected annual death rates of 100,000 to 200,000. However, global warming will end, and the environment will flourish.

The U. S. Government gets wind of the plans. Congress begins to discuss the rules on who can own and operate Hover-vees. GFC’s stock skyrockets. The Chief Engineer takes the results of the study to the Chief Legal Counsel, and together they agree to bury the study, going forward with the production plans. The Chief Project Manager, who has read the study and agreed to bury it, goes ahead and plans out the project for the company, with target dates and production deadlines.

Our class is a team of young lawyers, project managers, engineers, and congressional aides who are all part of the process of helping get this project off the ground. In fact, according to the first letter of your last name, you are the following team:

A-G: Attorney on the GFC team
H-N: Project Manager on the GFC team
0-S: Engineer on the GFC team
T-Z: Congressional Aide

Somebody sent a secret copy of the report to you at your home address. It has no information in it at all, except for the report showing the proof of the increase in accidents and deaths. The report shows, on its face, that the CLO, CE, CPM, and your Congressional Representative have seen copies of this report. On the front there are these words typed in red: They knew — they buried this. Please save the world!

Each of you feel a very loyal tie to your boss and your company/country. You all have mortgages, and families to feed. It is likely if you blow the whistle on this report, you will lose your job and your livelihood. You’re not even sure who wrote the study in your envelope or who actually sent it to you.

Now to the task at hand:
Utilizing your profession’s code of ethics, what would be your first step? Who would you talk to first? Would you go to the press? Would you go to your boss? Should you do anything at all?

 

WEEK 7: PERSONAL ETHICS

Please be sure to read the Week Seven Lesson in its entirety before posting to this discussion.

This week we will work on creating your own statement of personal ethics.
To get started, read summarizing review of our great and famous ethics and what they have taught us — found in our lecture this week.

Then, let’s work on creating one for you.

Your goal for the end of this thread is to have created a personal ethical philosophy and be able to tell your classmates from which philosophies you created it and why the contents are important and meaningful for you. List its precepts. (You will need to do this on the Final Exam.)

After you have assembled and posted your personal ethics statement, responded to what others may have said to you and thought about what you have posted to others, then take your statement and use it to work through the famous case of the Ring of Gyges.

One of the great examples of ethics and morals in all of literature comes from Plato who wrote about the Ring of Gyges in
The Republic, Book II, starting at paragraph 359a.
For those who wish to read the whole story, it is in the Doc Sharing tab and here is a link to the story — Ring of Gyges (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..

The story goes that Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the King. In a most unusual circumstance he came upon a dead man, removed the man’s ring, and discovered that it made him invisible. He conspired to take the periodic report of the shepherds to the King — once there he seduced the Queen and eventually took control of the Kingdom by conspiring with the Queen. Plato continues the story:

“Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right.”

This story raises up the question of what sanctions prevent people from just taking any liberties they are inclined to take.
The whole subject of ethics, seen in large scale, is that of accepting and living under moral standards.

  1. Using YOUR personal ethical statement that you have created, what would you do if you had that second ring?
    2. What else within this course helps in responding to this fictitious situation or in explaining it?
    3. Respond to your classmates’ posts. Are they holding true to their own personal ethical philosophies in their resolutions of this dilemma?

Pick one or more of the above, and post below!
Imagine that! ;o)

ETHC 445 Week 7 MAKE-UP WORK 

There is no new homework due this week. However, if your grade is not where you would like it to be, consult with your professor about revising an earlier assignment or creating a missing assignment. Revisions are to be substantive and show quality and improvement.

 

Download File Now


ETHC 445 Week 6 Complete DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 6 Complete DeVry

Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:

https://www.coursetutor.us/product/ethc-445-week-6-complete-devry/

ETHC 445 Week 6 Discussions

WEEK 6: APPLYING RAND’S OBJECTIVISM

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.

Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy has been touted by her detractors as the philosophy of self-interested selfishness.

Her four epistemological principles are:
1. Metaphysics: Objective reality of the world and the objects in it.
2. Epistemology: Reason as the one and only key to understanding.
3. Ethics: Self-interest in what behavior is but also what it should be.
4. Politics: Capitalism through the performance of deeds by individuals who are self-interested.

In the early 1960’s, a student asked a spokesman for Objectivism what would happen to the poor in an Objectivist’s free society.
The spokesman answered, “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped.”

If one reads Rand’s works, Atlas Shrugged, or The Fountainhead, one will conclude that this would be the answer Ayn would have given to that student as well.

  • What do you conclude from the answer given by the Objectivist spokesperson?
  • Is Objectivism, like Moral Relativism, the opposite of ethics?
  • And what clue in what she taught leads to your conclusion?

 

WEEK 6: WORKING CONFLICT RESOLUTION METHODS

Different ways to analyze ethical behaviors and dilemmas exist, and many of them will help direct you to the correct or “best” solution to a problem.

As we discussed in week 1 in the “tough choices” .pdf, sometimes right vs. right or wrong vs. wrong decisions have to be made.

In the lecture this week, you are given three ethical dilemma resolution models to try out on a dilemma provided there. Please review that interactive before posting to the threads this week, and let’s bring your questions and comments about the “proposed” solutions here to the threads.  We will talk about that through mid-week, and then I will post a new dilemma here where we will, as a group, begin analyzing it using the different methods.

You will need to be able to use these three models (Blanchard and Peale, Laura Nash and Front page of the Newspaper) on the final exam … so let’s be sure to practice all three of them together this week.

So, to start this off, let’s address the dilemma in the Week 6 Lecture interactive (in the middle of the page). You MUST read the lecture and run the interactive in order to participate in the threads this week!

  1. Review the sample solution to the Laura Nash method. Do you agree with that analysis? If so, what parts do you think really helped you work through the dilemma? If not, which parts do you not agree with?
  2. Review the sample solution to the Front Page of the Newspaper method. Do you think this is one of those types of dilemmas for which this model works? If not, why not? If so, why? How did using this method help you work through the dilemma?
  3. Review the sample solution to the Blanchard and Peale method. Do you agree with the analysis? If not, why not? If so, in what way did this help you analyze this dilemma?

Pick ONE of the above 3 questions and let’s get started. Or, respond to another student with details about why you agree or disagree with their analysis. Feel free to kindly debate with each other. Do not take things personally if someone disagrees. Be sure to show that you have viewed the lecture and interactive and that you attempted an analysis for “high quality” posts this week. After Wednesday, I will bring in another scenario and we can analyze that one together as a class.

ETHC 445 Week 6 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

Examine the Case Study for your analysis about professional responsibilities and decision-making during a crisis called “Command at Sea.” In teams or partners, discuss the decision possibilities within the case study and create a report of your findings. Be sure to read and understand the case thoroughly.

Rubric

Case Study Analysis

Case Study Analysis
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction

Writer summarizes the case, showing in-depth understanding and a compelling purpose for writing. Introduces possible perspectives to be detailed in the report.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis Quality

Both team collaboration and individual critical thought are evident and are clearly and compellingly presented.

40.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

40.0 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.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts

ETHC 445 Week 5 Complete DeVry

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):


ETHC 445 Week 4 Complete DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 4 Complete DeVry

Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:

https://www.coursetutor.us/product/ethc-445-week-4-complete-devry/

ETHC 445 Week 4 Kant’s Ethics and Our Duty DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 4 Discussions

WEEK 4: DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

11 unread reply.1515 replies.

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.

Topic

Increasing food supplies are necessary to sustain growing populations around the world and their appetites for great food, quality products, and continuous availability.

A great deal of expensive research is invested in developing technologies to deliver productive agriculture. Horticultural efforts to breed hybrid crops are seen as far back as history can observe, and there have been efforts to domesticate improved animals, as well. Gene splitting was a 1990s technology to improve the health and productivity of farm crops. With the 21st century have come genetically modified foods (GMF) through the use of nanotechnology to cause changes at the genetic and even molecular levels. These are very expensive technologies, and many new products have been patented and otherwise protected as proprietary products of intellectual property.

Drive out to the country during growing season, and you will see signs identifying that the crop has been grown with a protected seed that cannot be used to produce retained seed for planting in the next growing season.

In terms of this week’s TCOs, what ethical issues are raised by this legal process of patent protection, and how do we see the primary schools of ethics used in these proprietary measures? What, in this deontological week and in our learning to date, informs our understanding of this situation, and what should be done about it?

 

WEEK 4: KANT AND THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Kant’s famous First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative reads:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant taught morality as a matter of following maxims of living that reflect absolute laws. “Universal” is a term that allows for no exceptions, and what is universal applies always and everywhere. Lying, for any reason, is universally wrong.

Be sure to listen to Kant’s audio lecture before posting this week!

So, consider the famous case of the Crazed Murderer. In your town the Crazed Murderer comes to your door looking for your friend and wanting to kill him. You know that your friend went home to hide. What do you tell the murderer? When he leaves and runs up the street to your friend’s house, what do you do?

ETHC 445 Week 4 ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIP

Using academic scholarly research, find an article that addresses an ethical dilemma from the past five years and annotate it thoroughly.  What are the key points to the article?  Summarize the dilemma.  What are the key terms of the article?  What conflicts or controversies does it raise?  Where can you offer analysis or an original point of view?  Once you have a handle on the article and your reaction to the issues it raises, use it as a foundation to

  1. Create your own 2-4 paragraph “dilemma.”
  2. Apply Kant’s Categorical Imperative to the problem you invent.
  3. Apply any other method you have encountered in lecture material and the readings.
  4. State which method you prefer and why.
  5. Work with a partner collaboratively to share and divide this work for optimal results.

Your paper should be 3 pages.  You MUST provide the source of the foundation dilemma, and thus this paper will require 1 reference using at least 1 correct in-text citation (indicating quoted or paraphrased material from the article and where to locate it).  Use APA format in citing the source.  Refer to course resources for details and help in achieving APA style.

Work with a partner to share this assignment collaboratively and create a combined oral presentation.  Consider creating a youtube video, MP3 podcast (if you have those skills) or a video presentation.

Rubric

Academic Scholarship

Academic Scholarship
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction

Writer provides a solid example of academic scholarship, related to a specific real-world problem. The source is written by a professional ethicist, scholar, appears in a peer-reviewed journal, and has ample references of its own.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation Quality

The writer annotates the source fully, considering the main points, key terms used (with in-text citation of pages); s/he analyzes content for implications, consequences, and subtle problems and controversies. S/he establishes points of agreement/disagreement and gives cause. S/he locates 1 or 2 pithy quotations that will serve as evidence in his/her analysis. Course material and team input is leveraged powerfully.

40.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

40.0 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.

35.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

35.0 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: 150.0

Download File Now


ETHC 445 Week 3 Complete DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 3 Complete DeVry

Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:

https://www.coursetutor.us/product/ethc-445-week-3-complete-devry/

ETHC 445 Week 3 Living Ethically through a Social Contract DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 3 Discussions

WEEK 3: THE DEATH PENALTY

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.

Topic

First, here is a word of caution. With this discussion comes a tasking to discuss the death penalty in two ways: first, as an expression of the social contract, where one person has killed another in a violation of that other person’s right to peace and safety, and second, as a rules-based function of the justice system being applied to a difficult situation.

What do you see going on that is a violation of the Hobbes/Locke social contract idea?
And you might also connect it with any of the Three Schools, plus Aristotle, that you have read in past weeks—and especially with the rules-based ethics model.

Here’s the situation: In Manatee County, Florida, a judge sentenced a man to death—the first time this had happened in the county for over 19 years. Sentenced to death was a 25-year-old man for the January 7, 2004, murder of both of his parents by bludgeoning them to death in their bed with a baseball bat.

Now, with your social contract ethicist hats on, tell us what you make of this quote by the judge at the sentencing, quoted from the front page of the November 17, 2007 Bradenton Herald: “You have not only forfeited your right to live among us, but under the laws of the state of Florida, you have forfeited the right to live at all.”

Have at it, good folks. But, rather than running off with reactions and opinions about the death penalty in general, please do keep it in the context of our social contract discussion for this week and also connected with ethics of justice.

 

WEEK 3: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Social Contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as well.

Hobbes runs the logic like this in the form of a logical syllogism:
1) We are all self-interested,
2) Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests,
3) We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order,

Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.

Thomas Hobbes
 looked to the past to observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was “nasty, brutish, and short” — a kind of perpetual state of warfare

John Locke disagreed, and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Listen to Locke’s audio on the lecture tab and read his lecturette to be able to answer this thread.

Locke addressed Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he attribute this claim to “some men” not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature. For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action to themselves punish wrong doers, as in a state of nature.

Which philosophy do you espouse?

In coming to grips with the two and considering your experience of society as it is today, think out loud about what you experiences as the State of Nature, and tell us what you would be willing to give up in exchange for civil order and personal security?

You might consider what you have already given up in exchange for security as well as what might be required in coming days.

ETHC 445 Week 3 GREATER GOOD ANALYSIS

Working in teams, consider the following three problems. In writing a paper about each problem, identify the consequences of the actions taken, and then determine whether the actions taken represented a greater good, who would benefit from the good, and whether the consequences ethically justify the decisions and actions.

The Mayor of a large city was given a free membership in an exclusive golf club by people who have received several city contracts. He also accepted gifts from organizations that have not done business with the City, but might in the future. The gifts ranged from $200 tickets to professional sports events to designer watches and jewelry.

A college instructor is pursuing her doctorate in night school. To gain extra time for her own studies, she gives her students the same lectures, the same assignments, and the same examinations semester after semester without the slightest effort to improve them.

Todd and Edna have been married for three years. They have had serious personal problems. Edna is a heavy drinker, and Todd cannot keep a job. Also, they have bickered and fought constantly since their marriage. Deciding that the way to overcome their problems is to have a child, they stop practicing birth control, and Edna becomes pregnant.

Using what you have learned from collaborations, discussions, and readings up to this week, explore your answers to these ethical dilemmas.  How would Locke have addressed or solved the problem? Explain how his ethics and the answer he may have given are different from or the same as yours.

Compose a 2 page paper and oral narration of 2 minutes, discussing all three ethical dilemmas in depth.

Rubric

Greater Good Analysis

Greater Good Analysis
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose

The analyses have clear purpose that begins with a solid introduction/thesis, and compels the reader forward.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

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

Writer plumbs the depth of the ethical dilemmas with evident granular detail. Team input and course materials are leveraged powerfully and with reflective detail.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, StyleDescription of criterion

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 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.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSlides
20.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

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

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

15.0 pts
Total Points: 125.0

 

Download File Now


ETHC 445 Week 2 Complete DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 2 Complete DeVry

Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:

https://www.coursetutor.us/product/ethc-445-week-2-complete-devry/

ETHC 445 Week 2 Human Nature in Ancient & Medieval Ethics DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 2 Discussions

WEEK 2: MAJORITY THINK

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.

As our opening page states, Mark Twain warned that “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” It is likely that your parents warned you “not to follow the crowd,” or your school counselors warned you about “peer pressure.”

The United States utilizes a democratic republic form of government, which espouses the “majority rule” in many instances. For example, when passing laws, Congress and state Legislators use majority voting. When electing our officials, the majority rules. But, is our government unethical?

This week’s thread will look at two or three “examples” of majority findings or rules. We will bring new ones in throughout the week, so be sure to visit back at least every other day and post your thoughts.

Here is our first one for the week:
The great majority of people seem to find nothing objectionable about the use of commercials in children’s television programming. Yet a distinguished panel commissioned by the National Science Foundation found reason to disagree. After reviewing 21 relevant scholarly studies, they concluded:

It is clear from the available evidence that television advertising does influence children. Research has demonstrated that children attend to and learn from commercials, and that advertising is at least moderately successful in creating positive attitudes toward and the desire for products advertised. The variable that emerged most clearly across numerous studies as a strong determinant of children’s perception of television advertising is the child’s age. Research clearly establishes that children become more skilled in evaluating television advertising as they grow older, and that to treat all children from 2 to 12 as a homogenous group masks important, perhaps crucial differences.

  • Do you think the majority view is correct in this case? What difference would it make that a majority thinks this way?
  • Do you think the use of commercials in children’s television programming raises any ethical questions? Do explain.
  • Do you wish to place evidence for what you say before your classmates?
WEEK 2: GOOD VS. EVIL

55 unread replies.1313 replies.

Personal struggles with one’s own tendencies, desires, lusts, and self-interest have placed people in conflict with other people and their own communities farther back than any of us can read.  We read about the struggles of others in history — what about ourselves?  Yes, us!  What about our experiences of being ourselves?

When we look back in history, we find people who are not so different from us — struggling with their human nature — and trying to live ethical lives in whatever way they can do so.  They aspire to live ethical lifes and find themselves failing again and again.

St. Augustine  in the 5th Century held that although we feel free to make choices in life, our true nature as human beings includes a persistent disregard for what is good. On this view, we are sinners whose only hope for redemption lies in the gracious love of a merciful deity. Whatever I do on my own, Augustine would argue, is bound to be wrong; whatever I do right, must be performed by God through me.

St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century brought Aristotle’s theories back into “vogue,” soon after St. Augustine’s death (if 800 years is soon, that is.)  He allowed humanity to have a bit of secularity along with faith, and his ethics allows for a Natural Law which can be found in the heart of man.  Please be sure to listen to our Saints’ Debate on the lecture tab before working in this thread.

So, here we are in the 21st Century with all the sophistication and technology of the age.  Does this account of human nature fit well with your own experience of human action? That is, do you observe (in yourself and others) an inclination toward evil instead of toward good?  Bring in examples of scenarios which bolster your view, or which tend to bring your view (or others) into question.

ETHC 445 Week 2 ETHICAL DILEMMA ANALYSIS

Collaborate with your team, using Cisco Spark, email, phone meetings, or any collaboration tool you find useful or prefer. In your collaboration, consider the ethical dilemmas below and select 1 in which to conduct a deep drill.

Ethical Dilemma 1: A newspaper columnist signs a contract with a newspaper chain. Several months later, she is offered a position with another newspaper chain, offering a higher salary. Because she would prefer making more money, she notifies the first chain that she is breaking her contract. The courts will decide the legality of her action, but what of the morality? Did the columnist behave ethically?

Ethical Dilemma 2: An airline pilot receives his regular medical checkup. The doctor discovers that he has developed a heart murmur. The pilot only has a month to go before he is eligible for retirement. The doctor knows this and wonders whether, under these unusual circumstances, she is justified in withholding information from the company regarding the pilot’s condition.

Ethical Dilemma 3: An office worker has had a record of frequent absence. He has used all his vacation and sick-leave days, and has frequently requested additional leave without pay. His supervisor and co-workers have expressed great frustration because his absenteeism has caused bottlenecks in paperwork, created low morale in the office, and required others to do his work in addition to their own. However, the individual believes he is entitled to take his earned time and additional time off without pay. Is he right?

Ethical Dilemma 4: Rhonda enjoys socializing with fellow employees at work, but their discussions usually consist of gossiping about other people, including several of her friends. At first, Rhonda feels uncomfortable talking in this way about people she is close to; but then she decides it does no real harm, and she feels no remorse for joining in.

In conjunction with the readings, and within your teams, decide which ethical dilemma you believe is most problematic and why. In your teams, discuss the ideas of “good vs. evil,” “wrong vs. right,” and “ought/should be vs. what is.” Form the readings, discuss the ways in which Augustine and Aquinas would have solved the problem based on lecture and course reading material. In what ways do Augustine and Aquinas differ and why?

You may wish to meet throughout the week to share ideas. Create a report of your findings as individuals and as a team. The report should be approximately 2 pages accompanied by a 2-minute oral presentation, using VoiceThread or a PowerPoint narrated slide show.

Rubric

Ethical Dilemma Analysis

Ethical Dilemma Analysis
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose

The paper has a clear purpose that begins with a solid introduction/thesis, and compels the reader forward.

25.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

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

The analysis shows depth of critical thought. Readings, collaborations, and course materials are leveraged powerfully in support of writer’s evident effort to understand ethical problems. Good use of theoretical underpinnings are used.

25.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, Style

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 refers to dynamic writing, avoiding passive constructions, writing that shows, describes, and compels the reader’s interest.

25.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSlides
15.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOral Narration
10.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

10.0 pts
Total Points: 100.0

 

Download File Now


ETHC 445 Week 1 Complete DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 1 Complete DeVry

Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:

https://www.coursetutor.us/product/ethc-445-week-1-complete-devry/

ETHC 445 Week 1 Ethics and Aristotle DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 1 Discussion

Each week, you are provided with possible topics for discussion and a third area to reflect on collaborations and progress you make as a group, in teams, or in partnerships. This week, you are required to work on a meaningful introduction. The topics on Group Think, and Formal Study of Ethics are optional—you may interact in one, or the other, or both. You should work in teams or with partners collaboratively to discuss and exchange ideas to help you. Please refer to the threaded discussion rubric, so that you are in full compliance.

Topic

Introduce yourself to the class in a discussion, using an ethical dilemma you experienced and share it with your peers. Your introduction should be detailed, use description, dialogue, and should center on a specific ethical problem you faced. Read and comment on each other’s ethical memoirs. Create a VoiceThread or narrated PowerPoint slide show that orally presents your ethical memoir. Use your work in discussions and your collaborations to draft a formal, revised, and extended version for your assignment this week.

ETHC 445 Week 1 ETHICAL MEMOIR

Compose a 2-page paper, accompanied by a 2-minute narrated slide presentation that describes a particular moral-ethical dilemma that you encountered and what the outcome of that dilemma was. Did you solve the dilemma? If so, how? If not, what were the repercussions or consequences? What would you do differently if faced with the same problem today? What is the importance of good ethics? Why should we be concerned about our actions?

Regard the questions as prompts, not an ordering of your responses. This is not a Q&A essay, but rather a graceful reflection regarding a difficult ethical dilemma you faced.

 

Download File Now


ETHC 445 Principles of Ethics Full Course DeVry

Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:

https://www.coursetutor.us/product/ethc-445-principles-of-ethics-full-course-devry/

 

ETHC 445 Week 1 Ethics and Aristotle DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 1 Discussion

Each week, you are provided with possible topics for discussion and a third area to reflect on collaborations and progress you make as a group, in teams, or in partnerships. This week, you are required to work on a meaningful introduction. The topics on Group Think, and Formal Study of Ethics are optional—you may interact in one, or the other, or both. You should work in teams or with partners collaboratively to discuss and exchange ideas to help you. Please refer to the threaded discussion rubric, so that you are in full compliance.

Topic

Introduce yourself to the class in a discussion, using an ethical dilemma you experienced and share it with your peers. Your introduction should be detailed, use description, dialogue, and should center on a specific ethical problem you faced. Read and comment on each other’s ethical memoirs. Create a VoiceThread or narrated PowerPoint slide show that orally presents your ethical memoir. Use your work in discussions and your collaborations to draft a formal, revised, and extended version for your assignment this week.

ETHC 445 Week 1 ETHICAL MEMOIR

Compose a 2-page paper, accompanied by a 2-minute narrated slide presentation that describes a particular moral-ethical dilemma that you encountered and what the outcome of that dilemma was. Did you solve the dilemma? If so, how? If not, what were the repercussions or consequences? What would you do differently if faced with the same problem today? What is the importance of good ethics? Why should we be concerned about our actions?

Regard the questions as prompts, not an ordering of your responses. This is not a Q&A essay, but rather a graceful reflection regarding a difficult ethical dilemma you faced.

 

ETHC 445 Week 2 Human Nature in Ancient & Medieval Ethics DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 2 Discussions

WEEK 2: MAJORITY THINK

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.

As our opening page states, Mark Twain warned that “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” It is likely that your parents warned you “not to follow the crowd,” or your school counselors warned you about “peer pressure.”

The United States utilizes a democratic republic form of government, which espouses the “majority rule” in many instances. For example, when passing laws, Congress and state Legislators use majority voting. When electing our officials, the majority rules. But, is our government unethical?

This week’s thread will look at two or three “examples” of majority findings or rules. We will bring new ones in throughout the week, so be sure to visit back at least every other day and post your thoughts.

Here is our first one for the week:
The great majority of people seem to find nothing objectionable about the use of commercials in children’s television programming. Yet a distinguished panel commissioned by the National Science Foundation found reason to disagree. After reviewing 21 relevant scholarly studies, they concluded:

It is clear from the available evidence that television advertising does influence children. Research has demonstrated that children attend to and learn from commercials, and that advertising is at least moderately successful in creating positive attitudes toward and the desire for products advertised. The variable that emerged most clearly across numerous studies as a strong determinant of children’s perception of television advertising is the child’s age. Research clearly establishes that children become more skilled in evaluating television advertising as they grow older, and that to treat all children from 2 to 12 as a homogenous group masks important, perhaps crucial differences.

  • Do you think the majority view is correct in this case? What difference would it make that a majority thinks this way?
  • Do you think the use of commercials in children’s television programming raises any ethical questions? Do explain.
  • Do you wish to place evidence for what you say before your classmates?
WEEK 2: GOOD VS. EVIL

55 unread replies.1313 replies.

Personal struggles with one’s own tendencies, desires, lusts, and self-interest have placed people in conflict with other people and their own communities farther back than any of us can read.  We read about the struggles of others in history — what about ourselves?  Yes, us!  What about our experiences of being ourselves?

When we look back in history, we find people who are not so different from us — struggling with their human nature — and trying to live ethical lives in whatever way they can do so.  They aspire to live ethical lifes and find themselves failing again and again.

St. Augustine  in the 5th Century held that although we feel free to make choices in life, our true nature as human beings includes a persistent disregard for what is good. On this view, we are sinners whose only hope for redemption lies in the gracious love of a merciful deity. Whatever I do on my own, Augustine would argue, is bound to be wrong; whatever I do right, must be performed by God through me.

St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century brought Aristotle’s theories back into “vogue,” soon after St. Augustine’s death (if 800 years is soon, that is.)  He allowed humanity to have a bit of secularity along with faith, and his ethics allows for a Natural Law which can be found in the heart of man.  Please be sure to listen to our Saints’ Debate on the lecture tab before working in this thread.

So, here we are in the 21st Century with all the sophistication and technology of the age.  Does this account of human nature fit well with your own experience of human action? That is, do you observe (in yourself and others) an inclination toward evil instead of toward good?  Bring in examples of scenarios which bolster your view, or which tend to bring your view (or others) into question.

ETHC 445 Week 2 ETHICAL DILEMMA ANALYSIS

Collaborate with your team, using Cisco Spark, email, phone meetings, or any collaboration tool you find useful or prefer. In your collaboration, consider the ethical dilemmas below and select 1 in which to conduct a deep drill.

Ethical Dilemma 1: A newspaper columnist signs a contract with a newspaper chain. Several months later, she is offered a position with another newspaper chain, offering a higher salary. Because she would prefer making more money, she notifies the first chain that she is breaking her contract. The courts will decide the legality of her action, but what of the morality? Did the columnist behave ethically?

Ethical Dilemma 2: An airline pilot receives his regular medical checkup. The doctor discovers that he has developed a heart murmur. The pilot only has a month to go before he is eligible for retirement. The doctor knows this and wonders whether, under these unusual circumstances, she is justified in withholding information from the company regarding the pilot’s condition.

Ethical Dilemma 3: An office worker has had a record of frequent absence. He has used all his vacation and sick-leave days, and has frequently requested additional leave without pay. His supervisor and co-workers have expressed great frustration because his absenteeism has caused bottlenecks in paperwork, created low morale in the office, and required others to do his work in addition to their own. However, the individual believes he is entitled to take his earned time and additional time off without pay. Is he right?

Ethical Dilemma 4: Rhonda enjoys socializing with fellow employees at work, but their discussions usually consist of gossiping about other people, including several of her friends. At first, Rhonda feels uncomfortable talking in this way about people she is close to; but then she decides it does no real harm, and she feels no remorse for joining in.

In conjunction with the readings, and within your teams, decide which ethical dilemma you believe is most problematic and why. In your teams, discuss the ideas of “good vs. evil,” “wrong vs. right,” and “ought/should be vs. what is.” Form the readings, discuss the ways in which Augustine and Aquinas would have solved the problem based on lecture and course reading material. In what ways do Augustine and Aquinas differ and why?

You may wish to meet throughout the week to share ideas. Create a report of your findings as individuals and as a team. The report should be approximately 2 pages accompanied by a 2-minute oral presentation, using VoiceThread or a PowerPoint narrated slide show.

Rubric

Ethical Dilemma Analysis

Ethical Dilemma Analysis
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose

The paper has a clear purpose that begins with a solid introduction/thesis, and compels the reader forward.

25.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

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

The analysis shows depth of critical thought. Readings, collaborations, and course materials are leveraged powerfully in support of writer’s evident effort to understand ethical problems. Good use of theoretical underpinnings are used.

25.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, Style

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 refers to dynamic writing, avoiding passive constructions, writing that shows, describes, and compels the reader’s interest.

25.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

25.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSlides
15.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOral Narration
10.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

10.0 pts
Total Points: 100.0

ETHC 445 Week 3 Living Ethically through a Social Contract DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 3 Discussions

WEEK 3: THE DEATH PENALTY

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.

Topic

First, here is a word of caution. With this discussion comes a tasking to discuss the death penalty in two ways: first, as an expression of the social contract, where one person has killed another in a violation of that other person’s right to peace and safety, and second, as a rules-based function of the justice system being applied to a difficult situation.

What do you see going on that is a violation of the Hobbes/Locke social contract idea?
And you might also connect it with any of the Three Schools, plus Aristotle, that you have read in past weeks—and especially with the rules-based ethics model.

Here’s the situation: In Manatee County, Florida, a judge sentenced a man to death—the first time this had happened in the county for over 19 years. Sentenced to death was a 25-year-old man for the January 7, 2004, murder of both of his parents by bludgeoning them to death in their bed with a baseball bat.

Now, with your social contract ethicist hats on, tell us what you make of this quote by the judge at the sentencing, quoted from the front page of the November 17, 2007 Bradenton Herald: “You have not only forfeited your right to live among us, but under the laws of the state of Florida, you have forfeited the right to live at all.”

Have at it, good folks. But, rather than running off with reactions and opinions about the death penalty in general, please do keep it in the context of our social contract discussion for this week and also connected with ethics of justice.

 

WEEK 3: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Social Contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as well.

Hobbes runs the logic like this in the form of a logical syllogism:
1) We are all self-interested,
2) Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests,
3) We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order,

Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.

Thomas Hobbes
 looked to the past to observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was “nasty, brutish, and short” — a kind of perpetual state of warfare

John Locke disagreed, and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Listen to Locke’s audio on the lecture tab and read his lecturette to be able to answer this thread.

Locke addressed Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he attribute this claim to “some men” not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature. For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action to themselves punish wrong doers, as in a state of nature.

Which philosophy do you espouse?

In coming to grips with the two and considering your experience of society as it is today, think out loud about what you experiences as the State of Nature, and tell us what you would be willing to give up in exchange for civil order and personal security?

You might consider what you have already given up in exchange for security as well as what might be required in coming days.

ETHC 445 Week 3 GREATER GOOD ANALYSIS

Working in teams, consider the following three problems. In writing a paper about each problem, identify the consequences of the actions taken, and then determine whether the actions taken represented a greater good, who would benefit from the good, and whether the consequences ethically justify the decisions and actions.

The Mayor of a large city was given a free membership in an exclusive golf club by people who have received several city contracts. He also accepted gifts from organizations that have not done business with the City, but might in the future. The gifts ranged from $200 tickets to professional sports events to designer watches and jewelry.

A college instructor is pursuing her doctorate in night school. To gain extra time for her own studies, she gives her students the same lectures, the same assignments, and the same examinations semester after semester without the slightest effort to improve them.

Todd and Edna have been married for three years. They have had serious personal problems. Edna is a heavy drinker, and Todd cannot keep a job. Also, they have bickered and fought constantly since their marriage. Deciding that the way to overcome their problems is to have a child, they stop practicing birth control, and Edna becomes pregnant.

Using what you have learned from collaborations, discussions, and readings up to this week, explore your answers to these ethical dilemmas.  How would Locke have addressed or solved the problem? Explain how his ethics and the answer he may have given are different from or the same as yours.

Compose a 2 page paper and oral narration of 2 minutes, discussing all three ethical dilemmas in depth.

Rubric

Greater Good Analysis

Greater Good Analysis
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose

The analyses have clear purpose that begins with a solid introduction/thesis, and compels the reader forward.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

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

Writer plumbs the depth of the ethical dilemmas with evident granular detail. Team input and course materials are leveraged powerfully and with reflective detail.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Mechanics, StyleDescription of criterion

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 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.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSlides
20.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

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

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

15.0 pts
Total Points: 125.0

ETHC 445 Week 4 Kant’s Ethics and Our Duty DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 4 Discussions

WEEK 4: DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

11 unread reply.1515 replies.

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.

Topic

Increasing food supplies are necessary to sustain growing populations around the world and their appetites for great food, quality products, and continuous availability.

A great deal of expensive research is invested in developing technologies to deliver productive agriculture. Horticultural efforts to breed hybrid crops are seen as far back as history can observe, and there have been efforts to domesticate improved animals, as well. Gene splitting was a 1990s technology to improve the health and productivity of farm crops. With the 21st century have come genetically modified foods (GMF) through the use of nanotechnology to cause changes at the genetic and even molecular levels. These are very expensive technologies, and many new products have been patented and otherwise protected as proprietary products of intellectual property.

Drive out to the country during growing season, and you will see signs identifying that the crop has been grown with a protected seed that cannot be used to produce retained seed for planting in the next growing season.

In terms of this week’s TCOs, what ethical issues are raised by this legal process of patent protection, and how do we see the primary schools of ethics used in these proprietary measures? What, in this deontological week and in our learning to date, informs our understanding of this situation, and what should be done about it?

 

WEEK 4: KANT AND THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Kant’s famous First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative reads:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant taught morality as a matter of following maxims of living that reflect absolute laws. “Universal” is a term that allows for no exceptions, and what is universal applies always and everywhere. Lying, for any reason, is universally wrong.

Be sure to listen to Kant’s audio lecture before posting this week!

So, consider the famous case of the Crazed Murderer. In your town the Crazed Murderer comes to your door looking for your friend and wanting to kill him. You know that your friend went home to hide. What do you tell the murderer? When he leaves and runs up the street to your friend’s house, what do you do?

ETHC 445 Week 4 ACADEMIC SCHOLARSHIP

Using academic scholarly research, find an article that addresses an ethical dilemma from the past five years and annotate it thoroughly.  What are the key points to the article?  Summarize the dilemma.  What are the key terms of the article?  What conflicts or controversies does it raise?  Where can you offer analysis or an original point of view?  Once you have a handle on the article and your reaction to the issues it raises, use it as a foundation to

  1. Create your own 2-4 paragraph “dilemma.”
  2. Apply Kant’s Categorical Imperative to the problem you invent.
  3. Apply any other method you have encountered in lecture material and the readings.
  4. State which method you prefer and why.
  5. Work with a partner collaboratively to share and divide this work for optimal results.

Your paper should be 3 pages.  You MUST provide the source of the foundation dilemma, and thus this paper will require 1 reference using at least 1 correct in-text citation (indicating quoted or paraphrased material from the article and where to locate it).  Use APA format in citing the source.  Refer to course resources for details and help in achieving APA style.

Work with a partner to share this assignment collaboratively and create a combined oral presentation.  Consider creating a youtube video, MP3 podcast (if you have those skills) or a video presentation.

Rubric

Academic Scholarship

Academic Scholarship
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction

Writer provides a solid example of academic scholarship, related to a specific real-world problem. The source is written by a professional ethicist, scholar, appears in a peer-reviewed journal, and has ample references of its own.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnnotation Quality

The writer annotates the source fully, considering the main points, key terms used (with in-text citation of pages); s/he analyzes content for implications, consequences, and subtle problems and controversies. S/he establishes points of agreement/disagreement and gives cause. S/he locates 1 or 2 pithy quotations that will serve as evidence in his/her analysis. Course material and team input is leveraged powerfully.

40.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

40.0 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.

35.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

35.0 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: 150.0

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

ETHC 445 Week 6 Ethics in Human Relationships Week DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 6 Discussions

WEEK 6: APPLYING RAND’S OBJECTIVISM

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.

Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy has been touted by her detractors as the philosophy of self-interested selfishness.

Her four epistemological principles are:
1. Metaphysics: Objective reality of the world and the objects in it.
2. Epistemology: Reason as the one and only key to understanding.
3. Ethics: Self-interest in what behavior is but also what it should be.
4. Politics: Capitalism through the performance of deeds by individuals who are self-interested.

In the early 1960’s, a student asked a spokesman for Objectivism what would happen to the poor in an Objectivist’s free society.
The spokesman answered, “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped.”

If one reads Rand’s works, Atlas Shrugged, or The Fountainhead, one will conclude that this would be the answer Ayn would have given to that student as well.

  • What do you conclude from the answer given by the Objectivist spokesperson?
  • Is Objectivism, like Moral Relativism, the opposite of ethics?
  • And what clue in what she taught leads to your conclusion?

 

WEEK 6: WORKING CONFLICT RESOLUTION METHODS

Different ways to analyze ethical behaviors and dilemmas exist, and many of them will help direct you to the correct or “best” solution to a problem.

As we discussed in week 1 in the “tough choices” .pdf, sometimes right vs. right or wrong vs. wrong decisions have to be made.

In the lecture this week, you are given three ethical dilemma resolution models to try out on a dilemma provided there. Please review that interactive before posting to the threads this week, and let’s bring your questions and comments about the “proposed” solutions here to the threads.  We will talk about that through mid-week, and then I will post a new dilemma here where we will, as a group, begin analyzing it using the different methods.

You will need to be able to use these three models (Blanchard and Peale, Laura Nash and Front page of the Newspaper) on the final exam … so let’s be sure to practice all three of them together this week.

So, to start this off, let’s address the dilemma in the Week 6 Lecture interactive (in the middle of the page). You MUST read the lecture and run the interactive in order to participate in the threads this week!

  1. Review the sample solution to the Laura Nash method. Do you agree with that analysis? If so, what parts do you think really helped you work through the dilemma? If not, which parts do you not agree with?
  2. Review the sample solution to the Front Page of the Newspaper method. Do you think this is one of those types of dilemmas for which this model works? If not, why not? If so, why? How did using this method help you work through the dilemma?
  3. Review the sample solution to the Blanchard and Peale method. Do you agree with the analysis? If not, why not? If so, in what way did this help you analyze this dilemma?

Pick ONE of the above 3 questions and let’s get started. Or, respond to another student with details about why you agree or disagree with their analysis. Feel free to kindly debate with each other. Do not take things personally if someone disagrees. Be sure to show that you have viewed the lecture and interactive and that you attempted an analysis for “high quality” posts this week. After Wednesday, I will bring in another scenario and we can analyze that one together as a class.

ETHC 445 Week 6 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

Examine the Case Study for your analysis about professional responsibilities and decision-making during a crisis called “Command at Sea.” In teams or partners, discuss the decision possibilities within the case study and create a report of your findings. Be sure to read and understand the case thoroughly.

Rubric

Case Study Analysis

Case Study Analysis
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction

Writer summarizes the case, showing in-depth understanding and a compelling purpose for writing. Introduces possible perspectives to be detailed in the report.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis Quality

Both team collaboration and individual critical thought are evident and are clearly and compellingly presented.

40.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

40.0 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.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
Total Points: 100.0

ETHC 445 Week 7 Wrapping it up and Making it personal DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 7 Discussions

WEEK 7: CODES OF 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.

This week, we looked at two more ethical codes—one for the Project Management Institute, and one for Engineers.
(Find links to these professional codes in the Week 7 Assignment tab along with the Week 7 readings.)

You can see that both of them are much simpler than the Legal code we looked at last week, and even simpler than the Medical code of ethics. Appropriate professional behavior, practice, and discipline varies among professions and reflects the needs and values of the professional society in question.

Let’s then assume professional roles as we work on this fictional scenario:

It’s 2020, and General Foryota Company opens a plant in which to build a new mass-produced hover-craft. This hover-craft will work using E-85 Ethanol, will travel up to 200 mph, and will reduce pollution worldwide at a rate of 10 percent per year. It is likely that when all automobiles in the industrial world have been changed over to hovercrafts, emission of greenhouse gasses may be so reduced that global warming may end and air quality will become completely refreshed.

However, the downside is that during the transition time, GFC’s Hover-Vee (only available in red or black), will most likely put all transportation as we know it in major dissaray. Roadways will no longer be necessary, but new methods of controlling traffic will be required. Further, while the old version of cars are still being used, Hover-vee’s will cause accidents, parking issues, and most likely class envy and warfare. The sticker price on the first two models will be about four times that of the average SUV (to about $200,000.) Even so, GFC’s marketing futurists have let them know that they will be able to pre-sell their first three years of expected production, with a potential waiting list which will take between 15 and 20 years to fill.

The Chief Engineer of GFC commissions a study on potential liabilities for the Hover-vees. The preliminary result is that Hover-vees will likely kill or maim humans at an increased rate of double to triple over automobile travel because of collisions and crashes at high speeds — projected annual death rates of 100,000 to 200,000. However, global warming will end, and the environment will flourish.

The U. S. Government gets wind of the plans. Congress begins to discuss the rules on who can own and operate Hover-vees. GFC’s stock skyrockets. The Chief Engineer takes the results of the study to the Chief Legal Counsel, and together they agree to bury the study, going forward with the production plans. The Chief Project Manager, who has read the study and agreed to bury it, goes ahead and plans out the project for the company, with target dates and production deadlines.

Our class is a team of young lawyers, project managers, engineers, and congressional aides who are all part of the process of helping get this project off the ground. In fact, according to the first letter of your last name, you are the following team:

A-G: Attorney on the GFC team
H-N: Project Manager on the GFC team
0-S: Engineer on the GFC team
T-Z: Congressional Aide

Somebody sent a secret copy of the report to you at your home address. It has no information in it at all, except for the report showing the proof of the increase in accidents and deaths. The report shows, on its face, that the CLO, CE, CPM, and your Congressional Representative have seen copies of this report. On the front there are these words typed in red: They knew — they buried this. Please save the world!

Each of you feel a very loyal tie to your boss and your company/country. You all have mortgages, and families to feed. It is likely if you blow the whistle on this report, you will lose your job and your livelihood. You’re not even sure who wrote the study in your envelope or who actually sent it to you.

Now to the task at hand:
Utilizing your profession’s code of ethics, what would be your first step? Who would you talk to first? Would you go to the press? Would you go to your boss? Should you do anything at all?

 

WEEK 7: PERSONAL ETHICS

Please be sure to read the Week Seven Lesson in its entirety before posting to this discussion.

This week we will work on creating your own statement of personal ethics.
To get started, read summarizing review of our great and famous ethics and what they have taught us — found in our lecture this week.

Then, let’s work on creating one for you.

Your goal for the end of this thread is to have created a personal ethical philosophy and be able to tell your classmates from which philosophies you created it and why the contents are important and meaningful for you. List its precepts. (You will need to do this on the Final Exam.)

After you have assembled and posted your personal ethics statement, responded to what others may have said to you and thought about what you have posted to others, then take your statement and use it to work through the famous case of the Ring of Gyges.

One of the great examples of ethics and morals in all of literature comes from Plato who wrote about the Ring of Gyges in
The Republic, Book II, starting at paragraph 359a.
For those who wish to read the whole story, it is in the Doc Sharing tab and here is a link to the story — Ring of Gyges (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..

The story goes that Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the King. In a most unusual circumstance he came upon a dead man, removed the man’s ring, and discovered that it made him invisible. He conspired to take the periodic report of the shepherds to the King — once there he seduced the Queen and eventually took control of the Kingdom by conspiring with the Queen. Plato continues the story:

“Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right.”

This story raises up the question of what sanctions prevent people from just taking any liberties they are inclined to take.
The whole subject of ethics, seen in large scale, is that of accepting and living under moral standards.

  1. Using YOUR personal ethical statement that you have created, what would you do if you had that second ring?
    2. What else within this course helps in responding to this fictitious situation or in explaining it?
    3. Respond to your classmates’ posts. Are they holding true to their own personal ethical philosophies in their resolutions of this dilemma?

Pick one or more of the above, and post below!
Imagine that! ;o)

ETHC 445 Week 7 MAKE-UP WORK 

There is no new homework due this week. However, if your grade is not where you would like it to be, consult with your professor about revising an earlier assignment or creating a missing assignment. Revisions are to be substantive and show quality and improvement.

ETHC 445 Week 8 Final Exam DeVry

ETHC 445 Week 8 Discussion

WEEK 8: REFLECTION

This is our final week. Use this week’s threaded discussion and your collaborations together to draft a Reflective Assessment to be formally finalized for grade as an oral presentation.

This is a good time to be looking back over this course and thinking ahead to what comes next for you.

Courses like this one intend to expand your horizons by bringing new ideas and more refined ways of thinking about the kinds of decisions and commitments that you will make both in career and in life as a whole.

This course is Foundations of Ethics. Whatever you do and wherever you do it, you have gained tools of thinking and analysis that will serve you well. Keep these tools handy and at the forefront of your attention — whatever it is that will come into your hands in the future. You are far more equipped for leadership than you were a few short weeks ago.

So, here are a few questions for this final week in class to help you reflect for the last formal assignment:

  1. What of all that you have learned and practiced in this class will make the most significant impact(s) in your study of your declared major here at DeVry and in your career as you envision it?
  2. How might this course experience connect with and inform what you are looking forward to learning more about throughout your education and career as a lifelong learner?
  3. Consider how one learns: how much learning is individual? How much learning is socially achieved by discussing with one or more people in a variety of roles?
  4. To what extent is knowledge something one finds? To what extent is knowledge something one creates through interpretation, application, and analysis?
  5. What are the differences between information and knowledge?

ETHC 445 Week 8 REFLECTIVE ASSIGNMENT

You began this session considering a moral-ethical dilemma you yourself faced 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.

Now that you’ve had an opportunity to explore ethics formally, create a reflective assessment. Revisit your ethical memoir: what ethical theory best applies to your experience? Which significant author you have studied most speaks to your own ethical paradigm as you are (re)forming it now? If you didn’t resolve your ethical dilemma when you experienced it, what would you do now and why?

Additionally, explore your process of transformation in this course. Discuss your experiences of the course, your beginnings, and where you are at now with your team or partners and create an oral presentation that reflectively assesses your learning experience and the collaborations you engaged in throughout this session. Are we a society of learners who greatly benefit from interactions? Or are we islands, whose individual systems and beliefs are exclusive to ourselves? [Note: You may find it useful to write your thoughts out in an essay form, but the essay is not required in the drop box. Instead, focus on visual and audio quality, poise, and grace in the execution of this assignment. Let your content and stylistic choices reign creatively, and let your message be compelling, persuasive, and convincing.]

Rubric

Reflective Assignment

Reflective Assignment
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAssessment Content

Includes, but is not limited to the following: • Time spent in collaboration • Time spent on the course • Challenges encountered • Solutions • Research takeaway • Organization strategies with teams • Collaboration and the modern workplace • Overall value of the time spent

40.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

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

Slides are attractive. Items are bulleted and spoken to (rather than typed out). Visual images are graceful and support the content.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOral Presentation Quality

Student speaks with clarity, authority, and is eloquent. The audio is clear. The student does not sound as if s/he is reading a text, but is orally prepared and graceful, poised, and convincing.

30.0 pts

Full Marks

0.0 pts

No Marks

30.0 pts
Total Points: 100.0

Download File Now


ECET 220 Week 8 Complete DeVry

ECET 220 Week 8 Complete DeVry

Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:

https://www.coursetutor.us/product/ecet-220-week-8-complete-devry/

ECET 220 Week 8 Final Exam DeVry

ECET 220 Week 8 Discussion

WEEK 8: LOOKING AHEAD

Class, looking back over the Course Objectives for this course, what are you looking forward to learning more about throughout your education and career?

ECET 220 Week 8 Final Exam

Instructions

Here is some information about your Final Exam.

  • The Final Exam is comprehensive covering textbook Chapters 2–9, 11, and 12.
  • The Final Exam covers all course COs.
  • The Final Exam consists of nine multiple choice problems with eight questions worth 5 points each and one questions worth 10 points (50 points total), 15 short answer questions worth 10 points each (150 points total), and two essay problems worth 15 points each (30 points total).
  • The entire Final Exam is worth 230 points and it makes up 23% of the final grade.
  • You will have 3 hours and 30 minutes to complete the Final Exam.
  • Please SAVE your answers frequently, because when the time limit is reached you will automatically be exited from the exam.
  • The Final Exam consists of three pages; which you don’t need to complete in order.

Important Note to Students Regarding Instructions: Entering Math Symbols by Regular English Keyboard for the Final Exam.

Please follow the following convention to enter math symbols by keyboard.

“+” for addition

“-“ for subtraction

“=” for equal to

“/” for division

“*” For multiplication

“^” for superscript

“_” for subscript

“<” for less than

“>” for greater than

“pi” for 3.14159

“||” for parallel (for example, R_1||R_2 for “R1 is in parallel with R2)

“sqrt” for square root (of course anther way is to use (…)^(0.5))

Also please make sure that you use parenthesis properly {[(…)]} for precedence of operations.

 

Download File Now


ECET 220 Week 7 Complete DeVry

ECET 220 Week 7 Complete DeVry

Just Click on Below Link To Download This Course:

https://www.coursetutor.us/product/ecet-220-week-7-complete-devry/

ECET 220 Week 7 Active Filters DeVry

ECET 220 Week 7 Lab

Lab 7 of 7: Lab Project: Active Filter Design (40 points)

Scenario/Summary

The purpose of this lab project is to design and analyze a Sallen-Key low-pass filter with a single op amp and two RC circuits based on the specifications provided.

You will design and analyze a Sallen-Key low-pass filter with a single op amp and two RC circuits. The filter should feature a −40 dB/decade roll-off rate, follow the steps provided in the lab instructions, and write a report.

Deliverables

This lab’s deliverables include the laboratory’s template following guildelines listed in the Instructions and Report template.

The entire lab is worth 40 points. See instruction’s document for grading information.

Required Software

MultiSim Software

Access the software at https://lab.devry.edu (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
Steps: 1, 2, and 3

Lab Steps

STEP 1: Download the Lab

Download the W7 Lab Instructions and Worksheet and save them to your PC.

Note: These items are found in the Files section.

STEP 2: Formal Lab Report Guidelines

The report must contain the following key parts.

  • Title Page
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Illustrations
  • Project Specification
  • Description of Operation
  • Documentation of Software Simulation and Hardware Implementation
  • Appendices (data sheets, reference, material, etc.)
  • References

STEP 3: Carry Out Instructions in the Lab Instructions

Pay careful attention to details on the report’s requirements and the formal lab report guidelines.

STEP 9: Complete All Key Sections Listed in the Report Template

Type all required information onto the sections within the Report template.

STEP 10: Submit Your Deliverables

Submit only the Report Template with its report.

 

ECET 220 Week 7 CHAPTER PROBLEMS

Chapter 9 Problems: 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 17, and 19

Refer to the textbook to answer the problems found at the end of each chapter.

Remember to submit your assignment for grading.

 

ECET 220 Week 7 COURSE PROJECT

Your final Course Project deliverable is due this week.

Please review the Course Project Overview in Introduction and Resources.

Be sure to submit your assignment.

Download File Now