Ethical Views On Same-sex Marriage And David Hume Presentation please i need the presentation as soon as possible in 1d&12h more info in the attach Prese

Ethical Views On Same-sex Marriage And David Hume Presentation please i need the presentation as soon as possible in 1d&12h

more info in the attach

Presentations

You only need to summarize, in your own words, the conclusion of your first progress report (a virtue ethics perspective on your topic), the conclusion of your second progress report (a deontological analysis), and a utilitarian analysis. Next, share your, overall conclusion on your topic (“I think the death penalty is unethical because…”). Finally, share your thoughts on which of the 3 ethical schools of thought to be most compelling or most helpful for thinking through ethical questions (“I find the Categorical Imperative most helpful because…”, “I am a convinced utilitarian because…”—Note: you don’t have to agree with just 1, or with any, school of thought). It should be about five minutes long.

ETHICS RESEARCH TOPIC

You will have to explore this issue through the perspectives of each ethical school. The reports concern the first two ethical schools covered (respectively), you must present on the perspective of each school, compare & contrast the schools of thought (the benefits of each, how convincing each is, etc.), and conclude with your opinion. The final paper consists of the same, but more thoroughly demonstrated.

Final Paper

The final paper is essentially a revised, more thoroughly argued, and properly composed essay-version of your presentation. The word limit is ~1,500 words, but, as always, this is not a hard limit. You can decide which format to use, just be consistent. Properly cite your works, but only cite primary sources (ex: do not cite an article about Kant’s ethics). When citing a broad idea (such as “moderation”) you can just cite a chapter (sans translator, publisher, etc.). When citing a direct quote or a specific idea (such as the Formulation of Autonomy), cite the page number. Use a full citation (translator, publisher, year, etc.) for direct quotes and specific ideas if you are not citing from the common texts (the Bartlett & Collins translation of the Nicomachean Ethics and the Hackett editions of the Grounding for a Metaphysics of Morals and Utilitarianism).

As with your presentation, your final paper will consist of six (though, not necessarily equal) parts:

An introduction to your topic

A virtue ethics/Aristotelian analysis of your topic

A deontological/Kantian analysis

A utilitarian analysis

Your conclusion on the topic (The death penalty is/is not ethical because…)

Your reflection on the different schools of thought (which school of thought you found most helpful/which parts of each you thought were most compelling/etc.) Final Paper,
Presentations
Presentations
You only need to summarize, in your own words, the conclusion of your first progress report (a virtue ethics
perspective on your topic), the conclusion of your second progress report (a deontological analysis), and a
utilitarian analysis. Next, share your, overall conclusion on your topic (“I think the death penalty is unethical
because…”). Finally, share your thoughts on which of the 3 ethical schools of thought to be most compelling or
most helpful for thinking through ethical questions (“I find the Categorical Imperative most helpful because…”,
“I am a convinced utilitarian because…”—Note: you don’t have to agree with just 1, or with any, school of
thought). It should be about five minutes long.
Final Paper
The final paper is essentially a revised, more thoroughly argued, and properly
composed essay-version of your presentation. The word limit is ~1,500 words, but,
as always, this is not a hard limit. You can decide which format to use, just
be consistent. Properly cite your works, but only cite primary sources (ex: do not cite
an article about Kant’s ethics). When citing a broad idea (such as “moderation”) you
can just cite a chapter (sans translator, publisher, etc.). When citing a direct quote or
a specific idea (such as the Formulation of Autonomy), cite the page number. Use a
full citation (translator, publisher, year, etc.) for direct quotes and specific ideas if you
are not citing from the common texts (the Bartlett & Collins translation of
the Nicomachean Ethics and the Hackett editions of the Grounding for a
Metaphysics of Morals and Utilitarianism).
As with your presentation, your final paper will consist of six (though, not necessarily
equal) parts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
An introduction to your topic
A virtue ethics/Aristotelian analysis of your topic
A deontological/Kantian analysis
A utilitarian analysis
Your conclusion on the topic (The death penalty is/is not ethical because…)
Your reflection on the different schools of thought (which school of thought you found most helpful/which parts
of each you thought were most compelling/etc.)
ETHICS RESEARCH TOPIC
You will have to explore this issue through the perspectives of each ethical school. The reports
concern the first two ethical schools covered (respectively), you must present on the perspective
of each school, compare & contrast the schools of thought (the benefits of each, how convincing
each is, etc.), and conclude with your opinion. The final paper consists of the same, but more
thoroughly demonstrated.
•
•
•
•
•
Abortion (on demand, sex-selective, Downs syndrome-selective)
Prostitution
Pornography
Contraception
Recreational drug use
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Freedom of speech, censorship
Genetically-designed children
Human cloning
Plastic surgery
Violent video games
Human trafficking
Immigration issues (assimilation, amnesty, deportation)
Internet privacy (including governments surveillance or private data collection, ie Facebook)
Enhanced interrogation
Buying & selling organs
Food stamps
Euthanasia
Assisted suicide
Capital punishment
Hunting animals for sport
Vegetarianism
Animal captivity
Affirmative action
Conscientious objection (to being conscripted for war)
The cochlear implant
The Henrietta Lacks case
Sexualization of women in the music industry
Same-sex marriage
Sexual reassignment surgery for minors
Foster care
Gun control
Police issues (brutality, etc.)
Trying minors as adults
Conservation
For-profit prisons
Medical marijuana
Censoring graphic art, free expression
Female Circumcision
Universal Healthcare
Texts:
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Robert C. Bartlett & Susan D. Collins, University of Chicago Press – ISBN:
0226026752
Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant, trans. James W. Ellington, Hackett Publishing Company,
3rd edition – ISBN: 087220166X
Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, Hackett Publishing Company, 2nd edition – ISBN: 087220605X
First report :
~500 words. An analysis of your topic from the perspective of virtue
ethics. Attached are samples from former students. You do not need citations or
technical terminology (though you will need citations for the final paper).
A successful analysis will explore:
•
•
•
•
What is the relation of your topic to human excellence and flourishing (in the individual and/or the
community)?
Who are the persons acting? What are their character-traits? Who is being affected (if any)? What tools are
being used, what is the manner of acting (ex: gently or cruelly), and what is the desired end result?
If it is a matter of law, what sort of habits would it encourage or discourage? What character-traits would
describe a community with said law?
What are the relevant virtues? What would the excesses and deficiencies look like? For example, if bodily
pleasures are involved, they would be Moderation and Self-Restraint. If 2 or more people are affected, the social
virtues (friendliness, truthfulness, and wittiness), justice (certainly if external goods are being distributed or
exchanged), and/or friendship might be related.
Second report :
400 words
Apply the Categorical Imperative to your ethical topic! Remember, each formulation of the
Categorical Imperative is supposed to be the same idea expressed in different ways (which is
why they are repetitive). Some formulations will be more helpful for tackling certain topics,
and other formulations for other topics (still consider them all, even the ones which do not
seem to help).
First, consider its universalizability: what if everyone committed theft/murder/lied/etc.? or
nobody?
Then, consider each rational beingas an end-in-itself: a person is never to be treated merely as
a means/a tool, but as the end/goal of actions. You cannot manipulate, exploit, or use a
person. Ex: if you lie about paying back money, you are also using someone solely as a
means to get free money.
Next, consider autonomy (which follows from universalizability and is the reason why
rational beings are ends-in-themselves). Similar to the first question, would the person acting
lay this down as a law for himself/herself to be subjected to? AND are they (whoever is
deciding) acting heteronomously (driven by some desire or outcome instead of a purely
rational goodwill)? Remember, for Kant what matters is the intention (or “maxim”), not
outcomes, consequences, feelings, incentives, fears, desires, etc. The only truly good actions
are done for the sake of duty.
Finally, if your choice was laid down as a law, would it harmonize with the “ideal
community” of humankind? This is helpful for considering imperfect duties (things which are
praiseworthy, but not indispensable. For example, it might be possible to imagine everyone
not giving to charity, but it is hard to reconcile this with the notion of each person as a thing
of infinite worth. It is also helpful for indirect duties. Indirect duties, as the name implies, are
duties which are not inherently good, but performing them helps us fulfill our true
duties. For example, we have an indirect duty to not be cruel to animals because people are
who are cruel to animals eventually become cruel to persons. If the above three formulations
do not help you reach a conclusion, chances are this final one will.
FORMULATIONS OF THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE:
Formula of Universal Law p.30
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law.”
Formula of End-in-Itself p.36
“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”
Formula of Autonomy p.38
“The idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law.”
“A will which is subject to law… nevertheless a will that is itself a supreme lawgiver.”
Formula of Kingdom of Ends p.39-40; 43
“Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating
member in the universal kingdom of ends.”
Aristotle’s Perception on Same-Sex Marriage
It is evident that man is one of the social beings. Despite being a social being, man must
reason and make rational decisions that will make him happy. Men strive for happiness; hence,
one will use different ways to reach for that happiness. Aristotle argues that same-sex marriage
allows individuals to fulfill their happiness and function. Happiness is the most desirable aspect
that makes human beings to socialize, which is a desirable trait across the world. Therefore, why
should one deny one to achieve the desirable thing? Same-sex marriage according to Aristotle is
final end. In the Nicomachean Ethics and same-sex marriage, Aristotle indicates that what is
right is considered to be the final end. The ultimate good is the happiness which allows
individuals to experience pleasure. Pleasure is the happiness that individuals who advocate samesex marriage look for; hence, they experience happiness since they are with someone they love.
Therefore, their goal is to get full happiness so that they can realize their function.
Generally, individuals need to be happy and enjoy life. Same-sex marriage makes a
person devoted to it happy; thus, no one should deny one the opportunity to enjoy life with other
partners. Individuals should not be denied happiness because they fear gossips that he or she
loves a person who is of similar sex. Enjoy full happiness, and nobody should hinder one to
enjoy total happiness. Aristotle asserts that individuals choose happiness because they like it
and not for something else. Therefore, those who favor or embrace same-sex marriage do not
make other people angry. In fact, they are looking for happiness. Aristotle indicates that when
human are socializing, they are looking for happiness; hence, no one should deny them that
happiness they want to enjoy. Marry whoever you think is right and a person who will love you
so that happiness is attained. What a human being considers moral should perfect his or her
rationality since he or she engaged brain when reasoning. Aristotle indicates that man was
created so that he or she can socialize with others. Despite same-sex marriage not being legally
sanctioned Aristotle does not condemn it. Aristotle argues that nowhere is written that it is
unnatural because the relationships that are formed by same-sex partners grow. A man should
exercise his faculty so that he can be happy. If happiness can only be found when individuals of
same-sex marry then, no one should separate them since one would be interfering with man
function. It will be unethical to separate people who love each other.
It is significant to note that there are three types of good. These goods are; external
goods, soul and body goods. Love is associated with the soul; hence, homosexuals and lesbians
are denied the best good. Do not deny someone what is considered as pleasurable experience
since if one has chosen an individual to marry it is unethical to deny him or her opportunity on
the basis of same-sex. This will be regarded as discrimination against a particular group.
“Aristotle stated that a man who loves a horse loves a horse because that is what he finds
pleasure in” therefore, do not hinder others from marrying people of similar sex since he or she
has found pleasure on him or her. Do not force people to remain alone in their life since human
beings are social beings. Denying an individual’s right to marry the same sex is telling them to
stay alone in their lifetime; hence, they will not find happiness and pleasure. Same-sex marriage
according to Aristotle increase happiness among the people who practice it; therefore, let them
fulfill their happiness.
Feedback to Learner4/8/19 10:52 AM
Well done! But there are a few things you should add. First, although you implicitly make this argument, you
should note that denying same-sex couples marriage would be the vice of injustice (as described in Book V). You
should also consider same-sex marriages are complete friendship (as described in Book VIII), which would mean
both partners make each other virtuous. Finally, you should consider child-rearing (which is a major topic in the gay
marriage debate). Childhood is essentially for shaping character (as described in Book X) and some people suggest
children need a man and woman (I think studies have been done to show to refute this–you should find one). Great
job over all!
Same Sex Marriage by Immanuel Kant
In the context of the same sex marriage, Kant argues that, any sexual activity between
adults is morally right, as long as consent exists. In essence, Kant’s philosophy is clear that
insofar as sexual actions are attributable to persons who are legally responsible and voluntarily
undertaken, they are morally right and legally justifiable. The universal application of same sex
marriage can be approached in two different ways (Marino, 2010). First is to allow same sex
marriage and second is to make it illegal. If same sex marriage is allowed, men are going to
marry men and women will marry their fellow women. If on the other hand same sex marriage is
made illegal, some men will either stay single or keep their fellow men in secret relationships.
Let’s look this issues rationally as an end in itself. Based on this point, Kant says that the right of
the same sex couple to marry is less of an equal rights concern. It is more of the right of two
individuals, whether man and man or otherwise, to establish a rightful domestic sphere with one
another. Based on Kant’s doctrine of right it is possible to understand the conditions under which
a person’s choice can be reconciled with the choices of other people (Marino, 2010).
Following its universalizability and the idea of rational beings, the autonomy of same sex
marriage is end in itself as opposed to a means. The universal doctrine of right advocated by
Kant clearly explains that an action is considered moral if it can exist within the freedoms of
everyone else. On the contrary, an action is immoral if it contradict with other people’s freedoms
or if it is a stumbling block to the other people’s capacity to exercise their rights and freedoms.
Kant mostly borrowed his reasoning from contract law under capacity of one person to the
contract. So, his argument is that same sex marriage is a matter of mutual agreement. Therefore,
no one buys the concert of another but purely a full freedom of choice is in play. As such Kant
laments that same sex marriage is supported by a law of freedom and common will. The Kant’s
arguments would not harmonize with ideal agreement of the community. Kant laments that the
same sex marriages are part of the human state of nature. He also says that it is part of the man’s
goal to attain his personal good and in a quite unique manner. It can therefore be concluded that,
while restricting actions that potentially poses community security concerns, it is always
important to consider that some events merely violate universal social values, thus are not
inclusive enough (Marino, 2010).
Reference
Marino G. D. (2010). Ethics: The Essential Writings, ed. New York, Modern Library.
Feedback to Learner4/21/19 10:52 PM
One of the worst reports I have read. We did not talk about Kant’s doctrine of right (which is separete from his
moral philosophy). This is not based on what we have been reading and talking about in class, both of which I’m
doubting you engaged with. Some sentences also just don’tmake sense, including your conclusion. You just had to
follow the prompt and the different formulations of the Categorical Imperative. What if everyone engaged in gay
marriage? Extinction. Is love or desire to be happy an autonomous reason to get married? No. And so on

Purchase answer to see full
attachment