Ethics

In this assignment you will be asked to consider the role of organizational leaders with respect to ensuring companies work to create an ethical workplace culture. It is important for all upper level leaders to ‘walk the talk’ so to speak. In addition, many larger companies have a Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer who provides leadership and oversight to the company’s business ethics related endeavors. Recall that Lockheed Martin has such an executive level position. However, not all companies have such a position. In this assignment you will be asked to discuss the contributions of executive leaders and of the Ethics Officer with respect to building an organization that values workplace ethics. What do you believe are the most important characteristics of ethical leadership? Describe the relationship between the ethical leader and the follower. Why is this relationship important for organizations that are attempting to do the right thing? Based on your readings (both the articles provided and Terris’ text), what is the role of the Chief Ethics Officer and how does the role of this person relate to the success of the ethics related endeavors within large organizations? SLP Assignment Expectations Your paper should be 2–3 pages, double-spaced and in 12-point type size. Your paper should have a separate cover page and a separate reference page. Make sure you cite your sources. Use APA style, and proofread your paper. Upload your paper by the end of the module.

In the Ancient Greek world (the world of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, often regarded as the birthplace of philosophy) a “symposium” was a banquet held after a meal, an “after party” of sorts that usually included drinking, dancing, recitals and engaging conversations on the topics of the day. For our purposes in this course, the Symposium discussions will not involve dancing, recitals or a banquet, but they will provide food for thought on current ethical issues and direct application of the ethical theory discussed in each of these weeks. It is almost impossible these days to turn on the news or log onto social media without encountering a controversy that cries out for ethical discussion. For these Symposium discussions, your instructor will choose a topic of current ethical interest and a resource associated with it for you to read or watch. Your task is to consider how the ethical theory of the week might be used to examine, understand or evaluate the issue. This week, you will consider how deontology applies to a controversy, dilemma, event, or scenario selected by your instructor. It is a chance for you to discuss together the ethical issues and questions that it raises, your own response to those, and whether that aligns with or does not align with a deontological approach. The aim is not to simply assert your own view or to denigrate other views, but to identify, evaluate, and discuss the moral reasoning involved in addressing the chosen issue. Your posts should remain focused on the ethical considerations, and at some point in your contribution you must specifically address the way someone with a deontological view would approach this issue by explaining and evaluating that approach. If you have a position, you should strive to provide reasons in defense of that position. When responding to peers, you should strive to first understand the reasons they are offering before challenging or critiquing those reasons. One good way of doing this is by summarizing their argument before offering a critique or evaluation. You must post on at least two separate days, must include at least one substantial reply to a peer or to your instructor, and your posts should add up to at least 400 words. Your instructor may include additional requirements, so be sure to pay attention to the prompt. This discussion will be assessed on a 10-point scale and is worth 3% of your final grade. Week 3 Symposium Please read the description above and/or watch the video explaining the symposium and its requirements. If you are still unsure about how to proceed with the discussion, please contact your instructor. This week, we will consider how deontology applies to rights. Please read “What We Owe to Others: Simone Weil’s Radical Reminder (Links to an external site.) ” by Robert Zaretsky (If you have difficulty accessing the link, go through the Ashford Library.) Use these questions to guide your reflection: What is the difference between the “personal” and the “impersonal,” according to Weil? Can you see elements of the Categorical Imperative in Weil’s way of thinking of rights?

ETHC 101 Capstone Essay Instructions Summary This assignment is an essay that brings all of the knowledge and skills developed in this course to bear on a single ethical issue. Each student will write a 2100-2400 word essay (not including the title page, table of contents, and bibliography) that combines the insights and arguments of the second and third discussion boards into a single carefully-articulated work. Format should be 12pt, Times New Roman font and in Turabian format. Content Begin your paper with a brief introductory paragraph that clearly states your goals, thesis, and method. State what metaethical theory you are contrasting to a Christian ethic, the issue in applied ethics you are addressing, the conclusion(s) on that issue that you want to defend. Next, provide a lengthy and detailed comparative analysis of the two metaethical theories—Christian ethics and another theory—showing which theory is stronger. This will likely reflect what you argued for in your Discussion Board Two thread and the feedback that you received from the professor and/or classmates who responded to your thread. Here you can go into much more detail than you could in the Discussion Board, which was limited to 600 words. If you use half of your paper on this section, then it will be roughly three to four pages. Next, proceed to the applied ethics issue that you discussed in your Discussion Board Three thread. Here you should greatly expand upon your argument. Add detail, nuance, and argumentation, providing a fairly complete and comprehensive argument for how a Christian ethic would approach this issue. Or, if you defended an alternate theory in DB 2, formulate an application based on that theory. You may illustrate the issue with real-life examples, but please do not fill your paper with anecdotes. You should anticipate possible objections to your approach to the issue and respond to them in an objective and informed manner. (For ideas on how others might object to your approach, a good place to begin would be your classmate’s reply to your DB3 thread, but you need not stop there. Your own imagination and the many books and articles that have been published on issues in applied ethics can provide a wealth of possible arguments relevant to every issue.) You are encouraged to use quotes from sources as a way to support your arguments, but quotes should not make up more than one and a half pages of your essay. Your final paragraph should reflect what you have argued in your thesis. It should recap what you have accomplished and how you have accomplished it. Research This paper is not required to utilize any sources outside of those that were used in the class (the two textbooks, the videos, and the PointCast presentations), but use of additional resources is permitted and encouraged. At the minimum the paper should utilize the resources from the class. All resources used must be listed in the bibliography and any resources quoted, paraphrased, or alluded to must be documented via footnotes formatted according to Turabian. While your footnotes and bibliography (if you had one) did not count toward the word count for your discussion boards, for this capstone essay both the footnotes and the bibliography count toward the word count. In other words, the 2400 word limit is all-inclusive. You will be penalized if you exceed the limit, so please do not. Format Your paper must begin with a title page that includes a paper title, your name, the date, and the course name and number. The second page of your paper must be a table of contents. The last page of your paper must be devoted to your bibliography. The paper must utilize 12 point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, with one inch margins. It must be double-spaced rather than triple-spaced between paragraphs and there should be only one space after the end of each sentence. Any documentation in the body of your paper must be done via footnotes formatted according to Turabian. If you are not familiar with how to do this, simply look it up online. There are many websites that explain Turabian formatting. Footnotes should be single-spaced 10 point Times New Roman font. Your paper must be submitted as a Microsoft Word document. If you submit it as a .pdf or anything other than a Microsoft Word document it will not be graded. Format Example Title Page Table of Contents Body of Paper: • Introduction • Metaethic • Application • Conclusion Bibliography Miscellany Proofread your work before handing it in! Errors of spelling, grammar, syntax, and punctuation will affect your grade. This is a university-level writing assignment. Please write accordingly. The deadline for this assignment is 11:59pm on Monday of Module 7. Submit your finished paper via the SafeAssign link on Blackboard. SafeAssign is a program that checks your work for plagiarism. Plagiarism is immoral, unchristian, and will not be tolerated. The consequences for plagiarism are significant and SafeAssign makes it easy to detect. If you are not sure what plagiarism is, it is your responsibility to find out. Ignorance is no excuse. Do not plagiarize! This assignment contributes to achieving and assessing the achievement of all four of the Course Learning Outcomes. This assignment is due by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of Module/Week 7.

1.  Evaluate the principles of contemporary business ethics.

Advocate for ethical business behaviors.
Assess the role of a leader in shaping ethical behavior within the organization.
Appraise the level of an organization’s ethical compliance.
Identify ethical dilemmas in the conduct of business activities.
Advocate for ethical business behaviors.
Compare and contrast strategies for ethical decision-making.
Assess the role of a leader in shaping ethical behavior within the organization.
 Explain the characteristics of ethical business culture across industry, national, international, and multicultural boundaries.

Case studies and examples are required as well as thorough research of the topic. References to moral philosophers. Works cited are to include at least six books and two journal articles.

Reference List

1. Scarre, Geoffrey. 2002. Utilitarianism. Vol. Taylor & Francis e-Library ed. London: Routledge.

2. An Examination of the Utilitarian Philosophy By John GroteThoemmes, 1990.

3.Mill’s ‘Utilitarianism’: A Reader’s Guide By Henry R. West London; New York: Continuum, c2007.

4. Utilitarianism and Beyond, edited by Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

5. Quinton, Anthony, Utilitarian ethics. New York: St. Martin’s Press, [1973].

6. Bayles, Michael D. Contemporary Utilitarianism, edited with an intro by Michael D. Bayles.

7. The Limits of Utilitarianism edited by Harlan B. Miller and William H. Williams. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.

8. Hedonistic Utilitarianism, Tännsjö, Torbjörn, Edinburgh University Press, 1998.

In the Ancient Greek world (the world of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, often regarded as the birthplace of philosophy) a “symposium” was a banquet held after a meal, an “after party” of sorts that usually included drinking, dancing, recitals and engaging conversations on the topics of the day.
For our purposes in this course, the Symposium discussions will not involve dancing, recitals or a banquet, but they will provide food for thought on current ethical issues and direct application of the ethical theory discussed in each of these weeks.
It is almost impossible these days to turn on the news or log onto social media without encountering a controversy that cries out for ethical discussion. For these Symposium discussions, your instructor will choose a topic of current ethical interest and a resource associated with it for you to read or watch. Your task is to consider how the ethical theory of the week might be used to examine, understand or evaluate the issue.
This week, you will consider how deontology applies to a controversy, dilemma, event, or scenario selected by your instructor. It is a chance for you to discuss together the ethical issues and questions that it raises, your own response to those, and whether that aligns with or does not align with a deontological approach. The aim is not to simply assert your own view or to denigrate other views, but to identify, evaluate, and discuss the moral reasoning involved in addressing the chosen issue.
Your posts should remain focused on the ethical considerations, and at some point in your contribution you must specifically address the way someone with a deontological view would approach this issue by explaining and evaluating that approach.
If you have a position, you should strive to provide reasons in defense of that position.
When responding to peers, you should strive to first understand the reasons they are offering before challenging or critiquing those reasons. One good way of doing this is by summarizing their argument before offering a critique or evaluation.
You must post on at least two separate days, must include at least one substantial reply to a peer or to your instructor, and your posts should add up to at least 400 words.
Your instructor may include additional requirements, so be sure to pay attention to the prompt.
This discussion will be assessed on a 10-point scale and is worth 3% of your final grade.

Week 3 Symposium

Please read the description above and/or watch the video explaining the symposium and its requirements. If you are still unsure about how to proceed with the discussion, please contact your instructor.

This week, we will consider how deontology applies to rights.
Please read “What We Owe to Others: Simone Weil’s Radical Reminder
(Links to an external site.)
” by Robert Zaretsky
(If you have difficulty accessing the link, go through the Ashford Library.)

Use these questions to guide your reflection:
What is the difference between the “personal” and the “impersonal,” according to Weil?
Can you see elements of the Categorical Imperative in Weil’s way of thinking of rights?

Please review your textbook reading, Roe v. Wade and Stenberg v. Carhart carefully. Then, please discuss the following questions:

1. The Court in Roe v. Wade, and all courts subsequently have refused to clearly define when life begins. The Court in Roe indicated a time in the fetal development when abortions should be elective and when they should not. What time did they indicate as the cutoff for elective abortion? Does this timeframe seem to be a logical decision? Why or why not?

2. Roe v. Wade, along with many other cases that shaped America’s current abortion laws, discuss legitimate and illegitimate state interests. What State interests were appropriate and what state interests were not appropriate?

3. Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld Roe, but rejected its three-trimester framework in favor of a different standard. What standard did PPH v. Casey set for abortion regulations moving forward? What has been determined not to be an undue burden since Casey?

4. What reasoning did the proponents of the D&X procedure use to advocate for the use of the D&X procedure over the use of the D&E procedure for late-term abortion in Stenberg v. Carhart? Did the Supreme Court ultimately allow the use of the D&X procedure in this case? What reasoning did they provide for their decision?

5. Under Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions, must a state impose any regulation on abortion? If a state wanted to allow elective abortion through the third trimester, could they do so legally? Why or why not?

Discuss the ETHICAL dilemmas associated with stem cell research.
Discuss the LEGAL dilemmas associated with stem cell research.
Present 3 articles from recent publications to demonstrate the reality of stem cell research. These articles should highlight the ETHICAL and LEGAL dilemmas in stem cell research. You should include all details of the articles. These can be court cases as well. MUST BE DONE IN AMERICAN LANUAGE, and no plagiarism, the paper will be checked though Turnitin.

FIRST SUMMARY:
Please select ONE of the following primary source readings:

“Utilitarianism” by John Stuart Mill (starting on page 111)
-or-
“A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls (starting on page 115)
-or-
“The Entitlement Theory of Justice” by Robert Nozick (starting on page 122)

Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

SECOND SUMMARY:
Please select ONE of the following primary source readings:

“Nichomachean Ethics” by Aristotle (starting on page 179)
-or-
“The Need for More than Justice” by Annette C. Baier (starting on page 188)

Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

THIRD SUMMARY:
Please select ONE of the following primary source readings:

“Feminist Ethics” by Alison M. Jaggar (starting on page 201)
-or-
“The Ethics of Care as Moral Theory” by Virginia Held (starting on page 209)

Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

Fourth Summary:
Please select ONE of the following primary source readings:

“Feminist Ethics” by Alison M. Jaggar (starting on page 201)
-or-
“The Ethics of Care as Moral Theory” by Virginia Held (starting on page 209)

Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.

Post on at least three separate days. This week our main discussion will focus on explaining and evaluating the deontological ethical theory as discussed in Chapter 4 of the textbook. Your instructor will be choosing the discussion question and posting it as the first post in the main discussion forum. The requirements for the discussion this week include the following:
You must begin posting by Day 3 (Thursday).
You must post a minimum of four separate posts on at least three separate days (e.g., Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, or Thursday, Friday, and Sunday, or Thursday, Saturday, and Monday, etc.).
The total combined word count for all of your posts, counted together, should be at least 600 words, not including references.
You must answer all the questions in the prompt and show evidence of having read the resources that are required to complete the discussion properly (such as by using quotes, referring to specific points made in the text, etc.).
In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, posts must be made by Day 7 (Monday); posts made after Day 7 are welcome but will not count toward the requirements.
Be sure to reply to your classmates and instructor. You are encouraged to read posts your instructor makes (even if they are not in response to your own post) and reply to those as a way of examining the ideas in greater depth.
All postings (including replies to peers) are expected to be thought out, proofread for mechanical, grammatical, and spelling accuracy, and to advance the discussion in an intelligent and meaningful way (i.e., saying something like “I really enjoyed what you had to say” will not count). You are also encouraged to do outside research and quote from that as well.
For more information, please read the Frequently Asked Questions.
This discussion will be assessed on a 10-point scale and is worth 4% of your final grade.

Discussion: Applying the Categorical Imperative
Please read the general discussion requirements above, as well as the announcements explaining the discussion requirements and answering the most frequently asked questions. If you are still unsure about how to proceed with the discussion, please reply to one of those announcements or contact your instructor.
Please carefully read and think about the entire prompt before composing your first post. This discussion will require you to have carefully read Chapter 4 of the textbook, as well as the assigned portions of Immanuel Kant’s (2008) Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.

Kant’s text and the textbook discuss two formulations or ways of expressing Kant’s Categorical Imperative, the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity. For each formula, Kant considers four test cases to explain how it applies: Suicide, False Promises, Cultivating One’s Talents, and Beneficence.
Engage with the text:
Choose one of these test cases (it can be from either formula), and explain in your own words the reasoning that leads to the conclusion Kant defends. You should first explain the Categorical Imperative itself, focusing on the particular formula you are considering, and then carefully show how that principle leads to a particular conclusion.
Reflect on the theories:
Would a utilitarian come to a different conclusion? If so, explain why. If a utilitarian would come to the same conclusion in this case, could there be a variation in the case that would lead the utilitarian and Kant to come to different conclusions?
Reflect on yourself:
Do you agree with Kant’s conclusion? If not, explain the flaws in his reasoning. If you do agree, and you think a utilitarian would come to a different conclusion in this or a slightly varied case, why do you think that Kant’s reasoning is superior to the utilitarian’s? (You may want to consult section 4.3, “Challenges to Kant’s Theory” for help with this section).