Week One: Discussion 1: Approaches to Ethical ReasoningBrief Overview Responses: To complete this discussion topic, you will be posting a brief response to each of the four controlling questions below and then posting two critical peer comments. These should be in the form of a basic summary or brief explanation of your understanding of the issue(s) addressed in each question, followed by your own answer to the main question raised in each of the four questions. On this first pass, your response may be somewhat tentative or speculative. Do your best, in about 200-250 words (for each question), to come up with an answer you could more fully explain and defend in an essay of greater depth and length. You need not cite any external sources in these first sets of four responses, but if you do quote, paraphrase, or take any content from another source, please limit those sources for this first set of responses strictly to the course textbook or other course content. Please post these four brief responses in a single thread, due Thursday.Critical Comments: By Friday (end of day), please post a brief critical commentary on at least two other students' brief overview responses. It is important to understand that a critical comment may be positive or negative, but it goes beyond merely stating your agreement/disagreement, interest/indifference, shared understanding, or confusion. Your comment may start out that way, but to be a critical comment, it must also provide a reason or reasons for your reaction or specific comment. Each critical comment should be at least 100-150 words in length. You will be posting a longer critique of one of your peers' critical essays at the end of the week.Controlling QuestionsPeople often use the terms morals or morality and ethics synonymously, often lumping the two terms together as if they refer to a single thing or single set of behaviors and beliefs, referring to a person's "morals and ethics." Another term, values, is used to refer to the principles of belief that underlie a person's sense of right and wrong, good and evil. Your task here is to explain how philosophers differentiate these terms.How, from a philosophical point of view, do ethics differ from morals?What does the philosophical study of ethics cover, discuss, or explain that might not be part of a discussion of morality?Is a philosophical examination of morality essential for a genuine and deep understanding of what it means to lead a morally good life?Explain and defend your answer using whatever evidence you believe to be relevant.Using the understanding you have reached up to this point in your life and what you have learned in the course so far, describe the role that ethics plays in your life and reflect on how the philosophical study of ethics might affect your life.How might it influence the nature of your relationships with others?How might it be advantageous to you in your daily life or in your career?How might it change your beliefs about reality and the meaning of life?Do you think philosophy can teach you anything about ethics, or is ethical knowledge something that one can attain only from one's family, religious or cultural tradition, or perhaps simply from life experience?Support your position using whatever evidence you believe to be relevant.Note: If you are like many (probably most) people, religion has played a strong role in determining your moral beliefs and practices as well as your considered ethical principles. It may be helpful at this point to take a look at some of the classic sources for ethical thought, and especially for the moral traditions that people uphold and pass on to future generations—the major scriptural texts of the leading world religions, including, the Tao Te Ching, the Buddhist Sutras, the Hebrew Bible, the Old and New Testament of the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and so on. Take a little time to refresh your knowledge of what these sources say about the role of ethics in human life and behavior and the meaning of life in general.Plato and Aristotle held different views about the value of the influence of poetry, plays, and dramatic or literary narratives on people's moral character and ethical knowledge. Briefly explain the views of each philosopher on this issue, and then compare their positions with the discussion in society today about the subject of violence in films, television, and video games. In your view, who gets it right, Plato or Aristotle? Explain and defend your choice using whatever evidence you believe to be relevant.Chapter 3 in Rosenstand's The Moral of the Story deals with the issue of moral truth—what is the morally right thing to do in a particular situation, and what are the correct principles or guidelines for living a morally good life? Moral subjectivism is the view that moral propositions are true only relative to the particular beliefs of a particular person or subject of experience; ethical relativism is the view that what is good, right, and morally correct is true relative to a particular cultural tradition and set of behavioral practices; and moral absolutism (this is what Rosenstand calls "hard universalism" is the view that there are universal moral truths or principles that hold for everyone, everywhere, at all times and under any circumstances.The most common viewpoint adopted by college students today is ethical relativism, and this is probably because it seems to be the most tolerant and fair-minded position in that it seems to respect diversity and individuality. Yet an ethical relativist would, to be consistent, have to also accept that a community or culture that did not hold diversity and individual freedom as ethically acceptable would be just as morally good and right as one that did. Rosenstand points to a number of problems with ethical relativism. Where do you place yourself on this spectrum of moral stances? Are you a moral skeptic or a moral subjectivist? an ethical relativist? a moral absolutist? If you have never thought about this before, now is the time to do so. Explain why you hold the viewpoint you do, and defend that view from what might be seen as at least one major difficulty with adopting that ethical stance. Alice Walker's novel, Possessing the Secret of Joy (1992) presents a strong case against ethical relativism by denouncing the practice of female circumcision, or perhaps more accurately termed, female genital mutilation, a traditional practice of certain cultures that is seen as morally correct, as not only the right thing to do but something that one is morally obligated to do. If you are an ethical relativist, you should be able to show why Walker is wrong for condemning this practice as morally wrong. If those who carry out the practice believe that it is the morally right thing to do, who is Walker, or who is anyone with different beliefs, to tell them they are wrong?Post an initial response of 200-250 words by Thursday to all four of the questions above. You will be selecting one of these for more in-depth consideration in this week's second discussion forum topic. Also, post a substantive critical response (100-150 words) to at least two other students' initial response postings by Friday. Don't forget to review the Discussion Forum Guidelines and the document "Critical Essays and Critiques: Tip Sheet" for more information on how to approach this assignment. Also, remember to review the grading rubric for your Discussion 1 responses and critical comments.