Week 3 discussion the environment, writing homework help

User Generated

Penar24

Writing

Description

Needs to be double spaced and 6-8 pages.

It needs to be 1500-1700 words not including the title and reference page, so I figured it up to be anywhere between 6-8 pages.


The attachment is absolutely everything you need to know

Unformatted Attachment Preview

I’m going to give you my week 3 discussion answer, the week 3 assignment instructions and the instructions for the week 5 paper. They are all tied in together. I DID NOT DO MY WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT. Without them all, you would not know what to do. My topic was/is FUEL AND THE ENVIRONMENT and the theory that I chose was UTILITARIANISM. WEEK 3 DISCUSSION ANSWER • The topic that I chose to talk about is the environment. A problem that I would like to address is everything that is being done to the environment. The environment is everything you see around you. The trees, plants, animals, and even humans. Trees provide oxygen for everyone and they also provide shelter. Without the trees there would be more pollution in the air. The plants are food for humans and animals and some are even shelter for animals. Animals are food for humans and also other animals. Therefore, how can we protect the environment, but also continue to provide for human beings? Utilitarianism, according to our textbook, is “an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone” (Fieser, 2015, Ch. 1.3). If people protected the environment, it would be more favorable than unfavorable because it would be helping the humans, plants, trees, and the animals. A lot of people depend on the environment and every animals depends on it as well. Water covers majority of the earth. Animals and humans depend on it. The animals depend on each other as well as a lot of humans depend on animals, not only for eating but also for hunting other animals. Humans depend on trees for oxygen but for also building and the animals depend on them for shelter. So in order to help the environment, the humans have come up with a plan. “To avoid deforestation, timber companies can be forced to plant new trees for every one they cut or the license fees allowing companies to exploit habitats could be used to set up more national parks” (Fieser, 2015, Ch. 9.3). By protecting the environment the best that we can, we can guarantee everyone’s future here on earth. Without the environment, what would we have? WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS In this written assignment, you will present your work on the case analysis using selected components of an argumentative essay as described in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). This written assignment will include a revised and polished version of your discussion work, the presentation and support of two premises, and an analysis of how your chosen ethical theory offers the best moral solution to the business problem in your case analysis. Using the components of the argumentative essay located in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo (2015), your assignment should include the following: An introduction. This is the “Problem” portion of the essay that is covered in Section 9.1: The Argumentative Essay (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). This should be an improved version of the introduction in your initial post, revised on the basis of your professor’s feedback and additional research. In this introduction you will need to (a) identify the specific issue or problem that you want to address and give an impartial presentation of the controversy, (b) articulate briefly the characteristics of the economic system that serves as the setting for the business, and (c) examine the laws that affect the operations of the business. The introduction should be one paragraph of around 200 words in length. A thesis. Start a new paragraph with a precise and clear sentence in which you state your moral position with regard to the case that you presented in your first paragraph. This is known as stating your thesis. (See the “Thesis” passage in “The Argumentative Essay” in Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). The thesis you state here should be an improved version of the thesis in your initial post in the discussion, revised on the basis of your professor’s feedback and your reading of “The Argumentative Essay” indicated above. A thesis is only one sentence, so do not write a series of sentences, or a complex sentence with explanatory clauses (e.g., “because…” or “since…” or “according to Dr. Mary Expert, an economist with the Bureau of Labor statistics…”, or “a law that was ratified with 80% votes in favor…”). An example of a precise and clear thesis is this: “Factory farms are not morally justifiable” or, of course, the opposite point of view: “Factory farms are morally justifiable.” Keep in mind that your thesis in this assignment will be the basis for the argumentative essay of the Week Five written assignment, so take your time when formulating this thesis. Ethical theory. In the same second paragraph as the thesis statement, identify the ethical theory that supports your moral position. You may choose from utilitarianism, duty ethics, or virtue ethics. Present the characteristics of the ethical theory in a broad sketch, and include citations and references in APA form. Then, apply your chosen ethical theory by explaining how it lends itself to the moral position that you are defending. Two premises. Present at least two reasons in support of your thesis and these should be presented in the form of a claim. These are called premises. Articulate each premise in one clear and grammatically correct sentence. Review Section 9.1 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Foster, Hardy, and Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Start a new paragraph for each. In the rest of the paragraph, support your premise by presenting an analysis of how the ethical theory lends itself to the best solution. This analysis includes articulating the characteristics(s) of the economic system at work that support the claims in your premises. It also includes examining the effects of the law(s) at work that also support the claims in your premises. Comparative analysis. In the final paragraph, analyze how this application lends itself to a solution that is superior to that offered by one of the ethical theories that you did not select. To do this, provide a clear statement describing the moral solution offered by this other theory. For example, if you chose utilitarianism to apply to your case, then you can choose from either virtue ethics or deontology for your comparative analysis. Explain in no more than three sentences what moral solution would result from the application of this other ethical theory. See the “Sample Case Analysis ” for an illustration of how this would look like. Finally, analyze the strengths of the moral solution presented by your chosen ethical theory in ways that demonstrate how it is superior to the moral solution offered by the other ethical theory. WEEK 5 PAPER INSTRUCTIONS (MAIN ASSIGNMENT THAT IS TO BE DONE) In the Week Three Assignment, you engaged in a case analysis of a current business problem using some of the components of an argumentative essay. In this written assignment, you will write a complete argumentative essay as described in Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Foster, Hardy, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). This essay will include a revised and polished version of your Week Three Assignment, an objection to your thesis, a rebuttal, and concluding remarks. In order to benefit the most, you should start working on your Final Project from the time you receive your Week Three Assignment back with comments from your professor. Your assignment should include the following: A revision of your Week Three Case Analysis Assignment. Your revision should represent a substantial edit of your work that fully incorporates feedback from your professor and goes well beyond correcting any grammatical or APA errors. The strongest possible objection to your thesis. After the final paragraph of your Week Three Case Analysis Assignment, start a new paragraph that introduces the strongest possible objection to your thesis. The considerations for this are detailed in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Make sure to employ the appropriate language to introduce the objection, such as “some may object to my thesis as follows” or “according to [so and so] the thesis presented here fails to account for X” [whatever he or she finds problematic]. You can find other language to do this, of course, but the key point here is to make sure that you indicate that someone else is speaking when presenting this objection. It is also important to remember that you do research to discover good objections and not merely objections that are weak and thus easily rebutted. Look for peer-reviewed journal articles in the Ashford University Library, full-text articles in Google Scholar, or articles in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Present the opposing position fairly and in detail. This may take more than one paragraph. A rebuttal. This is a refutation of the objection that you have just presented. Start this in a new paragraph following the objection paragraph(s). Once again, follow the indications of Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). You may point out an error in the objection. Or you may show that, while it is an important objection, it does not apply squarely to your argument, or does not account for facts that make it irrelevant. Above all, make sure to maintain philosophical decorum in your rebuttal. Toward this end, you should apply the principles of charity and of accuracy, first introduced in the Week One course material. See “Confronting Disagreement” in Section 9.4 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo, 2015). Closing remarks. End your argumentative essay with a paragraph of closing remarks. Provide some reflections of what you have attempted to achieve by means of your essay. You could, for example, explain how your essay sheds light on the broader controversy that it addresses. Or you could point out how your essay addresses a frequently ignored point or the unpopular side in the controversy. You could also reflect on the related matters in the broader controversy that would be useful to examine by others. Do not merely summarize what you have done in the body of your essay, and do not add new information here that would support or contradict your essay since the body of your essay should have addressed all the relevant points. See “Closing Your Essay” in Section 9.2 of With Good Reason: A Guide to Critical Thinking (Hardy, Foster, & Zúñiga y Postigo (2015). Requirements for your Assignment: • • • • Your assignment should be between 1500 to 1700 words in length, excluding the cover and references pages. Your examination should be both thorough and succinct. This is a combination that demands time and thought, so give yourself sufficient time to draft and revise. Your assignment should include citations, as well as a list of references. Both must be in APA form. Your references should include at least four peer-reviewed articles in addition to those that you will be carrying over from our Week Three Case Analysis Assignment. CLEARER INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE INSTRUCTOR FOR WEEK 5 PAPER Writing the final paper will involve revising the 5 paragraph paper you wrote in Week 3, and then adding 3 new sections (which should each be 1 paragraph). All I am going to do in this week's guidance is to lay out the structure of the final paper, and make a few comments about I what I expect to see in each section. The paper should total 8 paragraphs, and be no more than 1700 words. Do not worry too much about the word count, but make sure your paper follows the guidelines I give below. In paragraph 1, introduce the ethical issue. Briefly identify all the relevant entities (businesses, governments, individuals) and circumstances (laws, economic systems, and the specific details of the case). A really good idea is to narrow your focus to specific ethical question (something along the lines of 'Is Y ethical?') and then raise that question in your introduction. Ideally, your introductory paragraph should include a thesis statement for the paper (as opposed to your ethical thesis statement which you will give in paragraph 2) which will tell the reader exactly how your paper will proceed (something like, "In this paper, I will present a utilitarian argument showing that Y is not ethical and show that, for this issue, utilitarianism is a superior ethical approach than deontology; I will then consider an objection to this utilitarian approach and provide a reply to that objection). In paragraph 2, present and support your ethical position. The first sentence of this paragraph should be a clear statement of your ethical thesis. Keep this thesis explicit and succinct (something like 'Y is not ethical'— save your reasons for why Y is unethical for later in the paper). Once you identify your ethical position, identity the ethical system you will be using to support that position. Then explain your chosen ethical theory as if you were explaining it to somebody who is entirely unfamiliar with that theory (i.e., do not, for example, simply assume that your reader knows what utilitarians regard as 'good'. Instead, explicitly say that utilitarians regard are concerned with maximizing overall happiness). Say, in general, how the theory supports your position. That is, provide a rough outline of how your ethical argument runs. In paragraph 3, you begin to make your ethical argument more precise by giving a premise that supports your conclusion. The first sentence of this paragraph should be the premise. In the rest of this paragraph, you need to do two things. First, support the premise: give your reader reasons to believe that the premise is actually true. Second, make the inference from your premise to your ethical position clear and explicit. So, for example, if your ethical conclusion is something along the lines of 'prophylactic use of antibiotics on farm animals (giving antibiotics to farm animals that are not sick) is not ethical', and your premise is something along the lines of 'giving prophylactic antibiotics to farm animals results in food products that contain antibiotics', you need to say exactly why, according to whatever ethical system you are applying, having food products that contain antibiotics is 'bad'. In paragraph 4, you do the exact same thing you did in paragraph 3, except with a different premise. In paragraph 5, you provide a new argument that should conclude, 'the application of [whichever ethical system you chose to apply in paragraphs 2-4] is superior to the application of [one of the two ethical theories which you did not chose to apply in paragraphs 2-4] in the context of this issue'. In order to support this conclusion, you will first need to briefly say what the ethical conclusion supported by the new theory actually is. Take no more than three sentences to give that ethical conclusion and (briefly) the reasoning that supports it. Then, compare the two ethical applications and conclusions, and say why you think your chosen ethical application is preferable. In paragraph 6, you give the strongest possible objection to your ethical thesis (your ethical position). The assignment instructions stress the need to "to make sure that you indicate that someone else is speaking when presenting this objection", but that is not actually that much of a concern (and can actually lead to some problems). Instead, focus on making sure you, one way or another, explicitly indicate that you are giving an objection in this paragraph. A good way to do this is by starting the paragraph with a topic sentence along the lines of "An objection to the utilitarian application I have given above is...". If you want to make it clear that 'someone else is making the objection' that is fine, but it is vital not to dissociate yourself from the objection. That is, whether or not you frame the objection as 'some people might say that....', you need to give the objection as forcefully as possible. The objection should take the form of an argument. That 'some people might say X' is not really relevant; the argument those people might use to support their claim of 'X' is. Be sure to give me the argument, not just 'some people's' opinion. In paragraph 7, you provide a rebuttal to the objection you just gave in paragraph 6. Do not just simply re-assert your ethical position, and do not just re-present the argument for that position that you provide in paragraphs 2-4. Instead, either point to specific problems with the objection, or explain how your position (and/or argument in support of that position) can evade the concerns raised in the objection. The rebuttal should be sharply focused on the specific concerns raised in the objection. In paragraph 8, you conclude the paper. Do not introduce any new material (claims, questions, quotations, anything) in your conclusion.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Please let me know if there is anything needs to be changed or added. I will be also appreciated that you can let me know if there is any problem or you have not received the work Good luck in your study and if you need any further help in your assignments, please let me know Can you please confirm if you have received the work? Once again, thanks for allowing me to help you R MESSAGE TO STUDYPOOL NO OUTLINE IS NEEDED

Running head: WEEK 3 AND 5 DISCUSSION ON ENVIRONMENT
Topic: Week 3 And 5 Discussion on Environment
Student name:
Instructor name:
Course name:
Date:

Week 3 And 5 Discussion on Environment

2

Conservation involves keeping resources that we still need for future use, and pollution
control is an important measure that involves conservation of air, water, and plants. Mankind
plays an important role when letting harmful waste into the environment and the same manner
they are responsible for saving the resources for future generations to get them. According to
Martínez, (2012), conservation involves saving and protection depletable and finite plants and
animals protected because they would help the future generations, (p. 352). Other generations
that conserved given species of plants and animals are the result of what we find in the
environment today, otherwise, nothing would occur. The present generation must reciprocate the
same so that the future generations get the share of what we have today. Continued depletion of
the environment leaves relatively nothing for the future generation to utilize which calls for the
need to conserve the environment. Many reasons came up towards the environmental protection
and call towards conservancy plans by both governments and non-governmental institutions
towards the restoration of flora and fauna to its original state. The article focuses on the
importance of protecting the environment because it’s believed that the previous generations
used it but never thought about its conservation, otherwise it’s getting late and everything might
go extinct.
Utilitarianism is the ethical foundation which the environment can be saved from waste
an...


Anonymous
Just what I was looking for! Super helpful.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags