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