"virtual child pornography" is the term given to video depictions of child-child or child-adult sexual activity in which participants are not actual children but realistic computer generated images of child. The Federal Child Pornography Prevention Act banned this kind of pornography, but in April 2002 the U.S supreme court declared the ban unconstitutional.(The court upheld the section of the law that bans pornographic depictions of actual children, however.) Evaluate virtual pornography from an ethical standpoint. (THIS IS THE CASE WE HAVE TO WRITE ABOUT)Compose an 800 word written analysis in which you identify the moral issue(s) and the parties involved. Take a balanced moral position offering a recommendation or a policy resolution. Draw on three approaches to ethics including utility and two of the following: Duty, rights, virtue or This is being submitted through Turnitin it must be all ORIGINAL.

Topics:(1) How would Plato respond to Woody Allen’s film Crimes and Misdemeanors? What would be his response? Do you believe that Plato’s faith in his own theories would be shaken by Woody Allen’s fictional presentation? (Hints: Think about the characters, their “well-being” from Plato’s point of view. Consider his theory of Justice, as discussed in our text….etc.)(2) Consider the film Boomerang!, (1947) by Elia Kazan. How does this film argue in favor of Kantianism and radically against Utilitarianism? Consider the readings in our text. Use your own mind to formulate a response.(Hints: Think about Kant’s view of persons and the respect that we owe them as members of the moral community. Think of the accused man and the district attorney's decision to defend him. What possible consequences might the district attorney face by defending the innocence of the accused? Why would Kant recommend such a defense? Why would Utilitarian recommend against such a defense.) (3) What theory of the meaning of life, as presented in our text (chapter 7) do you find most compelling. Why? (Hint: Think about any of the figures discussed, Tolstoy, Stace, Russell, Camus, Nagel, as well as the film Amelie (2001) by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. How would the theory of meaning in life that you support respond to Schopenhauer’s pessimism, as discussed in chapter 4 of Questions of Value?Guidelines: This paper is worth 5 points. Turn this paper in during week 8 via “turn-it-in” within Canvas. Plagiarism of any kind will result in a grade of zero. This paper should be 3-4 pages. Use MLA guidelines. All references should be properly documented. Using MLA guidelines, properly document any references or ideas that are not your own. WARRNING: DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SOURCE. ANY USE OF WIKIPEDIA WILL RESULT IN A GRADE OF ZERO. USE ONLY TRUE PROFESSIONAL SOURCES. The purpose of this paper is for you to intellectually explore a topic, issue, problem, or figure relevant to our course material. The readings from our course should be the primary “source” that you utilize. Practice standards of good writing. Have a clear thesis. Devise evidence for your thesis. Make a sound, logically constructed argument. Proofread vigorously. Correct English grammar is expected.

How to respond the ClassmatesYour discussion question responses to other students must be substantive (i.e., they must make a contribution to the discussion, rather than simply expressing your approval of their post). Here are some of the types of responses that are appropriate and will earn you fill credit: (p, q, & r are variables of statements)You can post several types of replies to your classmates:1) Clarification Request: You claim p, but I don't know what you mean by saying p. Please clarify. Do you mean by this q or r?2) Argument Request: You claim p. I know what you mean by p. But why do you claim p? I don't see any argument for p, and I think you need to give an argument for it.3) Objection: You claim p (and maybe you argue for it). However, I think that p, (or your argument for p), is problematic. Here's my objection to p (or to your argument for p): q. What do you say in response to q?4) Assistance. You claim p. I agree with you that p, but i think the following additional reason (which you do not mention) can be given in support of p: q.5) Competing Interpretation: You say that the reading claims that p. However, I don't think that this is exactly what it says. Instead, I think it says q (and here's why I think this).6) Suggestion of Parallels: You claim p. P reminds me of so-and-so's claim that q. (But keep in mind: Are the two really similar? Does comparing p to q help illuminate p, or is it just misleading?)Here are two comments from my classmates, which need to response following the ways above.1. “A Defense of the Death Penalty” focuses on the use of the death penalty for the purposes of retribution and deterrence. The retributivist defense believes that the death penalty is a “fitting response to evil”. This deontological approach claims that committing an act that warrants the death penalty means that they have “forfeited their right to live”. Using the death penalty as a deterrent is more utilitarian in nature. It is thought that people will commit less crimes since they will fear the death penalty more than they will want to break the law. While in theory, it seems that people would not want to commit a crime because of these consequences, it often doesn’t have much bearing on a person’s motivations. I found it confusing that deontological ethics would be used to defend the death penalty. This way of thinking promotes seeing people as an end in themselves and valuing human life, so to see it supporting ending a person’s life seems to miss the point. Parts of it do make sense to me because to commit a crime so awful that the death penalty is discussed shows how the perpetrator did not value someone else’s life. However, I think that ending one person’s life because of their actions relies on moral relativism that is beyond the scope of Kantian ethics. 2. Nathanson's tactic or arguing against the death penalty in the theory then in practice was compelling and well-presented. A big issue Nathanson argues is deterrence. I think the death penalty is sometimes a deterrent for murder but so is killing the criminal's family or life imprisonment. The issue here is the wrongness/justifiability of each punishment, which determines its deterrence value. One is widely agreed upon as wrong and unjustifiable, one is agreed to be acceptable, and the other is what we're discussing today. So even the deterrence argument comes down to the morality of the punishment. In my opinion, Pojman's common-sense argument holds plausible, but it is on the basis that execution is a humane punishment. If you believe execution to be an inhumane punishment, which I do, his argument is void. If a certain punishment is in the gray area of morality I don't think it should be done. Pojman would argue that executing a criminal's loved ones would be morally unacceptable because it takes innocent lives. He would say that it is the criminal's guilt that makes their execution acceptable. But because of the many issues in practice, as Nathanson iterated, there is a chance that the criminal sent to death isn't guilty. This fact crumbles Pojman's argument. I think that until our criminal justice system can ensure a fair trial and 100% accuracy when charging someone with murder, the death penalty shouldn't be practiced. Pojman said that just because a way in which a law is enforced leads to discrimination doesn't mean the law itself is discriminatory. I think that in our society of many systemic issues, a penalty as egregious as execution shouldn't be used until it can be enforced in a just, equitable way. I personally think that the realities of our society today make it very hard to justify.