I have attached the document down below!

I have attached the document down below!
Class: Social Ethics Text: 1) Contemporary Moral Problems 10th Ed, © 2012, James E. White, Wadsworth Publishing ISBN-13: 9780840033789 Instruction: This Document contains 6 units, each unit required a discussion board (one paragraph for each question) And One paper, I have included ALL the instructions for the paper. No short answer please. Unit 1, Discussion Question 1: Which is your favorite theory, and why? Guidelines for Discussion In the introduction to section one of your textbook, James White briefly describes 6 competing theories philosophers have come up with for determining what makes an action morally right or wrong.  Tell us which theory is most appealing to you and explain why. Unit 1, Discussion Question 2: Are we always being selfish, even when we act morally? Let’s say you act morally because you believe in Christianity, and you want to go to heaven.  Sounds like a self-interested reason to me.  Let’s say you act morally because it makes you feel good to make others feel good.  Again, sounds like what you ultimately care about is how you feel.  Let’s say you act morally out of a sense of duty, and while sometimes following your duty doesn’t make you immediately happy, at the end acting out of duty is one of your supreme values.  Again, it sounds like you are just acting out of self-interest.  Are there ever any non-selfish reasons for being moral? Note: (I am Not a Christian) Unit 1, Discussion Question 3: The Dilemma for Divine Command Theory posed in the Euthyphro. In the Platonic dialogue, Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro if something is holy because the gods love it, or if the gods love something because it is holy (p. 24 of your reader).  This can be generalized into the following moral dilemma for followers of Divine Command Theory:  Is something right simply because God says so (in which case it seems open to the charge of being arbitrary); or does God say something is right because it is right independent of Him (in which case God would appear to discover independently existing morality, rather than create it).  Elaborate and evaluate Arthur’s explanation of why this dilemma would seem to prove fatal for Divine Command Theory as the source of our moral authority. Unit 1 Final Exam Study Questions 1) Briefly compare and contrast the differences between Rights Theory and a Theory of the Good, as outlined in the introduction to section one of your textbook. (White)2) Explain the difference between psychological egoism and ethical egoism, and relate it to the myth of Gyges ring, as retold by Glaucon in Book II of Plato’s Republic. (Rachel)3) Summarize Rachel’s discussion of attempts to refute ethical egoism, including his rejection of the popular charge that ethical egoism is inconsistent because an egoist couldn’t preach to everyone what he practices. (Rachel)4) What is Divine Command Theory, and why does John Arthur believe even followers of religion would not want to ground the basis of morality in it? (Arthur)5) According to Lindemann, what is a feminist understanding of gender, and how does it differ from the mainstream understanding of gender? (Lindemann)6) What is problematic about basing our moral judgments on something like the Ten Commandments? (Lecture and Arthur) Unite 2: 1) Introduction (pp. 311-315)2) World Poverty and Human Rights, by Thomas Pogge (pp. 315-321)3) Famine, Affluence, and Morality, by Peter Singer (pp. 331-339)4) Living on a Lifeboat, by Garrett Hardin (pp. 339-351) Unit 2, Discussion Question 1: Born into Guilt? Discussion: 1. Born into Guilt. Guidelines for Discussion 1) Post each discussion question on at least two different days, and on at least 3 different days overall.2) At least one post should contain your own response to the question, and not simply be a response to another post.3) Be sure to make your first post by Wednesday.4) Write carefully and edit before posting.  Grammar, punctuation, and spelling count, as well as the content. According to Thomas Pogge, all of us are guilty by association.  We are part of a world order in which the rich live at the expense of the poor.  Our economic system, our history, and the policies of rich governments and organizations like the WTO, let us keep our undeserved wealth at the expense of the poor.  In effect, we are actively harming poor countries by going about business as usual.Pogge’s argument is complex, with several parts.  Recount one part of it and analyze it.  Is he right? Unit 2, Discussion Question 2: Your Moral Duty, According to Singer Peter Singer argues that every single one of us is obligated to help the world’s poor and starving.  This isn’t charity, but simply our DUTY.  Unless we want to deny even the weak version of his second moral principle, namely that we ought to prevent something bad from happening “unless we have to sacrifice something morally significant,” then probably virtually every one of us is failing to discharge our moral duty.  You may discuss any of the following 3 things:1) The correctness of Singer’s weak principle2) How your life would have changed if you took his argument seriously (Just how much would you be obligated to do?)3) Any of the objections to Singer covered in my lecture or addressed by Singer himself. Unit 2, Discussion Question 3: Not in my Lifeboat! Garrett Hardin takes a very different stance on our moral obligations to the poor and desperate than Pogge or Singer.  Using the metaphor of a country as a lifeboat, Hardin presents many clever arguments for saying we have NO moral obligation to let the poor of the world (falling out of their overcrowded lifeboats) into our rich lifeboat with all of its goodies.  Hardin says this despite acknowledging (at the time of his writing) that 2/3 of the world is desperately poor.  You may discuss any of the following:1) Why does Hardin reject the metaphor of the earth as a spaceship in favor of the lifeboat?2) What is the tragedy of the commons, and how is it relevant to lifeboat ethics and immigration?3) “Every life saved this year in a poor country diminishes the quality of life for subsequent generations” (p. 346)4) How might Pogge or Singer dialogue with Hardin?  What could they say to each other?5) Does the moral theory you favored in Week One help at all in evaluating Hardin, or this week’s topic in general? Final Exam Study Questions, Unit 2 1. How does Pogge use his analogy of students performing at very different levels in a class to object to “explanatory nationalism” (the argument that it is each country’s fault if they can’t rise out of poverty)?2. What is Urmson’s objection to Singer’s position, and how does Singer respond?3.  What is the “tragedy of the commons”, and how does it play into Hardin’s defense of lifeboat ethics and his hardline stance on immigration? Please illustrate with an example of what would qualify as a “tragedy of the commons”. Summary for Unit 3: INSTRUCTION Reading and TED talk for Unit 3 OVERCONSUMPTION READINGS, LINKS, TED TALK 1. Watch this TED Links to an external site.talk by the creator of the Happy Planet Index.2. Read the 12-page 2021 Happy Planet Index Briefing Paper found in the file tab.3. Take these  Links to an external site.footprint quiz Links to an external site.. You should take it multiple times, playing around with the answers to learn the most effective ways to lower your ecological footprint.  You should also experiment by giving the same answers, only pretending to be from a developing country, to see how the same lifestyle has a different impact depending on where you live. Unit 3, Discussion Question 1: Happy Planet, Happy People The Happy Planet Index report took 3 factors into account in coming up with it’s score for any given country: The well-being of its people, their life expectancy, and the planetary sustainability of their lifestyle.  The HPI is just the latest of many studies/documents that challenge the notion that the route to happiness is getting ever more stuff.  This is good news if the world’s 8 billion people (increasing by 80 million per year) are going to figure out how to live in a sustainable way on just one earth while still pursuing meaningful and fulfilling lives. INSTRUCTION: Show that you have read the Happy Planet Index Briefing Paper and watched the TED talk by relating something that surprised or enlightened you.  Give a page reference. Then go on to comment on either of the following two quotes taken from the report: Map showing countries shaded by their position in the Happy Planet Index (2006). The highest-ranked countries are bright green; the lowest is brown. Unit 3, Discussion question 2. Your Ecological Footprint INSTRUCTION Recount your initial footprint score, and tell us from experimenting with the quiz, what 3 things could you do to reduce the size of your footprint.  How much would each action reduce your footprint? Now tell us what you think the government could do (municipal, state, or federal) to encourage/direct people toward lower footprints. Finally, and most importantly, how would lowering your footprint positively or negatively affect the meaning and happiness in your life? Unit 3, Discussion Question 3: Consumption and Morality INSTRUCTION In light of everything you have read this week, discuss whether you have an ethical obligation to reduce your level of consumption, and relate your answer to one of the ethical theories we examined in the first unit. Unit 3 final exam study questions 1.  Explain what the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI–from the readings) is, what it is designed to measure, and how it differs from the GDP. Illustrate by giving an example of something from your personal life that is good for the GPI, but wouldn’t get measured in the GDP as growth.2.  Summarize what you thought were 2 of the major findings of the Happy Planet Index Report.3.  Recount your initial footprint score, and tell us from experimenting with the quiz, what 3 things could you do to most reduce the size of your footprint?  How much would each action reduce your footprint? INSTRUCTION FOR UNIT 4: Now for the Philosophical Arguments. Please read in your text: 2) White’s Introduction, pp. 271–275 3) Kant, Our Duty to Animals, pp 275-276 (keep in mind this is an excerpt from a lecture given by Kant sometime between 1775 and 1800, and was recorded by his students) 4) Singer, All Animals are Equal, pp. 277-285 5) Steinbock, Speciesism and the Idea of Equality, pp. 285-292 6) Norcross, Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases, pp. 292-304   For your final piece of philosophy, please read: 7) Pollan, An Animal’s Place Unit 4, Discussion Question 1. Our Moral Status Compared to that of Other Animals 1) Post each discussion question on at least two different days, and on at least 3 different days overall. 2) At least one post should contain your own response to the question, and not simply be a response to another post.3) Be sure to make your first post by Wednesday.4) Write carefully and edit before posting.  Grammar, punctuation, and spelling count, as well as the content. Unit 4, Discussion question 2: Are Conventional Meat eaters as guilty as Fred? Norcross claims that there are no significant moral differences between Fred’s behavior and that of the millions of people who eat factory-raised meat.  If we think Fred is morally wrong in raising and killing puppies in painful and cruel ways merely “to enhance his gustatory experiences,” then we must also condemn everyone who eats conventionally raised meat.  Support or challenge Norcross by discussing one of the objections to his position raised in his article.  Be sure to take Norcross’ own reasoning into account. Unit 4, Discussion question 3. Can you escape the charge of speciesism and still use animals? (Please don’t attempt to answer this question until you have done ALL of the readings)  Are there any ways to eat or wear or test animals that aren’t species?  In light of all the readings, how would YOU personally answer this question? Unit 4 Final Exam Study Questions 1) What principle of equality between humans and animals does Singer adopt, and how does he argue for it?2) On what grounds does Steinbock argue that humans have “a different moral status from members of other species,” such that giving preference to humans’ interest is not speciesist?3) Many philosophers have argued that humans have a higher moral status than other animals based on our unique capacity for rationality.  Norcross claims all such arguments fail on at least two reasons.  Carefully recount one of these.4) Pollan argues that “what’s wrong with animal agriculture–with eating animals–is the practice, not the principle.”  Why does Pollan believe that raising an animal for consumption can be in the animal’s best interest, and hence consistent with Singer’s principle of equality? Paper Assignment  Guidelines for writing your paper 1) Write on one of the 2 topics listed below.2) Include a title page.  There is no need for a reference page.  You may include an abstract if you want, but it is not required.3) Your paper should be 3-4 pages in length, not including your title page, and any abstract you choose to write.4) DO NOT use any outside sources.  All I want is your own intellectual engagement with the article you are writing about.  I DO NOT want you doing any outside research (Hence no need for a reference page). 5) Get right to the point.  No fluff.  I reward conciseness and clarity.  Assume I am your audience and I am familiar with the topic and reading.6) Be fair to the author you are evaluating.  Don’t caricature his or her position.7) Proofread!  Better yet, have someone you trust help you edit.  You will be graded down for poor or sloppy writing, including typos, misspellings, and grammatical mistakes.8) Do not plagiarize.  Do not go online looking for any easy term paper, or some one else’s evaluation of the paper topic.  I almost always recognize writing style changes, and professional writing.  If you are caught plagiarizing, you will receive zero points for the paper. Topic Choices (write on either topic A or B) A)  Explain why Steinbock believes that humans are entitled to “a privileged position in the moral community.”  What exactly is her argument, and is it satisfactory?  Evaluate her response to the objection to her position referred to in your readings as the Argument from Marginal Cases (AMC).  Has she answered the challenge?B)  What does Norcross mean when he states, “That animals can’t be moral agents doesn’t seem to be relevant to their status as moral patients,” and how does he use this position to reject appeals to unique human traits like rationality to justify giving higher consideration to the interests of humans?  Evaluate the soundness of his argument. Reading for Unit 5 POPULATION READINGS, VIDEOS The first reading can be found under “Population Readings” in the file tab. Let me know if you have any trouble accessing them. 1.  Population Bulletin: An Introduction to Demography (go to the files tab)2. Population and Women’s Empowerment: Please read this This websiteLinks to an external site.3.  Please watch the followingvideoLinks to an external site., put out by the Population Reference Bureau, to gain a better understanding of population pyramids, and the concept of population momentum.  This will help you understand that even if the world achieved a TFR (total fertility rate) of only 2 kids per woman tomorrow, the world’s population is guaranteed to grow for some time. Unit 5, Discussion Question 1: Containing population growth, it’s complicated! Stabilizing global Population—It’s complicated! Relate some things you learned about demography and the growth (or decrease) of populations in various countries around the world that shows how population policy (and the ethical issues it engenders) can not be the same around the world, but must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each country. Unit 5, Discussion Question 2: Population Stability and your reproductive choices Achieving population stability and your reproductive choices The Total Fertility Rate in the U.S. has been at or below replacement level for about 50 years (see the chart here Links to an external site.if interested) The U.S. population continues to grow mainly through immigration.  When approached through a social ethics lens, given that the world’s population increases by over 1.5 million people every week, do you and a partner have the “right” to have more than two children, to more than replace yourselves and hence contribute to the ongoing world population increase? Is there a problem with this very question? Is the answer specific to the society or country you live in? Show an awareness of the readings in addressing this touchy subject. Unit 5 Final Exam Study Questions 1. Explain the concept of a population momentum, and how population pyramids are used to illustrate it. Why is the planet’s population all but guaranteed to grow by billions more even if, starting tomorrow, the total fertility rate went down to just replacement levels? 2. Describe the four stages of classic demographic transition theory, illustrating each stage with reference to a country currently in that stage.3. Explain some of the ways empowering women simultaneously lowers birth rates. Reading for Unit 6 IN YOUR TEXT, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES 1) White’s Introduction (pp. 403-410) 2) “Pacifism” (pp. 410-423) 3) “Just War Principles” (pp. 423-428) 4) “The Terrorist’s Tacit Message” (pp. 433-439) 5) “What is Wrong With Terrorism?” (pp. 440-441) 6) “The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights” (pp. 442-449) Unit 6, Discussion Question 1: Defending Pacifism Discuss what you think is one of the strongest objections to Lackey’s version of anti-war pacifism, and give what you think is the best pacifist reply.  (According to Lackey, even the American Revolution and World War II might have been unjustified in the eyes of an antiwar pacifist.  Read his arguments.) Unit 6, Discussion Question 2: One Side’s Terrorist is another side’s “Warrior for Justice”  Combine what you learned from your readings, “Just War Principles” and “The Terrorist’s Tacit Message”, to illustrate how “just war” principles are available to everyone, terrorists no less than Nation States.  Try to use real life examples to argue that “Terrorist groups and the military institutions of nations embrace the very same ‘just war’ schema, disagreeing only about facts” (p. 438).  How might you argue against this position? (Nagel may be of help here) Unit 6, Discussion Question 3: The War on Terror and the End of Human Rights According to Luban, the U.S. War on Terrorism has created new rules of engagement that combine longstanding rules about war with elements of civilian criminal law.  The resulting hybrid model justifies an expanded use of lethal force while eliminating the traditional rights of both enemies and bystanders. Use examples from Luban’s article (or the news) to help us understand how this new model of state action means “the End of Human Rights.”  Give an argument that supports or denies that this loss of human rights is justified. Unit 6 Final Exam Study Questions 1)  Briefly describe the four kinds of pacifism Lackey outlines.  Then recount how Lackey argues that even World War II might not have produced enough moral good to justify its killings.2) Recount Calhoun’s arguments that terrorists can use the same “just war” principles used in conventional military operations to justify their actions.  Illustrate with an example or two.3) What moral principle does Nagel claim terrorists violate that distinguishes their killings from the unintended deaths of innocent bystanders in conventional war? 4) Explain how, according to Luban, the new hybrid model of state action in the War on Terrorism eliminates the rights of both adversaries and civilians.  What elements of the standard war model and civilian criminal law have been combined to generate this hybrid?