PHI208 Week 5 Discussion

  Ethics in the Community
      
Post on at least three separate days. There is only one discussion  this week. The prompt is below the list of requirements. The  requirements for the discussion this week include the following:

You must begin posting by Day 3 (Thursday).
You must post a minimum of four separate posts on at least three  separate days (e.g., Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, or Thursday,  Friday, and Sunday, or Thursday, Saturday, and Monday, etc.).
The total combined word count for all of your posts, counted together, should be at least 600 words, not including references.
You must answer all the questions in the prompt and show evidence of  having read the resources that are required to complete the discussion  properly (such as by using quotes, referring to specific points made in  the text, etc.).
In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, posts  must be made by Day 7 (Monday); posts made after Day 7 are welcome but  will not count toward the requirements.
Be sure to reply to your classmates and instructor. You are  encouraged to read posts your instructor makes (even if they are not in  response to your own post), and reply to those as a way of examining the  ideas in greater depth.
All postings (including replies to peers) are expected to be thought  out, proofread for mechanical, grammatical, and spelling accuracy, and  to advance the discussion in an intelligent and meaningful way (i.e.,  saying something like “I really enjoyed what you had to say” will not  count). You are also encouraged to do outside research and quote from  that as well.
For more information, please read the Frequently Asked Questions.

Discussion: Ethics in the Community
In Chapter 1 of your text, you saw how moral reasoning involves  moving back and forth between general, abstract ideas like principles  and values and particular concrete judgments about what is good or  right, and seeking to find a kind of agreement or equilibrium between  those.
In Chapters 3, 4, and 5, you were introduced to utilitarianism,  deontology, and virtue ethics. Each of these ethical theories represents  different ways of reasoning about ethical questions, based in different  account of the principles, values, and other conceptions that inform  the “abstract” side of the dialectic.
In this course, and in much of life, the “concrete” ethical issues  that receive the most attention are frequently those that elicit  passionate responses and widespread debate, affect large numbers of  people, involve matters of deep significance like life and death or  fundamental rights, and so on. However, as important as these issues  are, there is often a limit to how much impact most individuals can have  on such matters; instead, the place where ethics and moral reasoning  have their greatest impact is in one’s local community. Thus, in this  final discussion board, you will demonstrate your grasp of the relation  between the abstract ideas in one of these theories and a concrete  ethical issue or social problem in your local community.

Engage the community: 

Begin by finding an ethical issue or social problem that currently  impacts or has recently impacted your local or regional community (such  as your neighborhood, town or city, county, school district, religious  community, or something of similar scope to any of these).
Briefly summarize the issue or problem, and provide a link to a news  article, video, or some other resource that documents the issue or  problem so that your fellow students can learn more about it when  formulating their responses to you.

Apply the theory: 

Next, choose one of the ethical theories and discuss how the moral  reasoning of the theory might be used to address or resolve the issue or  problem.

Evaluate the reasoning: 

In evaluating the application of the moral theory you may, for example, consider one or more questions like: 

Does this differ from the way this issue is currently being addressed?
Does it present a better response than another ethical approach would?
Does the theory present an adequate response to the issue, or does it leave significant aspects of the issue unresolved?
Does applying the theory to this issue raise other problems or concerns?
In light of this issue, are there ways the principles or values of  the theory might need to be modified from the form that we studied in  class?