I need a revised version of my week one paper per the instructors feedback I made quite a few mistakes and need to improve in week one paper for week 3 assignment. Need to have it back by Thursday 19-17-2019. Help!!!!
This course has three written assignments that build upon one another and are designed to take you step-by-step through a process of writing a paper that identifies an ethical question, examines the context, issues, and arguments surrounding the question, and attempts to defend an answer to that question using strong moral reasoning.
This second written assignment is a four-part exercise comprised of the following sections:
- Ethical Question
- Explanation of the Ethical Theory
- Application of the Ethical Theory
For sections (1) and (2) revise and expand on what you did in the first assignment.
Sections (3) and (4) are new.
The main purpose of this paper is to define the nature and scope of the ethical theory in a way that shows how the core principle(s) of that theory lead to a specific moral conclusion on your ethical question. Another way to think of this is to explain how someone who is fully committed to the moral reasoning of the ethical theory would answer your ethical question (even if it is not necessarily how you would answer the question).
The assignment should be 900 to 1,000 words, written in essay form with clearly labeled sections as indicated below, and include a title page and reference page.
Part 1: Ethical Question
State the ethical question beneath this heading.
- This question should be on the same topic as the question presented in the week one assignment, and if necessary, revised based on your instructor’s comments and the additional insight and information you have gained from research on the topic. If you would like to switch topics, you should first consult with your instructor.
Place your ethical question beneath the Part 1: Ethical Question heading.
Part 2: Introduction
Provide an introduction to the topic and question.
- This should be revised and expanded from the Week 1 Introduction in light of your instructor’s comments and the additional insight and information you have gained from research on the topic.
- For instance, you may find that your original ideas about the issue have changed and clarified, that the focus of the ethical question has shifted or become more specific, and/or that there are important background and contextual details that need to be explained.
- The revised introduction should reflect your additional thinking on the scope and significance of the ethical issue, and address any feedback provided by your instructor.
- The introduction should be at least 300 words in one or two paragraphs.
Place the introduction material under the Part 2: Introduction heading.
Part 3: Explanation of the Ethical Theory
Ethical theories provide accounts of how to reason well about moral questions and of what justifies answers to those questions. In this section of the paper, you will discuss either the ethical theory of utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics.
You should not discuss your topic in this section, but focus only on the ethical theory.
The discussion should include the following elements:
- A brief account of the historical background of the theory and the philosopher(s) associated with it.
- An explanation of the core moral principle of the theory, or if there is more than one, the principle that you will focus on in applying that theory to your question.
- A brief, general explanation of how the theory and its core moral principle applies to moral questions, using an example different from the issue that is the main focus of your paper. (For example, if your focus is on how deontology applies to using animals in medical research, you could explain Kant’s moral theory by discussing how it would apply to an issue like lying for the sake of the greater good.)
- This section should focus only on the ethical theory. For instance, if you are discussing physician-assisted suicide from a utilitarian perspective, this section should only discuss utilitarianism in general terms; you should not discuss physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, or other related topics until the next section.
- The discussion should be around 300 words and must incorporate at least one quote from the required resources on the ethical theory you have chosen to discuss. Required resources include the textbook chapter focused on that theory (3, 4, or 5) or the “Primary Sources” listed at the end of Chapters 3-5.
Place this section under the Part 3: Ethical Theory heading.
Part 4: Application of the Ethical Theory
Now that you have explained in general terms the core principle of the ethical theory you are focusing on in this paper, you will apply that theory and its core principle to your ethical question.
- Explain as clearly and precisely as you can how that principle leads to a particular conclusion.
- You can think of that conclusion as the answer someone would most likely give to your question if they were reasoning along the utilitarian, deontological, or virtue ethics lines you explained in Part 3.
- Note: This conclusion does not need to be the same as the position you stated in the Week 1 assignment. In fact, it could be the opposing position you discussed there. See the remarks about main purpose of the paper above.
- This section should be around 300 words.
Place this section under the Part 4: Application of the Ethical Theory section.
In your paper,
- Identify the ethical question.
- Introduce the topic and question.
- Explain the ethical theory of utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics.
- Apply the selected ethical theory to the ethical question.
The Applying an Ethical Theory paper
- Must be 900 words in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center’s APA Style (Links to an external site.) resource.
Must include a separate title page with the following:
- Title of paper
- Student’s name
- Course name and number
- Instructor’s name
- Date submitted
For further assistance with the formatting and the title page, refer to APA Formatting for Word 2013 (Links to an external site.).
I need a revised version of my week one paper per the instructors feedback I made quite a few mistakes and need to improve in week one paper for week 3 assignment. Need to have it back by Thursday 19-
– 1 – [no notes on this page]JUSTIFYING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 1 Justifying the Moral Concerns of Capital Punishment Murder Hattie L Isaac PHI 208: Ethics and Moral Reasoning Professor David Smith October 8, 2019 Part 1: Ethical Question – 2 – 1 2 3 1. murder morally justified? Good question. No need to bullet point this or put it in different font; just format it in the same way you have formatted the rest of your assignment. [David Smith] 2. system than system, more than [David Smith] 3. of those whose decisions are sole of the conclusion that the punishment should fit the crime. This is a good start, but keep in mind that your introduction needed to be at least 300 words in length. You could reach this by establishing in more detail the debate surrounding this issue, as well as providing more objective data in order to give your reader as much context as possible. [David Smith] 2 · Is Capital Punishment for first-degree murder morally justified? Part 2: Introduction This country faces a growing number of criminals in the criminal justice system than ever before. With this comes overcrowding and more crime. The question of how to handle this topic has been a debate in different cultures all over the world. What types of crimes deserve capital punishment, and what is considered morally justified in employing it? Many people oppose capital punishment, agreeing that it is cruel, inhumane, unfair, and unconstitutional. Those that agree with using it believe that capital punishment discourages criminals from committing future offenses. Moreover, since capital punishment is the most substantial punishment available for first-degree murder, the criminal will think twice about committing the offense that we deem justifiable and punishable by death. These objective opinions carry much weight when placed in front of those whose decisions are sole of the conclusion that the punishment should fit the crime. Part 3: Position Statement Since the late 1700s, capital punishment, also called the death penalty, was arbitrated as a crime hindrance. Diverse civilizations characterized ways to execute those who did wrong, in addition to taking their lives to pay for the crimes they perpetrated (Brubacher, 2018). Usually, when a person murdered another, the official punishment was to carry “a life for a life.” The concept of handling crime since the origin of history is debatable. In the 1970s, two of the country’s citizens took it upon themselves to kill. John Wayne Gacy and Theodore Ted Bundy each sexually assaulted and murdered dozens of teenagers and young adults (the Thames, 2018). Oppressors like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, as well as Adolph Hitler, killed, – 3 – 1 2 3 1. was discussed as an alternative to keep society safe and protected from murderers, such as those listed You have misunderstood the direction for this section of the assignment. Here, you needed to explain a position either for or against this issue. For example, you could say ‘Capital punishment should be allowed because it can bring closure to the families of victims, or you could say, ‘Capital punishment should not be allowed because it is hypocritical to kill someone as a punishment for killing’. You have presented some good points about capital punishment overall, but this should have been done in your introduction. [David Smith] 2. prohibit prohibiting [David Smith] 3. used as an example to others who commit murder, to have second thoughts about killing someone. These are good points in support of capital punishment, but it appears that you have combined your position statement and supporting reasoning in this section. More organization would make this stronger. [David Smith] 3 tortured, and persecuted millions of people (2018). They were all put to death for their crimes: by the hands of society, or by their manpower. Because of this, capital punishment became a highly- talked about subject. It was discussed as an alternative to keep society safe and protected from murderers, such as those listed (2018). Part 4: Reasons in Support of Your Position Capital punishment is defended by society as being a punishment for those who put the safety and welfare of the American people in jeopardy. Murderers threaten that concern. The public’s response to getting rid of the problem and prohibit the convict from being in a controlled environment where he is not suffering for his crime is validation by applying this form of action. History stresses the importance of inaugurating the laws of the land. If we perceive someone to be guilty of the crime of first-degree murder, it must be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt. If proven that they did kill someone intentionally, their human rights are forfeited. They have yielded up their rights, including the right to stay alive themselves. If the person has killed someone, they, too, shall die. Even though many would see this as unethical, it is our moral duty to protect society from those who wish to bring harm to us or place us in a precarious position. Moral responsibility, in this instance, is the U. S. Constitution, U.S. code 1111, which states that “whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life (FindLaw, 2018).” This decision is morally correct, and those who wrote it were bound to that conclusion. If, by some coincidence, the jury is conflicting about their decision, they will, most likely, vote for an acquittal. There is a minimal chance that executing the wrong person happens. If so, it is used as an example to others who commit murder, to have second thoughts about killing someone. – 4 – 1 1. that point are many countries that are against this sort of practice, deeming it too severe to and is unfit for the type of society we exist in today. Your position statement was supposed to be a single- sentence statement explaining your position on this issue. Much of this should have gone in the reasoning below. [David Smith] 4 Part 5: Opposing Position Statement Nevertheless, on that point are many countries that are against this sort of practice, deeming it too severe to and is unfit for the type of society we exist in today. Being killed by lethal injection, one of the options of the death penalty phase can cause a painful, agonizing death of the murderer: but also, a devastating situation for his or her family, as well. It goes against the moral beliefs that American citizens should not take the life of another, regardless of the crime committed. There has, also, been no proof that killing murderers stop other people from committing similar crimes. In states, such as Michigan and Illinois, the crime rate is the same, even though Michigan does not have a death penalty where Illinois does. History stresses the importance of grasping the laws of the land. If we perceive someone may be guilty of the crime of murder, it must be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt. If found guilty, shall be punished by death. Mistakes in convictions are rare, but financial compensation to the surviving family has been a consideration if there has been an erroneous belief in judgment. Still, sitting while waiting for death gives the murderer time to reflect on his or her crime, which is considered torture within itself. To not be able to continue that act can, sometimes, be the most basic type of punishment for the convicted. Part 6: Reasons in Support of the Opposing Position In that location is no credible evidence that the death penalty has caused a diminution of crime linked to murder more so than a lengthy prison sentence. Canada’s crime rate, since 1966, has gone down because of extinguishing the death penalty. DNA has also indicated that innocent victims are put to death by capital Punishment (Thames, 2018). If the death penalty had not – 5 – 1 1. Conclusion: A conclusion was not a requirement for this assignment and should not have been included here. [David Smith] 5 called for the life of that innocent person, there would be an opportunity for the individual to be released and have the fortune to bring back into society, as a detached human being. If we look at behavior the way capital punishment portrays it, that the death penalty degrades man to be a level lower than that of the animals: what that means is that animals in self-defense kill each other for territorial rights, food, and protection. These means are justifiable. The death penalty cannot be a vision as justifiable on the grounds of self-defense. Because self-defense means to have a response directed toward the target of the attack, the death sentence is a lingering process where the murderer will be sitting on death row waiting to die. Months or years could pass until the person goes up for execution. This action can take a toll on a person who wants to get it over with, so his family can move forward to going on with their lives and not be tied up in visits and payments to the murderer’s canteen account to help pay their finances while incarcerated. Ethically, if the guilty person wishes to die, it is the responsibility of the system to morally prepare him for his execution if his appeal for the death sentence gives him the approval to do so. While waiting for death, the murderer has time to ponder on the crime committed, which is considered torture within itself. To not be able to continue that act can, sometimes, be the most basic type of punishment for the convicted. Conclusion: Over half of American agree with the death penalty, stating that it is morally justified if a person is found guilty of murder. The other half does not agree or at some point can’t decide if it is a rational decision to take a life for a life. The number of convicted felons that have been put to death over the last several decades as either remained the same or has decreased. Those who support the death penalty did not change their minds even after some of the death penalty – 6 – [no notes on this page]6 executions had major setbacks, like problems with the execution platforms. Considering the cost of keeping a murder accommodated while incarcerated is a big consideration as well. It is cheaper to apply the death penalty in these cases, especially if there is a likely chance of overcrowding, allowing the convict to be released on good behavior and back into society to continue committing crimes. I am for the death penalty. I believe that if the murderer is executed, the public does not have to be concerned about him or her getting out and committing more crimes. I also believe that the convict is a waste of taxpayer’s money to keep him housed and away from the public. It cost millions of dollars to take care of the convicts and to keep them fed, clothed and housed. Overcrowding could result if there is not a place to put all of those that are not executed and should be, and then we must worry about them being paroled out or released for good behavior or overcrowding. Even though it may be morally wrong to take a person’s life I have to use the utilitarian theory here: “To take the life of someone who may be a threat of safety for a thousand is morally justifiable”. I would allow one to die so that millions of Americans can feel safe from the pain and death that one could have inflicted. – 7 – 1 2 1. References Do not use such large spaces in between your references. regular spacing like the rest of your assignment will do. [David Smith] 2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/new sround/15007511. Be sure to format all references and citations using APA guidelines. For more help on what these guidelines are please visit the Ashford Writing Center. [David Smith] 7 References https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/15007511 . The death penalty-the arguments for and against. Brubacher, Michael R., (2018), American Psychological Association, Moral concerns, criminal punishment, and Whether Offenders in General or Individual Offenders are Being Considered ., 2019, Vol. 25, No. 1, 129-147 http://dx.doi.org/10.10.1037/xap0000201 . FindLaw, (2018), caselaw.findlaw.com – 8 – [no notes on this page]8 Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? Introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education. (http://library.ashford.edu/index.aspx).