Write a short paper (about 2 pages) evaluating another student’s
Version II and offering suggestions for improvement.
Base your evaluation on the Paper Project instructions (attached). The relevant text is copied below:
- Describe a case that appears in the New York Times after September 1, 2020 of a person who
is facing a difficult ethical decision or has recently faced one. In the course of your
description, make sure it is clear who the individual is who is to make the decision (it
cannot be a group or institution), and what is the point in time you are considering. If
the decision was made in the past, you are free to examine the decision from the
perspective of the time it was made. You are also free to project your decision into a hypothetical future
moment when certain things may have then happened that have not happened yet. Step 1 is your
introduction; you do not need a separate introductory paragraph.
- Make clear what makes the decision an ethical one, i.e., which fundamental moral
value is at stake in it. List four 0ptions that are or were realistically available to the
individual. (Requirements 1-2 should take about a page.) - Spend about two pages explaining John Stuart Mill’s method of moral decision
making, using appropriate quotations and page references, and how it would apply to
your case from the Times. This explanation must reflect your full understanding of
Mill from the course readings, videos, discussions, and reflections. - Do the same for Kant.
- Ditto Aristotle.
- Ditto Held.
- In your final few paragraphs, state which option you would choose in the situation and
why. You may not simply choose one of the four philosophers; you must come up with
an answer of your own based on a principle of your own, and you must give reasons
for your principle that are intended to convince someone else that your principle and
your decision are correct. Part of your reason should include articulating at least one
weakness or limitation of at least one of the four philosophers we have studied