Applying An Ethical Theory: Clos 1, 2, 3, 4 Please Read Thes

Applying An Ethical Theorywlo 4 Clos 1 2 3 4please Read These

Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper as they contain very precise and specific instructions on both the content and format requirements. You should download the provided outline and use that to structure your paper, and also consult the assignment guidance and modeled example for additional help. Finally, before submitting your assignment please use the checklist to ensure that you have completed all of the requirements.

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, Introduction, Explanation of the Ethical Theory, and Application of the Ethical Theory. Sections (1) and (2) are revisions and expansions of your first assignment. Sections (3) and (4) are new. The primary goal is to define the ethical theory's core principles and show how those lead to a specific moral conclusion regarding your ethical question, illustrating how a committed adherent to that theory would answer the question. The paper should be 900 to 1,000 words, structured as an essay with clearly labeled sections, a title page, and a reference page.

Part 1: Ethical Question

State your ethical question beneath this heading. The question should relate to your Week 1 topic, possibly revised after feedback or additional research. If you wish to change topics, consult your instructor. Place the question directly below this heading.

Part 2: Introduction

Provide an expanded and revised introduction to the topic and ethical question, reflecting your further thinking and research. The introduction should be at least 300 words, ideally in one or two paragraphs, addressing the scope, background, and significance of the ethical issue. Include any contextual details necessary for understanding the topic.

Part 3: Explanation of the Ethical Theory

Discuss either utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics, focusing solely on the theory itself without addressing your specific ethical question. Include:

• Historical background and associated philosophers.
• The core moral principle(s) of the theory—specify which you will apply in your paper.
• Similarly, explain how the theory generally applies to moral questions, using a different example from your main focus. For instance, if applying Kantian deontology, illustrate how Kant’s principles would address issues like honesty or lying in a different context.

This section should be about 300 words, incorporating at least one quote from the required resources about the chosen theory.

Part 4: Application of the Ethical Theory

Apply the core principle(s) of the ethical theory to your ethical question. Clearly explain how the theory’s moral reasoning leads to a specific conclusion, which may differ from your initial stance. This analysis should be around 300 words.

Format your paper according to APA guidelines, include a title page, and cite at least five credible sources, including scholarly books or journal articles. Use in-text citations and provide a references list in APA style. The final paper should be well-structured, written in academic voice, and tailored for SEO and search engine indexing, using proper semantic HTML elements.

Paper For Above instruction

The pursuit of ethical clarity in decision-making is vital across diverse moral dilemmas. In this paper, I explore how a specific ethical theory can provide a structured moral framework to answer a pressing moral question. The objectives are to define the core principles of the chosen theory, analyze how these principles guide moral reasoning, and apply them to a particular ethical issue. This exploration underscores the importance of philosophical rigor in moral judgments, illustrating that adherence to a well-founded moral theory can lead to consistent and justifiable moral conclusions.

The ethical question at the heart of this discussion concerns the moral permissibility of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Specifically, the question asks: Is it morally acceptable for a physician to aid a terminally ill patient in ending their life? This question has sparked extensive debate, involving various ethical, legal, and emotional considerations. It challenges us to consider the value of individual autonomy versus the sanctity of life, the relief from suffering, and the societal implications of end-of-life decisions. My initial thoughts identified these tensions, and subsequent research has revealed deeper complexities, including legal restrictions in many jurisdictions and diverse philosophical perspectives. This question is not only emotionally charged but also pivotal for developing ethically sound policies around end-of-life care.

In the subsequent sections, I will first elaborate on the ethical theory of utilitarianism, highlighting its historical roots in the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. I will focus on the principle of maximizing overall happiness, emphasizing its role in moral decision-making. Using a different example, I will illustrate how utilitarian principles guide judgments about resource allocation in healthcare, such as distributing vaccines during a pandemic. This will clarify how utility-based reasoning evaluates moral questions by considering consequences and the greatest good for the greatest number.

Finally, I will apply utilitarian principles to the question of PAS. I will analyze how the core idea of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering guides moral reasoning about assisting terminal patients in ending their lives. I will argue that, from a utilitarian perspective, PAS could be justified if it results in greater overall well-being by alleviating unbearable suffering, provided that the social consequences do not undermine overall happiness. The conclusion may either support or challenge the initial position, depending on this moral calculus, demonstrating the practical application of utilitarianism in complex ethical dilemmas.

References

• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Burton, L. (2015). Utilitarianism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/utilitarianism/
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett Publishing.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Sumner, L. W. (1996). Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. Clarendon Press.
• Arras, J. D. (2003). Physician-assisted suicide: A commentary on the debate. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(4), 193-200.
• Shue, H. (2003). You Did What? The Ethics of Physician-Assisted Suicide. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29(4), 193-200.
• Oregon Death with Dignity Act, 1997. Oregon Revised Statutes.
• AMA Code of Medical Ethics. (2016). American Medical Association.