Final Project: In this two-phased final assignment, students will select a topic from the Unique Ethical Issues from weeks 3, 5, and 7, research the topic and discuss the ethical dilemma in detail. Phase 1: In week 4, students will submit to the Assignment Folder a brief one page paper that identifies the unique ethical issue, the ethical dilemma and the traditional theories that will be used to suggest potential resolution of the dilemmas. Phase 2: Required Elements of Final Project: · Using the information from Phase 1, students will thoroughly research the topic and define the ethical concerns in detail. · Using two of the traditional theories from week 2, suggest potential resolutions to the dilemma(s) · In the discussion of the resolution, include the impact that ethical relativism and globalization may have upon the suggested dilemma resolution. · Select the best resolution and explain in detail why. Required Formatting of Final Project: This paper should be double-spaced, 12-point font, and six to eight pages in length excluding the title page and reference page; Title page; Introductory paragraph and a summary paragraph; Use headings to demarcate your discussion; Write in the third person; Use APA formatting for in-text citations and a reference page. You are expected to paraphrase and not use quotes. Deductions will be taken when quotes are used and found to be unnecessary; Submit the paper in the Assignment Folder. Theories from Week 2 TELEOLOGICAL - This describes an ethical theory which judges the rightness of an action in terms of an external goal or purpose. So, according to a teleological theory, consequences always play some part, be it small or large, in the determination of what one should or should not do. Not all teleological theories are consequentialist. John Rawls' theory of justice is teleological, but not consequentialist because it claims that consequences are only part of what must be considered when determining what policy is morally just. (Rawls) Benefits - 1. There is room in some theories for good intentions, even if the action didn’t active the desired end. 2. Active attempt to connect morality with the “real” world. 3. By allowing for the consideration of consequences, teleological theories can adapt to different circumstances and situations. (Also see “utilitarianism”) Problems - Depends on the theory. See “utilitarianism” for an example. CONSEQUENTIALIST - Under a consequentialist theory, the consequences of an action determine its moral value. A key question in consequentialist theory is how to measure the moral worth of the consequences. Consequences can be good, neutral, or evil. Another relevant question is which consequences count (intended or actual). If only actual consequences count, then do all consequences count? Consequences can be distinguished by direct/indirect, individuals/objects affected, influence of complicating factors, etc. All of these conside ...

1. Final Project:
In this two-phased final assignment, students will select a topic
from the Unique Ethical Issues from weeks 3, 5, and 7, research
the topic and discuss the ethical dilemma in detail.
Phase 1:
In week 4, students will submit to the Assignment Folder a brief
one page paper that identifies the unique ethical issue, the
ethical dilemma and the traditional theories that will be used to
suggest potential resolution of the dilemmas.
Phase 2:
Required Elements of Final Project:
· Using the information from Phase 1, students will
thoroughly research the topic and define the ethical concerns in
detail.
· Using two of the traditional theories from week 2,
suggest potential resolutions to the dilemma(s)
· In the discussion of the resolution, include the impact
that ethical relativism and globalization may have upon the
suggested dilemma resolution.
· Select the best resolution and explain in detail why.
Required Formatting of Final Project:
This paper should be double-spaced, 12-point font, and six to
eight pages in length excluding the title page and reference
page;
Title page;
Introductory paragraph and a summary paragraph;
Use headings to demarcate your discussion;
Write in the third person;
Use APA formatting for in-text citations and a reference page.
You are expected to paraphrase and not use quotes. Deductions

2. will be taken when quotes are used and found to be
unnecessary;
Submit the paper in the Assignment Folder.
Theories from Week 2
TELEOLOGICAL - This describes an ethical theory which
judges the rightness of an action in terms of an external goal or
purpose. So, according to a teleological theory, consequences
always play some part, be it small or large, in the determination
of what one should or should not do. Not all teleological
theories are consequentialist. John Rawls' theory of justice is
teleological, but not consequentialist because it claims that
consequences are only part of what must be considered when
determining what policy is morally just. (Rawls)
Benefits - 1. There is room in some theories for good intentions,
even if the action didn’t active the desired end. 2. Active
attempt to connect morality with the “real” world. 3. By
allowing for the consideration of consequences, teleological
theories can adapt to different circumstances and situations.
(Also see “utilitarianism”)
Problems - Depends on the theory. See “utilitarianism” for an
example.
CONSEQUENTIALIST - Under a consequentialist theory, the
consequences of an action determine its moral value. A key
question in consequentialist theory is how to measure the moral
worth of the consequences. Consequences can be good, neutral,
or evil. Another relevant question is which consequences count
(intended or actual). If only actual consequences count, then do
all consequences count? Consequences can be distinguished by
direct/indirect, individuals/objects affected, influence of
complicating factors, etc.
All of these considerations go into shaping the ethical theory.
For example, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were both
act utilitarians. So they judged individual an action to be good

3. or bad depending on the actual consequences of that action.
Bentham defined good as pleasure and evil as
pain. (Bentham) Thus when choosing an action, according to
Bentham, one should the action which produces the greatest
amount of pleasure compared to pain for all affected. Since
pleasure and pain were the foundation for good and evil, “all
affected” would include all sentient things. J. S. Mill differed
from Bentham in that he believed that happiness and
unhappiness were the basis for good and evil. (Mill) Under his
evaluation then, while pleasure and pain were important
considerations, they were only the basic minimum. This sets up
an ability for Mill to claim that consequences to more sentient
beings may be more important than those to less sentient beings
and to characterize some pleasures as higher than others.
Benefits - 1. Consequentialism is grounded in actual effect. So,
moral action always improves life on earth (in some manner).
Acting morally can improve your lot in life. So, there is an
incentive to act morally even if you do not believe in an
afterlife. 2. Consequentialist theories are often attentive to the
particulars of the situation. 3. These theories will allow for
exceptions to the rule when warranted by the outcome. 4.
Utilitarianism follows the cause and effect reasoning in science.
It can be proven wrong or right by referring to empirical
evidence, instead of a theoretical ideal. 5. All sentient beings
understand pain and pleasure. Thus many have claimed that
utilitarianism is transcultural. 6. On a related note,
utilitarianism avoids the charge of speciesism in ethical theory
by using a moral foundation that is shared by other species, thus
requiring their consideration.
Problems - 1. Consequences are difficult to predict. Your
actions may have good intentions and a high probability of
causing good results. But, if something happens and the
consequences are actually bad, then your action was morally
wrong. Also, as the situation involves more people and
alternatives, it becomes more difficult to determine which
action would produce the best consequences. How can we ever

4. know that we actually chose the “best” alternative. There is no
opportunity for comparison of actual cases, just similar ones. 2.
"Does the end always justify the means?" A consequentialist
theory would justify many actions that we normally would
consider wrong, if it turned out that the consequences were
good. 3. This theory undermines trust in others and intimate
relationships since we can never be sure that the consequences
might not justify a betrayal of trust and in many of these
theories, each individual is treated the same regardless of one's
relationship. So, for example, one’s duty to prevent pain to a
stray cat would be equal to one’s duty to prevent pain to one’s
own cat.
DEONTOLOGICAL - This type of theory claims that there are
features within the actions themselves which determine whether
or not they are right. These features define the extent to which
the actions conform with recognized moral duties. For example,
driving while drunk violates the duty to “above all do no harm.”
The duties derive from various sources, such as religion,
biology, psychology, metaphysics, culture, language, etc.
Depending on the deontological theory, these duties may be
absolute (no exceptions), prima facie (can only be overridden
by a more important duty), or conditional (only hold under
specified circumstances).
Deontological theories do not consider consequences to be
important when determining whether or not an action is ethical.
It doesn’t matter if the drunk driver made it home safely.
Driving drunk was still wrong because the intention to drive
drunk was wrong (or to drink alcohol when one knows one
needs to drive).
Immanuel Kant's ethical theory is deontological. He claims that
actions are only morally right when they are done out of duty.
He sees moral duties as unchanging laws for human conduct. He
believes that morality is derived from the ability to think
rationally, which enables beings to be free. If one is not free,
then one cannot be held responsible. Thus only free individuals

5. are moral agents and all free individuals are capable of acting
out of reason. Kant’s moral theory is largely focused on
protecting and promoting the free action of rational beings.
Three formulations of his categorical imperative are derived
from this moral foundation: (Kant)
· Always act out of duty, in accordance with a good will (I.e.
One does the right thing because one recognizes that it is the
right thing to do, not because it pleases you to do it or will
promote good consequences.). (pp. 25-26.)
· Always act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by
thy will a Universal Law of Nature (i.e. Are you willing to
allow any other rational being to act on the same reasoning you
used to justify your action?) (p. 49.)
· Act as to treat the capacity for rationality, whether in thine
own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end
withal, never as a means only. (i.e. Never treat a rational being
as a mere means to an end.) (p. 62.)
Benefits - 1. Right and wrong actions are easily determined by
considering one's duties. In some cases, these are explicitly
spelled out (i.e. religion). However, the use of judgement is
usually necessary to determine which duties apply and how. 2.
Unlike utilitarianism, the end does not justify the means.
Deontological theories provide a sound basis for inalienable
rights and inherent value. 3. Since duties do not change, there is
a greater sense of security/predictability in the accepted
behavior of others. Right and wrong don’t vary with the
consequences, although there may be a various according to
circumstances (i.e. in the case of conflicting duties). 4. Good
motives are valued, even if the outcome wasn’t what you
expected..
Problems - 1. There is no agreement on a single standard for
morality. 2. Ignoring consequences can cause pain and
suffering. 3. The imposition of a specific moral belief system on
others has been a cause of significant harm throughout history.
Some deontological theories are not equipped to respect diverse
beliefs. However there are some deontological theories that

6. incorporate respect for the beliefs of others. There are even
some religious-based theories which, while espousing one true
way also respect diverse beliefs amongst individuals (i.e.
Buddhist ethics).
RELATIVISM/SUBJECTIVISM - This type of theory denies
that there is any uniquely right moral theory, standard, or value.
Everything is subjective. For example, Jean Paul Sartre claimed
that each individual creates his or her own morality based solely
on one's own decisions about what is valuable. There are no
moral standards to turn to that have any more authority than
those that you create. Things (including other people) only have
value because you gave them value. (Sartre)
Benefits - 1. Adjusts for changing factors in society and allows
for true multiculturalism. 2. Each individual is fully responsible
for his/her own moral beliefs since he/she chose to create and
value them.
Problems - 1. This leads to social anarchy. Moral theories are
tools that are supposed to help people live together with some
degree of harmony and security. But, if you accept that morality
is truly relative, you have to accept that there is no standard by
which you can judge the moral beliefs of others.(ex. The Nazis,
KKK, etc.) 2. What is the meaning of morality if it lacks any
standard to judge such claims other than individual choice?
VIRTUE BASED THEORIES - Teleological theories consider
the goals of actions. Deontological theories focus on acting in
accordance with moral duties and obligations. Virtue based
theories focus on the character of the person. According to
virtue based theories, ethics is about what sort of person one
should strive to become. The qualities that one should develop
in oneself are called virtues (ex. honesty, fairness, kindness,
faithfulness, generosity, prudence, integrity, bravery, etc.).
One should act in ways that develop these virtuous qualities
within oneself. For example, Aristotle claimed that in order to
become an honest person, one should tell the
truth. (Aristotle) Eventually it becomes a habit. Along, the way
one learns how to tell the truth appropriately, without being

7. brutally honest all of the time or lying whenever it is easier to
do so. There are many virtues that one ought to develop through
practice over one’s lifetime. Becoming virtuous is excelling at
all of the virtues that make a good human being, health care
professional, etc. It is a learning process that continues
throughout your life.
Benefits - 1. This type of theory recognizes that individuals and
circumstances are unique. For example, the virtue of
compassion may be expressed by two people in two different
ways. Similarly, running into a burning building may be
courageous action for a fire professional but foolhardy for an
untrained individual with no protective equipment. 2. Virtue
ethics allows each individual to use his/her own judgement
when making difficult moral decisions, yet recognizes certain
common goals. 3. Mistakes are expected and recognized as
learning opportunities.
Problems - 1. Some argue that too much is left to individual
judgement, thus opening the door to bias and prejudice. 2.
Similarly, virtues can be interpreted very differently. For
example, consider the many ways that fairness may be
interpreted. 3. Virtue ethics depends on modeling for some of
the education. However, one may choose a poor role-model and
therefore develop a false sense of virtue.
Other terms in ethics:
Rights - Rights are claims that you deserve something from
someone or some group.
Rights can be legal, contractual, or moral. Primarily, we are
discussing moral rights in this class. These types of rights are
derived from moral theories or beliefs and entail
duties/obligations for others. For example, if a moral theory
contains the principle that you should respect the autonomy of
other individuals, then you have a duty to respect the autonomy
of others and they have a right to your respect of their
autonomy.
Rights are also categorized as positive and negative. This
categorization indicates the kind of claim and obligation that

8. the right entails.
Positive Right - If I have a positive "Right to X," then that
means that society has an obligation to provide me with X. This
is also called an entitlement right.
For example, if the right to health care is a positive right of all
American citizens, then American society must provide health
care to all American citizens.
Negative Right - If I have a negative "Right to X," then that
means that society has an obligation to prevent undue
interference from my obtaining and keeping X if I choose to do
so. Essentially protective measures must be provided to ensure
fair access to X and to prevent X from being unfairly taken
away. This is also called a freedom right.
For example, if the right to health care is a negative right of all
American citizens, then American society must prevent undue
interference with citizens' access to and use of health care
services.
Rights, duties, obligations, and responsibilities can also be
categorized as universal, prima facie or conditional -
Any right, duty, etc. that is universal must always be observed.
There are no exceptions to universal rules.
Prima facie duties, rights, etc. must always be respected unless
two or more of them conflict. In that case the moral agent must
decide which is the most important in this situation and act in
accordance with that, while respecting the overridden
right/duty/etc. to the greatest extent possible.
Any right, duty, etc. that is conditional may be overridden by a
more important consideration or may not apply to a specific
situation. Conditional rules allow for exceptions based on the
relevant conditions.
Moral Agent - an individual who consciously acts and can
therefore be held responsible for his/her actions. Newborns
infants are not considered moral agents because they lack the
capacity for agency. Usually capacity for agency includes,
consciousness, sense of self, ability to reason (degree depending
on what is necessary for the task at hand), and the ability to

9. interact and form relationships with others. However, there are
ongoing debates about the criteria for agency and the
importance of agency for moral worth. Another issue is the
extent to which freedom is necessary for one to be a moral
agent. Sartre argued that you are a moral agent as long as you
are capable of making a choice, even if the only choice you
have is whether or not to continue to exist.
Motive - A motive is what caused the agent to choose this
action. For example, if a person was moved by compassion to
act, the motive was compassion. Motives may be conscious or
unconscious. David Hume argued that all actions are motivated
by emotions. Reason can direct the motivating force, but cannot
cause one to act. Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, argued that
to be moral, an action must be motivated by the rational
decision to do the right thing. Emotional motives, like love,
interfered with moral action according to Kant.
Intention - An intention is the desired purpose or aim of the
agent’s action. Intentions are conscious. People disagree about
the degree to which intentions matter in determining whether an
action is right or wrong. For example, imagine two people, Ann
and Jan. Each hits their husband with the car, killing him. Ann
intended to kill her husband. Jan intended only to back out of
the driveway. She hit her husband by accident. Most would
agree that Ann’s action is morally worse than Jan’s because of
the intention. Utilitarians would disagree however. In their
theory, the only thing that counts is what actually occurred, not
what one intended. For a utilitarian, Jan’s action would be as
bad as Ann’s.
References:
Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics, Welldon, J. trans.
Prometheus Books (Buffalo, NY: 1987).
Bentham, J. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation in Warnock, M ed. Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Essay
on Bentham: together with selected writings of Jeremy Bentham
and John Austin, Meridian/New American Library (New York,
NY: 1974).

10. Hume, D. A Treatise of Human Nature, Penguin Books Ltd.
(London: 1969).
Kant, I. Fundamental Principle sof the Metaphysic of Morals, tr.
by T. K. Abbott, Prometheus Books (Buffalo, NY:1987).
Mill, J. S. Utilitarianism in Warnock, M ed. Utilitarianism, On
Liberty, Essay on Bentham: together with selected writings of
Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, Meridian/New American
Library (New York, NY: 1974).
Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice, The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press (Cambridge, MA:1971).
Sartre, J. Existentialism and Humanism, Mairet, P. Trans. &
Intro. Eyre Methuen Ltd. (London, UK: 1973).