Progressive Case Study-Client ReportOver the past 8 weeks, you hav.docx

Progressive Case Study-Client Report
Over the past 8 weeks, you have strategically built a learning
plan for MacArthur and Associates. Your final step is to put
together each section in a professional proposal format and
include a recommendation section and a summary for the
leadership team to review. Be sure that your proposal is free of
errors and includes a list of references to back up your
suggestions.
Your final part of the paper (summary and recommendations)
should be a minimum of 2 pages. This will be added to the end
of the proposal with each of the sections included from your
previous weeks. Your final project combined should be a
minimum of 16 pages (not including the title and reference
page).
You will also combine all of your presentation materials to
create a final overview presentation for presenting to
MacArthur and Associates. Remember, you want them to be
impressed with not only your knowledge, but your
professionalism. Be sure to add slides for your recommendation
and summary. Double check your work for error and submit to
your instructor upon completion.
Your paper should reflect scholarly writing and current APA
standards. Please include citations to support your ideas.
Week 3, Reading Section 3.1: Introduction
I. Introduction
In Week 3, there will be three foci. First, you will revisit the
theoretical discussions of Week 2, regarding the various forms
of Egoism. As indicated, above, Egoism is not a single theory,
but a collection of related ones, with different sources and roots
from Ancient to Modern Times. Second, you will examine the
sources and conduits of your own moral belief systems, against

the backdrop of religion and secular society. In doing so, you
should try to identify how your beliefs are similar to the beliefs
of other cultures, not your own. Third, you will be required to
discuss the first, substantive issue area, to formulate an
Argument regarding that issue area, Global Warming and the
Environment, applying the ethical/moral theories you have
studied so far, and to defend your position.
Please remember that this is a Secular Morality and Ethics
course, rather than a Comparative Religions or Theology course.
As a result, using religious sources, per se, and claiming
adherence to any particular religion will not be sufficient to
support whatever philosophic arguments you make during the
upcoming weeks. Here is one very important reason: invoking
your own religious beliefs and their tenets will not demonstrate
that you understand and can use the secular moral/ethical
theories that you will be studying, thus undermining the
purposes of the course.
Resource: Egoism, Morality, and Religion [PDF]
Resource: Ethical Egoism
Resource: Peter Singer's The How and Why of
Altruism [VIDEO]
Week 3, Reading Section 3.2: Sources of Ethical/Moral Systems
II. Sources and Conduits of Ethical/Moral Beliefs
Before you address the foci of this week, please do an exercise.
Take some time and reflect/analyse from where your ethical and
moral beliefs originate. For most people, their ethical views
come to them from two primary conduits: family
background/informal socialization and religion in which they
were reared. These are often only conduits of the views,
because those two sources often trace their passing on of those
ideas, from their own social and individual origins and
developments.
In doing such an exercise, you will probably soon see that
many, if not most, of the world’s religious cultures share some

fundamental views and rules. For example, most if not all
condemn the killing of a fellow human being, without right/just
cause. Moreover, some go so far as to condemn all killing of
fellow human beings. However, keep in that the reasons a
particular culture might have embraced or continues to embrace
certain values might vary from cultures that have the similar
values and views.
A. Religion
A fascinating subject. Along with Politics, some of us have
been admonished since childhood, not to discuss those two
subjects with others, since verbal fights, or worse, can and often
do result. The reasons for such disagreements are many, varied,
personal, and societal, and not the subject of the current
narrative.
Rather, we should reflect that religion/theology and
spirituality, as social phenomena, represent our human desires
to understand our positions in the Universe and to address
questions of Life, possibilities following Life, and the existence
of Deity or Deities. Every culture on the Planet has one or more
religious sub-cultures within it. Some cultures tolerate only one
religion’s existence, while other cultures tolerate a plethora of
religions.
As systems of mass communications and transportation have
“shrunk” the Planet, religious tolerance has become even more
important than in the past. Keep in mind the admonition at the
end of the Introduction: we are briefly examining the social and
personal positions of religions, against the backdrop of a very
culturally diverse Planet.
As noted, many people receive their first moral/ethical exposure
from the religion or religions in which they have been reared.
The further conduit of those values is often their families. In
many cultures around the Globe, the secular and religious
worlds remain inextricably intertwined. Consider Islamic sects
in different cultural settings, for example in the Middle
East/Persian Gulf versus in Indonesia. Or consider the various
sects of Buddhism in the World.

Resource: Religion and Egoism [PDF]
B. Secular Society
A curious thing happened in Western societies between the
Fourteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. As a result of the Plagues
of the Fourteenth Century, the Renaissance of the Fifteenth and
Sixteenth Centuries along with the Protestant Christian
Reformation of the latter Century, and the Enlightenment of the
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, a secularization of
everyday life took place. Separate spheres and secular, social
institutions, such as government, emerged, such that Secular
Society and Religions had diverged.
That is not to say Western societies became atheistic or
collectively renounced religion. But it is to say those societies
compartmentalized the every-day and the spiritual worlds,
separately. Increasing cultural diversity, within the same
geographic regions, especially in the wake of the Second World
War, as we saw last Week, resulted in Cultural Relativism and
Subjectivism, as strong themes in Moral Philosophy and Ethics.
It is now the role of secular authorities to balance the interests
of different religious subcultures and to treat each fairly, not
favoring any one sub-culture over another.
As you consider the role of religion, or lack thereof, in your
own lives, do reflect on the fact that: (1) there is not one,
single, human religion encompassing all peoples, and (2) many,
as noted, share basic and important values.
Week 3, Reading Section 3.3: Poverty--Home and Abroad
III. Poverty--Home and Abroad
This short narrative in no way pretends to be a thorough
treatment of the related subjects of World and Domestic
Poverty. These issues are omni-present in our cultures today,
around the World. You have your views of those issues and your
positions. Poverty is not a new problem, whether within our
society or around the World. Sub-humane living conditions
plague billions of people. Inadequate food and water supplies,
jobs/income sources, no housing, no medical care, little or no
education are all conditions pandemic among the poor.

We are confronted with these issues in Moral Philosophy and
Ethics every day. Do we have a duty to help the poor, if we
can? Or don’t we? What might be ways to alleviate poverty and
deprivation? Can poverty be eliminated?
As you will see from the readings, below, commentators are
divided over whether there is a solution to World and Domestic
Poverty. Chronic conditions persist, they argue, despite efforts
by governments, charities, and NGOs (Non-Governmental
Organisations). Other writers, such as Peter Singer suggest that
there are solutions to the problems of Poverty. Please approach
this issue as openly as possible, and park pre-conceived, or
uninformed, notions “at the door.”
Resource: The Singer
Solution
to World Poverty by Peter Singer
Resource: Poverty [PDF]
Resource: Living on a lifeboat, by Garrett Hardin
Resource: 25 Sobering Statistics on Global Poverty That Might
Upset You [VIDEO, BELOW]
Week 1, Reading Section 1.1: Introduction
I. Introduction
Welcome to the World of Contemporary Ethical and Moral
Issues and Decision-making! When confronted with a moral
problem, have you ever weighed the expected results against the

costs? Have you ever been frustrated by an argument that didn't
make sense to you, but you didn't know why? Have you ever
listened to politicians give answers to questions that weren't
answers at all and been annoyed when there was no follow up
by the interviewer? Have you ever tried to explain to a child
why doing something unpleasant is actually for his or her own
good?
Congratulations! You have been applying the skills of Moral
Philosophy and Ethics. Before taking this course, you might
have known the terminology, concepts, and ideas involved in
Philosophy, in general, and in Ethics and Moral Philosophy, in
particular. But chances are that you did not yet know the
technical “lingo” that Philosophers have been bandying about
for more than two millennia. Nevertheless, you were “doing”
Moral Philosophy!
A. Introduction to Key Concepts
Now, you will learn that “lingo” and terminology, which will
distinguish you as an educated person! In this first section, we
shall see some of the vocabulary of Moral Philosophy, starting
with the word, “Philosophy,” itself. “Philosophy” comes from
two Greek words, “philein,” and “sophia.” The first is one of
several words in Greek that mean “love.” (In Greek, there are
different words for different kinds of “love.”) The second
means “wisdom.” Thus, Philosophy means a “love of wisdom.”

And that applies to wisdom in all aspects of life.
Resource: How Should We Decide Right from Wrong? [PDF]
Next, is “Logic.” For those Star Trek fans among you, you know
that this is the sub-discipline that saved Vulcans from killing
each other. On a more serious note, Logic is the language of
Philosophy, based on Reason. It provides the vocabulary,
grammar, and structure of Philosophical Discourse,
in Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Argument/Rhetoric. All are
important in Moral Philosophy.
Resource: Logic [PDF]
A few words on each. What is “Metaphysics”? It is the field of
Philosophy that delves into “Being”; what exists; what is non-
existent; the meaning of both, Existence and Non-Existence.
“Epistemology” deals with Theories of Knowledge. It asks the
questions: what do you know? How do you know it? What are
your sources of Knowledge? What are the processes of
acquiring Knowledge? Finally, there is “Argument,” which is
the method of presenting a position to an audience, for the
purpose of persuading the members of the audience of the
validity of the position.
Resource: Argument
All these fields were invented by Aristotle, the student
of Plato and his Academy. And Aristotle’s theories, based on
Reason, were imported into Western Thought, by
Thomas Aquinas in the Thirteenth Century. (Plato’s theories

had been imported by Augustine in the Fifth Century.)
1. Ethics and Important Theorists
Ethics and Moral Philosophy ask the questions: What should we
do in life, when faced with ethical or moral problems/dilemmas,
and how can we justify our choices? In the latter instance, that’s
where Argument./Rhetoric become essential. As you will see,
throughout the course, this is an on-going process, and life is
full of moral issues and dilemmas on a daily basis. Some are
simple, and some are much more complex.
Throughout the course, you will encounter these leading
theorists: Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, John Stuart
Mill, Jeremy Bentham, John Rawls, Martha Nussbaum, W.D.
Ross, and Harriet Taylor, to name a few. Kant was the
Philosopher who invented Deontological Thought. Deontology
argues that results, alone, do not make an action moral. One
must reason the right thing to do, must recognise a Duty to do
it, and must always do the right thing. In addition, Kant argued
that we should always treat our fellow human beings as ends-in-
themselves and NEVER as means. Deontology is a Non-
Consequentialist theory. The more-recent Philosophers, John
Rawls , W.D. Ross, and Martha Nussbaum, tend to be more like
Kant, but Non-Absolutist, while Kant believed that there could
be no exceptions to doing that right thing in all situations.
Jeremy Bentham, David Hume, Harriet Taylor, and John Stuart
Mill were Utilitarians. Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist

school of moral thought, which argues that results are what
make an action moral, regardless of the intentions of the Actor.
Under Utilitarianism, the goal is to reduce pain in the world;
put another way, the goal is to maximise happiness for the
greatest number of people, who will be affected by the action,
even if the interests of a few have to be sacrificed in the
process. These two schools, Non-Consequentialism and
Consequentialism, will be ever-present in the course.
2. Introduction to Moral and Ethical Reasoning
Let’s consider the questions with which you were confronted
above, once more. Have you ever been frustrated by an
argument that didn't make sense to you, but you didn't know
why? Have you ever listened to politicians give answers to
questions that weren't answers at all and been annoyed when
there was no follow up by the interviewer? Have you ever tried
to explain to a child why doing something unpleasant is actually
for his or her own good?
In the first case, you may have encountered an invalid argument
but did not realize it because the pieces all seemed to make
sense. In the second case, you may have listened to an exchange
in which the interviewer didn't uncover reasoning errors made
by the speaker, perhaps due to the speaker's charm and
oratorical skill. In the third case, you may have been trying to
construct a valid and sound argument based on premises that,
although true, were beyond the child's limited comprehension.

As these examples demonstrate, we all deal with arguments
every day. Many of us, however, may never have learned what
goes into a well-built argument, or how to construct arguments
based on premises grounded in our most basic beliefs. The very
sound of the word argument may be unpleasant to some. It
should be noted that Rhetoric defines “Arguments,” not as
disagreements, but as conclusions about an issue supported by
reasons. It is interesting to note that the word argument in
common parlance has a disagreeable connotation, as a fight, just
as rhetoric, once considered the art of persuasion and a valued
part of a classical education, now has the pejorative sense of
mere words. One might ask how these negative associations
reflect contemporary society's value of careful thought, logic,
and well-constructed presentations of arguments.
To make truly conscious decisions on ethical matters, we must
know and be firmly grounded in our ethical principles, carefully
weigh all of the facts involved, and come to conclusions based
on a process of reasoning —a process of argumentation—that
often will also have to take emotion into account. Before that
process can occur, however, we must examine our conscience
and beliefs to be sure that our most basic and foundational
principles are clear. These principles constitute our ethical
theory.
This examination is a never-ending process for the most
thoughtful people, but it rarely (if ever) occurs. Fortunately,

this course gives you an opportunity to examine your principles
and how you apply them. It is hoped that this exercise will
enable you to make better decisions and better understand the
ethical nuances in everything you see around you, well after you
have forgotten the minutiae of this course.
Throughout the course, not only in this week's reading, you
should return to the form and structure of arguments. As you
read and formulate positions and arguments, review the basic
elements of a sound and valid argument. The more you practice,
the more your command of the terms and usages will improve
and become second-nature. Consider this as a recurring
theme within all of the remaining readings.
Week 1, Reading Section 1.2: Moral and Ethical Reasoning
II. Moral & Ethical Reasoning, In-depth
A. Ethical Theories and their Significance
In their leading text on ethics, Shaw and Barry (2004, 22) state
that "[i]f a moral judgment is defensible, then it must be
supportable by a defensible moral standard, together with
relevant facts." These sound moral principles provide a
necessary, but insufficient framework for making moral
judgments and decisions alone. To have a sufficient framework,
we need sound moral principles, careful thought and reflection,
and technical skill in argument building and analysis. Together,
these enable us to work from general principles to specific

judgments and actions. It is not enough, for example, to want to
be a great mother (sound principle). One has to make that
principle specific by defining what actions qualify a woman as a
great mother and determining how to carry out those actions.
Unfortunately (or maybe not), there is no general agreement on
what "sound moral principles" are. As noted, above, ethical
theories break down into two major groups:
1. consequentialist ethics, or ethics based on the results of
actions
2. nonconsequentialist ethics, or ethics based not on results, but
on the proper motivation for action
As you read the theories in these two groups, ask yourself
which type you adhere to and why. Is the most important thing
in determining the goodness of an action whether or not it
produces a good result for you personally (egoism) or for a
large number of people (consequentialist)? Is the determining
factor of moral goodness a person's motivation to act regardless
of whether or not that person succeeds in carrying out the action
in question (nonconsequentialist)?
Although the latter possibility may sound odd, we can easily
find a number of examples in which the motivation behind an
act can give the act (or attempted act) its ethical value.
Examples include: a person who dives into a river to save a
child, whether or not that person is actually able to save the
child's life, because human life is of inestimable value, someone

who speaks out against a dictator's rule, only to lose his life
without having had any effect on the dictator's grasp of power,
because the unjust use of power should always be opposed
Subsets of these two schools of thought include the following:
psychological and ethical egoism, Rule and Act Utilitarianism,
Kant's Deontological ethics, prima facie ethics. Don't worry if
these terms mean nothing to you yet, but be sure after your
reading that you can define and compare these ethical theories.
You will find the readings helpful in this regard, both in their
analyses of the theories and in discussions of problems with
each theory.
Try to determine what your own ethical theory is and what
forms the basis of that theory. You may formulate that theory
here (no one else will see what you write) and come back to it
periodically throughout the course to determine whether it has
changed or become more nuanced.
As you read, and in your post-reading review, think about the
larger social context and significance of each theory: What kind
of society is presupposed by each theory? What kind of society
would result if that theory were predominant? Is there a
difference between acting on principles (Kantian Non-
Consequentialism), on results (Consequentialism), or on notions
of "virtue?" What is the difference between principles and
"virtues?"
Are values innate in individuals, before and/or after practice,

and acted upon from habit? How does conscious intention to "do
the right thing" play into the equation? If people act only from
habit, is that particularly more laudable than someone who acts
upon conscious principle and conviction, exhibiting courage in
the face of opposition? Does human failure to "live up to one's
values" suggest that people do both good and bad things? Does
doing a bad thing one moment make a person a "bad person"?
Does doing a good thing the next moment make that same
person "good"?
These are the sorts of dilemmas that we encounter in the
application of theories. This is why critical thinking skills are
so important. Looking forward to future Commentaries, you will
note that we will be moving to the political, legal, and social
framework of Contemporary Moral Issues ethics.
B. Argumentation and Critical Thinking
1. Moral and Ethical Reasoning and Argument
Sherry Diestler, in her important text, Becoming a Critical
Thinker, defines a critical thinker as "someone who uses
specific criteria to evaluate reasoning and make decisions."
These criteria include a careful examination of value and reality
assumptions. They also include having the ability to recognize
good deductive reasoning (which, in a structure of argument
called a syllogism, works from a major and minor premise to a
specific conclusion) and good inductive reasoning (which works
from a number of specifics to a general conclusion).

Again, don't worry if you don't know what these terms mean
before you complete your reading, but be sure after your
reading that you understand these types of reasoning and how
they work. In particular, be sure that you can explain
what validity in deductive argumentation means: what the
proper form of an argument is, how syllogisms are constructed,
what modus ponens, modus tollens, and chain arguments are and
why they are valid, why arguments that are invalid are judged to
be so. Note the difference between a valid argument (which is
technically correct even if the premises are false) and a sound
argument (which is a valid argument with true premises).
The following is an example of a valid but unsound argument:
All trees have leaves.
The pine is a tree.
Therefore, the pine has leaves.
Although this argument can easily be seen as unsound, it is
valid because it follows proper form. In determining the
ethically appropriate response to a situation, we should attempt
to construct sound arguments. Unfortunately, deductive
arguments are most reliable when they involve proven fact and
when we can know with relative certainty that premises are true.
Ethical situations often involve subjectively determined
premises, which make the construction of sound arguments
more difficult than those of pure fact.
When dealing with other than proven fact, we must question

whether or not the premises are true. A more difficult example
of a valid but probably unsound argument makes this clear:
All women who are feminists are incapable of treating men
fairly.
June is a feminist.
Therefore, June is incapable of treating men fairly.
We are not dealing with proven facts in the premises to this
argument. Recall that facts are significant elements of sound,
valid, and defensible arguments. In this example, even the
definitions of "feminists" and "fair treatment" vary.
In many cases, the premises of arguments are derived
from inductive reasoning, which is the use of facts and research
findings to make generalizations. In everyday experience,
inductive reasoning is drawing general conclusions from the
observation of many instances of something. In reading about
inductive reasoning, pay particular attention to the
argumentation presented for drawing conclusions about cause
and effect. Note the difficulty in distinguishing
between correlations (two events occurring together without
being related as cause and effect) and true causation (X being
the cause of effect Y).
In your reading, consider the significance of assigning causality
to events in the ethical and social arena that occur together but
in fact are not related as cause and effect. In some cases, when
we are confident that causal connections exist between action or

condition X and event Y, we may conclude that we have a duty
or responsibility to perform action X. On the other hand, when
we are confident that only correlations exist between action or
condition X and event Y, we may be compelled to speak out
against injustices, blaming event Y on action or condition X.
2. Critical Thinking Skills
In approaching moral and ethical issues and problems, you
should always consider the role of critical thinking skills and
ways to improve your own. Rather than accepting any
proposition or any statement from business, political, or media
sources on its face, you should:
First, look at the terms and words of the statement. What does it
mean? Second, look beneath the surface of those terms, to
the speaker or writer and his or her purpose in presenting and
arguing the statement. Why is the speaker making this
assertion? What might be the background of the speaker that
enfranchises him or her to make such an assertion? What is the
agenda that the speaker or writer seeks to advance?
These and similar questions help us to identify the facts and
underlying assumptions in most moral and ethical problems.
They are useful tools for us to uncover the actual issues
presented and to avoid diversions, which could cause us to miss
the important issue(s) in the situation. Any time that you are
called upon to make moral or ethical decisions, the first step
will often entail the application of your critical thinking skills

to identify the facts, circumstances, and issues, which will
facilitate your resolution and decision-making processes. In this
course, the use of critical thinking skills is a necessary
concomitant to all that we do here.
C. Common Errors in Reasoning and the Need for
Broadmindedness
As we all know, what seems correct in theory doesn't always
work in practice. In our everyday lives, we find many examples
of reasoning errors (defined by Diestler [2001] as fallacies that
don't provide adequate support for the conclusions reached). We
also find many examples of defensiveness, intolerance,
ethnocentrism, and egocentrism in people's refusal to listen to
and evaluate the reasoning of others. Be on the lookout for
these errors and for the failure of arguers—including you—to be
broad and fair minded in evaluating and responding to others'
arguments.
Week 1, Reading Section 1.3: General Resources
III. General Resources
The following sources will provide considerable research
material and additional readings, to assist you. The first is the
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.iep.utm.edu/.
It covers a variety of subjects and issues. The second is the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu . The
S.E.P’s range of subjects is far more vast than the I.E.P. , but

some of the articles are more in-depth and sophisticated than
the I.E.P.
The third are podcasts and video lectures by Marianne Talbot of
Oxford University. They can be accessed through iTunesU. You
click on that tab in your iTunes, go to Colleges and
Universities, thence to Oxford, and finally to Philosophy (on the
right side of the page). The podcasts and videos, relevant to this
course, are under the following general Collection, A Romp
Through Ethics for Complete Beginners. These may be
downloaded under Creative Commons licenses and are FREE, as
are the I.E.P. and the Stanford Encyclopedia! There are
additional lecture sets on the Oxford University Philosophy
site, which can assist you in other Philosophy subject.

Progressive Case Study-Client ReportOver the past 8 weeks, you hav.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Progressive Case Study-Client ReportOver the past 8 weeks, you hav.docx

Similar to Progressive Case Study-Client ReportOver the past 8 weeks, you hav.docx (20)

More from briancrawford30935

More from briancrawford30935 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Progressive Case Study-Client ReportOver the past 8 weeks, you hav.docx