1Running Header FOUNDATION PROSPECTS RESEARCH CHALLENGES 2F.docx

1
Running Header: FOUNDATION PROSPECTS RESEARCH
CHALLENGES
2
FOUNDATION PROSPECTS RESEARCH CHALLENGES
FOUNDATION PROSPECTS RESEARCH CHALLENGES
Student’s Name
Tutor’s Name
Course Title
Date
The charitable organization chosen is Los Angeles food bank
(Los Angeles Food bank, 2018).
The potential foundations likely to support a food bank
discussed below
Collaborating with other food banks may help to accumulate
resources. Teaming up with another entity that offers the same
services increase the outreach of the foodbanks by bringing
together efforts and similar skills on one table. It is easier to
harness resources from leaders, community members by
collaborating with other similar minds. More so, partnership
makes some functions easier due to sharing of activities and

ideas. Integration of ideas makes the presence of an entity felt
throughout a community (Los Angeles Food bank, 2018).
The second source is enrolling in a foundation that offerssoft
loan programs and other kinds of assistance. Revolving loan
plans. Under such programs, an administrator is able to expand
a charitable entity. The loans have very low interest rates and
can keep a food bank afloat by purchasing equipment and other
operational costs. The programs are under the reprocessing
market improvement regions. Under the program, the food bank
is a recycling firm. The loan can cover all operational costs. It
is important to note that aw government can cover such costs
when one applies for help as the money goes into a charitable
course. Although not popular, loans can be donations as they
offer direct assistance (Ohls, Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc., & United States, 2002).
Building prospects has to do with social networking and
building lasting relationship with people that will offer
financial assistance immediately without any supervision. One
of the foundation with a low prospect is an international based
food foundation such as FAO. International foundations handle
manyresponsibilities under their belt and cannot stretch further
to assist a local food bank. Therefore, it is good for an entity to
utilize various diverse foundations. Stewardship organizations
may not have enough finances to carry a charitable organization
through thick and thin. Hence, it is good to find various
foundations with a solid financial base (Ohls, Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., & United States, 2002).

References
Los Angeles Food bank
Retrieved from: https://www.lafoodbank.org/
Ohls, J. C., Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., & United States.
(2002). The emergency food assistance system-- findings from
the provider survey: Vol. II. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Week 8, Reading Section 8.1: Introduction
I. Introduction
As an Introduction to Philosophy course will indicate, two of
the greatest Philosophers were Plato and Aristotle. They asked
all the right questions, and the rest of us have been providing
footnotes, ever since. They were the initial, systematic theorists
of Ethics and Moral Philosophy. They also argued in favor of
Reason, over Emotions in making such decisions.
They based their ethical theories on certain habitual forms of
behavior, they termed “virtues.” These were Knowledge and
Wisdom, which Aristotle termed “intellectual virtues,” and
Courage and Temperance, which he termed “moral virtues.” An
overall virtue is Justice. Another virtue is Compassion.
Week 8, Reading Section 8.2: Plato, Aristotle & Virtue, and
Kant
II. Plato, Aristotle & Virtue, and Kant
Plato and Aristotle, each, had his own way of determining the
definition of Virtue. Plato argued it was found in the Ideal
Plane, in his Theory of the Forms. We need not go into that,
here, in more depth, due to time, and due to one fact: it is

Aristotle’s way of defining Virtues that has dominated the
literature. His definition is multi-layered: (1) Virtue is
Habitual,(2) based on the Mean between Extremes, (3) resulting
in one’s leading The Good Life. For example, Courage was the
Mean between foolhardiness and cowardice. Wisdom was the
Mean between “know-it-all-ism” and Ignorance, etc. Habit is
learned behavior, repeated, usually without thinking.
One conceptual difficulty with Aristotle’s theory is that it is
circular. This can be illustrated by the following example. How
do we know a “good” or “bad” person? By actions? So, a
“good” person does “good” things, etc. John does “good”
things; thus, John is a “good” person. But here’s where the
circularity problem emerges: A “good” person does “good”
things, etc. So, John will do “good” things, because he is a
“good” person, and we know he’s a “good” person, because he
does “good” things.
Here are two conceptual problems with this. First, we do not
have flawless, absolute Knowledge of all of John’s actions.
Thus, for the times for which we have NO Knowledge, he might
have done “bad” things. We just don’t know. Therefore, we
must rely on “faith,” which, regrettably, is often “let down.”
We can’t know John is always a “good” person.
Second, we know “good” people do “bad” things, and vice
versa. Does doing a “bad” thing render a “good” person “bad”
and vice versa? The problem, ultimately, lies in the premise
Aristotle made, which is that a person’s moral persona is made
up his/her actions, only.
Nevertheless, this is Aristotle’s Theory. People, based on their
Reason, should follow a Moderate, or Middle, course, by Habit.
And the types of ways in which they may act, in certain
contexts, are called Virtues: Knowledge, Wisdom, Temperance,
Courage, Justice, and Compassion, though the first five he
considered more important than Compassion.
Many centuries later, Immanuel Kant, as we have seen,
addressed Ethics and Moral Philosophy. He agreed with Plato
and Aristotle that Ethics should be based on Reason, rather than

Hume’s Compassion-(Emotion-)based approach. But he
disagreed with them on “Virtue,” in the form they
conceptualized it. He argued against “habitual,” unthinking, and
repetitious behavior. For an action to be moral, the Actor had to
be aware of a Moral Duty/Imperative and had to identify what
that Imperative was, using his Categorical Imperative. Thus, he
identified Absolute principles, as the style in which moral
decisions should be made. Kant’s work has dominated Moral
Philosophy discourse ever since. . . until the next section.
Week 8, Reading Section 8.3: Recent Users of “Virtue”
III. Recent Users of “Virtue”
A funny thing happened on the way to the Twenty-first Century.
. . During the Very Late-1960s and 1970s, corporate and
government scandals hit the United States, once again.
Lockheed, Watergate, ITT, and a number of others occurred,
indicating that corporate and government ideologues had been
caught, “doing bad things,” because “ends justified means.”
Since Kant’s approach was inherent in our ethical, moral, and
legal discourses, many such folks went to governmentally-
supported “grey-rock hotels,” for a while. . .
In response to these developments, first in the so-called “elite,”
Graduate Business schools around the country, and, later, within
corporate and ideological circles, a renewed interest in “virtue”
appeared. These advocates, such as William Bennett, calling
themselves, Virtue Ethicists, argued for a new approach,
because they claimed that there were too many, possible
moral/ethical principles and choices. It was too confusing
knowing what one should do. They also complained that Kant
was too rigid, given to Absolutes, rendering him unrealistic and
impractical in application. (British Philosopher W.D. Ross, a
Post-Kantian thinker, though faithful to Kant, solved this
problem, by providing his refinements of “A priori” duties and
of resolution of conflict among competing “A priori” duties in a
situation.)
Rather, loosely based on Plato’s and Aristotle’s concepts of
“Virtue,” these new advocates, including Bennett, argued that,

to know what the right thing to do was, all one had to do was
look at the situation, and ask: “What would the virtuous person
do?” So, one would be “courageous,” if it were called for. Or
one would be “wise,” if it were called for, and so on.
That all sounds plausible, until one looks at their underlying
discourse, which had argued against principles. One is left with
the question of standards. How does one know what courage,
etc. are, without standards or basic principles? A more skeptical
observer might conclude that these new “virtuecrats” did
not like the prior principles they claimed were too numerous
and confusing, and wanted to put down their own terms of the
discourse, thus controlling it. When is a “principle” not a
“principle”? When I say it’s not. . . And I claim it’s a “virtue.”
A cynic might go farther, reflecting that Virtue Ethics came
down to two rules: (1) Do what looks good in public; and (2) do
what you want to, behind closed doors, so long as you can get
away with it. . . .
To be fair, the Virtue Ethics folks rely on the “old virtues,” as
discussed, above, to guide moral decision-making. These are:
Knowledge, Wisdom, Justice, Courage, Temperance/
Moderation, and Compassion. And, undeniably, those are good.
Some folks in this field are, no doubt, sincere in their pursuits
of the Old Virtues, but the difficulties cannot be denied. . .
And with the flowering of the Virtue Ethics school. . . along
came the 1980s’ scandals and those of the Early-2000s. And
2008. . . Can we spell E-N-R-O-N, W-O-R-L-D-C-O-M, T–Y-C-
O, or S-E-C? And we’re sure glad you got a light sentence,
Martha; we all missed you!. . . . Can I interest anyone in a “sub-
prime, adjustable rate” mortgage, no strings attached?. . .
For the remainder of the Week, please reflect on the other
theories that we have seen during the course. It could be that,
in reflecting upon, (re-)constructing, revising, or modifying
your own systems of ethics/morals, you find that you want to
pick various elements from all of them. . . That is alright, too. .
. That is called Freedom of Thought. . .

I. Introduction
The Late-1960s and 1970s witnessed the arising of the Feminist
Movements. One of the key causative factors, but by no means
the only one, was the publication in the Late-1940s of Simone
de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex. De Beauvoir, a Philosopher,
Existentialist, and colleague and intimate of Jean Paul Sartre,
wrote the book, because she recognized what she considered an
odd phenomenon: when she was associated with Sartre and his
work, she was respected by their colleagues. But when she
ventured out, on her intellectual own, in non-collaborative
works, she was not respected by those same colleagues.
Deciding she wanted to examine the possible reasons for this
discrepancy, she delved deeply, researched, came to certain
conclusions, and wrote the book. And WHAT a BOOK!
After investigating ancient and modern cultures, she concluded
that the definition of what it meant to be “human” was set, in
modern, paternalistic cultures by a male standard. In her words,
“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” She argued
that woman was always “the Other,” “the Outsider,” to these
male definitions of “human.” Put another way, men decided
what it meant to be a woman. De Beauvoir argued for women’s
equality with men.
Twenty+ years after the publication of The Second Sex, a new
Women’s Movement, referred to variously, as Second- or Third-
Wave Feminism arose, first, in Europe and the United States,
then in other parts of the World. Theorists re-examined, and, in
the words of the French Philosopher, Jacques Derrida,
“deconstructed” the major sub-fields of Philosophy, including
Epistemology, Metaphysics, Cosmology, Ethics/Moral
Philosophy, Social and Political Philosophies, Philosophy of
Natural Sciences, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of the
Mind (Psychology), Philosophy of Religion.
The variety and richness of the theories of Feminism are beyond
the scope of this brief module. Rather, we shall focus on one or

two particular forms of Feminist Ethics. (Like all other areas of
Philosophy, there is not only one form of Feminist Ethics,
Epistemology, Metaphysics, or Social or Political Philosophy,
or of the other branches of Philosophy.) One of the theories we
shall see is called the Ethics of Care, whose principal theorists
are Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings. The other theory is the
Capabilities Theory of Martha Nussbaum. Below is a link to an
entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which gives
an excellent overview of Feminist Ethical theories, in general.
Resource: Feminist Ethics
Week 7, Reading Section 7.2: The Ethics of Care
II. The Ethics of Care
Ethics and Moral Philosophy, since the earliest Greek theories
until David Hume, have been founded on the premise that
Reason provides the foundation of all ethical thought. From
Plato and Aristotle, until Hume, Emotions have been viewed as
inadequate bases of any of the branches of Philosophy, but most
especially Moral and Ethical Thought. Since Aristotle’s views
had been imported into Western Thought by Aquinas, it was
Aristotle’s viewpoint on the preference of Reason, over
Emotions or Passions, in Philosophy.
With David Hume, as we have seen, that orientation was
reversed. Hume argued that Compassion should be the basis of
Moral thought, since Reason could not provide the definitive
answer to ethical/moral problems. Kant revisited this issue and
re-asserted the primacy of Reason. Since Kant, until Feminist
Theories arose in the Later-20th Century, Reason was once
more predominant.
A. Carol Gilligan
A more recent theorist, Lawrence Kohlberg, developed a 6-stage
moral development framework. Levels 5 and 6 were the highest
stages of moral developmental status, with each based on
Reason. From his research, Kohlberg relegated women to a
highest level of 3 or 4, because the women in his studies often
acted on Empathy, Sympathy, or similar, Emotion-based
systems. Kohlberg’s research assistant, Carol Gilligan, once

free of the dangers of “disagreeing with the boss,” did research
of her own, and reached very different conclusions.
Gilligan concluded young women and men were socialized
differently, and, therefore, thought differently, especially, but
not only, in ethical/moral matters. Men operated from a more
dispassionate, so-called “objective” and Reason-based
viewpoint, while women considered the needs of others, not
based on Reason, but rather on Compassion and Caring, in
making moral decisions. In addition, she concluded that, in fact,
women and men looked at moral issues, differently and
instinctively, in general. As male theorists had been setting the
standards, for centuries, on “the right thing to do,” they
relegated women’s approaches to “inferior” status, most
especially because those approaches were based on Emotions
and Caring.
In her paradigm-shifting text, In a Different Voice, Gilligan laid
out the differences between women’s and men’s approaches to
ethics and morality. Different approaches did not mean one was
“better” than the other. She thereby laid claim to a position of
equality for women’s views, for the first time. Other Feminist
theorists would build on Gilligan’s work. Still others would
take different paths.
B. Nel Noddings
Another Feminist theorist, Nancy Chodorow, had argued that
little girls and little boys learned different ways of relating to
others and to the world, based on contemporary child-rearing
techniques. Little girls were encouraged to foster a relational
connectedness, while little boys developed, based on separation
and autonomy. Interestingly, Chodorow faulted these facts and
suggested a solution, based on women’s and men’s equal
responsibilities for child-rearing and providing for the family.
Carol Gilligan’s work drew from Chodorow’s, in identifying the
different ways in which women and men approach moral issues,
as noted.
Philosopher Nel Noddings refined those approaches more
specifically. She identified a “Caring” instinct in women’s

methods of confronting and resolving moral situations. Men, as
noted, rely upon Abstract concepts and principles, based on
Reason. It is from this “Caring Instinct,” that the system of the
Ethics of Care is derived.
Rather than a set of specific principles for dealing with all
moral situations, the Ethics of Care suggest a methodology,
based on evaluating the needs of others in the given situation.
Here is a common example.
Suppose that you are working in a nursing home, which caters
to Dementia and Alzheimer’s patients. One afternoon you see
one of the patients, an elderly man, ostensibly having a very
animated conversation with the figures in a painting on the wall.
You have a moral dilemma. Should you tell him, based on a
Reasoned approach, that his conversation is not truly taking
place? Or should you leave him, alone? (Important fact: his
actions are not disturbing any of the other patients or the staff
and those actions are not threatening anyone’s wellbeing.)
What should you do? The Ethics of Care would suggest that,
after determining that he is not harming anyone else by his
actions, nor placing himself in any physical danger, you should
leave him to enjoy a conversation that he thinks is taking place
and that is adding to his happiness, even though you know that
the figures in the painting are not answering him, as be believes
they are. There is no (Abstract) Duty, in that situation, to tell
him the truth.
Put another way, the Ethics of Care suggest the decision-maker
take into account the other person’s needs, on a care-giving
level, rather than on a dispassionate, reasoned basis. For her
part, Noddings found the Ethics of Care a better approach to
Abstract Reason and Application of so-called Objective
Principles, divorced from situational factors.
Please note that, generally, the Philosophers we have seen so
far, including the Feminist theorists, have been addressing
ethical and moral issues from the perspective of how individual,
human beings should confront and resolve such issues.
Conversely, as we shall see in the next section, Martha

Nussbaum takes a more systemic, and societal approach.
Week 7, Reading Section 7.3: Capabilities Theory: Martha
Nussbaum
III. Capabilities Theory: Martha Nussbaum
One of the more well-known Philosophers, in a popular sense, is
Martha Nussbaum, who has written on a wide variety of
subjects and issues. She began from a classical, Aristotelian
vantage. And she has written extensively on women’s rights,
collaborating with Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen, on socio-
economic development issues.
Recognizing that modern Philosophy had inadequately
addressed the problems of inequality of treatment for women
and people with disabilities, she has developed a more
societally-based and systemic approach to women’s rights and
to rights in general. That is the Capabilities Approach, which is
founded on two premises: (1) Freedom is essential to the
development of all human beings, and (2) to insure maximum
freedom for all members of society, society and government
must provide each member the capabilities to develop her/her
freedom. Renowned Historian James McPherson has referred to
the latter as “Positive Liberty.”
What Nussbaum means by “capabilities,” are certain skills and
attributes, which individuals need, in order to live and enjoy
life. There are certain capacities that are necessary for this to be
realized, on a large-scale. Thus, she concludes it is the role/duty
of society and government, to ensure that each individual is
provided with these capacities, to facilitate her/his pursuit of
the use of her/his gifts, to be productive and moral agents and
to contribute to society.
Resource: The Capability Approach
Resource: Feminist Perspectives on Objectification
In this way, she broaches the separation between so-called
Economic Libertarianism, as pronounced and espoused by
Robert Nozick, and Communitarianism and the work of John
Rawls. In effect, she also removes the oversight in Rawls’ work,
which makes it more directly of assistance to women and people

with disabilities. Rawls’ original orientations had been toward
the poor and cultural minorities.
As you approach and delve into this week’s substantive topic
and issues, Cloning and forms of Artificial Reproductive
Technologies, apply the Ethics of Care and Capabilities
Theories to those issues.
Week 7, Reading Section 7.4: Cloning and Artificial (or
Assisted) Reproductive Technologies
IV. Cloning and Artificial (or Assisted) Reproductive
Technologies
These are not new topics and issues. However, due to their
complexities and subtleties, they are ones, on which we do not
have only one or two moral/ethical consensus. In the Mid-
1970s, it was announced that the first “test-tube baby” had been
born. What that sound-byte head-line meant was that
conception/fertilization of the newborn had taken place, outside
the parents’ “natural” milieus; i.e., what we now know as “In
vitro” fertilization had been done. Today, it is an expensive, if
also more commonly offered, medical practice, sought by
couples, who, for one reason or another, desire to have a family,
but cannot conceive on their own.
Resources:
Assisted Reproductive Technology and sociology. (UMUC
Library One Search)Wienclaw, Ruth A. Research Starters:
Sociology (Online Edition), 2015. 6p., Database: Research
Starter
IEP: Cloning
SEP: Cloning
In the Mid-1990s, headlines around the world announced that
British scientists had produced a fully “cloned,” whole animal,
Dolly the Sheep. For the first time, Science Fiction had become
Science Fact. The Science Fiction and Thriller genres of
popular fiction had been dealing with cloning or artificial
production of human beings and animals, for many decades, but
was relegated by Mainstream society, to niche pop-culture or
kitschy aficionado constituencies, like Rocky Horror Picture

Show or Doctor Who. Imagination is one thing. Fact is quite
another.
As research into both subjects will show, there are more types
of both Cloning and Artificial Reproductive Technologies, than
the two illustrated examples. For instance, there are
Reproductive Cloning, Research Cloning, Therapeutic Cloning,
Stem-Cell Cloning, and Full-organism (including Full-human)
Cloning. So far, the only, general consensus, internationally,
that has been emerging over the past twenty years is that full-
human cloning ought to be banned. (But a full, international
treaty or covenant has not yet been finalized.)
Stem Cells, Nuclear Transfer and Respect for Embryos. (UMUC
Library One Search) Clausen, Jens. Human Reproduction &
Genetic Ethics. Mar2010, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p48-59. 12p. DOI:
10.1558/hrge.v16i1.48.
For other types of Cloning, controversy continues, because one
key source for experimental material, stem cells, is from human
embryos, often abandoned in cryogenics banks. Advocates, for
and against the use of human embryonic stem cells, have been
voicing their positions for the past 15-20 years.
Resource: Ethics of Stem Cell Research
Stem Cell Research and Technology. (UMUC Library One
Search) Zneimer, Susan M., Ph.D. Salem Press Encyclopedia of
Science, January, 2014. 4p., Database: Research Starters
As In Vitro Fertilization has shown, there are also commercial,
socio-economic, and business aspects of these issues. Should
stem cells, or any human material be bought and sold? Consider
the treatment of organ transplant issues, in this context. Should
the mythical creature, “the market” make our determinations for
us? Should governments, since they are (at least theoretically)
accountable to their publics.
In the Early-2000s, it was also announced that the Human
Genome Project, supported by U.S. and UK Governments’ and
Wellcome Trust grants, had completed the first, full mapping of
the human genome, a/k/a DNA. (Interestingly, the HGP beat a
private consortium, supported by for-profit corporate funding.)

Research into the Genome/DNA continues.
For some segments of publics around the Globe, the “mad
scientist” scenario of horror literature and films seemed just on
the horizon. In approaching these issues, please keep one thing
in mind: Natural Scientists, in general, for a wide variety of
reasons and causative factors, tend not to be “made scientists.”
Due to the nature of the Natural Scientific Method, they tend to
be cautious. Thus, the Medical Ethicists have played and
continue to play an important role in this entire process. And
many Medical Ethicists are also Lawyers. For Law is the place,
where Moral, Ethical,
Human Cloning: Three Mistakes and an Alternative (UMUC
Library One Search) Baylis, Françoise. Journal of Medicine &
Philosophy. Jun 2002, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p319. 19p.
In the world of Dolly, when does a human embryo acquire
respect? (UMUC Library One Search) Cameron, C.; Williamson,
R.; Journal of Medical Ethics: Journal of the Institute of
Medical Ethics, Vol 31(4), Apr, 2005 pp. 215-220. Publisher:
BMJ Publishing Group; Database: PsycINFO
There are no easy answers to these questions and issues. Nor
should there be. They are complex, not reducible to quick, easy,
disposable, and unquestioned answers. At the same time, they
are not unanswerable. It will be that there are more than a few
possible, good answers. . . The decision on your answer, for
yourself, lies with you, in a reasoned and well-supported
Argument, based on the theorists and theories we have seen. . .
[Remember Weeks 1-3.]
Introduction
As you will recall, from Week 3, the Plagues of the Fourteenth
Century had disastrous effects on Europe. Many of today’s
developments can be traced as having their root, causative
factors in that Century. There were two others: the Protestant
Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and successive Religious

Wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War, 1618-48 and the
English Civil War, 1642-48. In the wake of these events, the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment, respectively, Philosophers
began to question all the presuppositions of Life.
You are about to encounter another such development, which
grew from this questioning: Social Contract Theory.
Resource: Social Contract Theory [PDF]
Up to the times of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,
few, if anyone, in Europe, questioned the origins of Society and
the State. The prevailing theory was Aristotle’s, as it had been
imported into Western Christianity, by Thomas Aquinas. This
theory said that human beings were “Social Animals.” The
underlying interpretation of that position is that human society
is a given of human existence and has always been that way.
Week 6, Reading Section 6.2: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
II. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
The questions that Social Contract theorists, starting with
Thomas Hobbes and continuing with John Locke, asked were:
What were the origins of Society? What makes a “good” form of
society? How does the State (meaning “government”) come into
being?
Both Hobbes and Locke started from what they called the
“State of Nature,” a wilderness, where all “men” (Hobbes
speaks only of “men”; one wonders from whence he believed
“men” came, without mention of women;) begin, having
absolute rights and equality. Put another way, if one “man”
encountered another, and a conflict arose about a resource, like
food, came about, the right to kill would, regrettably, still be
available to both. Fortunately, it occurred to our species that
that was a lousy way to run a planet. Thus, the idea of “forming
society” by “social contracts” occurred to someone. That was
the moment that human beings left “the State of Nature,” and
founded Society (a/k/a “Civil Society”).
A. Hobbes
Resource: End-of-Life Decisions [PDF]
Hobbes, being a friend and confidant of the Stuart Family, was

a monarchist, and presupposed the existence of a “Sovereign.”
In The Leviathan, Hobbes suggested that, in forming the Civil
Society, people had to surrender their rights, in exchange for
two things: (1) protection from each other, and (2) protection
from outside threats. The question was: to what or whom did
they have to surrender those rights? Hobbes’ answer was “the
Sovereign,” a/k/a “the Leviathan,” an allusion to a mythical sea
creature. What Hobbes meant was that “the Sovereign,” was the
English Monarchy. The Stuart Family at the time, sat on the
unified Throne of England, Wales, and Scotland at the time.
Resource: Thomas Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy
Resource: Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy
Hobbes also argued, rather unpersuasively, that, since the
Sovereign had all the power and could not be held to obey a
Social Contract, the people should still cede all their rights to
the Sovereign. What he was saying was, “Trust me,” or, more
aptly, “Trust the Sovereign, which you cannot hold
accountable.” Sound silly?
Resource: Thomas Hobbes: Social Contract
B. Locke
John Locke thought so. After Hobbes’ death, Locke, in his Two
Treatises on Government coined the concepts of the “consent of
the governed,” of government as agent/servant of society, and
of representative government, such as parliamentary or
legislative supremacy, rather than monarchical reign. The
English colonists, including Tom Paine, in the Late-
18th Century drew on Locke’s writings, for the justification of
their break with the Mother Country, between 1775-83.
Resource: John Locke: Political Philosophy
Resource: John Locke
Week 6, Reading Section 6.3: Later Theorists: John Rawls and
Martha Nussbaum
III. Later Theorists: John Rawls and Martha Nussbaum
In the 20th Century, writers such as John Rawls, Sandra
Harding, and Martha Nussbaum, breathed new life into Social
Contract Theory. Rawls revisited the origins of society with his

concepts and thought-experiment of the Veil of Ignorance and
the Original Position. Harding removed the inherent sexist
presuppositions of Rawls’ theories, and Nussbaum focused on
the idea of “capabilities” as ways to enforce and protect rights.
Resource: Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract
A key thing to remember is that Social Contract Morality
systems are not based on Cultural Relativism. Social Contract
theorists are Natural Rights thinkers, who have believed in
Universal moral and politico-social rights and values. While
social agreement on norms is important, those norms also have
to be “good” and “right” ones. The premise on which the Social
Contract theorists have operated, over the centuries after
Hobbes, is that, if given their own “enlightened self-interest,”
as well as a sense of compassion, human beings, following their
Reason, will pick those “good” and “right” values. There have
been nasty exceptions, of course, in History, but, fortunately,
for our species those are still seen as exceptions.
Those are the theories and concepts, underlying Social Contract.
In the following section, we shall briefly address this week’s
substantive issues, World Health and the Allocation of Health
Care.
Week 6, Reading Section 6.4: World Health and the Allocation
of Health Care
IV. World Health and the Allocation of Health Care
A. World Health
As the Planet “shrinks,” due to mass communications,
transportation systems, and global/international trade and socio-
economics, the interdependence of the human populations,
divided by national loyalties and geography, becomes more
pronounced. Along with that interdependence comes the
necessities of addressing on supra-national levels, issues of
world health, including spread of diseases and overall health
care provision. These are not the only relevant issues, but they
are two of the more important ones. Thus, allocation of health
care is no longer only a national concern, but also an
international and global one.

Who cares about health inequalities? Cross-country evidence
from the World Health Survey. King, Nicholas B.; Harper, Sam;
Young, Meredith E.; Health Policy and Planning, Vol 28(5),
Aug, 2013 pp. 558-571. Publisher: US National Library of
Medicine.
Global Aging and the Allocation of Health Care Across the Life
Span. (UMUC Library One Search) Daniels, Norman; American
Journal of Bioethics, Aug2013; 13(8): 1-2. 2p. ISSN: 1526-5161
PMID: 23862589, Database: CINAHL Complete
Commentary: Globalization, Health Sector Reform, and the
Human Right to Health: Implications for Future Health
Policy. (UMUC Library One Search) Schuftan, Claudio;
International Journal of Health Services, Jan2015; 45(1): 187-
193. 7p. ISSN: 0020-7314, Database: CINAHL
B. Allocation of Health Care
Over the past eighty years, ever since the advent of the New
Deal, the questions of Allocation of Health Care and the
responsibilities of the Health Care Professions have existed in
public policy forums. It was during the New Deal that activists,
such as Eleanor Roosevelt campaigned for provision of Health
Care to Children and Adults. Medicare and Medicaid were
Federal programs, created in the 1960s, for the Aged and for
poor people, against considerable opposition. Some of the
States have also created programs for both groups, over the
decades.
Proposals for national health care for all Americans, were put
forth on the Federal level, by the Administration of Bill
Clinton. But those proposals were defeated those interests,
which benefited from the existing system of private provision
of health care to selected portions of the working public.
Those proposals were raised once more in 2009 at the Federal
level, and legislation was passed in 2010, requiring all
Americans to have health insurance. The Supreme Court has
subsequently upheld the general outline of that program. That
program has been called “Obamacare,” but the irony of that title
is that the various forms of proposals have existed, since, first,

the Progressive Era and, then, FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, and the
New Deal.
The ethical/moral questions, regarding Allocation and Provision
of Health Care, involve, among others, the following: (1) should
all people be provided Health Care? (2) How can such programs
be paid for? (3) Should there be a so-called “One-Payer”
system, administered by government? (4) How can “the market”
be used to keep Health Care affordable for most Americans, i.e.,
the middle and working classes, who cannot afford it, but aren’t
“poor enough” to qualify for Medicaid or similar State
programs. These are some, but not all, the issues within this
field, as you will see in the Weekly Discussion.
Resource: Justice, Inequality, and Health
Resource: Public Health Ethics
I. Introduction
During this week, you will study the School of Moral
Philosophy, known as Deontology. It was created by the
German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, in the Late-Eighteenth
Century, during the later period of the Enlightenment. Later
Philosophers, such as W.D. Ross, John Rawls, and Martha
Nussbaum, among others, have added to Deontology.
Kant believed that people were Reasoning Moral Agents, who
had ethical duties and responsibilities. As you will see, below,
Deontology posits that people have a Duty to do The Right
Thing. They also have duties to treat their fellow human beings
as Ends, not means. That translates into not treating our
fellows, as objects we can manipulate and use. Human beings
have an innate dignity, which no other human being may take
away. . .
As you will see, below, Kant’s system had the following
elements. First, what he called the Categorical Imperative was a
systematic way to determine what the Right Thing to Do is,
based on Reason, not Emotions or Feelings. Second, all human

beings have a Duty to do the Right Thing, consciously, and not
by habit, once they have used the Categorical Imperative to
determine the correct course of action. Third, that Duty to do
the Right Thing is an Absolute requirement. There can be no
exceptions, once one knows the correct ethic in a situation.
Resource: Kant's Moral Philosophy
Week 5, Reading Section 5.2: Immanuel, Kant, and Deontology
II. Immanuel Kant and Deontology
Immanuel Kant is one of the greats of Philosophy. He
contributed numerous concepts, ideas, and systems to the
subject. He was a Metaphysician, an Epistemologist, a Moral
Philosopher, and a Social Philosopher, among his various
interests. We owe much to his work.
In Moral Philosophy, Kant reacted against Hume’s ideas. Kant
believed that Ethics and Morality should be based on Reason,
not on Emotions, not even the Emotion of Compassion. He also
believed that Reason could provide us with the answers to the
problems of the Right Thing to Do. He also rejected the idea
that results, alone, could make an action moral or ethical. He
ruled out habit, or accident, too. In the rejection of unthinking
or rote Habit, he disagreed with Aristotle.
A. The Categorical Imperative
In arguing that Reason must govern Moral/Ethical systems,
Kant was following the traditions of the Greeks (Plato and
Aristotle), and Thomas Aquinas, among others. His views were
based on secular, rather than strictly religious, considerations.
In that regard, he believed that people should not follow the
Divine Command Theory, or any other unreasoned approach.
He formulated the Categorical Imperative, as a methodology
and process, for applying Reason to Moral and Ethical problems
and arriving at the correct Norm/rule. Kant did not base his
thinking on outcomes or results. An accidentally good result
could not turn an otherwise unethical action into an ethical one.
The way in which the Categorical Imperative works is: the
person must (1) look at the situation, (2) identify possible

Norms, and (3) choose the one rule/Norm, which, if the applied
would be a Universal Norm, and would govern all people,
including the person making the decision. ‘Act as though you
would will that Norm to be a Universal,’ said Kant.
B. Requirements for Ethical Action
Kant’s basic principles were the following. First, the
Categorical Imperative, above, was the method by which people
could reason ethical/moral action in a situation. He argued that,
in determining what we should do, we should “will that the rule
be a universal norm,’ applying to all people equally. There
could be no exceptions.
For example, Kant believed that lying was in all circumstances
morally wrong. We have an Absolute Duty to tell the truth.
When we apply the Categorical Imperative to the question of
lying, we see: (1) that lying undermines the trust, which a
society needs, in order to function in healthy and productive
ways for all its members and (2) that we would not want to be
lied to. Thus, we would will the norm of truth-telling as a
Universal and Absolute Norm.
Second, once we have identified the Norm/Rule to follow, we
must follow it EVERY time, with no exceptions. Kant was,
therefore, an Absolutist Ethicist. Later Philosophers and
commentators have faulted him, for his Absolutism, since there
are instances of competing Norms, when picking one,
absolutely, can harm someone.
Third, we had to be aware (conscious) of the Duty to do the
Right Thing. Kant rejected unthinking, habitual behavior as a
source of moral actions. In that regard, he rejected part of
Aristotle’s Moral Theory. Aristotle held that good actions
resulted from people learning Habitual behavior and then acting
on it. The Habits were based on the Virtues of
Knowledge/Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, Compassion, and
Justice.
While Kant believed that the substance of the Virtues were good
and could be justified by the use of the Categorical Imperative,
he disagreed that habitual doing of the virtues, without being

conscious or the duty to do so produced ethical actions. It is the
conscious recognition and adherence to the Absolute Duty to do
the Right Thing that produces Right actions.,
Fourth, the Duty was Absolute. We always act upon the Duty,
with no exceptions. Being lazy or cutting corners is not
allowed, according to Kant.
Resource: Moral Rules: Kant's Deontological Ethics [PDF]
C. Treatment of Our Fellow Human Beings
In all of this, we must treat our fellow human beings with
dignity and respect, and must treat them as Ends-in-themselves,
never as means. Since our fellows are independent and
Responsible, Moral Agents, they are our equals. And Equality is
a system that is discoverable, using the Categorical Imperative.
We must never use a fellow human being, as a means.
Manipulation, exploitation, oppression, and objectification are
morally wrong, in all circumstances, according to Kant. Using
someone, to get something for oneself is never a moral action,
even if that person nominally consents to being used.
Week 5, Reading Section 5.3: Nursing Homes and Care of the
Aged/Elderly
III. Nursing Homes and Care of the Aged/Elderly.
Although the Earth’s population has been increasing,
considerable segments, especially in the Developed World, are
aging. While the populations of the Developing World, what we
used to call the Third and Fourth Worlds, have increased and
continue to do so, the populations of the Developed Nations
have slowed in increase, have plateaued, or are decreasing,
Japan being an example of the last instance.
In the United States, the so-called Baby Boomers have entered
their 50s, 60s, and 70s. Though caring for older/aged/senior
people is always an important concern in our society, today the
numbers of seniors are higher than ever before. No doubt, you
have encountered this issue in your own family, with aged
parents and extended family members. As an introductory
matter, please see the following article, regarding issues within

the current Aged Care system:
Global Aging and the Allocation of Health Care Across the Life
Span.. Daniels, Norman; American Journal of Bioethics,
Aug2013; 13(8): 1-2. 2p. ISSN: 1526-5161 PMID: 23862589,
Database: CINAHL Complete.]
Everyday ethics in the care of elderly people, Ingrid Ågren;
Sandman, Lars; Andersson, Edith; Nursing Ethics, Vol 13(3),
May, 2006 pp. 249-263. Publisher: Sage Publications; [Journal
Article], Database: PsycINFO]
In the U.S., there is no centralized policy or set of policies on
Care of the Aged. There is a patchwork of approaches, from
private family care, to private nursing homes, and to Medicare
nursing home coverage. Should there be a unified approach?
Should it be voluntary or mandatory? What of the rights of the
families to determine the care of their older loved ones and of
the rights of the aged? These are a few of the relevant issues.
Remember: there are no “right” or “wrong” answers, here. . .
Here are articles on related issues:
Resource: Disability and Health Care Rationing
Resource: Justice and Access to Health Care
[Please note: In Week 6, you will learn about issues of World
Health and of Allocation of Health Care.]
In the Discussion to follow, you will address issues in this area
of Care of the Aged.
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 4, Reading Section 4.1: David Hume's Antecedents
I. David Hume’s Antecedents
David Hume was a British Philosopher, in the tradition of the
Empiricists, John Locke and George Berkeley. He is credited,
among many contributions, with revisiting the question of
whether Ethics/Morality should be based on Reason vs.
Emotions/Passions. Unlike Aristotle and many other Western

thinkers before him, Hume argued that Ethics could not be
based on Reason, since Reason provides only alternative
choices, based on analyses of issues and situations.
Thus, Hume answered the question, by concluding that Ethical
Thought must be based on Emotion, in general, and Compassion
for one’s fellows, in particular. Reason provided a moral
decision-maker with facts and choices, along with positions for
each choice. But many Ethical dilemmas involve conflicting
values and choices. Reason, alone, could not lead a decision-
maker to choose one alternative as “the best.” As we shall see in
Week 5, Immanuel Kant, the creator of Deontology, disagreed
with Hume.
Resource: Empathy and Sympathy in Ethics
As the Eighteenth Century gave way to the Nineteenth and to
the Industrial Revolution, with its concentration of productive
activities into factories and the squalid conditions under which
workers labored and they and their families existed, reformers
arose, seeking solutions to those conditions and problems.
Three such reformers were Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill,
and Harriet Taylor, who came to be called Utilitarians, after the
Principle of Utility that Bentham and Mill promulgated.
Resource: David Hume
Week 4, Reading Section 4.2: General Theory of Utilitarianism
II. General Theory of Utilitarianism

First Bentham, then Mill and Taylor, analyzed the World in
terms of Pain and Pleasure/ Happiness. The predominant
condition, especially in Industrial societies in Europe, and later
in North America, for the vast majority of people, was Pain and
Displeasure. For these three writers, Happiness and Pleasure
were characterized by the removal or abatement of Pain,
whether of a physical or an emotional nature. Given the
conditions our modern media show us, as existing in many parts
of the World, it is not difficult, even now, to imagine such
conditions existing in the predecessors of our own societies.
Disease, war, famine, civil strife, violence, among other factors,
were the primary causes of Pain.
Resource: Notes on Utilitarianism
The Utilitarians argued that moral/ethical actions were those,
which, on balance, reduced Pain and increased, thereby,
Pleasure/Happiness. By positing the definition of Happiness/
Pleasure, as the Removal of Pain, they provided a measure by
which to gauge such ameliorative efforts. One weakness is that
those definitions are circular: (1) Happiness is the absence of
Pain; (2) Pain is the absence of Happiness. Nevertheless, it was
a more concrete, starting point, than more esoteric concepts of
“the Good,” as suggested by Aristotle and his successors.
Therefore, to be moral, an action had to produce Happiness, by
reducing Pain in the World, for the majority of those human
beings, affected by that action. As we’ve seen, a moral theory

that depends on effects, results, or consequences, is called
a Consequentialist theory. Utilitarianism, thus, is squarely
within the School of Ethical Consequentialism.
Due to more sophisticated analyses over the past two hundred
years and gradually improving living conditions for certain
segments of human populations, the term “Happiness” has
become more complex to define. More recent theories have
refined Utilitarianism into the following formulation: creating
the greatest good for the greatest number of people affected by
the decision/action. These later views have also conceded that
the rights and/or good of a few might have to be sacrificed, for
the benefit of the many. One critic of this sacrifice has been
John Rawls, whose work in the 20th Century revitalized Social
Contract Theories (Week 6).
Resource: Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Resource: Utilitarianism
Week 4, Reading Section 4.3: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart
Mill, and Harriet Taylor
III. Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Harriet Taylor
Jeremy Bentham, a social reformer and Member of Parliament
in the Early Nineteenth Century, was very interested in the
reform of what we call the Criminal Justice System and of
prisons. Building on Hume’s work, as well as on Adam Smith’s,
he formulated the Principle of Utility, as noted, above. In later

commentaries on his work, successor theorists have identified
two forms of Utilitarianism: Rule and Act Utilitarianism. (We
shall see them, below.) John Stuart Mill, a student and
colleague of Bentham, and Harriet Taylor were life-long
friends, soul-mates, and collaborators. They wrote on subjects
of Utility/Utilitarianism, Social Reform, Women’s Rights, and
Human Liberty.
Resource: Life and Writing of Jeremy Bentham
Resource: John Stuart Mill
Resource: Harriet Taylor Mill
A. Rule vs. Act Utilitarianism
As subsets of Utilitarianism, these two variants start from the
perspective that it is result or consequence, which determines
the morality of an action. What distinguishes these approaches
is a slightly more sophisticated focus in each case. In Rule
Utilitarianism, a proper set of rules and/or of procedures has to
contribute to that outcome and be followed . Put another way,
the rightness of an action is not totally dependent upon
happenstance, chance, or fortunate/good luck.
Resource: Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill [PDF]
In Act Utilitarianism, the spotlight is on the Act, alone. As this
was Bentham’s view and he was the originator of Utilitarianism,
we can conclude his intention was to focus on effect, only. This
means that, while “right intention” by the Actor was laudable, it
was not a requirement for an action to be the right one. One can

see Bentham’s intellectual lineage, back to Adam Smith, whose
work posited that people, while pursuing their Enlightened Self-
Interest (which actually includes operating within a set of moral
parameters), will, by engaging in Mutually Advantageous
(market) transactions or exchanges, create the by-products of
moral actions.
During everyday life, we behave in similar ways. Sometimes we
are thinking through possible results or consequences,
sometimes we are not, and usually we cannot foresee even
certain major consequences. This is what is known as the Law
of Unforeseen and Unintended Consequences.
Week 4, Reading Section 4.4: Immigration
IV. Immigration
In the Discussion to follow, you will be required to address and
argue various aspects of Immigration and related concerns. One
consideration to include in your deliberations is that, under
most circumstances, people do not migrate, on a semi-
permanent, or permanent, basis, because they are happy,
content, and safe in their existing circumstances. While the
motivations might vary, by the person, seeking safety from
threats and a better, often material, life for themselves and their
families is often a baseline.
Resource: Immigration
Latino Immigration and Social Change in the United States:

Toward an Ethical Immigration Policy. (UMUC Library One
Search)
Authors: Davies, Ian. Foreign Language Department,
Edgewood College, Madison, WI, US
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 88(Suppl 2), Sep,
2009. pp. 377-391.
The Great Conversation and the Ethics of Inclusion. (UMUC
Library One Search)
Authors: Wagner, Paul and Lopez, Graciela
Source: Global Virtue Ethics Review. 2016, Vol. 7 Issue 2,
p4-33. 30p.
Environmental and Ethical Aspects of International
Migration(UMUC Library One Search)
By: Abernethy, Virginia. International Migration Review, v30
n1 p132-50 Spr 1996. (EJ528779), Database: ERIC
The border crossed us: Education, hospitality politics, and the
social construction of the "illegal Immigrant" (UMUC Library
One Search)
By: Carlson, Dennis. Educational Theory, v59 n3 p259-277 Aug
2009. (EJ857970), Database: ERIC
ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL READING
Resource: The History of Utilitarianism
Resource: Strong Moral Theories and the Major Players in
Moral Philosophy [PDF]

I. Introduction
For many centuries, since the turn of the Second Millennium,
Ethics and Moral Philosophy had been dominated by the
perspectives of Ancient Greek Thought, such as Plato and
Aristotle, as those theorists’ work was imported into Western
Christianity, first by Augustine, who brought Platonic ideas into
Western theological discourse in the Fifth Century CE, and then
by Thomas Aquinas, who brought Aristotelian systematic
approaches into Western Intellectual thought in the Thirteenth
Century CE.
Coincidentally with the period from the Sixteenth to the Mid-
Twentieth Centuries European powers colonized and
imperialised much of the rest of the World. The British, French,
Dutch, and Portuguese Empires fell apart, in the wake of the
Second World War, and those areas held by the Europeans
gained their independence over the years from 1947 to 1975.
As a result of Post-Colonialism, the newly independent
countries, cultures, and lands have sought to reconnect with
their pre-European, cultural heritages. Those intellectual efforts
have brought re-examinations of the prevailing Ethical, Moral,
and Legal systems in those places. Also as a result of Post-
Colonial Philosophical efforts, these cultures have sought to
assert their own Ethical and Moral values and have argued for

equality of their views and systems, with those of their former,
European colonizers’ systems.
Intellectually, since the 1970s and ‘80s, within Western Ethics
and Moral Philosophy, new schools of thought have emerged, in
recognition of the developments in what have been termed the
Third and Fourth Worlds; a/k/a the countries once
politically/physically colonized by Europeans and North
Americans. These schools of Thought are Cultural
Relativism and Subjectivism. As we shall see below, these are
related, though conceptually distinct.
Week 2, Reading Section 2.2: Theories of the Week
II. Theories of the Week
A. Cultural Relativism, aka Relativism
Cultural Relativism has several, basic tenets. First, all cultures’
moral/ethical systems are equal, in overall claims to
respect, and no culture’s ethical/moral system is better, or
worse, than any other. Thus, it is up to each culture, to
determine what are its moral and ethical rules. Second, no
culture may impose its rules or systems on another culture.
Please note that these do not foreclose most, if not all, cultures
from sharing certain, fundamental ethical positions, such as it is
wrong to murder a fellow human being. These basic tenets
indicate that one culture may not impose values on another,
even when its members believe that values are Universal,

or ought to be.
Resource: Relativism. Read only the introductory paragraphs.
As a side note, please keep in mind the difference between
Empirical and Normative. “Empirical” statements are those that
state facts, or can be characterized as “the way things are”; the
“is,” if you will. Normative statements are those that indicate
what rules, ethics, or morals, should apply in a situation; the
“ought,” so to speak.
Resource: Cultural Relativism and Subjectivism [PDF]
B. Subjectivism, and Ethical Egoism
In this section, you will see the foundations of Subjectivism and
of Ethical Egoism. Some Ethicists consider them to be the same
thing. Others recognize differences between the two. You
decide for yourself.
In one sense, you may consider Subjectivism to be the
individual version of Cultural Relativism. Subjectivism holds
that: (1) no human person’s moral system is better than any
other human person’s moral values; (2) each human person is
free to choose the moral values and ethics, in which she/he
believes; (3) no individual, human being, acting in a personal
capacity, may impose his/her moral value systems on another
human being. These are the similarities Subjectivism has with
Cultural Relativism.
Resource: Ethical Subjectivism
Here are a few dissimilarities. First, a human person, being free

to choose her/his moral views, the culture in which that person
lives may not impose its morals upon her/him. Second, only the
most basic laws may apply to that person. In effect, the
majorities in a culture may not impose their moral views on
unwilling member of that culture.
On to Egoism, Ethical or Otherwise. The basic version of
Egoism holds that a person may pursue whatever is in his/her
own best interests and that it is up to that person to determine
what those interests are. If an action advances the person’s
interest, then the action is moral. The person may take others’
interests or needs into account, but the person does not have to
do so. As you can see, this is a Consequentialist approach.
Resource: Cultural Relativism and Subjectivism [PDF]
In response to criticisms that Egoism was nothing more than
“jungle ethics,” or “anything-goes,” many ethicists, espousing
Egoism, refined their approaches. They argued that Ethical
Egoism did recognize certain restraints in the choices a person
could make. John Stuart Mill’s position in On Liberty typifies
this approach: a person may do whatever advances his/her
interests, so long as that action does not interfere with any
others’ pursuit of their interests. Please note that Utilitarianism
is a form of Ethical Egoism, as we shall see in Week 4.
During this week’s Discussion you will visit these and related
issues and questions.

Cultural Relativism and Subjectivism
Debra Rosenthal, Ph.D.
Let's start with two common ideas: that morality is whatever is
defined as "right" by society, and that morality is whatever feels
"right" to each individual. Cultural Relativism: We've Always
Done It This Way! Many people feel that morality is nothing
more than social convention, a matter of conforming to social
expectations. The idea that "society" defines right and wrong,

and there's nothing more to it, is the first challenge to moral
philosophy. This view is called cultural relativism. (Sometimes
you'll see it called "moral relativism," but "cultural relativism"
is a more precise title.) Cultural relativism is the idea that
morality cannot be based on "objective" moral judgments
because everyone judges good and bad, right and wrong, from
within the standpoint of the standards, values, and norms of his
or her own culture. Social scientists are encouraged to be
relativists when they deal with other cultures, because it
prevents them from automatically judging those other cultures
as inferior. It's an open-minded way of looking at societies that
may seem appealing. Cultural relativism seems to advocate
cultural tolerance, and many cultures (including many
Americans) see tolerance as a virtue. Although curiosity and
open-mindedness is probably a good idea for social scientists
and travelers, cultural relativism raises a serious question for
moral philosophy. As a "moral theory," however, cultural
relativism suffers from logic problems. Different cultures may
have different moral codes, but this does not imply that morality
is nothing more than what a society says. Cultural relativism
also carries some logical consequences that may not be
acceptable—such as the implication that no society can ever be
"wrong" in its practices—no matter how horrible. That's the
Way I Like It! (And You Can Have It Your Way, Too)
Subjectivism is the idea that morality is nothing more than a

matter of personal preference. I like chocolate, you like vanilla,
and neither of us can claim that our favorite flavor is really,
truly, objectively "best." We decide based on our feelings,
rather than the truth about the things themselves. There are two
logically distinct forms of subjectivism: • Simple subjectivism
focuses on the idea that saying "Chocolate is best" really means
"I like chocolate best," and this is a report of an internal state
which cannot be denied. • Emotivism is a different
interpretation, developed when philosophers noticed that some
things we say are actually actions in themselves. For example,
when you say "I do" at the altar in a marriage ceremony, or "I'm
sorry," or "That's an order!" —all of these are examples of
"speech acts." The emotivist interpretation of saying "Chocolate
is best" is that I'm advocating chocolate. Whether simple
subjectivist or emotivists, subjectivists believe that there is no
objective truth in morality. Subjectivism treats all moral
choices as equal, no matter how misguided they may seem. It is
a "to each his own" position. It assumes that there can be no
objective way of judging moral truth. So if moral truth can't be
judged objectively, subjectivists say, then moral truth doesn't
really exist— it's simply a subjective preference, chocolate vs.
vanilla.
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.
1
Running Header: FUNDING SOURCES
4
FUNDING SOURCES

FUNDING SOURCES
Student’s Name
Tutor’s Name
Course Title
Date
Los Angele food bank is a charitable organization whose
focus is to fight starvation, give hope, and love to people (Los
Angeles Food bank, 2018).
The following are sources of organizations that’s can offer
financial support to the nonprofit entity.
One of the potential sources are food associations. Food
associations try to lend a helping hand to any food bank within
any locality .Therefore; the institutions provide reliable and
consistent funds only to food charitable organizations. It is
important to note that specializing in assisting only
charitable food banks makes food associations more dependable

and sustainable in the long run. In addition, the food
associations can provide actual food free. For example,
American Egg firm can bring eggs (Los Angeles Food bank,
2018).
The second place that can offer help is application for grants.
Most government institutions grant charitable firms such as Los
Angeles charitable organization. The applicant can state
whether the grant will be regular or a onetime contribution.
Grants go a long way in keep charitable organization afloat
(Manoharan , & McQuiston, 2018).
A part from food associations and grants, another source is
individual contribution.Campaigning and raising awareness may
capture the attention of the public. The food bank may publicly
display their account number for well-wishers to deposit their
contributions. One of the advantages of using the public is that
the help may come in various forms a part from finances. For
example, some people can volunteer their skills and save on
labor(Manoharan , & McQuiston, 2018).
Events have the potential of raising funds butFood banks
overlook such sources, as one needs money to make an event
.Instead, charities rely heavily on grants and sponsorship type
of sources. Events have the ability to raise a lot of money if
executed correctly. The second missed source is failing to come
up with a solid funding group dedicated to funding the Los
Angeles nonprofit organization only. Most administrators

assume that since they have a charitable organization, funds
will always flow, but they are often wrong. Just like any entity,
having a solid reliable source of funds is
compulsory(Manoharan , & McQuiston, 2018).
References
Los Angeles Food bank
Retrieved from: https://www.lafoodbank.org/
Manoharan, A., & In McQuiston, J. (2018). Innovative
perspectives on public administration in the digital age.
Week 2: Discussion 1: Funding Sources
The most successful fundraisers are good prospect researchers.

This means they use existing online and print resources to
identify which funding sources (specific individuals,
foundations, government sources, etc.) are most likely to fund
the organization/project based on past giving, mission,
priorities, and geographic giving area.
This week you examine how to conduct donor prospect research
to maximize development success.
To prepare:
· Consider a nonprofit organization for which you work or
with which you are familiar.
Analyze 2–3 potential funding sources for this
organization.
Post by Day 3 a description of 2–3 potential missed funding
opportunities.
Explain why they are or might be missed.
Describe potential funding sources and explain why they are
appropriate for your organization.
Analyze the strengths and limitations of each funding source.
Finally, describe any potential missed funding opportunities.
Explain why they are or might be missed.
Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific
references to the Learning Resources and outside scholarly
resources.
Discussion 2: Foundation Prospect Research ChallengesWhen

researching foundations (corporate, community, private, or
family), it is important to learn as much as you can about each
potential source. You can then evaluate whether the type of
foundation is a good match for the organization’s funding
need.To prepare:·Consider a nonprofit organization for which
you work or with which you are familiar ·Analyze potential
prospective foundations that might support this
organization.Post by Day 4 a description of two foundations you
have identified as higher prospective donors.Describe two
foundations you have identified as lower prospective donors for
your organization.Evaluate how each would or would not be a
good prospective donor.Be sure to explain how you arrived at
your decisions.Be sure to support your postings and responses
with specific references to the Learning Resources and outside
scholarly resources.

1Running Header FOUNDATION PROSPECTS RESEARCH CHALLENGES 2F.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 1Running Header FOUNDATION PROSPECTS RESEARCH CHALLENGES 2F.docx

Similar to 1Running Header FOUNDATION PROSPECTS RESEARCH CHALLENGES 2F.docx (19)

More from felicidaddinwoodie

More from felicidaddinwoodie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1Running Header FOUNDATION PROSPECTS RESEARCH CHALLENGES 2F.docx