Pay attention to what you are being asked to do (see Grading Rubric below). For example, to describe does not mean to list, but to tell about or illustrate in more than two or three sentences, providing appropriate arguments for your responses using theories discussed in our text. Be sure to address all parts of the topic question as most have multiple parts. A verifiable current event (less than 4 years old) relevant to at least one of the topics you respond to is a fundamental component of your quiz as well. You cannot use information from the text book or any book/article by the author of the text book as a current event. Make sure that your reference has a date of publication. For each chapter quiz and final quiz you are required to find and include at least one reference and reference citation to a current event less than 4 years old (a reference with no date (n.d.) is not acceptable) in answer to at least one question. This requires a reference citation in the text of your answer and a reference at the end of the question to which the reference applies. You must include some information obtained from the reference in your answer. The references must be found on the internet and you must include a URL in your reference so that the reference can be verified.
You should type your responses directly under the appropriate question. Be sure to include your name on your quiz. Only the first three (3) questions with answers will be graded. Include your name in the document filename. Your completed quiz must be uploaded into the appropriate eCollege Dropbox, no later than 11:59pm on the due date. Do well.
How do religion, law, and philosophy each provide different grounds for justifying a moral principle? How can each perspective be applied in analyzing the moral principle “Stealing is wrong”? Be sure to elaborate and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your position. (knowledge)
You have just been appointed to the board of directors of TAMU.com, however, the dot.com company has been experiencing some difficult financial times that have resulted in revenue losses in three of the last four quarters. As you take your new position, you discover that two proposals are on the table. Each proposal has been put forth as a means for dealing with TAMU’s immediate financial problems. Proposal #1 recommends all employees be retained, but that an immediate wage freeze for all employees be imposed for the next six months. (Employees may even be asked to take a 5 percent cut in pay if things do not improve by the end of that period.) Proposal #2 recommends that wages not be frozen, but that 5 percent of the company’s workforce be laid off. (One piece of reasoning behind this proposal is that taking more drastic measures will “protect” 95 percent of TAMU’s workers and will send a message to Wall Street and local investors that TAMU is serious about improving its financial position and that it will soon be a stable company once again.) The board is evenly split, seven members for proposal #1 and seven for proposal #2. Yours will be the tie-breaking vote. In your deliberation, describe how an act utilitarian, a rule utilitarian, a rule deontologist, and act deontologist would reach each solution to this dilemma and on what basis. Which solution seems most plausible? Be sure to elaborate and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your position. (comprehension)
Consider a case in which the United States government, with the approval of the majority of Americans, decides to round up all Arab-Americans and relocate them into internment camps. Imagine that you have a friend who is an American citizen of Arab descent. She asks you to protect her from the authorities. You have known this person all of your life, and you are convinced that she is a loyal American. You agree to hide her in the third floor of your house. A United States federal agent knocks on your door and asks if you know the whereabouts of the person you are hiding. How would you respond to that agent? You now face a genuine moral dilemma because you cannot both keep your promise to your friend and tell the truth to the federal agent. Initially, your gut reaction might suggest that the solution to your dilemma is really quite simple. For example, you might believe that a far greater good will be served by lying to the federal agent than by breaking your promise to your friend. However, to embrace the moral principle inherent in that line of reasoning is to fall back into utilitarianism. We have already seen some of the difficulties that can result from trying to be a consistent and thoroughgoing utilitarian. Could you consistently universalize a moral principle that states: “Whenever you must choose between telling the truth to authorities and breaking a promise to a friend, always honor your promise”? Will that principle work in every case? Will Ross’s theory help in this situation? Explain your answer. Be sure to elaborate and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your position. (comprehension)