Ethics Bowl Case Responses

Kantian Ethics

 

 

Basic Information:

1. Paper should be around 1250 words. (It is permissible to write more.)
2. Paper is due as an e-mail attachment on the date the syllabus specifies.
3. Please use this filename format: Last Name (space) (hyphen) (space) Topic (e.g. Smith – Kantian Ethics). Since I will receive 50 papers this is important!
4. To receive confirmation set the confirmation function in the e-mail client.
5. It is appropriate to write in the first person.
6. Since the focus is on the philosophical content there is no need to have a formal introduction or conclusion.
7. Remember whether it is paraphrase or a direct quotation it is essential to cite sources. The citation format is open.
8. Since the papers will all be in electronic format, please keep copies on a USB drive or disc in case there are problems that require the papers to be sent to me again.

 

Aim:

To use Kantian ethics to analyze the Ethics Bowl case.

 

Kantian Ethics:

1. Indicate the various agents or parties that the case involves and the action that each proposes to take.
2. Since the focus in the class is on professional ethics, the analysis should focus on the professional(s) in the case and their decisions and actions.

1. Universal Law Formula

1. Formulate the maxim that underlies the professional’s action:

I will ______________, when______________ in order to ______________.

1. Universalize the action to determine whether it satisfies the Universal Law Formula (Act on that maxim alone that one can at the same time will to be a universal law), i.e., can all human beings observe the maxim and succeed or does it result in either a logical contradiction or a contradiction in will?
2. Ends-In-Themselves Formula
   1. Determine whether the professional’s action satisfies the Ends-In-Themselves Formula (So act that one treats human beings, whether in one’s own person or in other person’s, as end-in-themselves and never as mere means), i.e., does the action treat human beings as ends-in-themselves or does it impede or undermine their abilities to make free and autonomous decisions and so treat them as mere means? Explain this in detail!

 

 

Evaluation Criteria:

1. Is the paper’s analysis clear and systematic?
2. Does the paper demonstrate that the author understands the case and ethical tradition in question?
3. Does the paper demonstrate insight into the profession and professional issues that the case focuses on?
4. Thus:

‘A’ – indicates that the paper deals with the material and a clear and systematic manner, but also reflects insights into the material’s application to other issues or problems.

‘B’ – means that the paper develops and deals with the material in a clear and systematic manner, though there is no real insight into the material’s wider ramifications or applications.

‘C’ – means that while the paper covers the appropriate material, the analysis does little more than restate the obvious.

‘D’ – means that while an attempt is made, the analysis is incomplete or misrepresents the material.

‘F’ –   means that there is no attempt to do the assignment at all.