l touchstones

ALL WORK NEED TO BE 100 PERCENT HUMAN WRITTEN DO NOT PLAGIARZE

PART A

Instructions

Step 1: Prepare for Close Reading of Philosophical Texts

Before you begin, review the tutorial on Engaging With Philosophical Texts. In this Touchstone, you will explore brief quotes from two classic philosophical works: Plato’s Phaedo and Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.

Remember to read each quote at least twice. On your first read, try to capture the main idea in one or two sentences. On your second read, take notes (in your own words) to determine what the texts claim about what philosophy is, what philosophers care about, how we know what is morally right or wrong, and whether moral truths are universal.

Sources:

• Aquinas, T. (1981). Summa theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Christian Classics. (Original work published 1265–1274)
• Plato. (1997). Phaedo (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.). In J. M. Cooper (Ed.), Plato: Complete works (pp. 49–100). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published c. 4th century BCE)

Step 2: Practice Understanding Arguments and Reasoning in Plato’s Phaedo

Plato’s dialogue Phaedo presents Socrates’ final conversation with his friends on the day of his execution. In this part of the dialogue, Socrates is speaking with Simmias about what it means to be a true philosopher and how a philosopher should think about death. As you read, pay attention to the reasons Socrates gives for the philosopher’s distinctive attitude toward death, and how these reasons connect to the goals of philosophical inquiry. You will use the passage to explain Socrates’ view on what it means to be a philosopher, and how that view guides ethical reasoning.

quote

"In fact, Simmias, he said, those who practice philosophy in the right way are in training for dying and they fear death least of all men. Consider it from this point of view: if they are altogether estranged from the body and desire to have their soul by itself, would it not be quite absurd for them to be afraid and resentful when this happens? If they did not gladly set out for a place, where, on arrival, they may hope to attain that for which they had yearned during their lifetime, that is, wisdom, and where they would be rid of the presence of that from which they are estranged? Many men, at the death of their lovers, wives or sons, were willing to go to the underworld, driven by the hope of seeing there those for whose company they longed, and being with them. Will then a true lover of wisdom, who has a similar hope and knows that he will never find it to any extent except in Hades, be resentful of dying and not gladly undertake the journey thither? One must surely think so, my friend, if he is a true philosopher, for he is firmly convinced that he will not find pure knowledge anywhere except there. And if this is so, then, as I said just now, would it not be highly unreasonable for such a man to fear death? It certainly would, by Zeus, he said. Then you have sufficient indication, he said, that any man whom you see resenting death was not a lover of wisdom but a lover of the body, and also a lover of wealth or of honors, either or both."

— Plato, Phaedo, 67e–68c

In 200–400 words, you should:

• Explain either (a) Socrates’ conception of philosophy and the soul, or (b) the reasoning by which Socrates supports his view that philosophers do not fear death.
• Incorporate 2–3 Unit 1 terms by defining each term in your own words and show how the term helps clarify Socrates’ position in this passage.
• Quote or paraphrase at least one key sentence from the passage and explain its meaning in your own words.
• Briefly explain how this view of philosophy could influence a person’s moral decisions (e.g., decisions about courage, integrity, justice, power, wealth, or safety).

What are related Unit 1 terms?

Step 3: Practice Justifying Moral Judgments in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica

Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologica in the 13th century as a systematic account of Christian theology and moral philosophy. In the passage below, Aquinas considers whether the principles of natural law are the same for everyone. As you read, pay attention to how Aquinas describes the different levels of moral reasoning and how he explains cases in which moral guidance might seem to change depending upon circumstances. You will use the passage to explain Aquinas’s view about which parts of morality are universal, and which can vary. Keep in mind that there is more than one way to reasonably understand this passage. The focus here is not on getting the correct answer, but on how well you justify your interpretation.

quote

"It is therefore evident that, as regards the general principles whether of speculative or of practical reason, truth or rectitude is the same for all, and is equally known by all. As to the proper conclusions of the speculative reason, the truth is the same for all, but is not equally known to all: thus it is true for all that the three angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles, although it is not known to all. But as to the proper conclusions of the practical reason, neither is the truth or rectitude the same for all, nor, where it is the same, is it equally known by all. Thus it is right and true for all to act according to reason: and from this principle it follows as a proper conclusion, that goods entrusted to another should be restored to their owner. Now this is true for the majority of cases: but it may happen in a particular case that it would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held in trust; for instance, if they are claimed for the purpose of fighting against one's country. And this principle will be found to fail the more, according as we descend further into detail, e.g. if one were to say that goods held in trust should be restored with such and such a guarantee, or in such and such a way; because the greater the number of conditions added, the greater the number of ways in which the principle may fail, so that it be not right to restore or not to restore."

— Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I–II, Q94, Article 4

In 200–400 words, you should:

• Summarize Aquinas’s distinction between universal first principles (moral truths that apply to everyone) and variable, context-dependent applications (how those principles may lead to different actions in specific situations).
• Use one to two metaethical terms from Unit 2 to explain what Aquinas’s passage implies (e.g., natural law theory, moral realism, universality, objectivity).
• Include at least one quotation or paraphrase from the passage to justify your response. After quoting or paraphrasing, clearly explain what the line means and how it supports your interpretation (for example, how it shows something is universal, or how applications vary by circumstance).
• Differentiate between how principles are applied in particular from claims about whether moral truth itself varies as you interpret the passage.

What are related Unit 2 Terms?

Step 4: Reflect on Your Own Ethical Thinking

Reflect on how Units 1 and 2 have influenced your own approach to ethical thinking. In 200–400 words, you should:

• Describe at least one way that studying philosophical methods in Unit 1 could change or impact how you think about moral questions (e.g., learning to identify premises and conclusions or to avoid fallacies). Use at least one Unit 1 term accurately in this explanation.
• Describe at least one way that studying metaethics in Unit 2 could change or impact how you think about disagreement about moral issues in your life, workplace, or community (e.g., learning about moral realism or relativism). Use at least one Unit 2 term accurately in this explanation.

Step 5: Review and Submit Your Work

• When you quote from the passages or tutorials, use quotation marks and provide simple in-text citations following APA format.
• Before submitting, review your work according to the rubric.
• Save your file as a .doc or .docx and upload to the Touchstone submission area.

PART B

Step 1: Review the Scenario

Read this excerpt from Republic, the classic text by Plato. At this point in the book, Socrates is discussing why one acts in an ethically good manner. Glaucon, a hero of the Battle of Megara in the Peloponnesian War and Plato’s older brother, provides the following story in the attempt to prove that justice is whatever is in the interest of the “stronger.”

Gyges, the main character in the story, is a real historical figure. He became king of the Lydian empire (roughly located in modern-day western Turkey) after overthrowing the prior king, Candaules. His story inspired J.R. R. Tolkien to write The Lord of the Rings.

Remember the strategies that you have learned about reading philosophy texts. You can also review the tutorial Engaging With Philosophical Texts.

quote

"According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result-when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom."

— Plato, Republic, Book II, 359c-360b

Source: Plato. (1888). Republic (B. Jowett, Trans.). The Internet Classics Archive. classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html (Original work published ca. 375 B.C.E.)

Step 2: Write the Touchstone

Consider how different ethical perspectives would approach this dilemma. Remember to answer all of the questions.

1. The Utilitarian View

• What are the short- and long-term impacts on the amount of social harms and benefits of Gyges’ actions?
• Is the action ethically justified on utilitarian grounds, and why?

2. The Kantian (Deontological) View

• Does Gyges’ maxim pass a test against the different formulations of the Categorical Imperative? Explain.
• Is the action ethically justified on Kantian grounds, and why?

3. The Virtue Ethics View

• Does Gyges’ choice express or cultivate the virtues as judged by practical wisdom, or does it reveal vices?
• Is the action ethically justified on virtue-ethical grounds, and why?

4. The Egoist View

• Was Gyges justified in doing what was best for himself?
• Did Gyges act in his own rational self-interest?
• Would an egoist agree that self-preservation and gain outweigh social norms?

5. Your View

• Which approach do you think is correct?
• Why is that approach correct?
• What potential objection could someone raise to your stance?
• How would you respond?

Step 3: Review and Submit Your Work

• Label each section clearly.
• Review your work carefully and check the rubric to make sure you have met all the requirements.
• Submit your response (750 - 900 words total) as a Microsoft Word document (.doc or .docx).

PART C

Business Ethics ScenarioA vendor offers you front-row tickets to a major event as thanks for your “continued partnership.” Company policy prohibits accepting gifts over $100, but your manager says, “Everyone does it and it’s part of networking.” Refusing could hurt the relationship and your team’s performance metrics.

Instructions

Step 1: Choose a Professional Dilemma and Summarize the Context

Select one of the following scenarios that describes an ethical dilemma in a professional setting. Each case reflects a different area of applied ethics (e.g., business, medical, computer, or legal), and your analysis should draw on the ethical approaches relevant to that domain. You will explore the same scenario for the entire Touchstone.

Business Ethics Scenario

Medical Ethics Scenario

Computer Ethics Scenario

Legal Ethics Scenario

Briefly summarize the ethical dilemma in your own words:

• Who is involved or affected by this situation?
• What is the key ethical conflict?
• What are the professional ethical obligations and consequences of each possible action?

Step 2: Compare and Contrast the Scenario Using Different Ethical Frameworks

• Choose one ethical theory (e.g., utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, or egoism). Name a representative associated with that framework (e.g., Mill, Kant, Aristotle, Hobbes, Rand).
  • What would this theory and thinker recommend in this situation and why?
  • What action produces the greatest good?
  • What duties or moral principles apply?
  • What kind of person would make this decision?

• Then choose a different ethical framework naming the thinker associated with it.
  • How would this theory and thinker interpret the same scenario differently? Why?
  • How might this theory/thinker lead to a different conclusion? Why?

• Compare and contrast the reasoning behind both approaches.
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches?
  • Which provides the best understanding of your professional obligations?

Step 3: Consider the Role of Organizational Culture and Policy

• Think about how organizational culture, professional norms, or institutional policies can impact the scenario:
  • How do professional standards, institutional policies, or cultural expectations influence this dilemma?
  • Could policy improvements or cultural shifts help prevent similar issues?
  • What would an ethical organization or profession do to prevent similar dilemmas in the future?
  • State the metaethical stance for this policy question and name one philosopher/tradition that supports it. How does this stance justify the policy or culture recommendation in your analysis?

Note: Steps 1–3 should be written in a professional, third-person voice. Step 4 calls for your own voice. As such, it should be written in the first person.

Step 4: Reflect on Professional Ethics Versus Personal Moral Values

• Think about your personal experience and perspective:
  • How can professional ethical obligations differ from personal moral instincts or values?
  • What would you personally feel is the “right” thing to do in this scenario?
  • What does this dilemma teach you about decision-making and professional ethics?
  • How might you apply this kind of ethical reasoning in your own life?

Step 5: Review and Submit Your Work

• Review your work carefully and check the rubric to make sure you have met all the requirements.
  • Length: 1000–1200 words
  • File type: .doc or .docx
  • Use clear headings for each section.
  • Proofread carefully for grammar, organization, and logic.
  • Cite any sources used in APA format.