Overview
Hi All The 1st assignment for class is the summary of ethical principles assignment. It is not a case study. I will assign cases after the summary assignment is completed. You can't do an ethical analysis with ethical principles unless you 1st know the ethical principles. This is why the 1st assignment is the ethical principles assignment. Use the ethics readings to complete the summary of ethical principes assignment. Place the definitions from the ethics readings into the summary of ethical principles assignment. The BDI reading shows using a diagram how and what ethical principles apply to the intentions, actions and projected outcomes of stakeholders in cases. This applied analysis (the application of ethical principles) is what the 2nd assignment the case study will be about. I will assign cases for case study 1.Hi All The summary assignment is due this week. It is largely a cut and paste assignment. Cut and paste the assignment into a word document. Remove the instructions. Define each term on the list. Cut and paste every definition from the Ethics Readings into your assignment, If you can't find the definitions in the ethics readings look them up online. Give the sources for each definition. The definitions you provide in this assignment will be employed in all future assignments. Hi All I just posted grades in Bb for the Summary assignment. This is largely a cut and paste assignment where you are asked to use the Ethics Readings for the definitions as they are posted in Bb, Many did very well. The definitions are important as they will be applied in each paper we write for the 3 papers due this short semester. Some left too many entry's blank. You need to complete the assignment and resubmit it. Everyone who is unhappy with their grade can resubmit the assignment after making corrections. When you resubmit Place all corrections in BOLD so I can see what has been changed. In my last email I sent around information about paper 1 which is due next Tuesday at 12 noon. If you need to be reminded go back through the mail chain in Bb and read that previous email. Stay up to date with assignments. It is sometimes difficult to wait until the last minute to do work and to get good grades. You have plenty of time to write case study 1. email me with any questions. The gradebook is set up differently than session 1 so I am getting used to the difference. Some still need to submit the summary assignment please do so ASAP sine we are now in the 2nd week of our 5 week semester. I also let everyone resubmit assignments to improve your grades. Make the improvements I pointed out in my comments and resubmit submit the assignment.
Summary Assignment( instructor commented said incompete so finish it up please) :Introduction (Rachels, 2012, p. 1)
“Moral philosophy, or ethics, is the branch of philosophy that asks, ‘What is morality?’ —that is, ‘What makes actions right or wrong?’” In our BDI framework, this question maps onto an agent’s Beliefs (about what reasons count), Desires (what ends they value), and Intentions (the plans they adopt to act in accordance with those reasons)
1. Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)
Rachels introduces consequentialism by asking, “How should we promote the general welfare?” (pp. 1–2). Act-utilitarians hold that an action is right if, and only if, it yields the greatest net happiness; rule-utilitarians instead evaluate whether adopting a general policy will maximize long-term well-being. In BDI terms, this shapes an agent’s Desires to maximize overall good and their Intentions around selecting actions (or rules) whose consequences best achieve that end. Consequentialism thus provides a clear decision procedure—measure and compare outcomes—grounded in the principle of utility
2. Kantian Ethics (Deontology)
According to Rachels, Kantian ethics rests on the categorical imperative: “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (pp. 15–16). This deontological approach judges actions by whether their guiding principle could be willed as a universal rule, not by the goodness of their consequences. In BDI terms, it informs an agent’s Beliefs about duty and constrains their Intentions to those maxims that respect the moral law—treating persons always as ends, never merely as means. Deontology thus secures respect for individual autonomy and rational consistency
3. Prima Facie Duties (Rossian Ethics)
Ross’s prima facie framework identifies multiple self-evident duties—fidelity, reparation, justice, beneficence, nonmaleficence, self-improvement, and gratitude—and holds that when duties conflict, the weightiest prevails (Rachels, pp. 19–20). These duties serve as default guides: one ought to keep promises, make amends for harm, and promote fairness, unless overridden by stronger duties. In BDI terms, each prima facie duty shapes an agent’s Intentions, allowing nuanced balancing when distinct moral requirements clash. This pluralistic model enriches analysis by recognizing that more than one moral consideration may bear on our choices
Rachels emphasizes virtue ethics’ focus on character: “Virtue ethics asks, ‘What would a virtuous person do?’” (pp. 41–42). Rather than codifying rules or outcomes, it aims to cultivate traits—honesty, courage, compassion—that reliably produce right actions. In the BDI model, virtues inform both an agent’s Beliefs about what a good person values and their Desires to embody those character traits, leading to intentions grounded in exemplar-based reasoning. Virtue ethics thus highlights moral development over time and situates ethical assessment in the quality of one’s character
5. Care Ethics
Though less prominent in Rachels’s text, care ethics focuses on relationships and responsiveness: moral action arises from attentiveness to others’ needs and contextual obligations (see Seay & Nuccettelli, Engaging Bioethics, ch. 4). In BDI terms, caring relations shape an agent’s Desires to maintain and support connections, and their Intentions become decisions rooted in empathy and particularity rather than abstract rules. Care ethics therefore adds depth by foregrounding the moral importance of vulnerability, dependency, and concrete human bonds
6. Social Contract Theory
Rachels sketches the contractarian view: moral norms rest on agreements rational agents would make under fair conditions (pp. 64–65). Under this theory, agents adopt Intentions consistent with principles they could reasonably endorse as equals—balancing self-interest with mutual benefit. In BDI terms, it directs Beliefs about legitimate rules and Desires for cooperative stability, justifying institutions that respect all participants. Social contract theory thus grounds justice and political morality in the idea of reciprocal agreement.
7. Justice (Fairness)
Justice concerns the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens. Rachels draws on Rawls’s idea that “justice is fairness” and that social institutions should be arranged so that inequalities benefit the least advantaged (pp. 81–83). In BDI terms, a commitment to justice shapes an agent’s Intentions—they will plan policies and actions to treat equals equally and respect relevant differences—and aligns Desires toward fairness. Justice principles ensure that our moral reasoning incorporates both distributive and procedural dimensions
8. Rights-Based Ethics
Rachels notes that rights-based approaches locate morality in individual entitlements—freedoms that no one may justly infringe (pp. 27–28). Rights function as constraints on what agents may intend and do, irrespective of aggregate utility. In the BDI model, rights shape an agent’s Beliefs about permissible options and their Intentions by forbidding actions that violate fundamental liberties. Rights-based ethics thus safeguards personal autonomy and protects individuals from instrumentalization.
| |