Week 1 discussion
Helen wants to move to a new community, and she is
applying for a job with a small retail establishment. She is confident that she
is fully qualified and will be able to perform well if she gets the job. The
employer, however, has advertised for someone with three years of retail
experience, and Helen only has two-and-a-half years. She is considering whether
to exaggerate slightly on her resume in order to improve her chances of getting
Helen asks three friends to offer
their advice on what she should do.
— Henry says, “Go ahead and claim three-and-a-half years of experience;
they’re going to be so happy with your work that by the time they check (if
they ever do) it won’t matter.”
— Jennifer says, “I’m sure you’ll arrive at the best decision on your own;
I’ve always known you to be an honest person.”
— George says, “It is never all right to lie, even when you are unlikely to
get caught and it seems relatively harmless to do so.”
To begin our discussion this
week, let’s discuss some of the following questions:
1. Which of the Three Primary Schools of Ethics is each of Helen’s friends
2. Can you imagine other people using the same approaches to arrive at
different kinds of advice?
3. Do one of these Three Primary Schools of Ethics feel like the style you
usually use already?
The study of Ethics and Philosophy is one which brings many
different kinds of “thinkers” together. One person’s philosophy
on Ethics is another person’s philosophy on Evil. We will be working this
term on constructing personal ethical bases and understanding how Ethical Codes
(both personal and professional) are created and followed.
To start us thinking about the
different areas of philosophy and ethics, and how we fit into the different
molds or world views, let’s discuss the differences and similarities between
To do this, let’s look at the role of right and wrong, laws which
regulate behavior, principles vs. morality, and the role of ethics in our
To start out we’ll answer some of
these questions and create more of them as we go. Pick one of the following and
respond to your classmates thoughts and views:
1. Do we need ethics if we
have laws? Why or why not?
2. Is it ethical to change our own views of ethics based on the situation
we are in?
3. Can we “legislate” ethics?
4. How does.next.ecollege.com/ec/courses/58884/CRS-zzz-4811304/Lectures/aristotle.pdf”>Aristotle’s “virtue ethics”mirror your ethical view, or how is it
Week 2 discussions
When Siding with the Majority (graded)
our opening page states, Mark Twain warned that “Whenever you find yourself on the
side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”It is likely that your parents warned you
“not to follow the crowd,” or your school counselors warned you about
United States utilizes a democratic republic form of government, which espouses
the “majority rule” in many instances. For example, when passing
laws, Congress and state Legislators use majority voting. When electing our
officials, the majority rules. But, is our government unethical?
week’s thread will look at two or three “examples” of majority
findings or rules.
We will bring new ones in throughout the week, so be sure to visit back at
least every other day and post your thoughts.
is our first one for the week:
The great majority of people seem to find nothing objectionable about the use
of commercials in children’s television programming. Yet a distinguished panel
commissioned by the National Science Foundation found reason to disagree. After
reviewing 21 relevant scholarly studies, they concluded:
is clear from the available evidence that television advertising doesinfluence children. Research has
demonstrated that children attend to and learn from commercials, and that
advertising is at least moderately successful in creating positive attitudes
toward and the desire for products advertised. The variable that emerged most
clearly across numerous studies as a strong determinant of children’s
perception of television advertising is the child’s age. Research clearly
establishes that children become more skilled in evaluating television
advertising as they grow older, and that to treat all children from 2 to 12 as
a homogenous group masks important, perhaps crucial differences.
you think the majority view is correct in this case? What difference would it
make that a majority thinks this way?
Do you think the use of commercials in children’s television programming raises
any ethical questions? Do explain.
Do you wish to place evidence for what you say before your classmates?
The Struggle of Good vs. Evil (graded)
struggles with one’s own tendencies, desires, lusts, and self-interest have
placed people in conflict with other people and their own communities farther
back than any of us can read. We read about the struggles of others in
history — what about ourselves? Yes, us! What about our
experiences of being ourselves?
we look back in history, we find people who are not so different from us —
struggling with their human nature — and trying to live ethical lives in
whatever way they can do so. They aspire to live ethical lifes and find
themselves failing again and again.
Augustine in the 5th Century held that although we feel free to make
choices in life, our true nature as human beings includes a persistent
disregard for what is good. On this view, we are sinners whose only hope for
redemption lies in the gracious love of a merciful deity. Whatever I do on my
own, Augustine would argue, is bound to be wrong; whatever I do right, must be
performed by God through me.
Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century brought Aristotle’s theories back into
“vogue,” soon afterSt. Augustine’s death
(if 800 years is soon, that is.) He allowed humanity to have a bit of
secularity along with faith, and his ethics allows for a Natural Law which can
be found in the heart of man. Please be sure to listen to our Saints’ Debate
on the lecture tab before working in this thread.
here we are in the 21st Century with all the sophistication and technology of
the age. Does this account of human nature fit well with your own
experience of human action? That is, do you observe (in yourself and others) an
inclination toward evil instead of toward good? Bring in examples of
scenarios which bolster your view, or which tend to bring your view (or others)
Week 3 discussion
Applying the Death Penalty (graded)
here is a word of caution. With this discussion comes a tasking to discuss the
death penalty in two ways: first, as an expression of the social contract,
where one person has killed another in a violation of that other person’s right
to peace and safety, and second, as a rules-based function of the justice
system being applied to a difficult situation.
do you see going on that is a violation of the Hobbes/Locke social contract
And you might also connect it with any of the Three Schools, plus Aristotle,
that you have read in past weeks—and especially with the rules-based ethics
the situation: In Manatee County, Florida, a judge sentenced a man to death—the
first time this had happened in the county for over 19 years. Sentenced to
death was a 25-year-old man for the January 7, 2004, murder of both of his
parents by bludgeoning them to death in their bed with a baseball bat.
with your social contract ethicist hats on, tell us what you make of this quote
by the judge at the sentencing, quoted from the front page of the November 17,
2007Bradenton Herald: “You have not only forfeited your
right to live among us, but under the laws of the state of Florida, you have
forfeited the right to live at all.”
at it, good folks. But, rather than running off with reactions and opinions
about the death penalty in general, please do keep it in the context of our
social contract discussion for this week and also connected with ethics of
Living in Our State of Nature (graded)
Contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how
people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for
their mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules
Hobbesruns the logic like this in the form of a
1) We are all self-interested,
2) Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to
pursue our interests,
3) We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative
Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.
Thomas Hobbeslooked to the past to
observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such thing as
morality, and that this self-interested human nature was “nasty, brutish,
and short” — a kind of perpetual state of warfare
John Lockedisagreed, and set forth the view that the state exists to
preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that
task, citizens have the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support
and even to rebel. Listen to Locke’s audio on the lecture tab and read his
lecturette to be able to answer this thread.
Locke addressed Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature was the state of war,
though he attribute this claim to “some men” not to Hobbes. He
refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a
state of nature. For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to
a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action to
themselves punish wrong doers, as in a state of nature.
Which philosophy do you espouse?
coming to grips with the two and considering your experience of society as it
is today, think out loud about what you experiences as the State of
Nature, and tell us what you would be willing to give up in exchange for
civil order and personal security?
might consider what you have already given up in exchange for security as well
as what might be required in coming days.
Week 4 discussons
Ethics of Controlling Environmental Innovation (graded)
food supplies are necessary to sustain growing populations around the world and
their appetites for great food, quality products, and continuous availability.
great deal of expensive research is invested in developing technologies to
deliver productive agriculture. Horticultural efforts to breed hybrid crops are
seen as far back as history can observe, and there have been efforts to
domesticate improved animals, as well. Gene splitting was a 1990s technology to
improve the health and productivity of farm crops. With the 21st century have
come genetically modified foods (GMF) through the use of nanotechnology to
cause changes at the genetic and even molecular levels. These are very
expensive technologies, and many new products have been patented and otherwise
protected as proprietary products of intellectual property.
out to the country during growing season, and you will see signs identifying
that the crop has been grown with a protected seed that cannot be used to
produce retained seed for planting in the next growing season.
terms of this week’s TCOs, what ethical issues are raised by this legal process
of patent protection, and how do we see the primary schools of ethics used in
these proprietary measures? What, in this deontological week and in our
learning to date, informs our understanding of this situation, and what should
be done about it?
Kant – Accomplice to Crazed Murderer? (graded)
famous First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative reads:
only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.” Kant taught morality as a matter of following
maxims of living that reflect absolute laws. “Universal” is a term that allows
for no exceptions, and what is universal applies always and everywhere. Lying,
for any reason, is universally wrong.
Be sure to listen to Kant’s audio lecture before
posting this week!
consider the famous case of the Crazed Murderer. In your town the Crazed
Murderer comes to your door looking for your friend and wanting to kill him.
You know that your friend went home to hide. What do you tell the murderer?
When he leaves and runs up the street to your friend’s house, what do you do?
Week 5 discussions
Life & Death; Politics & Ethics (graded)
are three basic propositions in standard Utilitarianism (Please be sure to
listen to Mill’s audio lecture before joining this threaded discussion):
Actions are judged right and wrong
solely on their consequences;
that is, nothing else matters except the consequence, and right actions
are simply those with the best consequences.
To assess consequences, the only thing
that matters is the amount of happiness and unhappiness caused;
that is, there is only one criterion and everything else is irrelevant.
In calculating happiness and
unhappiness caused, nobody’s happiness counts any more than anybody
that is, everybody’s welfare is equally important and the majority rules.
specific cases where justice and utility are in conflict, it may seem expedient
to serve the greater happiness through quick action that overrules
consideration for justice. There is a side to happiness that can call for
rushed decisions and actions that put decision-makers under the pressure of
is a dilemma for our class:
are the elected district attorney. You receive a phone call from a nursing home
administrator who was a good friend of yours in college. She has a waiting list
of 3,000 people who will die if they don’t get into her nursing home facility
within the next 3 weeks, and she currently has 400 patients who have asked
(or their families have asked on their behalf) for the famous Dr. Jack
Kevorkian’s (fictitious) sister, Dr. Jill Kevorkian, for assistance in helping
them die. The 3,000 people on the waiting list want to live. She (the nursing
home administrator) wants to know if you would agree to “look the other
way” if she let in Dr. Jill to assist in the suicide of the 400 patients
who have requested it, thus allowing at least 400 of the 3,000 on the waiting
How would we use Utilitarianism
to “solve” this dilemma?
What ethics did your friend,
the nursing home administrator, use in deciding to call you?
What ethics are you using if
you just “look the other way” and let it happen?
Dealing With Emergencies and Outcomes (graded)
9 of our text includes the terrorism situation at the 1972 Munich Olympics, and
it needs to be read before engaging this discussion.
principle of utility involves maximizing happiness as a desirable outcome of
decisions. Although it does not get directly said, there is an inverse
intention to minimize the undesirable outcome of disaster. Utilitarian
decisions are directed toward outcomes—that is, the consequences of decisions.
Olympic hostage situation was a high-tension moment, full of dangerous
surprises and strategies to deal with the situation that did not work out for
the best. Among the strategies was the idea to kill the leader of the
terrorists so as to disrupt the terrorist plot and to allow a good outcome in
which the hostages would be saved. In the situation it was also entirely
possible that a terrible outcome might occur in which all would die. The
situation was an emergency.
German legal system might eventually take the terrorists and their leader to
trial, but first there was the need to end the hostage situation. The account
in our text ends with, “But it was the lesser of two evils.”
utilitarian ethicists this week, how shall we reason through to the decision of
the law enforcement authorities at the 1972 Munich Olympics?
Week 6 discussions
Applying Rand’s Objectivism (graded)
Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophyhas been touted by
her detractors as the philosophy of self-interested
Her four epistemological principles are:
1. Metaphysics: Objective reality of the world and the objects in it.
2. Epistemology: Reason as the one and only key to understanding.
3. Ethics: Self-interest in what behavior is but also what it should be.
4. Politics: Capitalism through the performance of deeds by individuals who are
early 1960’s, a student asked a spokesman for Objectivism what would happen to
the poor in an Objectivist’s free society.
The spokesman answered, “If you want to help them, you will not be
reads Rand’s works, Atlas Shrugged, or The Fountainhead, one will conclude that this
would be the answer Ayn would have given to that student as well.
do you conclude from the answer given by the Objectivist spokesperson?
Is Objectivism, like Moral Relativism, the opposite of ethics?
And what clue in what she taught leads to your conclusion?
Working Conflict Resolution Methods (graded)
ways to analyze ethical behaviors and dilemmas exist, and many of them will
help direct you to the correct or “best” solution to a problem.
we discussed in week 1 in the “tough choices” .pdf, sometimes right
vs. right or wrong vs. wrong decisions have to be made.
In the lecture this week, you are given three ethical dilemma
resolution models to try out on a dilemma provided there. Please review that
interactive before posting to the threads this week, and let’s bring your
questions and comments about the “proposed” solutions here to the
threads. We will talk about that through mid-week, and then I will post a
new dilemma here where we will, as a group, begin analyzing it using the
will need to be able to use these three models (Blanchard and Peale, Laura Nash
and Front page of the Newspaper) on the final exam … so let’s be sure to
practice all three of them together this week.
to start this off, let’s address the dilemma in the Week 6 Lecture interactive
(at the bottom of the page). You MUST read the lecture and run the interactive
in order to participate in the threads this week!
Review the sample solution to the
Laura Nash method.
Do you agree with that analysis? If so, what parts do you think really
helped you work through the dilemma? If not, which parts do you not agree
Review the sample solution to the
Front Page of the Newspaper method.
Do you think this is one of those types of dilemmas for which this model
works? If not, why not? If so, why? How did using this method help you
work through the dilemma?
Review the sample solution to the
Blanchard and Peale method.
Do you agree with the analysis? If not, why not? If so, in what way did
this help you analyze this dilemma?
Pick ONE of the above 3 questions and let’s get
started.Or, respond to another
student with details about why you agree or disagree with their analysis. Feel
free to kindly debate with each other. Do not take things personally if someone
disagrees. Be sure to show that you have viewed the lecture and interactive and
that you attempted an analysis for “high quality” posts this week.
After Wednesday, I will bring in another scenario and we can analyze that one
together as a class.
Week 7 discussions
Business Ethics & the Hovercraft Debacle (graded)
week, we looked at two more ethical codes—one for the Project Management Institute, and one for Engineers.
(Find links to these professional codes in the Week 7 Assignmenttab along with the Week 7 readings.)
can see that both of them are much simpler than the Legal code we looked at
last week, and even simpler than the Medical code of ethics. Appropriate
professional behavior, practice, and discipline varies among professions and
reflects the needs and values of the professional society in question.
Let’s then assume professional roles as we work on this fictional scenario:
2020, and General Foryota Company opens a plant in which to build a new
mass-produced hover-craft. This hover-craft will work using E-85 Ethanol, will
travel up to 200 mph, and will reduce pollution worldwide at a rate of 10
percent per year. It is likely that when all automobiles in the industrial
world have been changed over to hovercrafts, emission of greenhouse gasses may
be so reduced that global warming may end and air quality will become
However, the downside is that during the
transition time, GFC’s Hover-Vee (only available in red or black), will most
likely put all transportation as we know it in major dissaray. Roadways will no
longer be necessary, but new methods of controlling traffic will be required.
Further, while the old version of cars are still being used, Hover-vee’s
will cause accidents, parking issues, and most likely class envy and warfare.
The sticker price on the first two models will be about four times that of
the average SUV (to about $200,000.) Even so, GFC’s marketing futurists have
let them know that they will be able to pre-sell their first three years
of expected production, with a potential waiting list which will take between
15 and 20 years to fill.
The Chief Engineer of GFC commissions a study on
potential liabilities for the Hover-vees. The preliminary result is that
Hover-vees will likely kill or maim humans at an increased rate of double to
triple over automobile travel because of collisions and crashes at high speeds
— projected annual death rates of 100,000 to 200,000. However, global warming
will end, and the environment will flourish.
ST Johns Wort
SCHOLARLY PAPER GUIDELINES
Select any alternative or complementary medication and discuss key factors including but not limited to, patient safety, clinical reasoning, and evidence-based practice.
Discuss the origins (historical uses, etc.), current uses, safety in at-risk populations (children, older adults, immunocompromised individuals, etc.) and other pertinent information.
Review pertinent patient safety information related to your selected topic. Remember to address drug-drug and drug-food interactions as well as dosing considerations.
Research current guidelines to support evidence-based practice in pharmacology as related to your selected topic. Synthesize and discuss this research in your paper.
Discuss a situation in your practice related to your selected topic and how this affects or might affect your nursing practice.
A minimum of four (4) professional references is required. One of the four references may be your textbook.
The paper should be 3 to 5 pages in length, not including the title or reference pages. APA format is mandatory.
Grading Criteria for Scholarly Paper
Grading Criteria for Scholarly Paper
Criteria Ratings Pts
Addresses Assigned Topic
Topics are covered in a complete and concise manner. Pharmacological implications of alternative medication thoroughly explored.
Topics are covered and most pharmacological implications are discussed
Topics only slightly covered and paper lacks substance. Limited pharmacological implications addressed.
Incomplete or confusing.
Evidence of Critical Thinking
Demonstrates clear understanding of the topics. Relates research and patient safety concerns thoroughly; applies information to professional nursing practice.
Conveys understanding of the topics. Adequate discussion of related research and patient safety concerns. Some inconsistencies in making connections between information provided and professional nursing practice.
Paper lacks substance; limited evidence of understanding of topics. Connections between information provided and professional nursing practice are unclear, not firmly established, or are not obvious. Minimal or unclear references to related research and patient safety concerns.
Lack of understanding. No evidence of connections between information provided (if provided) and professional nursing practice. Little or no reference to related research and patient safety concerns.
Includes a minimum of four (4) professional references, one of which may be a textbook.
Resources not provided or not appropriate.
Well organized, thought-out, logical and structured.
Organized and structured. Minor problems with clarity or consistency.
Poor structure and/or organization; distracting.
Lacks organization or structure. Very difficult to follow.
Grammar; Spelling; APA Formatting and Citations
Proper grammar, spelling, and APA formatting and citations.
Multiple spelling and/or grammar errors, incorrect or lacks APA formatting.