In this final written assignment, you will combine what you have done in these two exercises by examining an ethical issue and defending your own position on an ethical
In this final written assignment, you will combine what you have done in these two exercises by examining an ethical issue and defending your own position on an ethical question regarding that issue.
This final written assignment should be written in form with the following clearly labeled sections:
- Introduction
- Ethical Argument
- Explanation and Defense
- Objection and Response
- Conclusion
should be between 1,300 words
In this section of the , you will begin with your ethical question, introduce the topic and d close with a thesis statement.
- The ethical question may be the same as your Week 3 written (“Applying an Ethical Theory”) or a revised version of it.
- The introduction should be revised in a way that reflects your additional thinking on the issue and question.
- End this section with a thesis statement that states your position on the issue (the answer to the ethical question you believe is strongest) and provides a brief summary of the main ideas you will be presenting in the . Please see the assignment guidance for examples of thesis statements.
Place the introduction under the Part 1: Introduction heading.
Part 2: Ethical Argument
In this section of the , you will present the strongest argument you can in support of the position you have stated in your introduction.
- This will be similar to the “supporting reasons” you offered in the first ; however, this argument should reflect your research into the key ethical issues that need to be identified and addressed, the arguments on different sides of this problem, and the theories of moral reasoning we have studied in the class (you will discuss the specific details and implications of the moral theories in the next two sections).
- You can think of this as a summary of the main argument you would give if you were an attorney trying to convince a jury of your position.
Place this information under the Part 2: Ethical Argument heading.
Part 3: Explanation and Defense
In this section, you will explain and defend your argument by drawing on the moral theory that aligns most closely with the argument you presented in Part 2. This may be the same theory you discussed in your second assignment, but it may also be a different theory.
- You must first explain the theory in general terms similar to how you explained a theory in your second assignment, including a brief account of the historical background of the theory and the philosopher(s) associated with it and general overview of the core moral ideal or principle of the theory, including the way it guides and constrains moral reasoning.
- You should then clearly show how your argument represents an application of that form of moral reasoning.
- In other words, if the argument you present in Part 2 is utilitarian, deontological, or virtue-based (teleological), you will want to explain utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics in general terms, then explain how your argument from Part 2 reflects or draws upon the core principles and values of that theory. Please refer to the Week 3 assignment instructions for directions on how to explain and apply the moral theory.
Place this section under the Part 3: Explanation and Defense heading.
Part 4: Objection and Response
In this section of the , you will present the strongest objection you can to your argument, and briefly defend that objection by appealing to a different ethical theory than the one you focused on in Part 3.
- Briefly explain the core moral ideal or principle of the theory and how that could be the basis of an objection to your argument. For instance, if you explained and defended your own argument by applying the principles of virtue ethics, you could raise an objection from the perspective of utilitarianism by briefly explaining the core utilitarian principle and how applying that principle could lead someone to a different conclusion than the one you are defending.
- Next, you should respond to the objection by explaining why it is not strong enough to undermine the main argument in defense of your position.
- See the assignment guidance for suggestions on how to effectively respond to the objection.
Place this section under the Part 4: Objection and Response heading.
Part 5: Conclusion
In this section of the , provide a summary of what you have done in the by briefly describing what you accomplished in each of the above sections.
Place this section under the Part 5: Conclusion heading.
Ethical Reasoning
Robert Ponton
UAGC
PHI 208
Professor Wiseman
6/12/2022
Ethical Question
Is it acceptable for a nation to use drone strikes on suspect terrorists, even when they are citizens of other nations with whom we are not in conflict?
Introduction
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the use of drone strikes has been disputed. This terrible tragedy led the United States to the decision that we could utilize our relatively new drone technology to carry out such operations for us instead of risking the lives of pilots in distant and dangerous air attacks. The ability to hit a target almost anywhere, at any time, from any location on the earth, is a top priority for the United States Air Force. It's a widely held misconception that drone strikes cause a huge number of casualties among the civilian population. There is no other weapon system that can match the precision we get from drone assaults, and it has been shown that we can use drone strikes in highly populated areas without causing any collateral damage. When it comes to attacking targets hidden within buildings or other structures, drones have lately shown to be highly successful. Because the payload is so little and the ordinance is computer directed, we can drop a bomb through a building's roof and kill everyone inside while leaving no survivors. This was proved during the Gulf War, when we showed how precise our bombs were by dropping a bomb through the chimney of a home. The idea that drone attacks are carried out with little or no regard for human life has been propagated by the mainstream media, which claims that anytime an act of war is carried out, civilians are killed in great numbers. This is not the case. As a result of careful planning, none of the airstrikes I've seen have resulted in the death of a single innocent civilian, and each one completely wiped out the target without causing any damage to nearby buildings.
Position Statement
Drone strikes conducted by the United States are the most advanced form of airstrike that the United States possesses. With the technology that we possess, we are able to precisely verify, mark, and target terrorists in order to eliminate them without endangering any innocent people in the surrounding area. No other country in the world can make the same claim.
Reasons in Support of Your Position
It is estimated that more than 300 innocent people have been killed as a direct consequence of drone assaults between the years 2015 and the current day. The accuracy of the statistic is directly proportional to the reliability of the source from which it was obtained. On the other side, there have been approximately 10,000 fatalities in Afghanistan alone that have been ascribed to terrorist assaults. This one piece of evidence ought to be sufficient to sway your opinion on the reliability of our airstrikes. The challenge that arises when seeking to get rid of terrorists is that they almost always bring their families with them, making their loved ones vulnerable to the full force of an assault (Jaeger & Siddique, 2018).
Opposing Position Statement
Why should we allow airstrikes to continue if they endanger the lives of women and children who had no involvement in the conflict in the first place?
Reasons in Support of the Opposing Position
How is it possible for us to tolerate any form of accidental casualties? It is entirely unacceptable for anybody to suffer an injury for doing nothing, with the exception of those who are actively acting inappropriately. In the United States, this is referred regarded as "acceptable loss," but in the United Kingdom, it is called "murder."
References
Jaeger, D. A., & Siddique, Z. (2018). Are drone strikes effective in Afghanistan and Pakistan? On the dynamics of violence between the United States and the Taliban. CESifo Economic Studies, 64(4), 667-697.
,
Ethical Theory
Robert Ponton
UAGC
Professor Wise
PHI 208
6/29/2022
Ethical Question
Is it acceptable for a nation to use drone strikes on suspect terrorists, even when they are citizens of other nations with whom we are not in conflict?
Introduction
As a result of 9/11, there's been a lot of debate over whether to deploy drone assaults. Rather than risk the lives of pilots, the United States elected to use the relatively new drone technology that we had rather than endangering the lives of pilots to carry out deadly air strikes. US Air Force's major goal is to be capable of attacking any target on the planet at any given moment, wherever they may be. Many individuals believe that drone attacks kill a high number of unarmed civilians. There are several advantages to using drones over traditional weapons systems, including the ability to utilize them in heavily populated regions with minimal or no collateral damage. In recent years, we've found that drones are excellent at striking targets that are concealed within buildings or other structures. Computer-controlled ordnance allows a bomb to be dropped through a building's roof and kill everyone inside while causing no damage to the outside world. During the Gulf War, we used this technology to show how precise our weapons were by dropping a bomb down a chimney to demonstrate how accurate our weapons were. A common misconception is that drone strikes are carried out with minimal concern for civilians, since the news media tends to draw attention to when many people are killed as a result of acts of armed aggression. Although airstrikes of any magnitude are logistically hard, none of the hits I've seen have resulted in civilian fatalities or damaged neighboring buildings, despite the fact that they have fully removed the target. Even more astounding is the fact that most bombings take place in cities or villages that should have been emptied of any surviving inhabitants before they are targeted.
Explanation of the Ethical Theory
I will be talking about deontology, which is a type of ethical theory, in the following segment of this article. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, is credited with the development of deontology in the 18th century. In addition to the theory of deontology, Kant developed the concept of the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is "the ultimate moral principle," as Kant refers to it in his writings (Kant, 2008, p.4). The categorical imperative can be expressed in two different ways: by requiring consistent behavior and by treating everyone with respect. Both are important aspects of the categorical imperative. Kant referred to his formulation of the supreme moral principle as a universal law when he originally presented it. The following is how he outlined the regulations: When I act, I should not do so in a manner that prevents me from simultaneously wishing that the principle on which I base my actions to become a standard followed by everyone. The emphasis in this quotation is placed on two primary points. An "essentially the policy or principle" that one adheres to when making conscious, deliberate decisions, and then there's the universal rule that should be followed by all the people in the world (Thames, B, 2018). It is not clear whether a person who is likely to fail a class in college but has the option of purchasing an essay on the internet that will guarantee his success should submit the paper in the form of a guarantee that universal law and what a maxim is. This is because it is unclear what a guarantee is. If the rumor is true, then he won't be failing his class, so he should be able to save some money by buying a paper to pass the class. The issue with this hypothetical situation is what would take place if everyone strictly adhered to this rule. Because there will be no progress made in the writing process, plagiarism is an unavoidable consequence. It would be unethical to make this into a universal rule if you tried to do so.
Application of the Ethical Theory
Finally, I'd want to know about the legality of other countries attacking our military installations when we aren't engaged in hostilities with them. Deontology presents a significant challenge when applied to this premise. According to the theory of deontology, people who serve in the military forces have a responsibility to protect and serve, and that part of that obligation tragically occasionally means taking life. If everyone had to carry out the part of that duty that no one in their right mind would do, then a universal law would be created, which would be unenforceable since it would compel people to commit acts of violence against others for no good reason. A global legislation prohibiting the killing of others is not possible. As a result, it would be unethical for the government to use drones to hunt out people it suspects of being terrorists. When it comes to deontology, we are obligated to do good and to abstain from doing harm, even if such actions seem like better choices at the time. Given this, we can infer that, even though killing terrorists would benefit the world, we shouldn't do it because we have a duty to do actions that are good in and of themselves, which is the underlying concept of my argument. We should obey the norms of deontology and avoid murder at all costs, despite of the fact that they won't be able to damage anybody else, since killing is evil regardless of whether or not they can harm anyone else.
References
Thames, B. (2018) How Should One Live? An Introduction to Ethics and Moral Reasoning. Lacina Publishing Services. https://content.ashford.edu/books/Thames.5057.18.1/sections/ch10sec10.2
Drone Strikes in Afghanistan. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war/charts? show_casualties=1&show_injuries=1&show_strikes=1&location=afghanistan&from=20 15-1-1&to=now
Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals. In J. Bennett (Ed. & Trans.),
Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved
from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
