24 August 2015

Doing EthicsDoing Ethics
Paper details 
Final paper: This paper will cover the material we have worked with during the term. Our task, in working together, is to ensure that you are well prepared for this final assignment, and I will do all I can to facilitate your success.

The requirements for the final paper are listed here.

Focus for the final paper. I will ask you to succinctly present a moral issue – and where you stand in regard to it. Having done so, I will then ask you to write a moral analysis of the issue, one that defends your views, using the material/theories/method we develop during the term.

1) The final paper is not a research paper; my preference is for you to choose an issue about which you are already aware. It can be one from your own experience, something happening at your work site, etc.

2) Once you choose the issue you want to work with, the final paper should include the following sections:

a) A brief, perhaps two paragraph or so summary of the issue as you understand it.

b) The specific stand that you take; what you see as right/good/just in regard to the issue.

c) Some thoughts about how the issue relates to your own life experience.

d) A moral analysis that employs a deontological approach to ethics, either as the kind of duty ethics expressed by Kant or Divine Command Theory. (You need not use both approaches, you need only use one listed in (d), but must also do items (e)-(h).

e) A moral analysis using teleological approaches to ethics, either utilitarianism or Natural Law. (Again, you need not use both approaches, you need only use one listed in (e), in addition of course to the one you choose in (d). It is recommended that the one you choose for (d) and (e) be paired/opposites, just as they were presented in class.

f) A moral analysis that focuses on the relationality-responsibility model we worked on in the course. Items (g) and (h) can be incorporated into this portion of your analysis. Please include mention of why this model for ethics works better than (d) or (e).

g) A moral analysis that uses Young's ideas about justice, including thoughts about how marginalization relates to your issue. Also include at least one from the following list: cultural imperialism, systematic violence, exploitation or powerlessness.

h) Thoughts about how an ethics of risk relates to your issue.

It is necessary that you include each part above; how you include them is up to you. For example, if duty ethics supports better were you stand, you can still include utilitarianism by summarizing what a utilitarian might say about your issue, and then by offering thoughts about how/why you disagree with them. It is possible that not all of the sections above will yield conclusions that you may agree with. The only requirement is that all the parts, as you present them, work to support your stand on the issue.

24 August 2015,
 0

Doing EthicsDoing Ethics Paper details  Final paper: This paper will cover the material we have worked with during the term. Our task, in working […]


24 August 2015

Ebola pandemic in Africa: How has location affected the spread of the disease? Why is it so prevalent in Africa and hard to contain?Ebola pandemic in Africa: How has location affected the spread of the disease? Why is it so prevalent in Africa and hard to contain?
Paper details 
you have submitted a very good book report, but that is not what the assignment calls for. Please have a look at the guidelines again and rewrite with the guidelines in mind. Specifically what I am looking for is for you to provide a critical analysis of some aspect of EEID. You need to state a thesis (e.g. a position, claim or hypothesis) then muster evidence supporting the thesis. In doing so, you will critically analyze the primary source literature relevant to your thesis. 

24 August 2015,
 0

Ebola pandemic in Africa: How has location affected the spread of the disease? Why is it so prevalent in Africa and hard to contain?Ebola […]


24 August 2015

LeadershipLeadership
Paper details 
For the exam, offer a critique of the essay following the instructions below.

Your critique should focus on course concepts, moral reasoning and ethics. Assume that this essay was constructed using the same instructions you have for your final paper.

Note: your critique should be as thorough and comprehensive as possible in the time provided for this examination.

In the event you find that a concept covered during the course has been mis-represented or misused in the essay, clearly identify the theory and explain how it has been mis-represented or misused. If theessay illustrates faulty reasoning, clearly illustrate this in your critique.

Do not offer your own rebuttal argument focused on a moral conclusion differing from the one in the essay. While doing so is a worthwhile endeavor, my interest in this exercise is for you to offer a critique of the essay as it is presented to you – using the instructions above. In other words, offering a critique of my argument is different from you rejecting the moral conclusion in the essay, presenting a different conclusion and then offering your reasons for that conclusion. This incorrect alternative is a rebuttal (and that is not what you should do the for final exam).

THE INFO ABOUT THE COURSE
An ethics for Transformative Leadership must, as is the case for all ethics, be based on a moral framework (i.e., if ethics is about the 'rules of the game,' the moral framework defines what the game is!)

We saw different moral frameworks in the course. The first was utilitarianism, a kind of consequentialism or teleological ethics where the ends justify the means. Clearly, there is something to be said about this as a framework for TL. After all, leaders must weigh consequences as they make decisions toward an organization's ends. But what about problems in a utilitarian approach? Does utilitarianism lead to abuses? Who decides how well-being is to be understood? Might this get too relative? Did we not agree early on that extreme forms of relativism are out of bounds? Might a person compromise their principles following a utilitarian ethics? Yes! Can this work in harmony with TL, when TL itself is based on principled actions (like respect and focusing on emancipation as a matter of respect?) No.

Clearly the problems in utilitarianism disqualify it as a foundation for an ethics of TL. So, what about a moral framework that is based on moral principles? In this regard we considered deontological approaches to ethics. But deontological ethics does not include an assessment of consequences! Deontological ethics has other problems too, like instances when more than one moral principle applies. What is a person to do then? In class, we tended to weigh consequences (but doing so is out of bounds if we are using deontological ethics).

We rejected Divine Command theory (another form of deontological ethics) because it is both absolute in some ways and extremely relative in others. (Again, did we not say early on that both absolutism and relativism — at least in its extreme forms — are to be avoided?)

Natural Law was promising as a teleological or consequential approach to ethics, but this moral framework does not necessarily include emancipation or collaboration, although it could. In the Western tradition, Natural Law is about using reason to determine what ultimate moral truths are, and what those truths require of us. Unlike Divine Command Theory, we have to think it through and participate in our own moral discernment. But what about emotions? Is not TL an approach that insists on head and heart together, and should this not be emphasized more than might be the case in Natural Law theory (even though Natural Law incorporates a sense of our becoming increasingly excellent moral agents through practice, experience and the guidance of conscience?

That left us with a relationality-responsibility model for ethics. A relationality-responsibility model says that our sense of moral responsibility comes from our experiences in the many relationships of which we are a part. This framework sees us as involved in multiple relationships (with others, ourselves, if you will, and with God is a person if a faith-based person). A relationality-responsibility model does not lead to a rejection of acting in principled ways as utilitarianism does (particularly “act-utilitarianism” more than “rule-utilitarianism”), but it does at the same time emphasize that the way we apply those same principles is informed by our experiences in these multiple relationships. A relationality-responsibity model also makes room in a person's deliberations for an assessment of consequences and a corresponding emphasis on working toward the greatest good for those with whom we share a sense of relationality. Instead of grounding one's ethics purely on principles (like deontological ethics) or on consequences (like utilitarianism), a relationality-responsibility model bases a person's ethics on conscience. (Instead of looking outwardly for moral truth, a person looks inwardly). Conscience is a holistic understanding of “human person” and does not TL emphasize both reason and affectivity, head and heart? An emphasis on “head and heart” is a holistic anthropological claim, or sense of self.

Conscience is in part subjective (it is a matter of experience) but also points toward truths that transcend each of us, truths greater than ourselves, as elaborated by Richard Gula and others. Thus, conscience means we avoid absolutism (because it is in part subjective) and also extreme forms of relativism (because it is not only subjective but instead leads to truths that transcend our subjectivity).

Therefore, based on the above, the moral framework that fits TL well (far better than the other approaches) is the relationality-responsibility model, the approach grounded in conscience.

Transformative Leaders also must take risks. That is where an ethics of risk comes in. It sees responsibility in ways that do not presume we are in control (and the emancipatory and collaborative character of TL insists that the leader work with others, share power with them, and not try to control them or hold power over them). An ethics of risk involves taking concrete and strategic steps that make for a “matrix of possibilities” (a sense that anything might happen) instead of taking unilateral and decisive actions where power is exerted over others and control is assumed. An ethics of risk is therefore part of an ethics for TL. An ethics of risk is about power “with” others, as is TL.

Some suggest that an ethics of risk is like taking a leap of faith.

An ethics of TL also involves affirming the relationships we are involved in, and that means that a sense of community must be fostered or maintained. That is, interestingly enough, the third element in an ethics of risk. Those same concrete and strategic steps must always bring community together.

But can there be an appropriate sense of community, or a deeply held experience of community, without justice? No.

What ways of understanding justice seem to fit TL? This is where the five systematic injustices we studied, following from Young's work, became important. In short, a TL must always work to lessen or eliminate these five injustices in the work place or leadership context. How can we collaborate, feel emancipated or maintain a sense of community (where power is shared) if some are marginalized, some experience exploitation or systematic violence, cultural imperialism or powerlessness? Clearly these five injustices work against TL.
So, bringing this all together, here is a statement that describes an ethics for Transformative Leadership:


An ethics of Transformative Leadership follows a relationality-responsibility model for ethics as developed by H. Richard Niebuhr and later Charles Curran. It is rooted in conscience as a matter of one's head and heart. The experiences we have with others inform our conscience. Following from the work of Richard Gula and others in the larger Natural Law tradition, conscience is well understood as matter of our own subjectivity but also directs us to understanding truths greater than ourselves, i.e., truths that transcend each of us.

To affect change, an ethics for TL incorporates an “Ethics of Risk.” Following from the work of Sharon Welch, an ethics of risk entails (a) the assumption that we are not in control, (b) the admission that concrete and strategically well considered actions create a “matrix of possibilities” (Welch), i.e., being responsible admits that anything might happen (but actions are performed as a leap of faith if you will), and (c) a preference for actions that build or hold community together.

To maintain those relationships it incorporates solidarity (i.e., the exercise of power with others and not power over others, combined with intentionally taking seriously the realities understood by those who are marginalized).


Finally, an ethics for TL is a matter of working to lessen marginalization, cultural imperialism, systematic violence, exploitation and powerlessness where justice (emancipation) for Transformative Leaders is defined as the absence of these injustices.

24 August 2015,
 0

LeadershipLeadership Paper details  For the exam, offer a critique of the essay following the instructions below. Your critique should focus on course concepts, moral […]


24 August 2015

What benefits will your college education provide you in your personal and professional livesWhat benefits will your college education provide you in your personal and professional lives?
Paper details

write a 300 – 500 short essay by responding to the following prompt: What benefits will your college education provide you in your personal and professional lives?

24 August 2015,
 0

What benefits will your college education provide you in your personal and professional livesWhat benefits will your college education provide you in your personal […]


24 August 2015

Physical chemistry gas fugacityphysical chemistry gas fugacity
Paper details 
You will need to cite references and must be “primary sources” (i.e. research journals).
The others may be review articles, magazines, books or websites. **Format: The entire report should be typed, double-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font work. The report you generate will consist of the following sections:
1- Title – a one sentence-long name that indicates the main idea of the paper.
2- Abstract – a short paragraph that summarizes the main idea of the paper.
3- Introduction – a background of the subject including the reason you chose the particular topic. This section should not be longer than 2 or 3 paragraphs.
4- Main Body – the section of the report that details the important aspects of the subject.
5- Conclusion – the last one or two paragraphs where you describe what you got out of the research.
6- References – here you will list all of your cited references.

* The references should listed using the ****(ACS) format as described in Chapter 3 of the textbook (A Short Guide to Writing about Chemistry by Davis, Tyson, and Pechenik). Failure to follow this format will result in a lower grade.

24 August 2015,
 0

Physical chemistry gas fugacityphysical chemistry gas fugacity Paper details  You will need to cite references and must be “primary sources” (i.e. research journals).The others […]


‹ Prev page1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 Next page ›