Sale!

$20.00 $14.99

Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral consideration to animals. Can you think of a reason why our moral consideration should include all humans regardless of their level of cognitive ability, yet be denied to non-human animals simply because they have lower levels of cognitive abilities (though still higher in some cases than those of human infants and some mentally disabled humans)? What response might he have to your way of drawing the line between the types of beings that should get moral consideration and those that should not?

I thought that maybe this video might provide some context for our discussion, since the state of animals IN NATURE is relevant, don’t you think?

Description

PHI208 ETHICAL AND MORAL REASONING WEEK 2 – DISCUSSION 1 ASHFORD UNIVERSITY

Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Refer to the Discussion Forum Grading Rubric under the Settings icon above for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.

Week 2 Discussion [WLOs: 1, 2, 3] [CLOs: 3, 4, 5]<

Post on at least three separate days. This week our main discussion will focus on explaining and evaluating the utilitarian ethical theory as discussed in Chapter 3 of the textbook. Your instructor will be choosing the discussion question and posting it as the first post in the main discussion forum. The requirements for the discussion this week include the following:

You must begin posting by Day 3 (Thursday).

You must post a minimum of four separate posts on at least three separate days (e.g., Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, or Thursday, Friday, and Sunday, or Thursday, Saturday, and Monday, etc.).

The total combined word count for all of your posts, counted together, should be at least 600 words, not including references.

You must answer all the questions in the prompt and show evidence of having read the resources that are required to complete the discussion properly (such as by using quotes, referring to specific points made in the text, etc.).

In order to satisfy the posting requirements for the week, posts must be made by Day 7 (Monday); posts made after Day 7 are welcome but will not count toward the requirements.

Be sure to reply to your classmates and instructor. You are encouraged to read posts your instructor makes (even if they are not in response to your own post) and reply to those as a way of examining the ideas in greater depth.

All postings (including replies to peers) are expected to be thought out, proofread for mechanical, grammatical, and spelling accuracy, and to advance the discussion in an intelligent and meaningful way (i.e., saying something like “I really enjoyed what you had to say” will not count). You are also encouraged to do outside research and quote from that as well.

For more information, please read the Frequently Asked QuestionsPreview the document.

This discussion will be assessed on a 10-point scale and is worth 4% of your final grade.

Reply to Week 2 – Discussion 1

Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral consideration to animals. Can you think of a reason why our moral consideration should include all humans regardless of their level of cognitive ability, yet be denied to non-human animals simply because they have lower levels of cognitive abilities (though still higher in some cases than those of human infants and some mentally disabled humans)? What response might he have to your way of drawing the line between the types of beings that should get moral consideration and those that should not?

I thought that maybe this video might provide some context for our discussion, since the state of animals IN NATURE is relevant, don’t you think?

Last Feast of The Crocodiles (Part 3 of 4)

Place a new order
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -