philosophy discussion question and need the explanation and answer to help me learn.
Week Four: Discussion 1: Virtue Ethics
Brief Overview Responses: To complete this discussion topic, you will be posting a brief response to each of the four controlling questions below and then posting two critical peer comments. These should be in the form of a basic summary or brief explanation of your understanding of the issue(s) addressed in each question, followed by your own answer to the main question raised in each of the four questions. On this first pass, your response may be somewhat tentative or speculative. Do your best, in about 200-250 words (for each question), to come up with an answer you could more fully explain and defend in an essay of greater depth and length. You need not cite any external sources in these first sets of four responses, but if you do quote, paraphrase, or take any content from another source, please limit those sources for this first set of responses strictly to the course textbook or other course content. Please post these four brief responses in a single thread, due Thursday.
Critical Comments: By Friday (end of day), please post a brief critical commentary on at least two other students’ brief overview responses. It is important to understand that a critical comment may be positive or negative, but it goes beyond merely stating your agreement/disagreement, interest/indifference, shared understanding, or confusion. Your comment may start out that way, but to be a critical comment, it must also provide a reason or reasons for your reaction or specific comment. Each critical comment should be at least 100-150 words in length. You will be posting a longer critique of one of your peers’ critical essays at the end of the week.
Controlling Questions
In Week One, we looked at the view of Ruth Benedict (discussed in Chapter 3 of Rosenstand’s The Moral of the Story) a 20th-century anthropologist, who says that, “Normality…is culturally defined,” and “the concept of the normal is properly a variant of the concept of [the] good” (Benedict [from “Anthropology and the Abnormal (1934),]” qtd. in Rosenstand, p. 151, 8e). Benedict is saying that what any culture or society deems to be a good, right, or correct action and morally good, or at least morally appropriate, behavior will in fact be such in relation to the belief system and practices of that culture or society. This leaves the door open for a wide variety of ways of life, of ethical codes, of individual behavior to be acknowledged not only as acceptable, but also as morally good.By contrast, Christina Hoff Sommers argues that there are basic human virtues that are not relative to time, place, circumstance or situation. Sommers writes, “It is wrong to mistreat a child, to humiliate someone, to torment an animal. To think only of yourself, to steal, to lie, to break promises. And on the positive side: it is right to be considerate and respectful of others, to be charitable and generous.” (Sommers, qtd. in Rosenstand, p. 479, 8e). Just after this passage, Rosenstand asks whether Sommers is right: “Can we just pronounce the virtues of decency, civility, honesty, and so forth the ultimate values without any further discussion? For many, what Sommers is doing is just old-fashioned moralizing…” (p. 489).
What does Rosenstand mean by “moralizing”?
Explain your understanding of Sommers’s repudiation of moral and ethical relativism. Is her view convincing enough to make a relativist change her stripes?
How does Sommers’s view connect up with virtue ethics? [Note: You can get a quick survey of Sommers’s viewpoint in brief video commentarieshere: https://www.aei.org/scholar/christina-hoff-sommers/]
Explore the concepts of angst or anguish, authenticity, and bad faith through a discussion of the philosophical views of Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Sartre and use an original example either from your own life experience or from a work of fiction or film to illustrate your discussion.Which of these three existentialist thinkers most closely captures your own approach to living an ethical life (or at least attempting to do so)? Explain and defend your answer using whatever evidence you believe to be relevant.
Give a brief account of the similarities and differences between classical, difference, radical, and equity feminism and then decide which of these strands of feminism is the most relevant in today’s world.Consider at least one example of an ethical issue or dilemma (either real or fictional) in your evaluative discussion and (a) show how at least two different varieties of feminism would approach or attempt to resolve the issue; and (b) compare and contrast any feminist approach to the issue or dilemma with any other ethical viewpoint we have studied throughout the course. Does feminist ethics add anything essential to our current understanding of the human situation and what it means to live an ethical life? Why or why not?
Read the excerpt from Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice. She writes: “…women come to question the normality of their feelings and to alter their judgments in deference to the opinion of others….The difficulty women experience in finding or speaking publicly in their own voices emerges repeatedly in the form of qualification and self-doubt….Women’s deference is rooted not only in their social subordination but also in the substance of their moral concern. Sensibility to the needs of others and the assumption of responsibility for taking care lead women to attend to voices other than their own and to include in the judgment other points of view” (qtd. in Rosenstand, Ch. 12).
Evaluate Gilligan’s position here in relation to any of the ethical views we’ve studied in the course as well as your own view of the moral landscape, in particular with respect to gender differences.
How do these claims of Gilligan line up with the views of altruist Emmanuel Levinas? Is Gilligan correct in the claim that women see moral qualities such as being just or being good differently from the way men do?
Explain and defend your answer using whatever evidence you believe to be relevant. Read more from Gilligan here: gilligan-women-self and morality-1985.pdf
Post an initial response of 200-250 words by Thursday to all four of the questions above. You will be selecting one of these for more in-depth consideration in this week’s second discussion-forum topic. Don’t forget to review the Discussion Forum Guidelines and the document “Critical Essays and Critiques: Tip Sheet” for more information on how to approach this assignment. Also remember to review the grading rubric for your Discussion 1 responses and critical comments: Grading Rubric for Weekly Discussion 1 Topics
Requirements: its stated in the details
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
1. Click on the “Place order tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
Need this assignment or any other paper?
Click here and claim 25% off
Discount code SAVE25