Due Date: May 5th Final paper, submitted via Blackboard Prompt: Please write a paper, of 3-4 pages in length (at least 3 FULL pages, but can be more; double-spaced, 12 pt. font size, Times New Roman), in which you apply two ethical frameworks to some particular issue in applied ethics. We’ve looked at several ethical frameworks that are supposed to guide us in our thinking about ethical questions: utilitarianism, Kantianism, Aristotelian virtue ethics, and Confucian virtue ethics. We’ve also discussed a host of particular issues relating to ethics and society. These include: whistle-blowing, professional responsibility, smart technology, corporate social responsibility, genetic engineering, factory farming, etc. In your paper, you are required to: (a) pick two ethical frameworks and succinctly describe them (b) apply both frameworks to some issue in ethics & society (this could be any topic on our syllabus or something else relevantly similar and of comparable real-world significance) (c) discuss to what extent either framework succeeds in tackling this issue. (d) raise some objection to your main thesis, to which you give a response. Some questions you might consider: (i) Is one framework more promising than the other in tackling the particular ethical issue? (ii) Does neither framework succeed in tackling the particular ethical issue? (iii) If not, what is the correct analysis of the ethical issue under consideration and why? Further requirements and advice: You have much freedom with respect to the topic of this assignment, but you should make sure that you defend some specific thesis, which appears somewhere in the introductory paragraph of your essay. You should draw on any relevant readings on our syllabus, but your paper should not be primarily a summary of those readings. Strive for analytical and argumentative depth, not breadth: better to explore one issue deeply, rather than several issues superficially. You should not use any outside philosophy sources. You may appeal to an outside source if you wish to cite some relevant empirical data, but this is not required and should be used only if necessary. For some helpful writing advice: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html Grading for the Assignment: “A” papers typically have all of the following virtues: 1. It has a well-defined thesis stated in the first paragraph and a logical organization. 2. It shows intellectual honesty and struggle. It defends a defensible thesis and takes very seriously objections to that thesis. 3. It is well-informed. If there are passages in the assigned readings for the course that are particularly relevant to the matters under discussion in the essay, these are cited and discussed. The paper shows an awareness of conceptual distinctions and clarifications developed in the course. 4. The argument is carefully articulated and developed. Obvious difficulties are anticipated and answered, and gaps are closed. 5. It is significant. The issues discussed, although detailed, are of some importance, and the essay makes their importance clear. 6. The paper is written in a lucid and grammatical style. “B” papers have at least the following virtues: 1. As before. 2. As before. 3. As before. 4. It is logical and not careless. The argument is well articulated. 5. It is not trivial. The essay provides some motivation for its topic. 6. The paper is grammatical. “C” papers have at least the following features: 1. It is orderly and has some focus. 2. It shows some serious concern with the issues it deals with. 3. It is not uninformed. Where relevant, it shows awareness of the content of the course. 4. There are some definite and cogent arguments in the essay. 5. The paper has some point. 6. The paper is readable and minimally grammatical. “D” papers have the following features: 1. It has only some intelligible organization. 2. It shows only some concern with the issues it deals with. 3. It shows minimal awareness of the course content. 4. It makes some relevant and sensible argument. 5. It has some point. 6. It is comprehensible and minimally grammatical.