There are two discussion topics that you need to do.

Each discussion need 3 paragraphs with one quote for ethic on each paragraph. So there will be 3 quotes on each discussion. One quote on one paragraphs. SEE THE EXAMPLES

1. Video Discussions-Three Quotes minimum required (three different sources about ETHICS other than the video) from text, powerpoint or articles from the Cal Poly Pomona library website. When you quote make sure and list the page number or slide number or paragraph number in APA.

2. Book Discussions- When discussing the book you need the book and two more sources. Use “Google Scholarly” or the “Library Database” for additional sources (See Library Research Tab on the Left in Bb). Do not use Wikipedia, dictionary, or a website (points will be taken off). When you quote make sure and list the page number or slide number or paragraph number in APA (you must have a minimum of three quotes from different sources about ETHICS).

Papers must have a minimum of three ethical theory subheadings such as: Moral Universalism, Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, Kantian Ethics, Social Contract Theory, Intuitionism, Virtue Ethics, Feminist Ethics, Moral Nihilism, and/or Ethical Explorations, Ethical Provocations, Conflicts as Creative Opportunities. You may also use other ethical theory subheadings. Papers must also have an Introduction section and a Conclusion section with a subheading.

Must be grammatically correct and all spelling must be correct.
Please NO PLAGIARISM, I will submit the video discussion and book discussion separately to turnitin.com. NO MORE than 20% originality.

Please DO NOT use outdated sources

Look at the examples (at the very bottom) before doing the discussions.

DO VIDEO DISCUSSION AND BOOK DISCUSSION SEPERATELY (MINIMUM 200 words each)

All your discussions need to bring in ethical theory while discussing the video and book.

Required book to read: Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The fundamentals of ethics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
All your weekly discussions need to bring in ethical theory while discussing the video and book.
BEFORE DOING DISCUSSIONS, PLEASE READ AND WATCH:
Read: Shafer: Chapter 13– The Social Contract Tradition: The Theory and…
Chapter 14- The Social Contract Tradition: Problems and Prospects
View Powerpoint in Bb – 12a
Video Clip: NIKE Case Study

VIDEO Discussion (please respond to all):
1.) Under what Ethical Theories is Nike operating with respect to their labor workforce? Choose 2 Ethical theories to defend Nike; Choose 2 Ethical theories to refute Nike’s position
2.) How do you feel about this video and about the Nike company? Do you think this is an isolated situation with just Nike?
BOOK Discussion Ideas:
• What did Hobbes mean by the state of nature? What did he imagine life would be like in such a state? How did he suggest that people could get out of such a state?
• Define contractarianism, and explain how contractarians seek to justify moral rules. Do you find contractarianism to be an attractive moral theory? Why or why not?
• Have we all consented to abide by a social contract? If so, how? If not, is this a problem for contractarianism? Defend your answer.
• Describe Hobbes’s character of “the Fool.” How does the Fool raise a problem for contractarianism? What is Hobbes’s solution to this problem? Do you find it convincing?
Examples (format and length)
BOOK DISCUSSION EXAMPLE
When I first learned about the desire satisfaction theory, it was easy to believe that you have a good life if you get what you want and “what is good for one person can conflict with what is good for other persons” (Arneson, 1999, p. 1). Who can argue with a statement like that? However, when presented with the case of becoming disappointed after getting what you want, I realized that there are challenges to the theory. I applied this issue to my personal life, thinking about how I would feel if I finally became a veterinarian, but ended up having to sacrifice all my good relationships to get there. To counter this issue, the desire theorists readjust the theory to say that we must be “pleased as a result” of our satisfied desires (Landau, 2012, p. 53). I believe this is not a solution to the flaw of the desire theory. This is like saying that you will get an A on your test…as long as you get all of the questions correct.
I do believe religion is a good source of moral guidance, but I don’t think religion is the only source of moral guidance. The Divine Command Theory says that “ being good is equivalent to doing whatever the Bible, or some other sacred text of revelation tells you to do” (Hinman, n.d., p. 3). A problem with this theory is it is based on the idea that God is, in fact, real. Whether God is or is not real, I believe that religion’s influence on morality is as strong as the faith that people have in it. It is the strong faith that people have in their religion, that leads them to morality. However, religion is not the only source of morality. The child of atheist parents can grow up to be perfectly moral based on the teachings of his or her’s parents.
Natural Law theory states that “good human beings are those who fulfill their true nature” (Landau, 2012, p. 74). The overwhelming question that this theory creates is what exactly is humans’ nature. Seeing as there are so many people in the world, selecting any one part of what is suspected as human nature, can be fought with an exception to it that certainly exists. With such exceptions to human nature in existence, the only thing that can be said for sure is that human nature is ambiguous and cannot be defined in a single way. Continuing from that idea, I believe that morality based from human nature is also ambiguous. This allows for acting in a way that contradicts human nature to still remain moral. For example, one of the purposes of human nature is survival. However, there is nothing immoral with a mother sacrificing her life for her children, or our soldiers, sacrificing their lives for our freedom.
References:
Arneson, R. J. (1999). Human Flourishing Versus Desire Satisfaction. Social Philosophy and Policy, 16(1), 113-142. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from journals.cambridge.
org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=99FBADA0EF4B1BE70DB4
ADE2470D184A.journals?fromPage=online&aid=3116796
Hinman, Lawrence M. (n.d.a.) Basic Moral Orientation Overview. [Powerpoint slides].
San Diego, San Diego University.
Landau, R.S., (2012). The Fundamental of Ethics (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
<p< p=””></p<>

 

VIDEO DISCUSSION EXAMPLE
After watching this video, Monsanto seems to give the feeling as though they are trying to poison us. Monsanto has taken an extra step to further negatively label their company as they introduce rBGH, otherwise known as recombinant bovine growth hormones, with Posilac as its trade name. The purpose of the rBGH injection was to increase hormones of cows and evidently produce milk production. Although this may sound like a proficient production for the diary industry, there have been negative effects on the cows injected with these hormones. While it may increase diary production, the injection of these hormones threatens our health (Robin, 2008, (4)).
The ethical concern that comes about is Monsanto’s concern with their profitability that they are willing to take every measure to keep their secrets of potential risks. If the Monsanto were concerned about the public’s health, they would take extra measures to make sure that rBGH is safe. However, the FDA employees that leaked biotechnology risks may have been morally right to let the public know of these secrets and potential risks to our health. The ethical theory that can be applied to this predicament would be utilitarianism, “to maximize utility, not the minimum” (Hinman, 2002, slide 7). Although these leakages were announced during the court and eventually to the public, they were later fired or had resigned because they felt that it was morally right to maximize the benefits of the public health.
Monsanto would be able to argue in their defense that information about rBGH and GMO should be kept confidential for the purpose of the future use and need for biotechnology. Also, the increase of production is vital provide for the population, maximizing utility. However, critics, especially the consumers, would argue that although it increases the availability of produce for the population, our life may be at risk. In defense, Monsanto may be trying to take a step to improve the biotechnology, in this case, rBGH, therefore keeping these potential risks in secret. This brings upon the ethical theory of act utilitarianism, which is defined as “an action is moral[ly] right if it produces the greatest happiness for the most people” (Velasquez, 2011, p. 612). Although people are unhappy and maddened by Monsanto’s threatening deeds, is it possible that they wanted to test out this GMO in order to see if it would benefit the future, knowing they’ll be able to supply for the nation. Yes, the consumers may have been at risks during that production period. However, it may have improved biotechnology as the scientists may have taken extra measures towards improving these hormones, and hopefully eliminating any risks.
While the people affected by the rBGH during the 1990s, it is much smaller than the future. Biotechnology should not be entirely shunned upon because it is our future. We may be dependent on that technology to produce sufficient amount of food for our growing population. Under social ethics, it is “understood as the maximization of the global or average well-being or material growth in a society, and can justify a certain kind of relativism” (Renouard, 2011, p. 3). Therefore, it may be that the usage of rBGH might maximize the growth of the society by increasing production to suit the needs of the population.
References
Robin, M.M., (Director). (2008). The world according to Monsanto [Documentary]. Canada: Productions Thalie, The National Film Board of Canada and WDR. Retrieved 4/10/13, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKABsyX6SM8&feature=related
Hinman, L. M. (2002). Utilitarianism [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://blackboard.csupomona.edu.
Velasquez, Manuel G. (2011). Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Australia: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Renouard, C. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, utilitarianism, and the capabilities approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 85-97. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0536-8