Page 1 of 2
Final Project Name:
Part I My Framework
A. My Decision-Making Philosophy
B. The Framework
1. Identify the ethical issue
2. Identify the morally significant beings
3. ..
n. Conclusion
Part II Code of Ethics
Preamble
Principles
1. Delete this prompt: Copy and paste the principle that you paired with Kant here
To prove the principle ethical, the inverse of the principle will be proven unethical.
Kant’s 1st and 2nd formulations
Kant’s 1st formulation of his categorical imperative
(Birsch, 2014; Kant, 2002, 1981; Lulis, 2017; Quinn, 2020)
Principle: I will not ….
Inverse of the principle: I will
Maxim: Whenever I am in a situation where … I will.
Universalized maxim: Whenever anyone …..
Argument:
Conclusion:
Kant’s 2nd formulation of his categorical imperative
(Birsch, 2014; Lulis, 2017; Quinn, 2020)
Principle: I will not ….
Inverse of the principle: I will ….
Argument:
Conclusion:
ccc
Conclusion using Kant’s 1 & 2 formulations:
Duties:
The inverse of the principle was found unethical. As a result of this proof, it can be concluded that the original stated principle is ethical.
2. Delete this prompt: Copy and paste the principle that you paired with act & Rawls here
To prove the principle ethical, the inverse of the principle will be proven unethical.
Act utilitarian (Bentham, 2022; Birsch, 2014; HubPages Inc., 2003; Lulis, 2017; Quinn, 2020)
Principle:
Inverse of the principle:
Units:
Scale:
Stakeholders:
1st Stakeholder remember to delete the red prompts
Benefits
Benefit #1:
The intensity, or magnitude
The duration, or how long the experience lasts:
The certainty, or probability it will happen:
The propinquity, or how close the experience is in space and time:
The fecundity, or its ability to produce more experiences of the same kind:
The purity, or extent to which pleasure is not diluted by pain:
The extent, or number of people involved:
As a result of the above argument, the impact (weight) of my being able to respond to people in real-time = ?...
Costs
Cost #1:
The intensity, or magnitude
The duration, or how long the experience lasts:
The certainty, or probability it will happen:
The propinquity, or how close the experience is in space and time:
The fecundity, or its ability to produce more experiences of the same kind:
The purity, or extent to which pleasure is not diluted by pain:
The extent, or number of people involved:
As a result of the above argument, the impact (weight) of my sustaining serious injury/death due to an accident I cause while texting and driving = ?...?
Stakeholder #2
Benefits
Costs
Cost #1:
The intensity, or magnitude
The duration, or how long the experience lasts:
The certainty, or probability it will happen:
The propinquity, or how close the experience is in space and time:
The fecundity, or its ability to produce more experiences of the same kind:
The purity, or extent to which pleasure is not diluted by pain:
The extent, or number of people involved:
As a result of the above argument, the impact (weight) of my ….. = ?...?
Conclusion:
The net costs + net benefits = c1 + b1 + ….. =
Rawls’s Theory of Justice (Birsch, 2014; Lulis, 2017; Rawls’s, 1971; Quinn, 2020)
Principle: ...
Inverse of the principle: ...
1. Each person may claim a “fully adequate” number of basic rights and liberties, so long as these claims are consistent with everyone else having a claim to the same rights and liberties.
Argument:
...
2. Any social and economic inequalities must
· Be associated with positions that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to achieve
· Be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle)
The inverse of the principle was found unethical. As a result of this proof, it can be concluded that the original stated principle is ethical.
3. Delete this prompt: Copy and paste the principle that you paired with rule here
To prove the principle ethical, the inverse of the principle will be proven unethical.
Rule utilitarian
(Bentham, 2022; Birsch, 2014; HubPages Inc., 2003; Lulis, 2017; Quinn, 2020)
Principle: ...
Inverse of the principle: ...
Rule: ...
Universalized rule: ...
Stakeholders in the large:
... ... ...
Argument:
...
Conclusion:
...
The inverse of the principle was found unethical. As a result of this proof, it can be concluded that the original stated principle is ethical.
4. Delete this prompt: Copy and paste the principle that you paired with social contract here
To prove the principle ethical, the inverse of the principle will be proven unethical.
Social contract
(Birsch, 2014; Friend, 2004; Lulis, 2017; Quinn, 2020)
Principle: ...
Inverse of the principle: ...
The stakeholders and their rights:
Me
……
Argument & Conclusion:
...
The inverse of the principle was found unethical. As a result of this proof, it can be concluded that the original stated principle is ethical.
5. Delete this prompt: Copy and paste the principle that you paired with virtue ethics here
Virtue ethics
(Aristotle, 2022; Birsch, 2014; Lulis, 2017; Quinn, 2020)
Principle: ...
Type of virtue: ...
Argument and conclusion: ...
6. Delete this prompt: Copy and paste the principle that you paired with moral rights here
To prove the principle ethical, the inverse of the principle will be proven unethical.
Moral rights (Birsch, 2014; Lulis, 2017)
To prove the principle ethical, the inverse of the principle will be proven unethical.
Principle: ...
Inverse of the principle: ...
... ...
Argument (were relevant duty, or duties, fulfilled? Were rights violated?):
...
Conclusion:
The inverse of the principle was found unethical. As a result of this proof, it can be concluded that the original stated principle is ethical.
7. Delete this prompt: Copy and paste the principle that you paired with your framework here
My framework:
To prove the principle ethical, the inverse of the principle will be proven unethical.
Principle: ...
Inverse of the principle: ...
The inverse of the principle was found unethical. As a result of this proof, it can be concluded that the original stated principle is ethical.
References
Aristotle. “Nicomachean ethics.” The Internet Classics Archive by Daniel C. Stevenson, Web Atomics. Trans. W. D. Ross. classics.mit.edu
Aristotle/nicomachaen.html Accessed January 2022.
Bentham, J. “Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation.” Some Texts from Early Modern Philosophy. Peter Millican and Amyas Merivale. Annotated by Jonathan Bennett. www.earlymoderntexts.com/authors
entham Accessed January 2022.
Birsch, D XXXXXXXXXXIntroduction to ethical theories, a procedural approach. IL:Waveland Press, Inc.
Friend, C XXXXXXXXXXSocial contract theory. (10 March 2013) Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http:
www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
HubPages Inc XXXXXXXXXXDifferent types of modern utilitarianism. Retrieved from http:
philanthropy2012.hubpages.com/hu
Different-TypesofModernUtilitarianism
Kant, I XXXXXXXXXXGroundwork for the metaphysics of morals with on a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns, 3rd ed. (James W. Ellington Trans.). Indianapolis/Cam
idge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (Original work published 1785).
Kant, I XXXXXXXXXXGroundwork for the metaphysics of morals. (Allen W. Wood, Edited and Trans.). New Haven and London:Yale University Press. (Original work published 1785).
Lulis, E XXXXXXXXXXCTA example: applying the procedures. [Class handout]. School of Computing, DePaul University, Chicago, IL.
Rawls, J XXXXXXXXXXA Theory of Justice, by John Rawls, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Quinn, M. J XXXXXXXXXXEthics for the Information Age, 8th edition. NY:Pearson/Addison Wesley.
Final Project Ru
ic
Final Project Point Breakdown
Item
Points
Writing
Part 1a
25 points
Organization
20
Part 1
25 points
Mechanics
20
Preamble
10 points
Citing
20
Each principle
5 points each for a total = 35
Co
ections
20
Each Application
25 points each for a total = 175
Total:
350
Final Project Ru
ic
Needs Improvement
Sufficient
Above Average
Part 1a
The philosophy is not well-defined; missing parts.
The Philosophy is well-defined.
The philosophy is well-defined and well-focused. Relevant details enrich the work.
Preamble
Does not contain the necessary information.
Provides only two of the required information items.
Contains all necessary information (year in school, major, ho
ies, employment) and is well-formulated.
Part 1
The steps are vague and difficult to follow.
The steps can be followed by anyone without having to ask the author questions.
The procedure is clearly defined and flows naturally.
Each Principle
Does not address author’s personal use of computing, or is not an ethical issue.
Does address author’s personal use of computing, and is an ethical issue.
Meets the criteria (addresses own use of computing tech and is an ethical issue) and is concrete and simple stated.
Each application
The procedure is not applied co
ectly.
There is a complete absence of relevant facts cited in the arguments that require facts, e.g., social contract and at utilitarian procedures.
The procedure is applied co
ectly, but is disorganized; it is difficult to follow the logic.
Less than four relevant facts cited in the arguments that require facts, e.g., social contract and at utilitarian procedures.
The procedure is applied co
ectly, the logic flows, and argument insights enrich the work.
Meaningful and relevant facts were researched and cited.
Organization
Information is poorly sequenced; did not maintain the formatting of the template.
Information is present in a manner that can be followed, but not always easily.
Information is presented in a logical sequence; the organization maintains the template and formatting specifications.
Mechanics
There are five or more spelling, or grammar, mistakes.
There are less than firm spelling, or grammar, mistakes.
Ter are no spelling or grammar mistakes.
Citing
Missing most in-text citations and not all new sources are placed in the Reference Sheet.
Most sources cited co
ectly (in-text citations) and most of the new sources are placed in the Reference Sheet.
Or all new sources are place din the Reference sheet, but not in the co
ect order.in the proper place.
All sources cited co
ectly (in-text citations) and all new sources are placed in the Reference Sheet in the proper place.
Co
ections from Feedback on Parts 1, 2, & 3
More than three of the co
ections from the feedback were not made.
No more than three necessary co
ections from feedback on Part 1, 2, & 3 were not made.
All of the necessary co
ections were made.
Checklist for the Final Draft of the Final Project Submissions
Checklist before submission:
1. Use the template as is do not change order of frameworks, change the frameworks, change the font, spacing, do not use bold, do not underline, etc.
If you do not format your document co
ectly, I will not grade it.
Note: all of your additions to the document are single spaced, properly indented as in the template, with 12pt Times New Roman black regular font. No highlighting or underlining.
The Template uses APA formatting; do not change this.
It is not an issue, as there are examples of all you need already in the template.
2. Make certain that you apply the frameworks co
ectly as we did in lab.
** The template provides the organization for your work.
**The template indicates that you need to prove the inverse of the principle unethical in order to prove the principle ethical for all frameworks except virtue ethics.
**You can review the document on using negative reasoning found
Content | Week 6 | Using Negative Reasoning
3. Do not explain the applications, just apply the frameworks.
4. Do NOT explain the pairing of principles to frameworks as you did in Part 2.
4. Visit the Writing Center and remember:
· Please format your proofs as we did in lab, so they are easy to read.
Note the template does that for you.
· Place each step in a separate paragraph so you do not have a run-on proof.
· When drafting papers, each paragraph needs to be about one, or at most two, things.
Each step in a framework needs it own paragraph.
· Is the paper well organized?
·