I’m stuck on a Philosophy question and need an explanation.
This paper is worth 5 points. Turn this paper in during week 8 via “turn-it-in” within Canvas. Plagiarism of any kind will result in a grade of zero. This paper should be 2-4 pages. Use MLA guidelines. All references should be properly documented. Using MLA guidelines, properly document any references or ideas that are not your own. WARRNING: DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A LEGITIMATE SOURCE. ANY USE OF WIKIPEDIA WILL RESULT IN A GRADE OF ZERO. USE ONLY TRUE PROFESSIONAL SOURCES. The purpose of this paper is for you to intellectually explore a topic, issue, problem, or figure relevant to our course material. The readings from our course should be the primary “source” that you utilize. Practice standards of good writing. Have a clear thesis. Devise evidence for your thesis. Make a sound, logically constructed argument. Proofread vigorously. Correct English grammar is expected.
(1) Consider virtue Ethics and its defense, as discussed in Chapter 3. The virtue ethicist argues adamantly against the types of “moral-law” theory advocated by figures such a Kant. Kant’s ethics is an extremely powerful theory, usually considered one of the most original and brilliant ethical theories ever devised. How might Kant defend himself against the types of issues raised against moral-law theory issued in chapter 3? (Hints: Think about the notions of ‘autonomy’ and ethical independence discussed by both theories. How is Kant, as discussed in the text, not blindly asking us to simply “follow” a manual for right conduct or a simple decision procedure? Is Kant’s theory shallow in the ways that Virtue ethics typically suggests?)
(2) Consider the film Boomerang!, (1947) by Elia Kazan. How does this film argue in favor of Kantianism and radically against Utilitarianism? Consider the readings in our text. Use your own mind to formulate a response. (Hints: Think about Kant’s view of persons and the respect that we owe them as members of the moral community. Think of the accused man and the district attorney’s decision to defend him. What possible consequences might the district attorney face by defending the innocence of the accused? Why would Kant recommend such a defense? Why would Utilitarian recommend against such a defense.)
(3) Consider the film Detour (1945) by Edgar Ulmer. Is Al Roberts a victim of “moral luck” (–as described in chapter 9 of our text–)? Are the arguments for moral luck strong or weak? Is there any sense in which Moral Luck might be legitimate? How is it a threat to ethical theorizing in general? (Hint: Think about the notion of moral responsibility and the conditions that are typically required for full responsibility. Think of Al’s situation. How much is he to “blame” for his predicament?)