I am attaching the instructions below. I will also include the information I submitted in the two discussion posts listed in the instructions as well. I will also list the books that can be used as sources. This paper is worth 250 points that’s why I really need help. Thank you so much.
Discussion Thread: Compare and Contrast Metaethical Theories
Heres the question: Now that you have learned about competing ethical theories, write a thread that compares and contrasts a Christian ethical theory with a competing ethical theory. Since we have already looked at ethical relativism in Discussion: Relativism vs Absolutism, you may choose from any metaethical theory covered in Moral Choices or Talking About Ethics except ethical relativism. That means you can choose from Virtue Ethics, Natural Law, Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Duty Ethics in contrast to a Christian ethical theory.
Here’s my response:
How does each system define “the good?” How does each claim to know “the good?”
What, if anything, do these systems have in common? What, if anything, are their key differences?
Which theory do you think is the stronger ethical theory? Defend your answer. This final question should take up the majority of your thread.
Virtue Ethics: In virtue ethics, “the good” is defined by cultivating virtuous character traits such as courage, honesty, and compassion. The focus is on developing moral excellence rather than following rules or achieving particular outcomes. Virtue ethics claims to know “the good” through practical wisdom (phronesis) gained through experience, reflection, and education.
Natural Law: Natural law theory holds that “the good” is determined by adhering to the inherent order and purpose built into the natural world by a divine creator. It claims to know “the good” through human reason, which can discern these inherent moral principles embedded within nature.
Ethical Egoism: Ethical egoism defines “the good” as whatever maximizes self-interest or personal well-being. It claims to know “the good” through individual desires and preferences, prioritizing one’s own interests over others’.
Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism defines “the good” as maximizing overall happiness or pleasure and minimizing suffering or pain for the greatest number of people. It claims to know “the good” through calculation or assessment of consequences, aiming for the greatest good for the greatest number.
Duty Ethics (Deontology): Duty ethics holds that “the good” is determined by following moral duties or obligations, regardless of the consequences or outcomes. It claims to know “the good” through adherence to moral rules or principles derived from reason or divine commands.
In contrast, Christian ethical theory typically defines “the good” as aligning with God’s will, which is understood through Scripture, tradition, reason, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It emphasizes love for God and love for neighbor as the foundational principles of morality.
Commonalities among these ethical systems include a concern for morality and the pursuit of what is considered good or right. They also often appeal to reason as a means of discerning moral truths. However, their key differences lie in their foundations, methods of determining “the good,” and what they prioritize (e.g., character, consequences, duties).
As for which theory is stronger, it ultimately depends on one’s philosophical and theological commitments. Some might argue for the strength of virtue ethics due to its focus on character development and flourishing. Others might favor duty ethics for its emphasis on moral obligations derived from reason or divine commands. Still, others might find utilitarianism compelling due to its emphasis on maximizing overall well-being. Ultimately, the strength of an ethical theory is often evaluated based on its coherence, explanatory power, and ability to provide practical guidance in various moral dilemmas.
Discussion Thread: Ethical Application
Here’s the question for this discussion: First, choose an issue in applied ethics that greatly interests you. You may choose any of the following topics covered in the assigned readings from our textbooks:
For example: Abortion; Biomedical Issues (IVF, Stem Cell Research, etc.); Capital Punishment; Church-State Relations; Economics; Environment; Euthanasia; Just War; LGBTQ Issues; Marriage & Family; Healthcare; Political Engagement; Poverty; Racism and Race Issues; Sexual Ethics, etc.
Second, based on the ethical theory you defended in Discussion: Compare and Contrast Metaethical Theories, formulate an ethical application on this specific issue in a thread. You are expected to use both textbooks as well as outside academic sources to support your analysis and argument. As you write your thread, consider the following flow for your essay:
Step 1: Briefly summarize what theory you defended in Discussion: Compare and Contrast Metaethical Theories and what applied issue you are addressing in this discussion. If you have changed your mind on which theory from Discussion: Compare and Contrast Metaethical Theories you think is stronger, you may write an application for the theory you NOW think is the stronger theory. For example, if you defended Egoism and now think a Christian ethical theory is stronger, you may apply a Christian ethical theory.
Step 2: Articulate a detailed application based on your theory. This should be the bulk of your thread.
Step 3: Briefly describe a strong counterargument to your application and respond to it. For now, keep it brief (no more than one paragraph). In the Capstone Essay Assignment, you will have more room to elaborate.
Here’s my response:
Step 1: In the discussion comparing and contrasting metaethical theories, I advocated for Virtue Ethics as the stronger theory. Now, I will apply Virtue Ethics to the issue of stem cell research.
Step 2: Virtue Ethics, rooted in the works of Aristotle, centers on the cultivation of virtuous character traits to guide ethical decision-making. When applied to the contentious issue of stem cell research, Virtue Ethics emphasizes the importance of virtues such as compassion, empathy, and prudence in navigating the ethical complexities involved.
For instance, researchers engaged in stem cell research are called upon to consider the potential benefits of their work for alleviating human suffering, promoting health, and advancing scientific knowledge. At the same time, they must also weigh the ethical implications of their actions, including respect for the dignity and rights of human embryos, from which stem cells are often derived. In this context, Virtue Ethics encourages researchers to cultivate virtues such as empathy, by considering the perspectives and potential suffering of all parties involved, and prudence, by carefully evaluating the ethical implications of their research methods and outcomes.
Similarly, policymakers tasked with regulating stem cell research must exercise virtues such as justice, ensuring equitable access to the benefits of research while safeguarding the rights and interests of all stakeholders. By fostering a virtuous character and habitually acting in accordance with virtuous principles, individuals involved in stem cell research can contribute to the promotion of human flourishing while respecting ethical boundaries and principles.
Step 3: A potential counterargument to this application of Virtue Ethics in stem cell research may revolve around the conflict between virtues such as compassion for patients suffering from debilitating diseases and reverence for the sanctity of human life, particularly at its earliest stages. Critics may contend that the destruction of human embryos for the purpose of stem cell research violates the principle of respect for life and undermines the ethical foundation of Virtue Ethics. However, a Virtue Ethicist would respond by emphasizing the importance of considering the broader context and consequences of ethical decisions, as well as the development of a well-balanced and nuanced understanding of virtues. While acknowledging the inherent tensions in such dilemmas, Virtue Ethics encourages individuals to exercise practical wisdom in discerning the most virtuous course of action that promotes the greatest good while respecting the dignity and rights of all individuals involved.
Books you can use as a reference is: “Moral Choices” by Scott Rae, “Talking About Ethics: A Conversational Approach to Moral Dilemmas” by Michael S. Jones, Mark J. Farnham, David L. Saxon and “An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom” by Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan.
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=3316885
https://libertyonline.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9780825477362/epubcfi/6/2[%3Bvnd.vst.idref%3Dcover]!/4/2/2%4050:36
https://libertyonline.vitalsource.com/reader/books/9780310536437/epubcfi/6/20[%3Bvnd.vst.idref%3Did0003]!/4
If the links don’t work please find it online. Thank you.

Related posts: