Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Analysis of the argument presented in the supplement text "Taking sides- Clashing Views on Moral Issues"' Issue 1, Moral Relativism Correct? No- By:Louis Pojman (Which I am faxing copies of that text.) In the paper you have to clearly state the given argument, state its strenghts and weaknesses, and in conclusion state why you either agree of disagree with the given argument - clearly stating your reasons- not your feelings.
There are faxes for this order.

Essay Instructions: SOURCE NEEDED HAS BEEN UPLOADED TO THE FAX BOARD.

Prompt: Why does James Rachels say that moral relativism is incompatible with moral progress? Is he right? Why or why not? In either case, defend your answer with arguements.

Please use any of James Rachels writing/sources or class notes.

I will include a copy of class notes on Moral Relativism and a copy of James Rachels 'Challenge of Cultural Relativism' from James Rachels, "The Elements of Moral Philosophy". You may and should use any other support/quotes appropriate from The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels.
There are faxes for this order.

Essay Instructions: Please read through the following ethical case and address at least one of the questions posted.

The University of Illinois Hospital in Chicago was investigated for improperly diagnosing transplant patients’ medical needs so that the hospital could perform more transplant procedures. The benefit to them was $250,000 in Medicaid and Medicare per patient. The hospital paid $2 million to end the lawsuit alleging $1 million in insurance fraud.

The government investigated this case because of the efforts of Dr. Ray Pollack, a prominent transplant surgeon at the U of I hospital with a reputation for being "fiercely pro-patient." Dr. Pollack identified the misdiagnoses when he tried to list patients as "Status 2"; they were repeatedly raised to "Status 1". Dr. Pollack was disciplined for "virtual insubordination" for fighting this practice, and was asked what "was the "downside" of fudging?," which was called the "Chicago Way." An administrator reportedly told Dr. Pollack that he followed the practice because "unlike you .. I follow orders."

Dr. Pollack was demoted from his position as chief of the transplant division, is now relocated to a different transplant center and has a salary of less than half his former pay. Dr. Pollack received $500,000 of the $2 million settlement, but is now suing the hospital for damages due to their alleged retaliatory actions. Dr. Pollack commented, "The price of leadership is suicide… you should be willing to sacrifice yourself for what you believe in."

(Nara Schoenberg, "A Man of Principle", 1/25/04, Chicago Tribune Magazine p. 13-29.)

Questions:

* Please apply an ethical theory that we have studied to this case. (There is much to discuss so please apply one theory at a time. All of the theories should be discussed as each of you build on the others’ input.)

* How was moral relativism applied in this case and why did that result in fraud?

* What does this case imply for whistle-blowers?

Essay Instructions: Instructions:
Read pages 1-26 in This is Philosophy by Stephen D. Hales. The text is broken into 3 larger, morality based questions:
1) Is morality just what God tells me to do? (Divine Command Theory)
2) Is morality just my own personal code? (Egoism)
3) Is morality just how society says we should act? (Moral Relativism)

For each question above, respond with at least one reason why you agree with the theory, and one reason why you disagree with the theory. In total, you will have 6 responses to the text/questions above.
Responses should be at least 600 words (think 200 words per question/reaction) total.


There are faxes for this order.