PHL 320 Week 5 Apply: Analyzing an Argument (2019 New) | eBooks | Education

PHL 320 Week 5 Apply: Analyzing an Argument (2019 New)

PHL 320 Week 5 Apply: Analyzing an Argument (2019 New) PLDZ-13449 Free
In Stock
$ 0.00 USD
Free Download! Description

***************************************************************

Click Here To Download Your Files :  

https://uopcourse.com/category/phl-320/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You can buy more tutorials from the below link

https://uopcourse.com/

***************************************************************

PHL 320 Week 5 Apply: Analyzing an Argument (2019 New)

Complete the "Analyzing an Argument" homework assignment in Connect®.

Note: You have only 1 attempt available to complete assignments. Grades must be transferred manually to eCampus by your instructor. Don't worry; this might happen after your due date.

 

Required information

 

For each of the following kinds of laws, pick at least one of the four grounds for justification—legal moralism, the harm principle, legal paternalism, and the offense principle—and construct an argument designed to justify the law. You may not agree either with the law or with the argument; the exercise is to see if you can connect the law to the (allegedly) justifying principle. For many laws, more than one kind of justification is possible, so there can be more than one good answer for many of these.

 

Overall instructor remarks:

Example—the harm principle. Shoplifting harms those from whom one steals. “Unfortunately, you did not appropriately answer the question."

Laws against shoplifting

 

 

Drag each concept to its corresponding definition.

 

 

 

“It was wrong for Alice to reveal Deborah’s secret when Deborah had asked her not to.” This is a nonmoral value judgment.

False

 

 

 

Drag the appropriate claim(s) to the value judgement category.

 

 

 

A person who says he’s against big government but doesn’t want to see any reductions or changes in Medicare

Multiple Choice

is being inconsistent and thus violating the principles of moral reasoning.

may appear inconsistent and thus has the burden of showing that he is not.

is violating both principles of moral reasoning.

has made an invalid deductive argument.

 

 

 

 

One problem regarding inconsistency in moral reasoning is that

Multiple Choice

no two cases should ever be seen as being the same.

the cases under consideration may not differ in any relevant way.

the argument may include an unstated general moral principle.

it can be difficult to evaluate whether two cases are the same or different.

 

 

 

 

 

“Doctors should help their terminally ill patients commit suicide by prescribing lethal doses of pain medication.” Which moral framework would most likely work to justify the action?

Multiple Choice

Utilitarianism

Deontology

Religious absolutism

Virtue ethics

 

 

 

 

 

Which of the following perspectives would most likely be used to justify a law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets?

Multiple Choice

Legal paternalism

The harm principle

Legal moralism

The offense principle

 

 

 

"Six Flags has the scariest rides in the state." This is an example of a

Multiple Choice

value principle.

moral principle.

value judgment.

moral value judgment.

*************************************************************** Click Here To Download Your Files : https://uopcourse.com/category/phl-320/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You can buy more tutorials from the below link https:/
Recent Reviews Write a Review
0 0 0 0 reviews