Consequentialism and Moral Relativism Question

December 17, 2022

Description
Module 7 Opening Discussion
22 unread replies.22 replies.
Purpose
The purpose of the Opening Discussion is to allow us to directly think about a philosophical question or problem without the bias that might result from prior knowledge of the ideas and arguments of important philosophers.
This direct approach to a philosophical question or problem sets the stage for our inquiry into the philosophical theories and arguments covered in the module. It furthermore is the first step toward a greater self-awareness of our own individual intellectual biases and assumptions.
The Opening Discussion MUST be completed at the beginning of the module during the timeframe specified in the course calendar. Please make sure to carefully follow the directions provided and adhere to the deadlines specified in the course calendar.
Directions
Click on ‘Reply’ to create your Opening Discussion POST in response to the prompts below. In your post, please address the following:
Do you think there are certain actions that are always morally wrong, regardless of culture, context, consequences, etc.? If so, please explain what you think makes these actions morally wrong (for everyone, under any and all circumstances). If not, how can we make moral decisions, then? Please make sure to provide concrete examples and carefully explain your reasoning.
Do you think that the ‘end justifies the means’? That the outcome (result, consequences) of a moral decision justifies or outweighs the possibly problematic *action* necessary to obtain this outcome? In a trivial example, you might (or not) condone lying in order not to hurt someone’s feelings: ‘No, honey, you don’t look fat in these jeans.’ Please make sure to provide concrete examples and carefully explain your reasoning.
Respond to at least two of your classmates. In order to respond to a classmate, open the classmate’s post and click ‘Reply’. Carefully explain why you agree or disagree with their examples of inherently wrong actions or how the end justifies the means. Make sure to be specific and carefully explain your reasoning.
You must create your POST before you can reply to your classmates. Therefore, you should create your POST a day or two before the discussion deadline.
Your initial post should be about 200-300 words in length, and your responses to classmates should each be about 100-200 words in length, but feel free to be as detailed as you wish.
Your post and your responses must be written in proper English (correct spelling and grammar, and appropriate style). It is recommended to write your post and responses using a word processing program and copy and paste the completed post and responses. This will avoid losing work in case of internet outage, etc. You are encouraged to comment on your classmates feedback to your initial post and keep the (civilized!) discussion going.
*After writing the initial post , I will provide you with two of my classmates posts , as it part of the assignment

Consequentialism and Moral Relativism Question

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.