ET2004: Deontology and Kant’s Moral Theory – Analyze deontological reasoning in relationship to Kant’s moral theory.
Written Response Submission Form
Your Name: First and last
Your E-Mail Address: Your email here
Instructions
Write your responses where it reads “Enter your response here.” Write as much, as needed, to satisfy the requirements indicated. Each item contains the Rubric, which will be used to evaluate your responses.
Note: Be sure to reference and use examples from the resources for each module.
Item 1
Explain three deontological features that Kant’s theory of ethics has in common with ancient Greek and Roman Stoicism.
(1–2 paragraphs)
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
0
Not Present
1
Needs Improvement
2
Meets Expectations
Module 1: Deontological Reasoning and Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Explain three deontological features that Kant’s theory of ethics has in common with ancient Greek and Roman Stoicism.
(1–2 paragraphs)
Learning Objective 1.1 – Explain deontological features that Kant’s theory of ethics has in common with ancient Greek and Roman Stoicism.
Response is not present.
Explanation of deontological features that Kant’s theory of ethics has in common with ancient Greek and Roman Stoicism is vague, inaccurate, and/or incomplete.
Explanation of deontological features that Kant’s theory of ethics has in common with ancient Greek and Roman Stoicism is clear, accurate, and complete.
Item 2
Explain the two forms of Kant’s categorical imperative. (2 paragraphs)
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
0
Not Present
1
Needs Improvement
2
Meets Expectations
Module 1: Deontological Reasoning and Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Explain the two forms of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
(2 paragraphs)
Learning Objective 1.2 – Explain the forms of Kant’s categorical imperative.
Response is not present.
Explanation of the two forms of Kant’s categorical imperative is vague, inaccurate, and/or incomplete.
Explanation of the two forms of Kant’s categorical imperative is clear, accurate, and complete.
Item 3
Using at least two examples, explain how the forms of Kant’s categorical imperative apply to an ethical dilemma of your choice.
(1–2 paragraphs)
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
0
Not Present
1
Needs Improvement
2
Meets Expectations
Module 1: Deontological Reasoning and Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Using at least two examples, explain how the forms of Kant’s categorical Imperative apply to an ethical dilemma of your choice.
(1–2 paragraphs)
Learning Objective 1.3 – Explain how the forms of Kant’s categorical imperative apply to ethical dilemmas.
Response is not present.
Explanation of how the forms of Kant’s categorical imperative apply to ethical dilemmas is vague, inaccurate, and/or incomplete.
Explanation of how the forms of Kant’s categorical imperative apply to ethical dilemmas is clear, accurate, and complete.
Item 4
Consider how you define the proper treatment of individuals. Then, explain how your ethical views about the proper treatment of people align, or do not align, with Kant’s categorical imperative. Illustrate your explanation with an example from your personal experience. (2–3 paragraphs)
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
0
Not Present
1
Needs Improvement
2
Meets Expectations
Module 1: Deontological Reasoning and Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Consider how you define the proper treatment of individuals. Then, explain how your ethical views about the proper treatment of people align, or do not align, with Kant’s categorical imperative. Illustrate your explanation with an example from your personal experience.
(2–3 paragraphs)
Learning Objective 1.4 –
Explain how personal ethical views align, or do not align, with Kant’s categorical imperative.
Response is not present.
Explanation of how personal ethical views about the proper treatment of individuals align, or do not align, with Kant’s categorical imperative is vague, inaccurate, and/or incomplete.
Explanation of how personal ethical views about the proper treatment of individuals align, or do not align, with Kant’s categorical imperative is clear, accurate, and complete.
Item 5
Using at least one example, explain how Kant’s hypothetical imperative differs from the categorical imperative in the commitment to good will, the notion of purity, intrinsic importance, and priority of duties. (2 paragraphs)
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
0
Not Present
1
Needs Improvement
2
Meets Expectations
Module 2: Deontological Reasoning and Kant’s Hypothetical Imperative
Using at least one example, explain how Kant’s hypothetical imperative differs from the categorical imperative in the commitment to good will, the notion of purity, intrinsic importance, and priority of duties.
(2 paragraphs)
Learning Objective 2.1 –
Explain how Kant’s hypothetical imperative differs from the categorical imperative.
Response is not present.
Explanation of the differences between Kant’s hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative is vague, inaccurate, and/or incomplete.
Explanation of the differences between Kant’s hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative is clear, accurate, and complete.
Item 6
Explain why Kant believed that the hypothetical imperative did not define behavior that was truly moral. (1 paragraph)
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
0
Not Present
1
Needs Improvement
2
Meets Expectations
Module 2: Deontological Reasoning and Kant’s Hypothetical Imperative
Explain why Kant believed that the hypothetical imperative did not define behavior that was truly moral.
(1 paragraph)
Learning Objective 2.2 –
Explain why Kant believed that the hypothetical imperative did not define behavior that was truly moral.
Response is not present.
Explanation of why Kant did not believe that the hypothetical imperative did not define behavior that was truly moral is vague, inaccurate, and/or incomplete.
Explanation of why Kant did not believe that the hypothetical imperative did not define behavior that was truly moral is clear, accurate, and complete.
Note: You will use the following information to respond to Items 7 and 8.
The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) states that the primary role of photojournalists is to “report visually on the significant events and varied viewpoints in our common world.” The profession of photojournalism is guided by a code of ethics that outlines the standards and aspirational goals of the profession. The NPPA code of ethics states, among other items, that visual journalists should “treat all subjects with respect and dignity” but must also “not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events” (NPPA, 2012).
Reference: National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). (n.d.). Code of ethics. Retrieved August 1, 2018, from https://nppa.org/nppa-code-ethics\
In 1993, the photographer Kevin Carter visited Sudan, which was, at the time, experiencing famine and a civil war. Carter felt the world was ignoring the dire circumstances of the Sudanese people and hoped to use his photography to bring attention to their plight.
Carter was successful in focusing the world’s attention on Sudan when the The New York Times published his photo of a young, dying Sudanese child crawling on the ground to a feeding station while a vulture waited in the background. Carter won the Pulitzer Prize in 1994 for his photograph that spurred many to take action to alleviate the suffering of the Sudanese people. However, Carter’s photograph also spurred an angry controversy as people criticized Carter for taking a photograph of a suffering child while doing nothing to help her. It is important to note that Carter waited a long time for the vulture to spread its wings to get a better photo.
When the vulture did not, he took the picture and shooed the bird away, but he did not pick the child up and take it to the feeding station. Instead, he sat beneath a tree and wept.
Carter’s photograph reported the news; it accurately reflected what was occurring in Sudan.
Review this article, “Kevin Carter, a Pulitzer Winner for Sudan Photo, Is Dead at 33” (https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/29/world/kevin-carter-a-pulitzer-winner-for-sudan-photo-is-dead-at-33.html) and the photograph titled, “Vulture Watching Starving Child” (http://100photos.time.com/photos/kevin-carter-starving-child-vulture).
Item 7
Analyze Carter’s actions using Kant’s moral theory and his hypothetical and categorical imperatives to define whether the photojournalist’s behavior was justified as moral, or if should he have rescued the child, violating his professional guidelines.
(2–3 paragraphs)
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
0
Not Present
1
Needs Improvement
2
Meets Expectations
Module 2: Deontological Reasoning and Kant’s Hypothetical Imperative
Analyze Carter’s actions using Kant’s moral theory and his hypothetical and categorical imperatives to define whether the photojournalist’s behavior was justified as moral, or should he have rescued the child, violating his professional guidelines.
(2–3 paragraphs)
Learning Objective 2.3 –
Analyze specific actions using Kant’s moral theory and his hypothetical and categorial imperatives.
Response is not present.
Analysis of Carter’s actions using Kant’s moral theory and his hypothetical and categorical imperatives to define whether the photojournalist’s behavior was moral is vague, inaccurate, and/or incomplete.
Analysis of Carter’s actions using Kant’s moral theory and his hypothetical and categorical imperatives to define whether the photojournalist’s behavior was moral is clear, accurate, and complete.
Item 8
Explain how you would have behaved if you were in Carter’s position and why. Support your reasoning with references to the resources. (2–3 paragraphs).
Your Response
Enter your response here.
Rubric
0
Not Present
1
Needs Improvement
2
Meets Expectations
Module 2: Deontological Reasoning and Kant’s Hypothetical Imperative
Explain how you would have behaved if you were in Carter’s position and why. Support your reasoning with references to the resources.
(2–3 paragraphs)
Learning Objective 2.4 –
Explain personal moral behavior in relation to Kant’s moral theory and his hypothetical and categorial imperatives.
Response is not present.
Explanation of personal moral behavior in relation to Kant’s moral theory and his hypothetical and categorical imperatives is vague, inaccurate, and/or incomplete.
Explanation of personal moral behavior in relation to Kant’s moral theory and his hypothetical and categorical imperatives is clear, accurate, and complete.
References
Provide a citation for each resource you used to write your response to this Assessment. The following citation has been provided as an example:
MacKinnon, B., & Fiala, A. (2018). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Mastery Rubric
In order to achieve mastery of this Competency, you must achieve a “2” on every rubric row in addition to meeting the additional expectation indicated in the Mastery Rubric.
Mastery Rubric
No
Yes
Exceeds Expectations: In-Depth Analysis
Learning Objective – Analyze deontological reasoning and Kant’s moral theory using multiple, relevant sources.
Responses do not draw on multiple relevant sources to analyze deontological reasoning and Kant’s moral theory.
Responses draw on multiple relevant sources to analyze deontological reasoning and Kant’s moral theory.
Professional Skills Building
The faculty Assessor will provide feedback based on the following Professional Skills: Written Communication and Information Literacy. Although the feedback is here to inform the development of your skills, it is not a barrier to achieving the Competency, unless the writing is too poor to be able to score the content of the Assessment. Review the rubric and check your work based on the learning objectives listed. If you are concerned that your writing will not meet these expectations yet, reach out to your Faculty Subject Matter Expert (SME) so he or she can work with you to further develop this important professional skill.
It is highly recommended that you use this opportunity to practice these important skills in the context of this Competency Assessment in order to receive feedback about your current level of proficiency.
Professional Skills Building
0
Not Present
1
Needs Improvement
2
Meets Expectations
Written Communication: Write with clarity, coherence, and purpose.
Written Communication WC 1.1: Construct complete and correct sentences
Sentences are incoherent and impede reader’s access to ideas.
Sentences are incomplete and/or include fragments and run-on sentences, limiting reader’s access to ideas.
Sentences structure effectively conveys meaning to the reader.
Written Communication WC 1.2: Demonstrate the effective use of grammar and mechanics.
Multiple inaccuracies in grammar and mechanics impede reader’s access to ideas.
Some inaccuracies in grammar and mechanics limit reader’s access to ideas.
Use of grammar and mechanics is straightforward and effectively conveys meaning to reader.
Written Communication WC 1.3: Create cohesive paragraphs with a clear central idea.
Paragraphs, or lack of paragraphs, impede reader’s access to ideas.
Construction of main idea and/or supporting paragraphs limit reader’s access to ideas.
Main idea and/or supporting paragraphs effectively convey meaning to reader.
Information Literacy: Apply strategies to evaluate information in order to effectively analyze issues and make decisions.
Information Literacy IL 1.2: Analyze information sources.
Analysis is not present.
Analysis superficially applies aspects of sources that are most relevant to the topic and/or assessment and/or analysis is unclear.
Analysis thoroughly and clearly applies aspects of sources that are most relevant to the topic and/or assessment.
©2017 Walden University 2