Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

This assignment is called the Core Assessment Essay, as it is an essay designed by the State of Texas so that we can assess students based on certain criteria.  The State of Texas assignment states that we are to ask you to take two different ethical systems and apply them to an ethical issue, stating which system is better, and then asking how this affects both you as an individual and also the larger society, especially certain groups like minorities, women, people with disabilities, etc.  Since the State of Texas has many requirements, the essay is designed such that I can properly assess these requirements.  You will also receive a grade for the assignment, so there are two assessments for this assignment.  Given that there are two assessments, this essay will be structured a little differently.  Since both the systems and the issue are supplied by me, you will not need to provide an introduction or a thesis.  You will explain both systems, state and argue which system better applies to this issue, and lastly explain how this affects both personal and social responsibility.  This is an attempt on my part to get you to answer what the State of Texas is asking while at the same time limiting the length of this assignment.  So below you will find the central question concerning the two ethical systems and also the ethical issue, which will rotate from time to time.  Please follow the rubric exactly when writing this essay, as it is designed specifically to address the State of Texas requirements.

The Two Ethical Systems

The central ethical question of this paper concerns USE of persons.  One theory, utilitarianism, states that it is morally justifiable, or even good, to use human lives if a greater good results.  Recall that ANYTHING can be justified if it leads to a greater good for a greater number of people.  We can commit abortions if it leads to good results for the majority, experiment on people, kill brain dead people for their organs, euthanize the old and sick, etc.  That is, one way to look at a moral issue is that we can USE human lives to benefit others.  The primary benefit for most utilitarians is that by eliminating certain people we can save precious resources for others who will benefit more from them (one brain dead person who has little to no chance at recovering can provide up to 8 organs, while at the same time not using up valuable resources, for instance).  The other theory, deontology, states that it is never morally permissible to USE a human being only as a means to some further end.  According to this theory, each and every human life, no matter its stage of development or condition, is inherently valuable, and as human beings we are rational beings with free choice who resist being used only as tools for other people's purposes.  That is, the other way to look at a moral issue is that we can never USE a human being's life (embryo, old, sick, disabled, etc.) to benefit others.  You are being asked to explain both ethical systems, then apply each one to the issue below.  So the ethical issue you are being asked to take a stand on is rather simple: is it or is it not okay morally to use one's own life or the life of another to achieve some greater good?

The Ethical Issue

Currently in the news, there have been many reports from Iceland that doctors there have cured Down Syndrome.  Upon closer examination, it has become clear that doctors have not cured Down Syndrome, they have merely killed all those who they reasonably believe will be born with the disease.  Through prenatal testing, doctors can determine that an unborn baby likely has the genetic disease or not (though this test is only about 85% accurate).  In Iceland, it has been estimated that 100% of those diagnosed with Down Syndrome are eliminated; in the United States, it is 67% or so.  The rate at which this occurs depends largely on the medical system in place, as the numbers are higher in those countries with so-called socialized medicine.  It is clear that this is a utilitarian way of resolving the problem: those born with genetic defects are a drain on valuable resources, and in situations where resources are limited, we must save resources by not wasting them on "defective people."  It is furthermore claimed that those living with Down Syndrome do not enjoy a high quality of life.  Lastly, it spares the parents from having to raise children with genetic disorders.  So, in short, the death of the unborn is being used to achieve the greater good.  The other side of the coin claims that this practice is genocide, as "genocide" literally means to kill a certain kind or group of people.  Not only is a certain group being targeted, it is a group which requires more protection, people with disabilities.  That is, if human rights are to be applied to all humans equally, it is a gross violation of law and ethics to systematically eliminate a group of people who have been deemed "inferior."  So one side of the coin states that we should USE the lives of those found with Down Syndrome to save resources and spare both the child and parents, while the other side states that we should never USE human beings in such a manner, as each human life is inherently valuable despite its condition.

This particular issue falls under a few broader ethical issues.  First, since the mother is freely choosing to terminate the life of the unborn diagnosed with Down Syndrome, it is technically an abortion.  Second, as mentioned above, it is genocide, as a certain kind of person is being targeted.  Many compare this practice to what the Nazis did to "undesirable" people.  Third, it also falls under euthanasia, or mercy-killing, as one of the driving factors in this practice is to kill them to spare them the suffering of living with that condition.  It also spares the time, money and energy of the parents.  Killing as an act of mercy usually relies on a standard called "quality of life."  People who are very sick, old, or who have a genetic disorder cannot, according to some, really participate in life as a "normal" person can so it is better to end their life.  "Quality of life" is a very contentious claim, as it is subjective in nature.  It is very difficult for one person to judge someone else's enjoyment, level of participation in activities, etc.  Furthermore, studies have shown that the quality of life of those with Down Syndrome is increasing.  Lastly, some have claimed that killing those with Down syndrome will "cleanse the gene pool"; however, Down syndrome is not hereditary, so there is no validity to that argument.  These are just some things to consider when making your argument about which system is to be preferred concerning this issue.

Here are just a few articles on this issue, but you will need to research it further:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

https://icelandmag.is/article/fact-check-no-iceland-not-systematically-eradicating-down-syndrome

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-real-down-syndrome-problem-the-genocide/2018/03/14/3c4f8ab8-26ee-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?utm_term=.bbc728d56c9d

https://library.down-syndrome.org/en-us/research-practice/06/3/quality-life-ageing-down-syndrome/

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/utah-house-oks-bill-banning-abortions-based-on-down-syndrome/

The Assignment

First, you are to explain one of the ethical systems independent of the issue; you will then apply the theory to this current issue.  Second, explain the other ethical system and apply it to this issue.  You should not argue or give your opinion here, just state the theory and show what happens if we apply it.  Third, you are then to provide a persuasive argument which demonstrates which system is better and why with respect to this issue.  Lastly, you are to provide a personal statement concerning how this affects you as an individual.  Then you are to research and explain how your stance on the issue affects broader groups in society, especially women, minorities, people with disabilities, etc.

Paper Requirements and Grading Rubric:

This rubric represents the paper REQUIREMENTS.  You must include each section of the rubric (see the Criteria tab), you must provide what each section requires (please read each Description carefully for the specific requirements of each section), and do so in the order provided.  You can also find the worth of each requirement under the Points tab.  Your grade is based ENTIRELY on fulfilling the paper requirements, so if you skip a section or specific requirements of a section, then you give me nothing to grade.  Note: some sections can be accomplished in one paragraph, other sections may require two or more paragraphs.  This will largely depend on the number and depth of the specific requirements.  Please use good writing techniques to determine the number and length of your paragraphs.

Criteria    Description    Points
Define utilitarianism in a general way; highlight that this theory advocates using people as a means to an end.
Explain the theory as if the person reading your paper never heard of this ethical theory, and cite it.  Explain the theory INDEPENDENT of the issue; do not copy and paste too much or use too many quotes; do not be too brief here.  Remember, I need to judge how well YOU understand the theory, and I do that by judging how well you explain it.  To include: consequentialism; the principle of utility/the greater good/hedonistic calculus; the end justifies the means; lastly, how it justifies USING people.  Remember USE of persons is the central ethical question here.  So the theory in short works this way: it looks only at the results (not who did it, why they did it or what they did), if the results are a greater good for a greater number of people, then anything can be justified.  If anything can be justified, we can justify USING the lives of the sick, old, damaged, defective, etc. as a means to the end of benefiting others.  This should be about a page.
10 Points
Apply utilitarianism to the above issue, stating both positive and negative aspects.    APPLY the theory of utilitarianism to the issue above, stating what POSITIVES and NEGATIVES result from applying it.  You will need to research the issue and cite.  First, simply APPLY the theory of utilitarianism to this issue.  The central concepts you need to apply are: results only, greater good, end justifies the means, and USE of persons. In short, the results are fewer "inferior" people; the greater good is almost always saving resources; what is mainly justified is killing people; so this theory advocates that we can use these people's very lives as a way to save resources for the rest of us.  Second, state what POSITIVE and NEGATIVE things result if this theory is applied [do not write this like a list].  The positives: saving resources, getting rid of "defective" people, getting more resources (more organs or jobs, for instance), sparing people from having to care for them, population control, etc.  The negatives: primarily the negatives will center around killing off a certain group to achieve the greater good.  So a certain group is being targeted for termination (old, genetic flaws, brain dead, unborn, etc.), which is genocide.  So using this person's life, that is, killing him or her, is the primary negative.  Also, we are not protecting vulnerable populations.  That is, the very people who need our care and protection the most are being killed off to save resources.  By committing genocide we are promoting a "culture of death" where human life is devalued.  And so on...You are free to use the same ideas if they apply to the issue, but do not copy my words.  This should be about half of a page.
5 Points
Define Kant's ethics in a general way first; then state and explain the principle of humanity.
Again, explain the theory INDEPENDENT of the issue and cite it; do not copy and paste too much or use too many quotes; do not be too brief.  You probably need two paragraphs here, one on Kant's ethics in general, another just on the Principle of Humanity.  First, Kant's ethics in general.  This theory does not evaluate morality based on consequences, as some things are right despite what happens as a result.  Two parts to determine morality.  One is the categorical imperative, which gives us the right thing to do (save life, for example).  Two is the motivation for doing the right thing.  Kant thinks ethics is something that should be treated as an end in itself, done for its own good.  We should not treat an ethical value, like telling the truth, as a means to some further end, like getting into Heaven, making people happy, etc.  We should tell the truth just for the sake of telling the truth.  Second, Kant uses the same reasoning when applied to people.  This is known as the Principle of Humanity: we should never treat people MERELY or ONLY as a means to an end.  We can use people generally under certain conditions, but not without their knowledge and consent and not if it will end their lives or cause them great bodily harm.  That is, make sure to distinguish "using as a means to an end" and "using ONLY as a means to an end."  The former is not immoral (I can use a plumber to fix my sink), the latter most certainly is.  To use people ONLY as a means to an end is to violate their dignity, treat them as things, objectify them, strip them of their humanity, etc.  In essence, the user sees another ONLY as something useful, certainly not as a person.  They are saying: ALL you are to me is what you can do for me.  ALL you are is just a tool or thing.  It is helpful here to think of more obvious cases, such as rape or slavery, as a woman is used against her will ONLY as an object or a slave is considered JUST a farm tool.  Both of these demonstrate not recognizing the humanity of the other due to using them ONLY as a means to an end.  It is difficult to kill humans when they are recognized AS humans; it is much easier if you do not see this person as a person.  So if you are JUST a THING or a TOOL, then we can use your life, as things and tools are designed to be used while humans are designed to be free to choose.  Really try to bring out how horrible it is to be used by other people just for their purposes.  This should be a page to a page and a half.
10 Points
Apply deontology to the issue, stating both positive and negative aspects.    APPLY the principle of humanity to this issue, stating what POSITIVE and NEGATIVE things result from applying it.  If we apply the principle of humanity to issue X, we see that it is never morally permissible to treat oneself or another ONLY as a means to an end.  We must always recognize the humanity of the person involved, whether it is our self or another.  So this theory states that we can NEVER, under any circumstances, USE the lives of others JUST to save resources, get organs, free up a hospital bed, cleanse the gene pool, etc.  There is something inherently wrong with seeing a living human being ONLY as a bed, money, their organs, a tool.  So Kant is promoting the idea that each human life is priceless or invaluable, and needs to be respected and treated with dignity.  Positives: The positives of applying the principle of humanity to this issue are: first, we do not as a society allow the sick and vulnerable to be killed just to save resources, we stop committing genocide, etc.  Second, we insist that doctors not be involved in any practice where people's lives are being ended just as a way to save resources.  Doctors used to take the Hippocratic Oath, which states that no doctor should ever harm their patient, advise a patient on how to kill him or herself, abort babies, or euthanize the old and sick.  Doctors are there to cure and heal, not help patients to die [doctors now take the Physician's Oath, which has no ethical principles except for privacy].  Lastly, we treat each human life as equally valuable.  And so on...Negatives: The negative results of applying this theory to this issue are in essence the opposite of the positives of utilitarianism: if we do not kill them, we have fewer resources, more people with genetic disorders, fewer jobs, a greater population to take care of, etc.  Most medical resources are used at the beginning and end of life, so we will have to expend a lot of resources on people who will not benefit much from them.  And so on...Again, feel free to borrow some of these ideas if they apply to the issue, but do not copy my words.  This should be about half of a page.
5 Points
State which system is better and why, providing a persuasive argument.  This is not merely stating your beliefs, you need to try to persuade your reader.
Remember that I do not grade you on which position you take, but on how you present and defend your position.  But the basic position of each person will be one of two: either we can use a person's life to benefit others (utilitarianism) or we cannot (deontology).  This should be in two parts.  First, discuss the main ethical concept of USING people.  If you are for deontology, you should focus on how each human life is inherently valuable and how wrong it is to USE people.  If you are for utilitarianism, then you should focus on how we can USE the lives of these people to benefit others.  Utilitarianism sees people only in terms of their usefulness: if you can contribute to the greater good, we will expend resources on you; if you are just a drain on resources, it's better to end your life.  It is wasteful to expend limited and valuable resources on those who will benefit the least from them.  This part boils down to a rather simple concept: are people to be seen as inherently valuable and treated equally, or should we see people only in terms of their ability to be useful to others, thereby showing that some people's lives are in fact worth more than others?  Second, speak specifically about the above issue, stating whether you agree with it or not and why.  Your aim here is to hypothetically convince someone who holds the opposite position to change his or her mind about this issue.  That is, try to be as persuasive as possible here.  This should be about 3/4 of a page.
10 Points
Evaluate the issues in terms of an individual living in a culturally diverse society.  First, explain how your stance on the issue affects personal responsibility.
Explain how your answer impacts you as an individual in terms of personal responsibility when it comes to your position.  Your personal responsibility needs to be tied back to how you answered which ethical system is better.  If you argued for utilitarianism above, this statement should be utilitarian in nature.  Your primary responsibilities, then, are not to the ones being killed, but society at large.  If you argued for deontology above, this statement should be deontological in nature.  Your primary responsibilities, then, are to the ones being targeted for elimination (the old, sick, unborn, diseased, etc.).  NOTE: this comes directly from the State of Texas, and is not easy to explain.  What I am looking for here is that you have thought about this issue in depth.  Then, provide a personal statement about what you will or would do if this issue arises in your actual life.  This is an easy place to gain points, but it is also an easy place to lose points.  To gain points easily: show that you have put thought and effort into this and provide a full paragraph.  So write a personal statement on what you, as an individual, will do should you be confronted with an actual decision concerning the above issue.  Some things to consider: you killing another/aborting or not, you killing yourself or not, you allowing doctors to kill or not, your family/raising children/elderly parents, the role of schools/education, the broader society, your job, the economy, your political vote, joining support groups for that issue, your duties to others and your self, etc.
10 Points
Second, explain the impact your position on the issue has a bearing on issues of race, gender, class, etc.    As to the second part, you need to explain how your position on this issue affects social responsibility, especially larger issues of race, gender, class, persons with disabilities, etc.  This does not need to be tied back to how you answered which ethical system is better; instead, here you are simply to show AWARENESS of how the current ethical issue affects the above groups.  You will need to RESEARCH and CITE this part, as you should use sources to demonstrate how certain groups are affected.  If the issue has to do with abortion, do some research on abortion and women, minorities, people with disabilities.  For instance, if the issue is abortion, how are women affected if they can or cannot have abortions?  What is happening to babies diagnosed with genetic diseases?  What about abortion and African-Americans, Hispanics or Asians?  So you are to take the assigned ethical issue and then show how these groups are affected.  Whatever the ethical issue is, simply google "issue X and women's issues" or "issue X and African-Americans" or "issue X and disabilities" and see what comes up.  You do not need to restrict this to the United States; a good place to look at is Holland and Belgium, as these two countries are always at the forefront of these issues.  For instance, in Holland, a doctor can kill you without your consent (euthanasia).  In Belgium, they allow 12-year olds to commit suicide for psychological (not physical) problems (physician-assisted suicide).  Your research could also include how these groups are affected in South America, Asia, Africa, and so on.  This should be a full paragraph.
10 Points
Citations    Please see the "CITATIONS" page on the Start Here Module for help with how and when to cite.  NOTE: Papers that have no citations in the body of the paper will be an automatic 0 for the assignment.    15 Points


Remember to CITE, to include a bibliography, and to upload your paper using one of these file types: doc, docx, pdf or Google Docs (see above).