Question

D2) Discussion Post In this discussion post, you will have three tasks. Task 1: Construct an argument using the following structure: Premise 1 Premise 2 Conclusion Note that you will not have to structure your arguments this way in the future (this is moderately formal and I will accept arguments written in prose so long as your conclusion is clear). However, I want to make sure that you understand how to make a very basic argument. Don't overthink this - just make sure the conclusion follows from your premises (and, do not use a example straight out of the book). Task 2: Give an example from your own life or from your imagination of an ethical dilemma, but do not give the actual or imagined resolution of the dilemma. Be brief yet informative. Task 3: Apply ONE of the following moral theories to your example: Utilitarianism, Deontology, or Virtue Ethics. Explain how applying this theory helped you Conclusion Note that you will not have to structure your arguments this way in the future (this is moderately formal and I will accept arguments written in prose so long as your conclusion is clear). However, I want to make sure that you understand how to make a very basic argument. Don't overthink this - just make sure the conclusion follows from your premises (and, do not use a example straight out of the book). Task 2: Give an example from your own life or from your imagination of an ethical dilemma, but do not give the actual or imagined resolution of the dilemma. Be brief yet informative. Task 3: Apply ONE of the following moral theories to your example: Utilitarianism, Deontology, or Virtue Ethics. Explain how applying this theory helped you ethically solve your dilemma. Here I want to see that you have a good understanding of the theory you chose, so be sure that your explanation convinces me that you've taken the time to think through how it applies to your example. Remember, you do not need to report the actual resolution of this dilemma, only the resolution you came to by applying one of the theories above.

Answer 1

Task 1:
Here's a simple argument structure:
- Premise 1: Dogs are animals.
- Premise 2: All animals need to eat in order to live.
- Conclusion: Therefore, dogs need to eat in order to live.

The conclusion logically follows from the premises. From Premise 1, we see that dogs are a part of the group called 'animals'. In Premise 2, we see that every member of this group 'animals' needs to eat to live. Hence, since dogs are part of this group, dogs must also need to eat to live.

Task 2:
Imagine this situation, you're walking one day and find a wallet filled with money on the ground. It appears someone has lost their wallet. So, a dilemma arises between keeping the money which wasn't yours in the first place but you found it, or attempting to locate the owner and return the wallet to them.

Task 3:
Let's apply Deontology to the earlier stated dilemma. Deontology is about following a set of defined moral rules or duties, regardless of the outcome or consequences. In this case, one major rule could be to not take what isn't rightfully yours. So, applying this rule to our dilemma, even though you have found the wallet and no one will probably know if you kept it, it is still not ethically correct to keep it without trying to return it to its owner. You didn't earn it and it wasn't given to you, hence it doesn't belong to you. Therefore, Deontology directs us to attempt to return the found wallet to its rightful owner, irrespective of the monetary benefit we could otherwise receive, establishing an ethically sound resolution to the dilemma.