PHIL 1130: Ethics Final Exam Essay :
In this essay you will demonstrate an understanding to the articles and theories addressed during this semester. To do so you will respond to the ethical dilemma below: Due to an accident at a research facility, a slurry of pathogens and toxic chemicals were accidentally released into a small town’s water supply. Thousands of people were exposed.
The surviving towns people were quarantined, treated, and monitored. Of the thousand people who survived, two hundred have developed super-charged immune systems; they have become Super Healers. Their immune systems identify and attack cancer cells and viruses. Preliminary testing indicates that if a Super Healer is medically connected to a sick person, the sick person will be cured. A pharmaceutical company specializing in harvesting horseshoe crab blood for medical purposes has developed technology to harvest the blood from the Super Healers.
The company has lobbied congress to mandate that all the Super Healers be forced to participate in blood donation and research. The process of harvesting the Super Healer blood to cure cancer and viral outbreaks requires the use of at least a thousand or more horseshoe crabs. Unlike the common practice of drawing blood for research and returning the crabs back to the sea, this process will cause the crabs extreme suffering followed by an agonizing death. Although the Super Healers will only be subjected to minimal pain and irritation, the curative process will require Super Healers to reside at the pharmaceutical compound and be hooked to donation machinery or participate in experiments.
The program is estimated to take two years; however, the proposed policy will allow for extensions up to fifteen years. All of the Super Healers were asked to volunteer to participate in the two to fifteen year program; however, the majority declined. The proposed policy would require all Super Healers, regardless of their preferences, to participate in the program. Your committee is charged with the task of evaluating the ethical status of this policy.
Based on the assigned readings by Kant, Regan, Cohen, Singer, and Thomson; evaluate whether or not this proposed policy of forced donation is ethical and should be instituted.
Your response should reference at least two of the articles and it should answer at least one of the following questions:
Is it morally permissible to force the Super Healers to participate in a donation and research program?
OR
Is it morally permissible to torture and kill thousands of horseshoe crabs to process the Super Healer blood?
*Note: this case -and the previously discussed Connection Case- are based on Thomson’s Violinist Case.
While Thomson’s case addresses the issue of abortion, this is not the topic of this short paper. Focus onher position regarding our obligation to others. This is not a paper about abortion
The Paper Process:
1.Organize your thoughts:
First, determine how Kant, Regan, Cohen, Singer, and Thomson would respondto this proposed policy. In the context of these articles and everything we have studied this semester,evaluate the morality of forcing the Super Healers to become forced test subjects and donors and/ or focus
on the morality of the treatment of the horseshoe crabs. In your paper, use at least two of the articles to support your position.
2. Write a rough draft:
Your paper should include an objective analysis of the arguments and issuespresented. It should also demonstrate your ability to explain and accurately apply the ethical approaches.Note: I am interested in the quality of your reasoning, not the quantity of your words. That said, successfulresponses tend to be at least two pages.
A few tips to consider:
-Write a clear and thorough introduction. Indicate whether your essay will address the morality of usingSuper Healers or the horseshoe crabs. Also indicate which articles you will be using to defend yourposition.- Subsequent paragraphs should support your introduction and your conclusion should summarize yourposition.
– Your paper should have multiple paragraphs. Do not submit one long paragraph.
-Do not use outside sources. Use the assigned readings from this class to support your position. Usingoutside sources will lead you astray and result in a lower grade.-This paper should be your own original work; do not plagiarize.
-You are a philosopher. Phrases such as “ In my opinion” or “ I believe” are redundant and convey arelativistic viewpoint. State your position and use the arguments presented in the articles to provide supportfor your position.
-Avoid taking a relativistic position; it is tough to accurately and philosophically defend in a few pages.
– Minimize your use of first person.
-Avoid large quotes. Including long quotes indicates that the writer is either lazy or does not understandthe material.
– Have someone read your work. Did it make sense to them? Did they understand your position and thesupporting arguments?The organization of your essay might look something like this:
I.Introduction
II.Discussion of the first article and how the arguments support your position.
III.Discussion of the second article and how the arguments support your position.
IV. Analysis and conclusion** Following the above outline is not required. Your grade will be based on the clarity of your answer to the dilemma, the extent to which at least two of the articles are accurately explained and applied, and the clarity of your overall philosophical analysis of the issues and theories. ***CSCC’s Writing Center is an excellent resource; smart students take advantage of it. See the link to the Writing Center posted in the Ethics Paper Folder.
3.Proofread and complete the finalized version of your paper.
4.Email the finalized version of your paper by
-Online students: email your paper to me at *Do not include attachments.
The essay should be included in the body of the email.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
