Phil 3281 Exam #2 Final Copy-2
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
East Carolina University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3281
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
12
Uploaded by DeaconFalconPerson1006
PHIL 3281
–
Transitioned to On-Line
YOUR NAME: Kendell Holshouser
Professor Smith
–
Exam #2 Final Copy
Essay #1: In what three ways did we focus on the American Founding?
Be sure to separate each of the three by new paragraphs and be as complete as you can
in how you express those ways, as if for a new reader. Study RQs 51 &52 and related
module documents
There were three main ways in this class that we studied the American founding.
The first was by looking into the Preamble of the Constitution. We then look at our
eleventh journal entry for this class where the Constitution can be found broken down
into individual sentences/statements. These statements are then paired with five of the
six principles of moral pluralism. Those included principals are The Principle of Fidelity
which is paired with the line “in order to form a more perfect Union”.
The Principle of
Justice,
paired with “establish justice”.
The Principle of Benevolence,
paired with “Insure
domestic Tranquility” and “promote the general Welfare”
. The Principle of Non-
Maleficence
which pairs with “provide for the common defense”,
and finally, The
Principle of Autonomy which is paired with
“secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity”
. It is noted that The Principle of Benevolence is stated twice. This
principle stresses that one entity, in this case the US government, should act to benefit
another, in this case the citizens of the US
, so it’s a good thing it’s used more than once.
There is one principle that isn’t the Preamble and that is
The Principle of Veracity. This
can be seen as slightly ironic because veracity is the principle of truth. However, this
principle can be found in the Declaration of Independence, showing that all sic principles
of moral pluralism are covered in the founding documents of the US.
The second way that we studied the American founding is by taking a closer look
at the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the caution that that has be
added to their beginning through the Wilder publication. I do find it interesting that in
their warning they state that in these documents had been constructed in a more
modern setting that “the values would be different”. It is not uncommon knowledge that
in the founding of the United States, the morals, virtues, and values of our founding
fathers would have been greatly different than what is socially accepted today, so it
makes sense that in their writing, their priorities would reflect that of their time.
This is a
prime example of Historicism.
Now this doesn’t mean that their views
were indeed
correct and should be accepted simply because that was the common way of thinking in
their time.
The third and final way that we focused on the American founding was by
examining President Washingtons first inaugural address. When looking at the context
of this speech, we must realize that this was spoken to a society that had previously
been ruled by a monarch across an ocean. Controlling the people of the US from afar.
This prompted the statemen
t by Washington that “
No People can be bound to
acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than
the People of the United States”.
Though there were many in that time, and in present
time, that would agree the US needed to be independent, there were still those that
were loyal to Britain. This is where we see a connection to moral pluralism and is what
we explored through our class work. Washington knew that there would be a number of
people that had conflicting moral views. He also understood how everyone came from a
different background, different circumstances, and that each view should be respected.
Essay #2: Do a CSA on Course Case #1: Nashu. Be sure to study RQ 54 and the CSA
that I modeled for this case in class. Be sure to include the CSA format in clear
structure, numbering and naming the three major steps and the 5 sub-steps in the 3rd
major step. Then be sure to perform the actions that are called for in each step and sub-
step. You may always use my argument or make your own. However, use the same
format.
Step 1
: Initial Reaction to the case: When reading and studying the story of
Nashu, I found what happened to her to be very wrong. When it comes to my personal
values, I view human life as something that should be protected. Upon my first reading
of this story and finding that Nashu was sacrificed as an offering is something that I do
not agree with. We may not be able to blame the tribe because it is quite obvious that
Nashu’s tribe
is not accustomed to or included in what I would call “modern society”.
They offer sacrifices, which the story indicated are human, to their gods in hopes that
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
they will be blessed in the coming year and will not face any punishments or hardships.
This may be common practice in their world and thus ‘normal’,
however, just because
sacrificing is a common practice in their community doesn’t mean it’s right or ok.
Step 2
: Background Information: The story of Nashu is a major piece of evidence
that will be used in this case study analysis. RQ54 along with the course learned
knowledge of claim analysis and argument analysis aid in background knowledge.
Step 3
: Argument Analysis Procedure (AAP)
S1
: P1: What happened to Nashu was due to cultural tradition (FC)
P2:
The actions of Nashu’s tribe resulted in her death (FC)
P3: It is wrong to accept an individual's death due to cultural tradition (MC)
S2
: Conclusion: What happened to Nashu was wrong (MC)
S3
: The evaluation of the premises is as follow:
P1
: This is a factual claim and is true, based on the story. We are told that every year
Nashu’s tribe holds a
festival where an individual is sacrificed and appease the Gods. This
claim is open to verification and is verified, which satisfies the criteria for factual claims.
P2: This is a factual claim and is true, based on the story. We are informed that Nashu
was the chosen sacrifice for the festival and that she became
“
part of the earth
”
. This
claim is open to verification and is verified, which satisfies the criteria for factual claims.
P3: This is a moral claim and is acceptable. This claim is clear, it is adequate to the
context of this story, it is applicable, and it is consistent with other moral claims that a
reasonable person should hold.
S4
: The conclusion stated in S2 is necessitated by all premises stated in S1.
S5
: Therefore, this argument is a sound moral argument.
Essay #3: Do a CSA on Course Case #3: Tuskegee. Study RQS 56 and 58 and the Pence
article. Your CSA in this case should start with a
“Setting” first part, then move to
“Initial reaction” on your part. So,
overall, the CSA will have 4 major parts and the same
5 sub-parts in the 4th major part. The setting is required because you are answering RQ
56 as well as presenting your CSA of the case.
Setting:
Throughout early history syphilis was a major problem plaguing a large number
of the world
’s
population. During the world wars there was a boom in outbreaks which
inevitably prompted the beginning of the Tuskegee study in the 1930s. During this time
people of color were harshly exiled and discriminated against, many even failing to
recognize them as human
Step 1
: Initial Reaction to the case: The case of the Tuskegee Study is quite a hard
one for me to fully register. When I think if a study of any kind, I think of all the
precautions that must go into it, I think of how profesional they usually are and how
many guidelines must be followed. This study was pretty much the exact opposite of
that. There were no guidelines followed, there was a large bit of disregard for the
“participants” and I saw that in quotes because they were
viewed more as animals than
people. The conductors of the study even referred
to it as a “study of nature”
further
labeling the African American subjects as nonhuman. What I found very disturbing is that
these subjects were given no treatment though treatment was available. They were set
to suffer just to see the effects if the disease.
Step 2
: Background Information: The provided explanation of the Tuskegee Case
gives us information on what this study was comprised of and details other background
evidence that will be used in this case study analysis. RQ56-58 also helped with the
overall analysis and understanding of this case.
Step 3
: Argument Analysis Procedure (AAP)
S1
: P1: We ought not do research on humans that deceives, fails to treat, and/or causes
death. [MC]
P2: The Tuskegee “experiment” did all three of those things, [FC]
S2
: Conclusion: T
he Tuskegee “experiment” was morally wrong. [MC]
S3
: The evaluation of the premises is as follow:
P1
: This is a factual claim and is true, based on the story. We are told that the subjects
were specifically selected because they had syphilis and were to be observed to see how
the disease progressed. The paper also tells us the patients were to receive no
treatment. P2: This is a factual claim and is true, based on the story. As found stated
multiple times throughout the paper but also on pages 50-51.
S4
: The conclusion stated in S2 is necessitated by all premises stated in S1.
S5
: Therefore, this argument is sound
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Essay #4: Complete RQ 64 and then complete a CSA on the Tuma Case.
The Module Document that is the Winslow article conveys his 5 points about the
“advocacy model” –
list them and give an evaluation of what you think of them.
Towards the end of the Winslow article there is a section that is titled
“Assessing
the Advocacy Metaphor. Here, Winslow offers his insight about the model, and they are
as follows: First Winslow states that the meaning of advocacy needs clarification. He
states that the definition for advocacy can be extremely broad. One person may define
patient advocacy as simply doing what is best for the patient while another person may
define it in more specific ways, such as defending the patient's rights, acting as a voice
for the patient to other healthcare professionals, or even providing counseling and
support to the patient. Wilslow finishes this first statement by saying further clarification
is essential if p
atient advocacy is to rise above being a “simple slogan”
. I fully agree with
this. I personally think that patient advocacy is very important and there needs to be a
uniform understanding of what falls under patient advocacy, so each patient has the
greatest possible chance of receiving optimal care.
The second point Winslow makes is that state nursing practice acts need revision.
He explains how many laws have not kept up with nursings understanding of advocacy.
The example provided is that of a nurse that was advised to get a lawyer if she intended
to report a surgical resident she had witnessed botch a patient's procedure, resulting in
the patient's death. Winslow claims that laws should be up to date with modern dealing
to make patient advocacy a “less dangerous activity.
Again, I fully agree with this. Nurses
work much more closely with patients than doctors do. They also know the doctors and
know what “flaws” they may have. Nurses should be protected if they
see a problem in
their patients' health care and wish to voice it.
Patients and their families being unprepared to accept the nurse as their advocate
is the third point that Winslow makes. He points out that unlike other services where the
patient or individual has a say in whether or not they accept the services being offered
to them, with nurses, for the most part, the patient is not involved in the selection
process for their nurse. This lack of patient input can cause tension or unacceptance of
the nursing as advocate. I understand how some patients or individuals may believe that
they are the best advocate for themselves and not a stranger. In my opinion the majority
of nurses always have the patients' wellbeing as their top priority, and I agree that the
public education on patient advocacy should be given more attention to help with
situations such as that.
The fourth point made by Winslow is that advocacy frequently gets associated
with controversy. Typically, the patient that is being mistreated is the one that nurses
advocate for. This can lead the nurse into controversy which Winslow mentions, not
many people thrive in. I definitely believe that the status quo around advocacy should be
broken. Speaking out on behalf of a patient should only come in times of neglect. I
believe a patient's voice should always be heard, regardless of the situation.
The final point that Winslow makes is that at some point the nurse is bound to be
torn between conflicting interests and loyalties. As stated by Susan Thollaug, some
nurses may have loyalties to
their colleague’s and be unwilling to
expose their
shortcoming. I do agree that almost everyone in every profession has work friends,
however I believe that jobs requirements and responsibilities should always come first.
With nursing, the care for your patient should always be a nurse's main concern.
CSA:
Step 1
: Initial Reaction: When reading the story of nurse Jolene Tuma, I felt very sad for
what had happened to her. I do feel that nurse Tuma could have communicated with the
lead physician better so that her actions may not be perceived as her trying to
undermine their diagnosis/treatment plan. I also feel the physician was hasty in their
decision to charge Tuma.
Step 2
: Background Information: As stated in the second point of Winslow
’
s evaluation
of the advocacy model, law acts are commonly out of date in reference to nursing
leading to situations such as this and the example presented in the article which is
relevant to this argument. The information provided on the Canterbury v. Spence
decision needed to make an informed judgement also applies to this argument.
Step 3
: Argument Analysis Procedure (AAP)
S1
:
P1: Medical staff have an obligation to provide adequate medical care (MC)
P2: The physician is the lead of their healthcare unit (FC)
P3: The physician did not disclose the informed consent standards with patient (FC)
P4: Nurse Tuma did not communicate alternative treatment with the physician
(FC)
S2
:
Conclusion: Nurse Tuma and the physician should have had more communication
and discussion about treatment plans for the patient (MC)
S3
: All four premises are acceptable and meet the appropriate criteria for their claim-
kind
S4
: The conclusion stated in S2 is necessitated by all premises stated in S1.
S5
: Therefore, this argument is a sound moral argument.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Essay #5: Study RQs 68-70 and other Docs & do a CSA on the Buck Case.
Be sure to study all the posted documents and especially JE #14 and complete the CSA,
again in this case adding “Setting” as Step one of four major steps, with that fourth step
having the usual 5 parts.
Setting:
For the actions that were taken in this story, and the then justification
behind them, we must look at when they took place. Virginia, 1927. At this point in
history illegitimate children were frowned upon and any sub-par member of society
faced the brutal chances if being shunned from the public eye.
Step 1
: Initial Reaction to the case: The case of Carrie Buck is one that is quite
mind blowing
to me. Starting this story, I didn’t think that I would be so moved but as the
numerous events and injustices that were brough against Carrie Buck were explained I
could help but be enraged on her behalf. Not only did she face an injustice bestowed to
her by the legal system, but numerous other members of her family also faced similar
problems. The story of her sister, who went into operation being told it was for
appendicitis and was sterilized against her knowledge, and of her daughter, who was
deemed mentally unfit simply through relation to her mother and a bias social worker,
angered me on their behalf.
Step 2
: Background Information: The provided story of Carrie Buck is the major
piece of background evidence that will be used in this case study analysis. RQ68-70
helped with the overall analysis and understanding of this case.
Step 3
: Argument Analysis Procedure (AAP)
S1
:
P1: Carrie Buck was submitted into an institution to hide her pregnancy (FC)
P2: Most mental deficiencies are not passed by inheritance in family line (FC)
P3:
Vivian Buck’s social worker was bias in her mental evaluation
(FC)
S2
:
Conclusion: What happened to Carrie Buck was wrong (MC)
S3
: The evaluation of the premises is as follow:
P1
: This is a factual claim and is true, based on the story. We are told that Carrie was
raised by her foster parents, raped by one of their relatives and sent away for the
pregnancy. “In short, she was sent away to have her baby. Her case never was about
mental deficiency.
P2: This is a factual claim and is true, based on the story. As found stated in the last
paragraph on page three of the story.
P3: This is a factual claim and is true, based on the story. Found in the second testimony
of Mrs. Whilhelm on page 6, where she states she help a prejudice against Vivian due to
Carries
“mental” condition.
S4
: The conclusion stated in S2 is necessitated by all premises stated in S1.
S5
: Therefore, this argument is sound.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help