PHI 115 WRHC Connection Between Ethical Principle and an Ethical System Discussion

In his paper you will choose an issue to investigate from Ethics Bowl (Case 2: Lessons from the Plague Year). This case highlights an ethical issue and provides an ethical question for the case. Your answer to the ethical question will be your thesis statement. The assignment is to defend a position on an issue concerning your selected case. This paper consists of 8 parts. Ive attached the rubric below, please let me know if you need further information.

Ethical Reasoning Paper Assignment
Due: 5/13/21
Format:
Times New Roman, Double Spaced, 12 pt. type
Length:
5-8 pages
Submit:
upload as a Word Document or PDF (*not* Pages)
One of the key skills you need to develop in philosophy is the ability to take a position on an
issue and argue in favor of it. This means working out your argument, defining key terms,
considering counter arguments, responding to the counter arguments and revising your position as
appropriate.
For this paper you will choose an issue to investigate from Ethics Bowl PDF. This case highlights an
ethical issue and provides an ethical question for the case. Your answer to the ethical question will
be your thesis statement. The assignment is to defend a position on an issue concerning your
selected case.
Ethical Case:
Case 2: Lessons from the Plague Year
While humankind will be learning from the pandemic for years to come, none of us can ignore the
numerous ethics issues with which we have been presented. The ethical implications of the
pandemic in the United States and abroad are staggering. From the beginning, problems arising
from social disparity became painfully obvious, as the virus affected different populations
disproportionately. During the first wave of the pandemic, some people could work from the safety of
their homes. Others lost their jobs as restaurants closed and leisure travel ground to a halt. Others
had no choice but to work in situations in which they were continually exposed to the virus. People of
color had higher rates of infection and death. The vaccines, when made available, were distributed
to the whitest and the wealthiest nations first. Later, as the virus surged and resurged, the supply of
ICU beds, experimental treatments, and ventilators dwindled. The scarcity of medical resources
forced hospital leadership to decide whether patients over a particular age should be given palliative
care only. They had to decide if it made ethical as well as economic sense to remove the most
seriously ill patients from ventilators and free them up for others who looked more likely to survive.
At times, the situation had become so dire that some healthcare personnel were comparing their
working environment to a MASH unit. Different nations took very different approaches as the
contagion raged within their borders. Some countries, like India and China, mandated draconian
nationwide shutdowns and curfews. Other countries, like Argentina and Sweden, acted as if there
was no pandemic at all. The United States took no coherent approach. The federal government
delegated healthcare decisions to the states, many of which in turn left healthcare decisions up to
individual businesses and people. While some leaders within the federal government verbally
encouraged social distancing and wearing masks to limit COVID spread, others encouraged large
crowds for campaign rallies, met face-to-face in legislative sessions, and held holiday parties,
thereby sending a message by their actions in sharp contrast with the government’s verbal message.
At the personal level, behaviors ranged widely, from extravagant tipping out of sympathy for service
workers to screaming abuse at store clerks who tried to enforce mask requirements imposed by their
company, city, or state. The list of COVID-related ethical issues could go on for pages, and several
of the cases in this year’s ethics bowl address a few of them. In the United States, we generally
expect colleges and universities to contribute to the public good by producing research useful to the
community and to the advancement of knowledge. We also expect them to prepare students for
active and responsible engagement as citizens in a diverse world. How well are you, as college
students, being equipped to deal with these issues now and for future global emergencies? Above
and beyond a school’s responsibility to provide a safe environment and carry on its normal job of
education, the question arises as to whether the pandemic has given higher education an increased
responsibility for helping students and the community recognize, analyze, and actively address the
ethical issues that arise from the pandemic, such as those mentioned above. If so, we might expect
higher education to meet that responsibility by adjusting coursework, changing the nature of campus
life, shifting the direction of some research, and forming new community partnerships. Some would
argue that this sort of activism is not appropriate for higher education. The traditional role of
educators is to educate, after all, not to shift direction with every crisis, even one as dire as the
current pandemic. Any attention given to COVID-19 is attention taken away from other subjects.
Case 2: Do colleges and universities have an ethical responsibility to provide their students
with a moral education regarding pandemic issues?
Select the Issue
First, select one case to investigate from the Ethics Bowl PDF. To access this document go to:
Blackboard à Assignments à Ethical Reasoning Paper. The PDF of the Ethics Bowl Cases is
attached. Read over the questions that are assigned to the cases. The assignment is to take a
position on one of the cases in response to the question that has been assigned to that case. Click
on the links at the bottom of your case and begin doing some research into to make sure that you
have a handle on the main issues and are ready to take a position in response to the question. Use
the case number and name as the title of your paper.
Prewrite
Begin the prewriting process of writing an argumentative paper as described in Weston’s Argument
Rulebook, Chapter VII. Extended Arguments (51-60). That is you should:

Explore the issue

Spell out your basic argument
Basic Argument:
P1: During the COVID-19 pandemic, people in the first wave had no choice but to work in
environments where they were constantly exposed to the virus, putting their lives at risk.
P2: Hospitals had to consider if it was ethical to withdraw the most chronically ill patients
from ventilators (putting their lives at risk) to make room for those who seemed to have a
better chance of survival.
P3: All colleges and universities have an ethical obligation to provide moral education to
students on how to act in difficult situations where human lives are at risk.
Conclusion: Colleges and universities have an ethical obligation to provide moral education
to their students about pandemic issues.

Begin sketching out a defense of each of your premises

Consider how one might object to your argument or to given premises

Think about how you can respond to these arguments and/or revise your original argument
so that they do not arise
Only now should you begin Writing!
This paper has eight parts (be sure to complete them all):
Part I: First Paragraph: The Issue
Start with a short summary of the issue you will be investigating. Define key terms. Give the reader
some key facts about the issue and background information to contextualize it. Also give the reader
a quick sketch of the different positions people take on this issue and why. End the paragraph with a
clear thesis statement, such as: In this paper I will be arguing _______. Tip: Consult Weston’s
Argument Rulebook, Ch. VIII Argumentative Essays (61-68)
Part 1: The Issue – Click here for Video Instructions (1:27)
Case used in all Demonstration Videos: Zoos (4:27)
Demonstration Video: The Issue – Paper Practice (1:36)
Part II: Second Paragraph: Basic Argument
Present the basic argument for your position in premise and conclusion form.
P1) During the COVID-19 pandemic, people in the first wave had no choice but to work in
environments where they were constantly exposed to the virus, putting their lives at risk.
P2) Hospitals had to consider if it was ethical to withdraw the most chronically ill patients from
ventilators (putting their lives at risk) to make room for those who seemed to have a better chance of
survival.
P3) All colleges and universities have an ethical obligation to provide moral education to students on
how to act in difficult situations where human lives are at risk.
C)Colleges and universities have an ethical obligation to provide moral education to their students
about pandemic issues.
Put forward your premises in a methodical manner that leads us to the conclusion. Use as many
premises as you need to get to the conclusion ( at least two premises).Review the discussion boards
on argument building (from the beginning of the semester) and Weston’s rules in Chapter 1, Short
Arguments to help you do this.
Use your thesis statement from The Issue as the conclusion of your argument. Since your
conclusion must be about an ethical issue, you will need to include a premise that supplies an ethical
principle (which will allow you to determine whether the action is ethical or not).
The type of ethical principle that each student needs really depends on the type of argument that the
student has structured. Let’s say that a student is writing an argument about who is responsible for
fixing the student debt crisis. For this student, I would suggest that a premise that stipulates what
determines whether something is one’s responsibility or not. This would be a principle that takes a
more general abstract form, which would allow it to be used to determine not just who is responsible
to fix the student loan crisis, but also who is responsible to take out the trash, or to feed people who
do not have money to buy food due to loss of employment with the pandemic. It is kind of like a
formula for determining who is responsible. So, this could take a couple of different forms. For
example:

If ___, then that person is ethically responsible.

When ____, the person/entity who ___ is ethically responsible to ___.

A person is ethically responsible to fix a problem if ______.

Whenever a person/entity ______, then they are ethically responsible to fix the problem.
Now, your basic argument might not be about ethical responsibility. Maybe it is about what is
ethically justifiable (It is ethically justifiable to _______ when ______; _______ makes an action
ethically justifiable; As long as _______ an action is ethically justifiable). Or maybe it is about what is
morally wrong, in which case your ethical principle might look something like this: It is morally wrong
to _______; An action is morally wrong, if _______. Or maybe it is about about is ethically right: It is
morally right to _______; An action is morally right, if _______. Find the ethical principle that works
for your argument, providing the more abstract, philosophical foundation that will allow us to
understand how we should judge the ethical value of the empirical details involved in your case.
This basic argument should lay out your reasoning, short and sweet. If you are finding that it is
getting long, then take a closer look to see if what you wrote is a bare bones argument or actually a
defense of the premises. Anything that is a defense of the argument belongs in the next section of
the paper ( Parts III & IV).
Alternatively, you might find that in order to lay out your reasoning on the issue, you need to involve
more than one line of argument. If this is the case, then you might consider doing this by creating
two arguments that build upon one another (for an example of how such an argument could be
structured, please refer back to the new threads I created on this topic in the Argument Building
Discussion Boards).
Part 2: Basic Argument – Click here for Video Instructions (3:01)
Demonstration Video: Basic Argument – Paper Practice (5:18)
Part III: Defense of Empirical Premises
Now explain your argument in more detail, dedicating one paragraph to each of your premises,
explaining the reasoning behind it. Start each paragraph by presenting the premise that you will be
defending. Then proceed to explain why the reader should accept the premise. End each paragraph
by showing how this premise relates to your conclusion (or how this premise leads into the next
premise, which will be defended in the following paragraph).
In the process of defending your premises, you should:

define key terms, see Weston Appendix II (95-100)

cite reliable sources to back up your claims (try starting with the sources offered in the
footnotes of your case study description)

explain why any generalizations you are making are justified (i.e., do not
overgeneralizations)

See Weston, Ch 2, Examples (9-18)
defend your ethical principle (since an ethical principle should have been one of your
premises above, in this section there should be a paragraph gives the justification for this
principle).
Part 3: Defense of Empirical Premises – Click here for Video Instructions (2:19)
Demonstration Video: Defense of Empirical Premises – Paper Practice (7:16)
Part IV: Defense of Ethical Principle
Now defend your ethical principle (since an ethical principle should have been one of your premises
above). This is an essential part of your ethical reasoning paper! This section should consist of 1-2
paragraphs. You need to explain why we should accept your ethical principle—why is that what
should ethically concern us? Imagine that you are talking to a person who reads your ethical
principle (for example, that: We have an ethical responsibility to _____.) and says “No, we don’t!”
How would you explain to that person that we do have such an ethical responsibility (or, tha t_____
is what makes an action ethically good; or, that is what makes an action ethically wrong)? How
would you convince that person?
Be careful to stay on ethical terrain here! Your goal is to get the reader to accept that this is the
principle that will allows us to act ethically—which is a separate matter from the
non-ethical/non-moral concerns of it being efficient, practical, effective, popular, legal, customary,
etc.
*Note* – The sample paper in attachment is weak in this section. Aim to develop your defence of
your ethical principle more fully.
The video instructions for this section contain a lot more detail!
Part 4: Defense of Ethical Principle – Click here for Video Instructions (5:38)
Demonstration Video: Defense of ETHICAL Principle/s – Paper Practice (3:05)
Part V: Reflect on Connection Between Ethical Principle and an Ethical System
This section should be two paragraphs long and it is another essential part of your ethical reasoning
paper! Now reflect on further on your ethical principle. What ethical systems we studied this
semester does this principle connect with? Can you identify anything Kantian in your principle and
the way that you defended it? What about any Utilitarian reasoning? Do you engage any Aristotelian
concerns that would connect with his system of virtue ethics? What about Care Ethics? Find at least
one ethical system that connects with your ethical principle and the way that you defended it.
In your first paragraph, explain the key ideas from that ethical system. How does that system work?
How does it go about determining what the right thing to do is? What does it consider of ethical
importance? I would encourage you to cite the primary texts we studied this semester in this
paragraph.
In your second paragraph, explain how your ethical principle relates to this section. How is this
system reflected in your way of defending your ethical principle? Explain.
Part 5: Connection to an Ethical System – Click here for Video Instructions (2:52)
Demonstration Video: Connection to an Ethical System – Paper Practice (6:00)
Part VI: Consider an Objection
Next, put forward an objection that could be raised against your argument. Be careful not to
strawman the objection. Explain the reasoning behind the objection so that it will strike the reader as
a legitimate concern. Also be careful to select an objection that actually respond to your argument
and does not simply supporting a different view on the topic.
Tips: Think of the objector as a person who is in conversation with you and your ideas. When you
are coming up with an objection, imagine the objector heard your argument in parts 2 and 3 of this
paper. Why might someone have heard you out and yet still object to what you have said? Make it
clear which of your premise/s from part 2 that the objector is specifically targeting with this objection.
Part 6: Objection – Click here for Video Instructions (2:50)
Demonstration Video: Objection – Paper Practice (5:57)
Part VII: Response to the Objection
Now offer a response to the objection you just raised. Explain your reasoning in detail so that you will
have the best chances of convincing a person who objects to your argument in the manner
described above.
Part 7: Response to the Objection – Click here for Video Instructions (0:22)
Demonstration Video: RESPONSE to Objection – Paper Practice (3:58)
Part VIII: Conclusion
Reflect on your response to the objection. Do you think that the objection to your argument wins? Or
does your response to the objection win? Explain your reasoning. BE CAREFUL! Typical conclusion
that simply summarize the foregoing earn a “0”. For the 15 points, you must actually reflect on how
well your response to the objection does or does not deal with the objection’s concerns. Really
consider what points the objection has in its favor.
Part 8: Conclusion – Click here for Video Instructions (1:12)
Demonstration Video: Conclusion – Paper Practice (6:36)
Works Cited
Each paper must include a Works Cited or Bibliography page with at least three sources. You may
use whichever citation format you are most comfortable with, i.e., APA, MLA, Chicago.
Add section titles
Insert the following section titles into your paper.

The Issue

Basic Argument

Defense of Empirical Premises

Defense of Ethical Principle

Reflect on Connection Between Ethical Principle and an Ethical System

Consider an Objection

Response to the Objection

Conclusion

Works Cited
This is an easy way to get (or loose!) 10 points.
Formatting and Grading Criteria – Click here for Video Instructions(3:25)
Plagiarism will not be tolerated. Any student whose paper includes any instances of
plagiarism will receive a zero for that assignment and be reported to the Academic Integrity
Committee. Such reports could potentially result in the student’s expulsion. Do not
Plagiarize.
Sample Student Paper
*Note: This Case is NOT an option for the class this semester
* I have highlighted some key things I would like to see in your paper (do not highlight them
in your paper; the highlights are just for your benefit in this sample)
Case 7: Your Best Self Now
The Issue
The Chinese social credit system was first announced in 2014 and is a system that gives China’s
citizens a social credit score based on their behaviors and actions. It is meant to promote positive
behaviors and create a more trustworthy society. Citizens receive better scores by executing
socially desirable actions such as obeying the law. Scores will decline if citizens engage in
problematic behaviors. Furthermore, citizens can access social benefits based on their scores. As
they are rewarded for good behavior, they are also punished for bad behavior. Advocates for the
Chinese social credit system claim that the system enforces positive results as the behaviors of
citizens improve. Critics argue that it violates privacy and a person’s autonomy. In this paper I
will be arguing that Chinese social credit system is an ethically wrong practice.
Basic Argument
P1) The Chinese social credit system undermines people as autonomous beings
P2) Some of the ways that it undermines autonomy are by invading citizens’ privacy and bribing
citizens to engage in good behavior.
P3) Any practice that undermines a person’s autonomy is ethically wrong.
C) Thus, the Chinese social credit system is an ethically wrong practice.
Defense of Empirical Premises
To begin, the Chinese social credit system undermines people as autonomous beings. Humans
have the ability to reason, meaning they are capable of making their own decisions and thus, they
can be autonomous. In the article “Valuing Autonomy and Respecting Persons: Manipulation,
Seduction, and the Basis of Moral Constraints,” Sarah Buss, Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Michigan, states, “To be autonomous is, in essence, to do things for one’s own
reasons—to act according to principles, or laws, which are “self-imposed” in the sense that one
endorses and applies them to oneself” (Buss 199). Notably, the Chinese social credit system
determines the worth of China’s citizens through ratings and uses laws to regulate how a person
should act. Thus, the system inherently hinders a person’s decision to act for one’s own authentic
reasons, meaning the system does not allow its citizens to be autonomous. For example, since
citizens will be punished and publicly shamed for jaywalking, citizens have to act against their
desire and choice to jaywalk in order to avoid repercussions. Subsequently, it is ethically wrong
to undermine a person’s autonomy; therefore, the Chinese social credit system is an ethically
wrong practice.
One way the system undermines a person’s autonomy is that it invades citizens’ privacy. In
addition to the many surveillance cameras with facial recognition, Chinese government agencies
are “collecting enormous amounts of data about e.g. an individual’s finances, social media
activities, credit history, health records, online purchases, tax payments, [and] legal matters”
(Marr). China’s citizens have no say about being observed, as there is no way of avoiding the
government’s data search. When these individuals are constantly being watched, they are more
conscious of what they are doing as well as what they feel like they should be doing. They are
more inclined to act in accordance with what the government deems as trustworthy and good
behaviors; however, those who do not necessarily want to act this way deal with an inner moral
conflict. Knowing they are being tracked at all times, if not by cameras but by fellow citizens,
these individuals submit to the system in order to avoid punishments for low scores “such as
restricted air travel or being denied access to certain schools and universities” (REBC Fall 2019)
but internally do not want to act according to the government’s standards of proper behavior. As
the idea of punishments pressures people to act in accordance to socially acceptable behaviors,
the system’s use of rewards bribes citizens to engage in good behavior which is another way the
system undermines a person’s autonomy. Privileges such as discounts on insurance and access to
prestigious civil service jobs are accessible for those with higher scores (REBC Fall 2019).
Consequently, this creates conflict with one’s intrinsic moral motivation. In order to earn
external incentives and avoid being penalized for low scores, these people must act for the
system rather than for themselves. When one acts under coercion then one does not act
autonomously. Essentially, citizens feel coerced to act a certain way in order to please the
government; therefore, this system coerces citizens to go against their own personal freedom of
moral judgement and beliefs. Hence, the Chinese social credit system undermines a person’s
autonomy through the invasion of privacy as well as through bribery, making the system an
ethically wrong practice.
Defense of Ethical Principle
My ethical principle is P3: Any practice that undermines a person’s autonomy is ethically wrong.
The reason why I think it is ethically wrong to take any action that undermines a person’s
autonomy is blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Connect Ethical Principle to an Ethical System
The general idea of blah blah blah is Kantian, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bl According to Kant, blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah
This connects to the way that my ethical principle blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Consider an Objection
My third premise states that “Any practice that undermines a person’s autonomy is ethically
wrong.” One might, however, object that this is does not hold true universally. In the West the
idea of autonomy is glorified, but this does not apply to the East because of Eastern culture. In
the West, the concept of the individual is valued over society. For instance, there is more of a
focus on the natural rights of people rather than on duties or the concept of achieving social
goals. As mentioned in the article “Morality ‘East’ and ‘West’: Cultural Concerns,” the idea of
being autonomous is of central importance for Westerners based on “the belief that performing
social obligations in spite of individual rights may have the negative effect of restricting one’s
own personal liberties” (Hwang 808). In brief, Western culture stresses freedom of choice and
autonomy, viewing the two as necessities. In contrast, the Eastern conception of morality is more
duty-based. According to the article “Cultural Beliefs and Practices: Conflicts with Western
Concept of Autonomy,” the Stanford School of Medicine states, “Traditional Chinese values put
the family and society over the individual” (Stanford School of Medicine). It is essential for
people to function in collaboration with society, instead of being considered as an individual
agent. Furthermore, the Western concept of autonomy is relatively uncommon in traditional
Eastern culture (Hwang 808). In the East, maintaining social order and working as one entity is
fundamental. Therefore, if the prime focus is on the value of social order, then the Chinese social
credit system appears to be a good way to demonstrate achieving social goals and the duty of
maintaining social order. Thus, despite there being an ethical value in autonomy, in this case, it is
not the most important ethical value. Given the Eastern cultural context, maintaining social order
is the most prevalent aspect and takes precedence over autonomy.
Response to the Objection
Although the Eastern perspective does not necessarily view autonomy as a real concept that does
not mean that the Western perspective is any less valid. It is important to demonstrate
consideration for culture that contrasts with one’s own, but it does mean that one’s own cultural
view is fact. Cultural relativism is the idea that all of our ethical values are really just relative to
our culture and thus there can be no universal ethical principles or truths. Although culture
should be understood, this does not mean that people should just make judgments based on their
own cultural standards. In his article, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism,” James Rachels
explains that, “Cultural Relativism, as it has been called, challenges our ordinary belief in the
objectivity and universality of moral truth” (Rachels 14). Based on the cultural differences
argument, believing the conclusion that there is no real truth to whether practices are morally
correct or not because of cultural differences is not valid, because that concept is a belief and
there could be a possible truth. Beliefs are merely opinions and are truly subjective to each
person. Therefore, we cannot say: since autonomy is glorified in Western culture, the concept of
autonomy is of objective ethical worth. Likewise, even though people of Eastern culture, such as
in China, commend social order and working as one entity, these concepts are of objecting
ethical worth. In essence, it is necessary to have an argument that is separate from the subject
matter that demonstrates to what degree autonomy, maintaining social order, and working as one
institution are or are not of ethical value. Thereafter, we have to apply the resulting ethical
principle to both China and America’s particular cultural contexts in order to determine whether
or not the Chinese social credit system would infringe the ethical principle in each of those
contexts. If we follow the concept of cultural relativism, we are undermining our own moral
conduct. Thus, the conclusion that “the Chinese social credit system is an ethically wrong
practice because it undermines a person’s autonomy” is acceptable.
Conclusion
I believe my response to the objection wins because there is a problem with cultural relativism.
We cannot say that just because of cultural differences, we cannot determine if something is
morally wrong or right. In order to not come off as culturally imperialistic, people should respect
how practices are executed through differing cultures; however, it does not mean we are not
allowed to criticize other societies or have our own moral codes. I can understand why we should
accept the Eastern perspective, considering the Chinese social credit system is in direct relation
with Eastern ideals, but that does not change how I view my ethical principles or make my ideas
of morality incorrect. I respect that Eastern ideology does not necessarily believe in autonomy,
but that does not mean I do not have to believe it too.
Works Cited
Buss, Sarah. “Valuing Autonomy and Respecting Persons: Manipulation, Seduction, and the
Basis of Moral Constraints.” Ethics, vol. 115, no. 2, 2005, pp. 195-235. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/426304. Accessed 16 November 2019.
“Cultural Beliefs and Practices: Conflicts with Western Concept of Autonomy.” Ethnogeriatrics,
Stanford School of Medicine,
geriatrics.stanford.edu/ethnomed/chinese/fund/beliefs/conflicts_west.html. Accessed 16
November 2019.
Hwang, Kwang-Kuo. “Morality ‘East’ and ‘West’: Cultural Concerns.” International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., vol. 15, Elsevier, 2001, pp.
806-810, doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/04621-0. Accessed 16 November 2019.
Marr, Bernard. “Chinese Social Credit Score: Utopian Big Data Bliss Or Black Mirror On
Steroids?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Jan. 2019,
www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2019/01/21/chinese-social-credit-score-utopian-bigdata-bliss-or-black-mirror-on-steroids/#df796448b836. Accessed 16 November 2019.
Rachels, James. “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.” The Elements of Moral Philosophy,
edited by Stuart Rachels, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2012, pp. 12-24. Accessed 16 November
2019.

Calculate your order
Pages (275 words)
Standard price: $0.00
Client Reviews
4.9
Sitejabber
4.6
Trustpilot
4.8
Our Guarantees
100% Confidentiality
Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.
Original Writing
We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.
Timely Delivery
No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.
Money Back
If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00
Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.
Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?