Communication And Critical Thinking About Morality

I upload 3 a file use it. follow the sample essay not exact but same. use the 2 file for sources.
Purpose: The purpose of this essay is to produce your own thought experiment and to test different normative ethical frameworks in order to highlight competing for moral intuitions and say which you find more compelling and why. .This process lies at the heart of what moral philosophy does.The essay is an assignment connected to the learning outcomes of written communication and critical thinking. use simple English.
Format: Typed, double-spaced, 12 point Times New Roman font (or some font similar), 1-inch margins all around. Put page numbers at the bottom and label the sections in the paper. Do not put your name on the assignment *See sample essay*
NOTE on Plagiarism: I will be using plagiarism detection software for this assignment. It should be clear without an explicit statement that plagiarism of any form is unacceptable.
Topic: Use a single example to compare two of the ethical frameworks we have considered utilitarianism (act or rule), and virtue ethics, and discuss their respective strengths and weaknesses.
In your essay, do the following, in this order:
(Section 1 Introduction) In the introductory paragraph, using the first person, clearly lay out what your essay is about and what you plan to do in the rest of the essay. Use sentences like: "In this essay I will lay out argument x. Then, I will present an objection to x. I will then respond to that objection...etc." Only one short paragraph for this section.
(Section 2 Present and Carefully Describe Two Ethical Frameworks) Briefly describe the two ethical frameworks you will consider, characterizing each in terms of core concepts and how these concepts are related to one another. (For example, if you discuss Kant's deontology, you need to describe what a will, intentions, and the categorical imperative are, and how on this account these concepts are linked together.) This is a short summary, not an extended characterization. Short quotations, and references to the relevant texts, can be useful here. Should be at least two full paragraphs for this section.
(Section 3 Thought Experiment) Introduce an example of either a hypothetical or real scenario involving a moral choice about what someone should do. (It can concern whether a given action is morally permissible, morally required, morally prohibited, or morally preferable among a set of alternatives.) The example cannot be identical to an example provided by one of the authors we have read, but it can be modeled after, or an altered form of, one of these examples or you can use something from TV shows, should be easy to understand and which should do with moral ethics. Every student must have their own example. Should be at least one full paragraph for this section. Don't use the example of trolley problems and the doctor kill one to save 5 experiments.
(Section 4 Test the Thought Experiment) Apply each ethical framework to your example. Describe what you believe each framework would suggest and the reasoning that leads to these conclusions. (References to the text or short quotations may be helpful here.) Compare the responses provided by the two frameworks, highlighting whatever similarities or differences you take to be important or noteworthy. Should be two paragraphs for this section.
(Section 5 Analysis) Does this example reveal that one of the frameworks does a much better job of capturing our intuitive sense of what is the right thing to do in this case? Perhaps you might claim that the example reveals a serious weakness in one or both of the frameworks. You might conclude that the example reveals an unexpected similarity in the two frameworks, etc. In other words, what do we learn from the comparison? What does the example reveal? Make your reasoning explicit (in other words, get it on the page). Should be two paragraphs for this section.
(Section 6 Conclusion) Conclude with a brief summary of what you have done and an explicit assessment of what you consider the take-away message to be. (rough template: “In this essay I have used the example of ______ to consider ___________. What we have learned is ____________.”) Should be one short paragraph for this section.
Advice:
1. You want to choose your example with care. Ideally, the example should serve to reveal and highlight some aspect of these philosophical frameworks that you believe is important and/or interesting. (Note: Our readings and discussion provide lots of examples of using such scenarios.)
2. Describe your example scenario with the right level of detail to ground your comparison. If the example is underspecified, it's unlikely to reveal much and will just be dull. But if you weigh the example down with unnecessary detail, you can obscure the aspects of the example relevant to the point you want to make, and it will soak up words you could use more effectively elsewhere.
3. Section 4 should function to demonstrate that you understand how to apply these frameworks to particular cases. You do this in part by showing that you know the basic concepts of each account and what they mean. Thus, you should be making reference to the concepts you introduced earlier in (2).
4. Your analysis occurs in section (5). Make your reasoning as clear as possible. Focus on one, or perhaps two, points that you what to make. Don't produce a laundry list of similarities and differences. The aim of your example is to help you reveal something you take to be significant. Part of the analysis is your assessment of what point or issue is most important for your reader to consider. Smaller or less significant points of comparison you should leave aside.
Referring to the work of others:
Whenever you make reference to an existing work, whether it is something we have read in class or something you find on your own, you must cite it but you do not need a bibliography.
Internal citations, If and when you quote from one of our readings, I'll know the source so long as you provide the following information. The format here should be: (Author, page number).
Sample Citation: Searle argues that "Strong AI is unusual among theories of the mind in at least two respects: it can be stated clearly, and it admits of a simple and decisive refutation" (Searle, p. 182).