Your Instructor will assign you to a group of three or four students during week 2 of the course. The groups will organize themselves and work together to identify the relevant agencies (at least two or three) that will impact meaningful use of electronic records and quality in hospitals. The group will research and list the key regulations concerned with meaningful use compliance and reimbursement. One power point presentation will be submitted by each group. Please select one group member to submit the assignment on behalf of the team. It is expected that this assignment can be completed in 57 slides (this includes the cover slide and reference slide). The Power Point will account for 17.0% of the each students final grade. A peer assessment will also be required and will be submitted by each member of the group at the same time that the presentation is due. The peer assessment will account for 3% of the students final grade or 15% of the grade for the project.
1. (1 pt.) What is your experience with coercive power– either as someone exerting this power or receiving this power? I’m particularly interested in hearing about what our author calls “implicit ad baculums” that can occur through subtle non-verbal cues (p.143). Why are these detrimental to critical thinking? What are ways in which you can attend to and counteract these types of coercive power — again, either as someone exerting this power or receiving this power?
2. (1 pt.) Describe how “Gretchen Brandt” behaved as a subject in the Milgram Experiment (pp. 144-5). What lessons can we learn about how to react to unreasonable commands from ‘legitimate authorities’?
3. (1 pt.) Describe someone who you think has some degree of ethotic power over you. Use the critical questions on p. 149 to decide whether or not you should use ethotic arguments with this person.
4. (1 pt.) Ask a question about A) the reading itself or B) how to apply the ideas from the reading to everyday life.
5. (2 pts.)Discuss how social media exercises referent power over you. If you don’t use social media, talk about how referent power is exercised over social media in general. Choose ONE particular discussion in Section 5.5 to inform your discussion and elaborate on it using your experience/observations (the influence of ad populum arguments, the effect on your engagement with democracy, the influence of social proof, the positive or negative effects on constructive dialogues, etc). What are things we can do to counteract the negative effects of referent power while using social media?
1. (1 pt.) Explain in your own words why we need to refer to authorities to provide justifications for our beliefs. What are two problems that we may encounter when trying to justify our beliefs by referring to others.
2. (2 pts.) The following argument, drawn from our textbook, is a type of ad hominem argument. Put it in a standard ad hominem argument form as illustrated on p. 132 (what’s the conclusion? What are the premises?). After you do this, use the critical questions listed at the top of p. 133 to analyze its quality. Is it poor or good?
[NOTE: as you probably noticed, our textbook is written by a Brit. Fox hunting was restricted in 2005. The House of Commons is similar to the U.S. House of Representatives.]
“It puzzles me that [those who oppose fox-hunting] should have singled out an activity in which animals and humans, working in happy companionship, are fully and magnificently alive, and in which no suffering occurs that is not part of natures due. Do the protesters trouble themselves, I wonder, over the factory farms, where pigs and chickens are grown like vegetables for the sake of their meat? One glance into these fermenting seas of misery would cure people of the illusion that they live on morally respectable terms with the rest of nature. … Many who shout and scream at the hunt happily eat the tortured limbs of battery chickens. … [Factory farmed pigs] are served in the House of Commons. And not one of those members who parade their tender conscience over fox-hunting has protested over the crime.”
3. (1 pt.) Ask a question to your classmates about either A) the reading itself or B) how to apply the ideas from the reading to everyday life.
4. (2 pts.) Give an example from your personal experience (maybe from your friends/family or from a news article you heard/read) of either A) an argument from expert authority OR B) an argument from a position to know. Put it in standard form (using one of the argument forms presented in Sections 5.1 or 5.2) and evaluate it using the corresponding critical questions.
On page 6-9, about two different cases in which the bakers (Jack Philips of Masterpiece Bakery and Marjorie Silva of Azucar Bakery), Corvino argues that one made use-based refusal while the other made design-based refusal. With your own words, explain the differences Corvino makes between two cases; then briefly explain whether you agree with him that there is such a difference between these cases.]
In the Ancient Greek world (the world of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, often regarded as the birthplace of philosophy) a symposium was a banquet held after a meal, an after party of sorts that usually included drinking, dancing, recitals, and engaging conversations on the topics of the day.
For our purposes in this course, the Symposium discussions will not involve dancing, recitals, or a banquet, but they will provide food for thought on current ethical issues and direct application of the ethical theory discussed in each of these weeks.
It is almost impossible these days to turn on the news or log onto social media without encountering a controversy that cries out for ethical discussion. For these Symposium discussions, your instructor will choose a topic of current ethical interest and a resource associated with it for you to read or watch. Your task is to consider how the ethical theory of the week might be used to examine, understand, or evaluate the issue.
This week, you will consider how utilitarianism applies to a controversy, dilemma, event, or scenario selected by your instructor. It is a chance for you to discuss together the ethical issues and questions that it raises, your own response to those, and whether that aligns with or does not align with a utilitarian approach. The aim is not to simply assert your own view or to denigrate other views, but to identify, evaluate, and discuss the moral reasoning involved in addressing the chosen issue.
Your posts should remain focused on the ethical considerations, and at some point in your contribution you must specifically address the way a utilitarian would approach this issue by explaining and evaluating that approach.
If you have a position, you should strive to provide reasons in defense of that position.
Choose one of these objections and briefly explain the core idea in your own words.
Reflect on the theory:
Present a scenario (real or imagined) in which a committed utilitarian would probably make one choice, but someone who finds this objection compelling would probably make a different choice. (In other words, put yourself in the mind of someone making that objection, and youre imagining a scenario in which that person would likely make a certain ethical judgment but a utilitarian would make a different ethical judgment.)
Reflect on yourself:
In your view, does considering this situation strengthen and support the objection (thus showing a weakness to utilitarianism), or does it help strengthen utilitarianism by showing how a utilitarian could respond to that objection?