DQ1. How would you respond if you were diagnosed with HIV? Address hope and fear in your response. Be sure to refer to the GCU introduction and the textbooks. Cite references from your reading to support your answer.

DQ2. Describe the first time you were present with someone who died. What were you thinking and feeling? If you have not had that experience what do you imagine you would be thinking and feeling?

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH homework handlers TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT

The post How would you respond if you were diagnosed with HIV? appeared first on homework handlers .

Deontology Essay Prompt:
Here are some possible prompts for the next essay (on Kant):
Prompt One:

Explain under what circumstances, according to Kant, there is moral worth in an action (i.e., when does a person get moral credit for acting as she does) and critically evaluate that claim.

Prompt Two:

Explain Kant’s categorical imperative in either the Principle of Universalization or the Principle of Humanity formulation, offer an example of how he would apply it to some particular moral act and evaluate the legitimacy of this as a moral principle (i.e. critique or defend it argumentatively).

Prompt Three:

I figured it might be fun to try and evaluate the same story given in the last prompt on Kantian terms.
Read the following story of a unique moral dilemma [taken from the philosopher Bernard Williams–the essay from which it is taken is also in the book] and then (1) explain, in good detail, what Kant would argue Jim should do, (2) explain why Kant’s theory would demand such a response and (3) argue whether or not that account of the situation makes moral sense of that decision [that is, even if you think that deontology tells us to do the right thing, is it right because of duty and the categorical imperative–or for some other reason?]. In answering the 1 and 2, I expect a reasonably detailed account of the basic moral theory of Kant/Deontology as an answer to the normative question.
The moral dilemma:

“Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are a row of twenty Indians, most terrified, a few defiant, in front of them several armed men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and, after a good deal of questioning of Jim which establishes that he got there by accident while on a botanical expedition, explains that the Indians are a random group of the inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protestors of the advantages of not protesting. However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest’s privilege of killing one of the Indians himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion, the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, then there is no special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all. Jim, with some desperate recollection of schoolboy fiction, wonders whether if he got hold of a gun, he could hold the captain, Pedro and the rest of the soldiers to threat, but it is quite clear from the set-up that nothing of that kind is going to work: any attempt at that sort of thing will mean that all the Indians will be killed, and himself. The men against the wall, and the other villagers, understand the situation, and are obviously begging him to accept. What should he do?”