Posted: September 8th, 2016

Ethical Analysis Consequentialism:

Step III. Ethical Analysis Consequentialism: A. If action in Step II is done, who will be harmed? B. If action in Step II is NOT done, who will be harmed? C. Which alternative results in the least harm? D. If action in Step II is done, who will benefit? E. If action in Step II is NOT done, who will benefit? F. Which alternative results in the maximum benefit? Consequentialism Comments (on the choices at C. and F.): Make your comments/assessments regarding your answers to C and F (above) here. It may be that the conclusions arrived at in answering the questions above appear contradictory or may logically follow – either case will require your comments…  where you can “make sense” of it all … Rights and Duties: G. List relevant abridged rights and neglected duties. That is, when considering the stakeholders, who has had their rights “violated or ignored”, and who has neglected their duties with respect to the events as outlined in the given scenario. Rights and Duties Comments: Again make your comments/assessments here – often a duty may appear to contradict a responsibility – this is your opportunity to “make sense of it all”. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: H. If action in Step II is done, who will be treated with disrespect? I. If action in Step II is NOT done, who will be treated with disrespect? J. Which alternative is preferable? K. If action in Step II is done, who will be treated unlike others? L. If action in Step II is NOT done, who will be treated unlike others? M. Which alternative is preferable? N. Are there benefits if everyone did action in Step II? O. Are there benefits if nobody did action in Step II? P. Which alternative is preferable? Step III Discussion. This is where you may summarize your view