Read ch. 5 on Kant and watch Sandels Episode 6 (both halves), on Kants Groundwork. (Optional: watch Sandels Episode 7, Part One (first half of episode 7); it’s on lying, but we can skip this part of Kant). In your short essay, answer the following. Also, respond to a peer post.

Explain how Kants moral law is like, and unlike,  the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”) How is it similar and how is it different? What does it mean? What does it imply or entail? What conclusions can you draw from this? Feel free to use examples from real life or imagined ones.

Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:

Textbook: Chapter 13
Lesson
Introduction
In this session, you have been considering moral-ethical dilemmas you yourself faced or that you know of that you either resolved or failed to resolve, but hopefully learned from. You may never have given much thought to ethical theory nor what ethical premises/paradigms you have unconsciously held.

You will be focusing on this case for this assignment:

Jane Doe is a nursing student at University X. Jane is in week eight of a course entitled: “Introduction to Ethics”.

For the week one discussion, Jane copied work done by her friend John Doe in the same class two months ago (with a different professor). John told Jane it was okay to use his work as John’s professor never checked any work in the class using Turnitin.com. John claimed to have earned an A on the work also.

In week two, Jane went to StudentPapering.com and paid ten dollars for a week two essay done by a student (not John Doe) who took the same course four months ago. StudentPapering promises that all its archived work is of excellent quality and cannot be detected as copied. Jane then uploaded an exact copy of the work for the week two assignment.

In week three, Jane paid a worker at PaperingStudent.com ten dollars to write for Jane a brand new essay after Jane shared with the worker the essay assignment instructions.

In week four, Jane relied on her knowledge of Esperanto. She felt pressed for time and found an article by a professor from Esperanto on the week four topic. She translated Esperanto into English using Moogle Translate, and the translated text served as her week four paper.

In week five, Jane was running late again. Jane purposely uploaded a blank paper hoping that she would later claim it was an innocent mistake and not be assessed a late penalty. In a previous course on History, she had done the same (with an earlier paper from the History class rather than simply a blank) and had not seen any late penalty assessed.

In week six, Jane took work she did in a nursing course from a year ago and submitted that for her discussion posting in her current class. She simply copied and pasted the work she had labored intensively on a year ago (even though University X forbids this practice as ‘self-plagiarism’). Jane was confident her Nursing instructor never checked that work using Turnitin.com or another method.

In week seven, Jane copied and pasted work found on website.com for the paper. Jane did not use any quotation marks or other documentation to show the text was not by Jane.

Since Jane’s Ethics professor did not check papers and posting for any issues by using Turnitin.com or another method, the professor graded all of Jane’s work unaware of Jane’s actions throughout the weeks of the class. Jane feels her actions are morally justified both because her economic situation requires her to work too much to devote time to school (although other students are well-off enough to have such time) and her religion forbids cheating, but Jane ignores her religion’s teachings.

Instructions
Now that you have had an opportunity to explore ethics formally, create a reflective assessment of your learning experience and the collaborations you engaged in throughout this session. You will submit both of the following:

A written reflection

For the written reflection, address Jane Doe’s and respond to the following:

Articulate again your moral theory from week eight discussion (You can revise it if you wish). What two ethical theories best apply to it? Why those two?
Apply to Jane Doe’s case your personal moral philosophy as developed in week eight discussion and now. Use it to determine if what Jane Doe did was ethical or unethical per your own moral philosophy.
Consider if some of these examples are more grave instances of ethical transgressions than others. Explain.
Propose a course of social action and a solution by using the ethics of egoism, utilitarianism, the “veil of ignorance” method, deontological principles, and/or a theory of justice to deal with students like  Jane. Consider social values such as those concerning ways of life while appraising the interests of diverse populations (for instance, those of differing religions and economic status).
For the oral presentation, briefly summarize your feelings about taking a course in Ethics and explore your process of transformation in this course.

Discuss your experiences of the course, your beginnings, and where you are now. Consider your interaction in discussions.
Should health care workers be required to take a course in Ethics? Why or why not
Writing Requirements (APA format)

Length: 3-4 pages (not including title page or references page)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (minimum of 2 scholarly sources)

Read Chapters 3 and 4 of the Steneck text. Prepare 2-3 paragraphs total that answer the following questions:

1. What was the most interesting thing you learned from the reading assignment?

2. Answer the questions that accompany the short case studies linked to the introduction pages of each chapter.

Answer the questions bellow. Answer each question separately.

1)Institutes of Oratory Book 1: Chapter 1

What is important in education? (What are some important points in educating the orator ?)

2) Guide for the Perplexed

What are 5 reasons one cannot begin learning with metaphysical topics? How can you translate that to the classroom?

a six-part exercise comprised of the following sections:
1.    Ethical Question
2.    Introduction
3.    Position Statement
4.    Reasons in Support of Your Position
5.    Opposing Position Statement
6.    Reasons in Support of the Opposing Position

500 words, written in essay form, with six clearly labeled sections as indicated below, and include a title page and reference page.

Part 1: Ethical Question
    Is it moral to use animals in medical experiments designed to treat or cure diseases that are devastating to humans?

Part 2: Introduction
In this section, introduce the topic and question at issue by doing the following (not necessarily in this exact order):
    Explain its relevance and importance.
    Define any key terms and concepts.
    Provide any relevant context and background information.
    Briefly reference an idea, quote, or analysis of the issue that you have found in one of the required resources on the topic. 
   
The introduction will be the longest section of this assignment and should be at least 300 words in one or two paragraphs. Place the introduction material under the Part 2: Introduction.

Part 3: Position Statement
Your work on the introduction section has likely unearthed various positions one might take on the ethical question you have chosen. In this section, you will formulate a position statement.
    A position statement is a one sentence statement that articulates your position on the issue and directly answers the question you have raised. For example, if the question was, What is a physicians obligation with respect to telling the truth to his or her patients? a position statement might be A physician may never directly lie to a patient, but it may be moral for a physician to withhold information if the physician reasonably believes doing so directly benefits the patient. A different position statement might be: A physician may use any means necessary, including lying to a patient, if the physician believes that will produce the best overall results. However, the following statement would not be a sufficient position statement: A physician must always respect the rights of his or her patients. The reason this is not a sufficient position statement is that it does not directly answer the question concerning truth telling.
    Think of the position statement as the strongest claim you would make if you were a prosecuting attorney making your opening statement to a jury, where you want to state precisely and directly the position you want them to believe.
Place the position statement under the Part 3: Position Statement heading.

Part 4: Reasons in Support of Your Position
Now that you have articulated a position on the issue, write a short paragraphjust a few sentencesthat presents and explains one or two of the strongest reasons in support of your position statement.
    You want your supporting reason to explain why someone should support the position you are taking on the ethical question. A supporting reason is a consideration that helps to show why your position is stronger than another position.
    One way to approach this is to imagine yourself in friendly conversation with someone who does not necessarily agree with your position (perhaps they disagree, or perhaps they are undecided). When you state your position, they might ask why you think that; the kind of response you would give is a supporting reason.
    Supporting reasons can include many things including, but not limited to: an appeal to moral principles such as duty, justice, fairness and equality; the positive or negative effects of certain actions on policies; or a summary of facts, statistics or evidence and an explanation of how they support your view.
Place the supporting reason(s) under the Part 4: Reasons in Support of Your Position heading.

Part 5: Opposing Position Statement
Now that you have provided reasons to support your position statement, in this section you will take a step back from all of that and articulate a statement that expresses an opposing or contrary statement.
    Think of the opposing position statement as the strongest claim you would make if you were the defense attorney making your opening statement to the jury immediately after they have heard the prosecutors statement.
Place the opposing position statement under the Part 5: Opposing Position Statement heading.

Part 6: Reasons in Support of the Opposing Position
In this section, write a short paragraphjust a few sentencesthat presents and explains one or two of the strongest reasons in support of the opposing position statement.
    A strong opposing reason is a reason anyone would need to consider, even if they do not agree with the opposing position.
    In other words, do not simply contradict claims that you make in Part 4, especially factual claims! You should strive to identify and articulate considerations in support of the opposing position that you think are accurate and true, or at least plausible, even if you still believe your own position has the most support overall.
    If the reason(s) in support of the opposing position are ones you consider obviously false or indefensible, you should look for better reasons.
    Put yourself in the position of a defense attorney who has to make the best possible case to the jury in defense of his or her client.
Place the opposing reasons under the Part 6: Reasons in Support of the Opposing Position heading.

Two extra APA sources.

Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). Bridgepoint Education.

Explain and evaluate The Naturalistic View. In the process, consider discussing Feldmans distinction between a priori knowledge, armchair knowledge, and scientific knowledge. At the end of the day, what do you think about The Naturalistic View. Is it true? And if not true, does it contain a kernel of truth? no sources are needed