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).
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 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
regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pieces of data that can be put away in prompt (present moment) memory, how much data inside every one of those lumps can be very high, without unfavorably influencing the review of similar number