Ethics paper…..
One word of advice: Do not use citation engines off the internet to make a Works Cited page. They are almost always wrong. Just because they are on the internet, this does not make them correct or reliable. Therefore, make sure to cite according to chapter 26 in your Simon and Schuster handbook. Sorry, gang, but there is no easy way to do citations. The safest way is to type them up yourself by using your Handbook for Writers or by using an MLA Guidebook. I only provide this warning because I have seen that, many times, students have an issue when they have a good paper and poor citation. I cannot pass an improperly cited paper, no matter how well written it is; it is still considered plagiarism. Plagiarism does not simply mean cheating or lack of citation, but it also means improper citation. Online citation engines are, quite simply, mostly garbage. Stay away from them…do not use them. Check, re-check, and then again re-check your quotation in the paper, the format of your Works Cited page, and make sure you do not paraphrase in your paper. I want to make sure everyone knows how to quote directly, so, again, I am reminding everyone that there is no paraphrasing in this course and that MLA citation must be perfect. If you would like, before the paper is due, send me a paragraph with a quote in it so that I can check it. You may also send me your Works Cited page for a quick check.
Ethics paper instructions:
This is just to get you started on thinking about or starting the ethics paper. Concentrate on the definition paper, especially on the citations. Make sure they are correct and make sure that all of the quotes are definitions. Also, since all of our papers are argumentative papers, make sure that you are arguing for a definition of a word and make sure that you are refuting different/opposing definitions of the word. Remember, you are not just describing the word and or listing where the word is used. You have to argue for what the word means. You have to argue for a specific narrowed definition of it, meaning that your definition should not be so broad that it, essentially, has no meaning. For example, if your definition of art means that everything is art, then the word \’art\’ has no meaning. We want a definition that can be used to say this is art and this is not art. Lastly, make sure to quote and refute different and/or opposing definitions of your word.
Our next paper will be an ethics paper, and all the same rules apply: 4 full pages, 4 sources (2 for your side and 2 against), with no paraphrasing or summary, proper MLA citation, proper MLA format, no 1st or 2nd person, and correct spelling and grammar. I want you to argue for a way that something is good or bad. For instance, is it moral to have a death penalty or is a death penalty immoral? Should a doctor or priest ever break confidentiality? Is homosexuality good or bad, right or wrong? Should a teacher be allowed to date a student or former student, or should a teacher be allowed to date a student who is not taking their class? Should sex offenders have to register themselves as sex offenders in the community where they live if murderers do not have to do the same? Is voluntary euthanasia right or wrong? In other words, do people have the right to die if they are suffering in extreme pain, with no possible treatment, and if they only have a limited amount of time to live? On what moral or ethical grounds should female circumcision, commonly called female genital mutilation in the U.S., be stopped, especially when male circumcision is allowed in the United States? Is FGM okay? Is scarification of children right or wrong? Do we have the moral or ethical grounds, or a duty or obligation, to stop this practice in other cultures? These are just a few topics.
When writing your paper, keep in mind that moral and ethical laws and rules should have to apply to all people, in all situations, in all places, at all times. We cannot just turn on our ethics and morals whenever the situation changes. In fact, we need moral and ethical laws and rules for human society to function and exist. However, there are many contradictions. For example, if not killing people is morally/ethically good, then is killing in wartime acceptable, is killing in self-defense acceptable, is the death penalty acceptable? On what moral/ethical grounds or basis can we justify the acceptance of killing another human being? A Utilitarian might say that it is acceptable to kill 100 people if one will save the lives of 10000 people. A Deontologist might say that it is unacceptable to kill 100 even if it saves the lives of 10000 people because one is personally responsible. A Hedonist might say that it is okay to kill any amount of people if it gives one pleasure. A Consequentialist might say that it would be okay to kill depending on the consequences; good consequences mean kill and bad consequences mean do not kill. Look up hedonism, consequentialism, utilitarianism, or deontology if you do not know what they are in more detail.
Also, be careful of moral relativism, the belief that everyone should have their own subjective personal views of what is moral or immoral or ethical and unethical. Moral relativism basically means that anything goes. This leads to problems because we cannot have laws or rules in civilization or society because everyone is making up their own moral system. This means that moral or ethical systems can be turned on, turned off, or ignored, all depending on the time, place, person, or situation. In other words, Ted Bundy, the infamous serial killer, could not have been arrested because he personally believed, from his own moral/ethical viewpoint, that killing others was acceptable. Basically, how do we make moral/ethical rules for everyone to follow, and if we do, which ones are the rights ones, which are the wrong ones, and what is the basis for those rules? What makes something good, and what is the basis for the goodness of the something? What makes something bad, and what is the basis for its badness? In other words, why is something good? Why is something else bad? Who gets to decide what is right or wrong and how do they decide what is right or wrong, ethical or unethical, or moral or immoral? I know it sounds confusing, but keep reading.
Ethics is a difficult subject, which is why I will advise you to start early on this paper. I do not want a paper that lists what is right/wrong or good/bad. For example, cookies are good, love is good, happiness is good, or the beach is good. The question I want argued is: why is something good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral, or ethical or unethical? In other words, do not simply argue that homosexual marriage is wrong, but tell me what is wrong, bad, immoral, or unethical about being homosexual or homosexual marriage. Do not state that homosexuality or homosexual marriage is bad just because it is or that it is wrong just because it is. “Just because it is,†“because that is the way I feel,†or “it just is†are not logical or rational reasons for saying something is good or bad. You have to explain why or how something is good or bad. You cannot simply state that something is good or bad and expect your audience to accept your view or believe you. Basically, is good good? Is bad bad? Is goodness bad? Is badness good? What makes the good good? What makes the bad bad? These would be claims of value. These would fall under the category of ethos?
Religious Text
One note with morality and ethics: be careful when using religious texts for support. Remember, not everyone is of the same religion or even has a religion. If you are going to source religious texts, quote from a variety of them. Do not use just the Bible. Do not use just the Torah. Do not use just the Quran. Where did these religions and texts get their morals and ethics from? Your audience may think that you have a hidden agenda of conversion if you only use one of these; they may think that you are trying to force your own personal religious beliefs on them. Also, in argument, religious texts can be viewed as arbitrary and dubious sources, being credible for some and not credible for others. The logical issue that arises when using religious texts is that one cannot prove the existence of a god; therefore, they may just be books. Yes, they might be good books with great information about how to live, and many people may read them, but they might simply be good reading and not divine law. To some, quoting morality from them might be the same as quoting morality from Shakespearian plays or Steven King novels.
However, since many religious texts have been around for thousands of years, since they are historical records of moral/ethical history in many ways, and since billions of people rely on them for moral/ethical guidance, they do have credibility in many moral/ethical concerns. For example, the Quran, Bible, and Torah have all been around for hundreds of years or longer, billions of people rely on them for moral/ethical support and guidance, and they all basically have the same moral/ethical guidelines (ex: not to kill, stealing is wrong, adultery is a sin); therefore, collectively, they are good sources for moral and ethical conduct. Collectively, they are a good history of what people throughout time, place, and culture have deemed good and bad. However, they usually do not critically explain or argue about why they came to their moral and ethical conclusions. In other words, in many instances, they state a moral or ethical principle, but they do not explain why that moral or ethic is the correct moral or ethic to practice or what logic or rationality was used to create the principle.
These two paragraphs may be insulting to some of you, but I have to explain how religious texts should be used in this type of paper because many of you may choose to cite from them. Personal faith should be left out of argumentative writing, not because it is good or bad, but because an argument can fall to pieces if the context of religion is used in an improper way. Here is a specific example: I had a student who wrote an argumentative paper on teacher led prayer in public schools. Her claim was that since prayer was taken out of schools, children were not learning morality. She gave many reasons for teacher led prayer and supported the paper well. However, she made an illogical assumption about the type of prayer. She was a Baptist, and she assumed that it would be a Baptist type prayer; basically, like many people, she assumed that her religious views were the morally correct views and that other religious views were flawed. In other words, she wrote the paper using her own personal religion as the basis for her views on why teacher led prayer should be brought back to schools. This is normal, and expected in many ways, because we believe in the religion we believe in because we believe that that religion is the most correct one. I agreed with her logic and support and was willing to concede that teacher led prayer be brought back into schools, but on one condition; actually, it was a question. Would she allow her children to attend a school that said a satanic teacher led prayer at school? Satanism is, technically, a religion. In other words, the logical problem that arose was that there are many, many religions, and who is to say which one is correct? Which teacher led prayer from which religion should be recited? Her argument faltered because she assumed that her personal faith would be the one advocated by the teacher. No, I am not advocating Satanism. I am just trying to express that one has to be careful when using religion in argumentative papers, especially when they are based in morality and ethics, because, since religious views and morality/ethics are so closely intertwined for many people, logical problems can occur, which causes many moral/ethical arguments to falter. Again, these three paragraphs are in no way, shape, or form trying to down religion or religious views, but I do want to make sure that you use religion and citation from religious texts appropriately and in the correct contexts in your papers.
————————————————————————-
Setting up a Works Cited page:
Open a blank Microsoft Word document.
Do not type anything.
Change the Font style to Times New Roman.
Change the font size to 12.
Where you see paragraph in the center of the MS Word document tools, slightly move to the right and click on the little arrow.
A line spacing box will open.
Where it says Special, change it from none to hanging by clicking on the arrow in the box.
Change line spacing to double.
Place a check in the box that says “Don’t add space between paragraphs of the same style.â€
Click okay.
There should be no need to create a page number if you have already set the page numbers up in the paper.
The page is now properly formatted.
Center your cursor on the page and type: Works Cited
Press Enter.
Align the cursor to the left and begin creating citations.
Finding academic sources:
To find articles in a scholarly journal with a print version: database (citation number 2), open the TCC web page, hover over Service and Support, click on Libraries, scroll down to Visit The Library Website, click on Articles, click on All Databases…now you are in TCC’s collection of databases. Use the database called Academic Search Complete; it is an easy to use database. Click on it. If you are on your own computer, you will have to log into TCC. If you are at TCC, you do not have to log into the system. Now you are in the Academic Search Complete database. Scroll down slightly. Place a check in the box that says Full Text and check the box that says Scholarly (Peer Reviewed) Journals. Scroll back up. Type any subject into the search box using key words…omit small connector words. Press Enter. Now you will see a list of article titles. Pick any article title and click on it. Note: If you do not see pdf files in the article, you did not put a check in the box that said Full Text, so you will not be sourcing a print article. A print article means that the article is actually on physical paper, not just digital. After clicking on the article title, a page will open up with everything you will need to create a citation. All of the citation information needed is on this page.
College level courses and instructors will require you to use academic databases whenever you write papers, do projects, and, basically, for all work that requires research. Surfing Google, Bing, Youtube, Yahoo, Google Scholar, or using any other non-academic source will not be allowed when doing work in most, if not all, college level courses. In short, citation number 2 and college databases are going to become your best friends throughout your college career. When instructors require academic sources, they are requiring you to use college level databases. College databases should be the first places to go when doing college level work. You are expected to use them as a college student.
When you have found an article in an academic database, you can print it, save it, email it, or open the pdf and read it. Non-academic sources, even if sourced properly, will not be given credit as sources and will not be counted as sources. Basically, if a paper requires four sources and you only have three academic sources and a random source that is not academic, you should be prepared for a very low grade and/or possibly having the paper not accepted at all. The assignment called for four sources, the instructor expects you to know that sources should all be academic sources because you are a college level student, especially if you have already passed the first college composition class, and having a minimum amount of sources means having academic sources, so if a paper does not have all academic sources for the required amount of sources, then the paper or project did not meet minimum requirements to be graded or accepted. In simple terms, use academic databases to find articles for research. On the Works Cited page, list the sources alphabetically. Do not use numbers or bullets.
Citing in the body of a paper
In the body of the paper, critically introduce a quote, put quotation marks around a quote, and use an in-text citation, which is placed at the end of the sentence and looks like this (Smith 42) or (American Cancer 42). Smith would be the author\’s last name and 42 would be the page number. American Cancer, being The American Cancer Society, would be the online source\’s name and, again, 42 would be the page number the quote or information was taken from. If I see (Smith 42) in the body of the paper, then that will refer me to the Works Cited page, at the end of the paper, where the full citation is written out. Here is an example of a quote and an in-text citation: According to Douglass Adams, author of The Hitchhiker\’s Guide to the Galaxy, “the answer to the ultimate question is 42†(166). You could also write: “The answer to the ultimate question is 42,†according to Douglass Adams, author of The Hitchhiker\’s Guide to the Galaxy (166). Both are acceptable and correct. However, if you do not introduce your source, you must place the author’s last name and the page number or paragraph number in the in-text citation. For instance: According to the author of The Hitchhiker\’s Guide to the Galaxy, “The answer to the ultimate question is 42†(Adams 166). I would prefer the former to the latter. One must always preface a quote or tell where it came from, put quotation marks around what is quoted, and then place the author\’s last name and page number in brackets with a period at the end. The only difference when paraphrasing is that you do not use the quotation marks, but you must still introduce the quote and use an in-text citation. Do not do this (Smith, 42). Do not place a comma in the in-text citation.
-The format for a quote should be: Critical introduction, “the quote†(in-text citation). All quotes in the body of a paper must follow this format.
-Proper format
According to Douglass Adams, author of The Hitchhiker\’s Guide to the Galaxy, “the answer to the ultimate question is 42†(166).
-If a source does not use page numbers or have pagination, use a paragraph number. Count down the number of paragraphs to find the paragraph number. A normal in-text citation from a source with page numbers would look like: (Smith 33), (33), or (American Cancer 33). An in-text citation from a source without page numbers, using only a paragraph number, would look like (Smith p.4), (p.4), or (American Cancer p.4). p. means paragraph, not page. Again, p. means paragraph, not page. Only use p. for paragraphs. Do no use p. for pages. For pages, just use the number.
-If a source does not have a specific author, for example, American Cancer Society, then use the first word or two of the beginning of a citation on your Works Cited page for the in-text citation. In this case, the in-text citation should be (American) or (American Cancer). Depending on the type of source, you would have to place the page or paragraph number in the in-text citation. For a source with pages, (American 33) or (American Cancer 33). For a source with paragraphs and no pagination, (American p.5) or (American Cancer p.5). Remember, p. means paragraph, not page.
-To find out what word should be used in an in-text citation, look down the left side of your Works Cited page. Look at the beginning of the citation. There will usually be an author’s last name, so the in-text citation would contain that last name. Example: (Smith 33). The audience can then see an introduction, quote, and an in-text citation in your paper, look down the left side of your Works Cited page, see the beginning of a citation, and know exactly which source you are quoting from. If there is no author, follow the same rule. Look down the left side of the Works Cited page and use the first word or two of the citation in your in-text citation. Example: (American Cancer 33). The audience of your paper can quickly look at your Works Cited page, scan down the citations on it, see the citation that begins with American Cancer, and find which source the quote corresponds to on the Works Cited page. Do not create an in-text citation from information in the body of a source on the Works Cited page.
-If you introduce the author, just place a page or paragraph number in the in-text citation.
-Place in-text citations at the end of a sentence, not at the end of the quote
-Begin and end paragraphs with your words since it is your paper. Do not begin or end paragraphs with quotation or sentences that contain quotation.
-Whenever you quote someone, always try to say something in your own words about the quote. You should always try to interpret, explain, add to, subtract from, agree with, disagree with, point out faulty logic, or show the reasoning behind a quote. Try not to link too many quotes together. Use quotation for support, but do not let it write or dominate parts of your paper. Always place a comment after a quote…do not just go right into another quote. Writing a paper is not running or linking quotes together. 75% of a paper must be in your own words.
-Always say something critical about a quotation before moving on to a different topic, subject, or other quote. Always make critical comment on a quote. Never leave a quotation hanging. Never expect the quote to speak for itself.
-When quoting, always introduce a quote, use quotation marks around the quoted words, and place an in-text citation at the end of the sentence This must be done in order to protect yourself from accidental plagiarism due to improper citation
-When paraphrasing, which is not allowed in this course, always introduce the paraphrase and place an in-text citation at the end of it. Basically, the only difference between quotation and paraphrasing is the use of quotation marks. Everything else stays the same. It is especially important to introduce a paraphrase in order to let the audience know where it begins; otherwise, they will become confused about which are your words and which are paraphrased words from a source. Therefore, always clearly introduce paraphrases. Paraphrasing should not be done unless you are quoting from a chart or graph, unless you can write something better than the original author, or, sometimes, to capture the idea of an author by summarizing. Paraphrasing is a more advanced form of citation, so it should be used sparingly. Lastly, one cannot manipulate an author’s ideas in a paraphrase. Even though you are changing the words, the main idea of the paraphrase should not be changed. EX: According to Dr. John Smith, author of Duck Lovers, “Ducks love swimming in water†(42). This would be a direct quote. However, you might paraphrase it: According to Dr. John Smith, author of Duck Lovers, Ducks like paddling in water (42). See? Two words were changed, but the idea remains the same. This would be a proper paraphrase. However, you cannot say: According to Dr. John Smith, author of Duck Lovers, Ducks love swimming in water, which makes them easy to shoot (42). Paraphrasing does not allow you to change the ideas of an author.
-Do not quote small, insignificant passages like. Ex: According to Dr. John Smith, author of Duck Lovers, “pets are great†(42). This quote is not critical. Also, it could be applied to any pet in any context. Quote full length sentences and ideas.
-Never use a web address as an in-text citation
-Missing in-text citations count as plagiarism
-MLA citations should not be used in an introduction and conclusion. One should save most of the juicy details for the body of the essay. Do not quote or place research in introductions or conclusions. First and last lines of a paragraph should not be quotes. Place quotes in the body of a paper and in the bodies of paragraphs.
-There is no need to use quotation marks around a quote that has been indented. The indention shows that it is quoted. Quotes of more than four lines are indented. Also, the period jumps to the right of the in-text citation and the quotation marks disappear. Long quotes are used in longer papers. However, since our papers are short papers, I only want one or two quoted sentences per paragraph.
-Use your quotations to support your ideas, not to write the paper for you. For example, begin and end paragraphs with your own words, only use a quoted sentence or two in the middle of a paragraph, and then say something in your own words about your quotation. You can agree with, disagree with, add to, subtract from, or interpret the quotation. You do not want a series of linked quotes that write the paper for you. In other words, do not simply write the first and last sentences of a paragraph in your words and have the rest of the body sentences being quotation. Seventy five percent of a paper should be written in your words. Remember, it is your paper, so it should mostly be written in your own words.
-Say something critical in your own words about your quotation. You can agree with, disagree with, add to, subtract from, or interpret the quotation. Do not simply move on or into another quote. Do not just say a quote is right or wrong. In critical detail, explain why the information in a quote is logical or illogical, rational or irrational, and show some examples of how the logic, information, and ideas in a quote work or do not work.
-The use of footnotes is no longer needed or acceptable
-If a paper is cited improperly, it is very, very difficult for an instructor to pass a paper, even if the rest of the paper is perfect
-Make sure that the quotation marks are in Times New Roman, 12 pt. font in the body of a paper and on the Works Cited page. When you copy and paste information, the format and font of the quotation marks, sometimes, does not switch to your paper format. If this happens, just backspace the quotation marks out and put them back in. When you type them in manually, they change to the format of your paper, which should be Times New Roman, 12 pt. font.
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Is Mankind Naturally Good or Evil
Introduction
The question of whether mankind is inherently good or evil has existed since time immemorial. People have taken sides based on their understanding, thinking, and beliefs. Over the years, theologians and philosophers have argued the question of what humans are like. This question cuts across all religions regardless of whether one is a Christian or not (Clauson 1). Some philosophers have argued that man is naturally evil while others think that man is naturally good. Others have also based their argument on the notion that man is neither good nor bad but has the freedom to choose between good or bad. Some of the questions people ask regarding this topic are doing humans have a fixed or changing basic nature? If so, what is it like? What makes the human? Christian would also ask what happened (or did not happen) to human nature in the Fall (Clauson 1). The purpose of this ethical thesis paper is to prove that mankind is naturally good.
While others believe that mankind is naturally evil, so many people believe that it iis naturally good. Rimai (473) argues that man was not created in pure nature, therefore, the natural goodness of mankind is hypothetical and has never existed. “One sense of pure nature, then, is a state or condition in which man would have been created without a further ordering in grace towards the beatific vision” (Rimai 473). The authors argue further that if mankind was created in pure nature (with natural goodness), then God did not have to order and call him to the Beatific vision.
Rimai through his article “Kant on Radical Evil: A Pragmatic Reading” presents Kant’s argument that Mankind is naturally evil. “Experience nevertheless also shows that in him there is a tendency actively to desire what is unlawful, even though he knows that it is unlawful; that is, a tendency to evil” (Henderson 72). In this statement, Kant argues that man is naturally evil, which is why he tends to actively desire what is unlawful. Kant stated that evil in human nature has an innate character, that is somehow present from birth. The human heart is corrupted and tends to tilt towards evil more often than good (Henderson 72). Therefore, Kant was also inclined towards the idea that mankind is evil in nature.
The two articles above, which are opposed to the idea that mankind is naturally good, have points that are pleasant to their Authors. However, these points are not satisfactory to prove that mankind is indeed naturally evil. Kessler (35) supports the perception that mankind is naturally good. The author argues that adjusting norms, laws, customs, and language can help eradicate evil. Basically, this is because evil derives from society rather than from human sinful nature. Therefore, evil can be cured by reordering society. Kessler stated that “because evil comes from without and not from within, then perhaps it could be overcome by reordering society” (35). Therefore, mankind is naturally good.
Christians and many other religions believe in the original sin made by the first man, that has made mankind vicarious sinners, and are all subsequently imperfect and flawed beings due to their actions. Rousseau (philosopher) invalidated the evil inclination within Man and then transferred it to society, by arguing that it does not originate within the heart of a man but from the society (Kessler 37). His argument is making sense because one’s environment determines who one is. Society was indeed the source of Man’s corruption.
According to Kessler (42), the individual is foolish but the species is wise. When people look inward, they are only looking at their discretion and capital. However, when people look toward traditions, customs and ancestors, they are using the wisdom that is infinitely greater than any amount of capital a single person could ever hope to possess. This is why the outward has more influence than inwards. However, looking inward, following personal impulses, and giving in to individual own feelings are hallmarks of liberal ideology, predicted on the natural goodness of man.
Clauson also has the same perception as Kessler, that mankind is naturally good. According to Clauson (7), God’s first statement about the man was very crucial. God loved mankind that is why He made them in His image. “Genesis 1:26–31 tells us that God made man and woman “in the image of God” (Clauson 7). The statement may mean that the first man was created to be like God. Everyone in the world understands that God is associated with good and Satan is associated with evil. If the first man was made to be like God, then man has inherent or original goodness, which could also mean that mankind is naturally good (Clauson 7). Some theologians have also argued that human beings are like God (but not God) due to their capacity for a right relationship with God, ability to reason, sociability, creativity, freedom of choice, and dominion over creation.
The Genesis account of sin provides a good insight regarding the original nature of man. The first Adam and Eve sinned by eating the forbidden fruit. There is so much that happened after the fall of Man. The first man did not think from inwards to sin against God’s commandment (Kessler 7). However, they were convinced by the Serpent. This is an external influence, similar to that which occurs in society. This perspective still translates to what Kessler (37) argues that evil comes from society rather than inwards from within a man. It is the surrounding, what one sees and hears around them or in society that drives them towards evil; otherwise, they are not inclined to evil. God orders beatific vision to try to preserve the natural goodness in mankind, which can be corrupted by society; just to refute the argument that God orders beatific vision because the man was not good. Based on the argument, this paper has proven that mankind is naturally good.
Conclusion
The question regarding whether mankind is naturally good or evil is a difficult question to answer. Different philosophers and theologians have tried to answer it differently. Some have argued that man is naturally evil while others think that man is naturally good. This paper has discussed both sides, however, enough evidence has been provided to prove that mankind is naturally good.
Work Cited
Clauson, Marc A., “Human Nature and the Christian”. History and Government Faculty Publications, 2015, PP. 7-21. http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/history_and_government_publications
Henderson, Aaron. “Falsely Identifying Original Sin and Pure Nature: Christological Implications.” New Blackfriars, 102 (1100), 2021, PP. 472-485. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbfr.12590
Kessler, Steven. “An “Ever Better” Judaism? Progressivism and Orthodox Judaism.” Ḥakirah, 2020, PP. 35-48. https://hakirah.org/vol28Kessler.pdf
Rimai, Anthony. “Kant on Radical Evil: A Pragmatic Reading.” Tattva Journal of Philosophy, 13(1), (2021), PP. 63-76. https://journals.christuniversity.in/index.php/tattva/article/view/2965/2081