15. Peter Mitchell is connected to metabolism is which way?…
15. Peter Mitchell is connected to metabolism is which way?
15. Peter Mitchell is connected to metabolism is which way?…
Questions
15. Peter Mitchell is cоnnected tо metаbоlism is which wаy?
15. Peter Mitchell is cоnnected tо metаbоlism is which wаy?
15. Peter Mitchell is cоnnected tо metаbоlism is which wаy?
Instructiоns Yоu MUST be present in the clаss meeting оn Tuesdаy to complete this аssignment for credit. Answer the following list of questions IN-DEPTH for full credit, but DO NOT use someone else’s words for 1-7. This is about you; no need to Google or use AI. What are your top 3 rules for your own behavior? Example: "First do no harm" is a rule I try to live by in my interactions with my family, my students, and strangers. What is the source of the rule(s)? Where did you come up with the idea for these rules? (Grounding Problem) Example: This is part of the Hippocratic Oath, and even though I'm not in the medical profession, this fits with my Judeo-Christian belief that we have an obligation to help each other. How do you know the rule(s) are “good” or “bad”? Pick 1 of your rules and explain how following this rule has benefited you. Explain how this rule has (or could) make things difficult for you. Describe a circumstance in which you might break this rule and explain why. Would breaking this rule make you think of yourself as a bad person? Why or why not? Considering ONLY ethical relativism, divine command theory, natural law, virtue theory, or ethics of care, which seems most aligned with your own personal honor code? What are the similarities and differences? Use the definitions of the theories provided in the Ethics Defined/Unwrapped videos and/or Crash Course videos in your answer, as well as the positives and negatives (or problems) of the theory you're exploring. I'm looking for depth in your analysis to see how much you know about either theory (or both). Example (using Moral Absolutism, which is NOT one of your assignment options): Definition: Moral absolutism is the belief that there are definite right and wrong rules that apply no matter the situation. An example of that theory from my own honor code (a similarity between my belief and the way the theory works): My own rules for my behavior say that it is wrong to harm other people, so I must do everything I reasonably can to keep from hurting another person. A more extreme form of this rule that fits with moral absolutism would be that it is always wrong to kill another person. Positive: One of the most positive aspects of this theory is that it doesn't leave room for questioning the morality of your actions. Should I kill this person in this situation? The answer is ALWAYS no. No matter the situation, killing a person is wrong, according to moral absolutism. Negative (and a difference between my belief and the way the theory works): A problem with this theory, though, is that it does not allow for any exception, and sometimes we are must make choices that feel like they should be exceptions to the rule. For instance, if someone is aiming a gun at my child and preparing to shoot, I am likely willing to do whatever I must to prevent them from shooting, even if that means killing the attacker. In that case, I do not feel like I would be morally wrong for making that choice, and so, moral absolutism, while I agree with it most of the time, is a theory that demands all of the time belief.