Tag: Reading

  • [Solved] Anecdotes or Short Stories

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    **Objectives:** Apply parallel structure, maintain a consistent point of view, use specific and concise wording, active verbs, and vary sentence structure for clarity and impact. **Instructions:** Share a personal anecdote, summarize a brief personal experience, or develop a short, original story. I…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    **Objectives:**
    Apply parallel structure, maintain a consistent point of view, use specific and concise wording, active verbs, and vary sentence structure for clarity and impact.
    **Instructions:**
    Share a personal anecdote, summarize a brief personal experience, or develop a short, original story. If your work includes an argument or viewpoint, support it with at least one credible source, formatted in APA style. (No outside source is required for purely personal or fictional writing.)
    Length: Between 300 and 1,500 words.

  • [Solved] 1`

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering 1`.

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.

  • [Solved] gene2500000

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    See attached – ## week7gene250.docx – Grudem-Ch12LyingandTellingtheTruth.pdf – Tollefsen-LyingandChristianEthicsBonhoeffer.pdf – Augustine-OnLyingwintro.pdf **## week7gene250.docx** **Dialogue Prompt:** You are the lawyer for a wealthy, now recently-deceased billionaire who has left his entire fortu…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    See attached

    – ## week7gene250.docx

    – Grudem-Ch12LyingandTellingtheTruth.pdf
    – Tollefsen-LyingandChristianEthicsBonhoeffer.pdf
    – Augustine-OnLyingwintro.pdf

    **## week7gene250.docx**

    **Dialogue Prompt:** You are the lawyer for a wealthy, now recently-deceased billionaire who has left his entire fortune to his dog. Even though he has no other family, you see this as a terrible waste of money and realize that if you alter his will, you could instead use his estate to set up a foundation dedicated to feeding the homeless. You are quite certain no one would find out, since only you knew about your client’s true wishes. What should you do? Is a lawyer who misrepresents his deceased client's wishes doing something that is equivalent to lying? If so, does the 9th commandment permit lying for a good cause? Defend your answer in light of the 9th commandment while considering the following concepts from Week 3:
    **_justice_**,
    **_perfect duties_**, and
    **_imperfect duties_**.

    Write a dialogue post that provides an answer the questions above. Apply the concepts presented in this week’s readings to formulate your initial response and your reply to at least one classmate. Initial posts must have 250-350 words A successful post and response will contain the following elements:

    · Meets the word count guidelines and is on time.

    · Is a thoughtful answer to the questions presented in the assignment instructions.

    · Demonstrates an understanding of course concepts such as
    **_justice_**,
    **_perfect and imperfect duties_**, and the
    **_natural/moral law_** and integrates these concepts into the posts.

    · Makes use of the assigned readings and incorporates either quotes or paraphrase to make a point more clear.

    · Demonstrates excellent readability and is error-free.

    “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times,
    _You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord_. But I say to you, Do not swear at all… Let your word be 'Yes, Yes
    _'_ or 'No, No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one” (Mt. 5:33-34, 37, NRSV).

    During this week, you will explore the 9th commandment:
    **_You shall not bear false witness against your_** **_neighbor_** (Ex. 20:16). The authors of this week's readings will argue that this commandment condemns all lying. In order to understand how this might be the case, you must understand not only the difference between lying and being mistaken, but also the difference between lying and deception.

    When someone lies, that person speaks or communicates her thoughts to someone else, but she communicates in a way
    _she knows_ is false. Lying, then, is not the same as being mistaken or spreading inaccurate information unintentionally. When a person says something that isn't entirely accurate because he hasn't 'checked out his facts,' he might be neglectful, but it doesn't mean he's lying. Lies are always
    _deliberate, intentional acts_ that involve communicating something false.

    Deceptions, likewise, are intentional. However, deceptions differ from lies in that
    _intending to deceive_ can include things that are not lies, like wanting to conceal one's intentions, thoughts, or feelings; having secrets; or doing something like leaving the lights on when you are away on vacation. These kinds of acts have a different moral character than lying, because lies always involve the desire to express directly to some other person a known falsehood. The important thing to remember is that
    _not all deceptions are lies_.

    By the end of this week, you will be able to:

    · Distinguish between lying and deception.

    · Apply the perfect/imperfect duty distinction to situations where you might consider "bearing false witness" to, or falsely representing, your own thoughts.

    · Describe what is meant by moral absolutes and explain how 'you must never lie' could be called a perfect duty.

    **Grudem-Ch12LyingandTellingtheTruth.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/grudem-ch12lyingandtellingthetruth-pdf-10355873)

    **Tollefsen-LyingandChristianEthicsBonhoeffer.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/tollefsen-lyingandchristianethicsbonhoeffer-pdf-10355871)

    **Augustine-OnLyingwintro.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/augustine-onlyingwintro-pdf-10355869)

    **Augustine-OnLyingwintro.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/augustine-onlyingwintro-pdf-10355869)

    **## week7gene250.docx**

    **Dialogue Prompt:** You are the lawyer for a wealthy, now recently-deceased billionaire who has left his entire fortune to his dog. Even though he has no other family, you see this as a terrible waste of money and realize that if you alter his will, you could instead use his estate to set up a foundation dedicated to feeding the homeless. You are quite certain no one would find out, since only you knew about your client’s true wishes. What should you do? Is a lawyer who misrepresents his deceased client's wishes doing something that is equivalent to lying? If so, does the 9th commandment permit lying for a good cause? Defend your answer in light of the 9th commandment while considering the following concepts from Week 3:
    **_justice_**,
    **_perfect duties_**, and
    **_imperfect duties_**.

    Write a dialogue post that provides an answer the questions above. Apply the concepts presented in this week’s readings to formulate your initial response and your reply to at least one classmate. Initial posts must have 250-350 words A successful post and response will contain the following elements:

    · Meets the word count guidelines and is on time.

    · Is a thoughtful answer to the questions presented in the assignment instructions.

    · Demonstrates an understanding of course concepts such as
    **_justice_**,
    **_perfect and imperfect duties_**, and the
    **_natural/moral law_** and integrates these concepts into the posts.

    · Makes use of the assigned readings and incorporates either quotes or paraphrase to make a point more clear.

    · Demonstrates excellent readability and is error-free.

    “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times,
    _You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord_. But I say to you, Do not swear at all… Let your word be 'Yes, Yes
    _'_ or 'No, No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one” (Mt. 5:33-34, 37, NRSV).

    During this week, you will explore the 9th commandment:
    **_You shall not bear false witness against your_** **_neighbor_** (Ex. 20:16). The authors of this week's readings will argue that this commandment condemns all lying. In order to understand how this might be the case, you must understand not only the difference between lying and being mistaken, but also the difference between lying and deception.

    When someone lies, that person speaks or communicates her thoughts to someone else, but she communicates in a way
    _she knows_ is false. Lying, then, is not the same as being mistaken or spreading inaccurate information unintentionally. When a person says something that isn't entirely accurate because he hasn't 'checked out his facts,' he might be neglectful, but it doesn't mean he's lying. Lies are always
    _deliberate, intentional acts_ that involve communicating something false.

    Deceptions, likewise, are intentional. However, deceptions differ from lies in that
    _intending to deceive_ can include things that are not lies, like wanting to conceal one's intentions, thoughts, or feelings; having secrets; or doing something like leaving the lights on when you are away on vacation. These kinds of acts have a different moral character than lying, because lies always involve the desire to express directly to some other person a known falsehood. The important thing to remember is that
    _not all deceptions are lies_.

    By the end of this week, you will be able to:

    · Distinguish between lying and deception.

    · Apply the perfect/imperfect duty distinction to situations where you might consider "bearing false witness" to, or falsely representing, your own thoughts.

    · Describe what is meant by moral absolutes and explain how 'you must never lie' could be called a perfect duty.

    **Grudem-Ch12LyingandTellingtheTruth.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/grudem-ch12lyingandtellingthetruth-pdf-10355873)

    **Tollefsen-LyingandChristianEthicsBonhoeffer.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/tollefsen-lyingandchristianethicsbonhoeffer-pdf-10355871)

    **Augustine-OnLyingwintro.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/augustine-onlyingwintro-pdf-10355869)

    **## week7gene250.docx**

    **Dialogue Prompt:** You are the lawyer for a wealthy, now recently-deceased billionaire who has left his entire fortune to his dog. Even though he has no other family, you see this as a terrible waste of money and realize that if you alter his will, you could instead use his estate to set up a foundation dedicated to feeding the homeless. You are quite certain no one would find out, since only you knew about your client’s true wishes. What should you do? Is a lawyer who misrepresents his deceased client's wishes doing something that is equivalent to lying? If so, does the 9th commandment permit lying for a good cause? Defend your answer in light of the 9th commandment while considering the following concepts from Week 3:
    **_justice_**,
    **_perfect duties_**, and
    **_imperfect duties_**.

    Write a dialogue post that provides an answer the questions above. Apply the concepts presented in this week’s readings to formulate your initial response and your reply to at least one classmate. Initial posts must have 250-350 words A successful post and response will contain the following elements:

    · Meets the word count guidelines and is on time.

    · Is a thoughtful answer to the questions presented in the assignment instructions.

    · Demonstrates an understanding of course concepts such as
    **_justice_**,
    **_perfect and imperfect duties_**, and the
    **_natural/moral law_** and integrates these concepts into the posts.

    · Makes use of the assigned readings and incorporates either quotes or paraphrase to make a point more clear.

    · Demonstrates excellent readability and is error-free.

    “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times,
    _You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord_. But I say to you, Do not swear at all… Let your word be 'Yes, Yes
    _'_ or 'No, No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one” (Mt. 5:33-34, 37, NRSV).

    During this week, you will explore the 9th commandment:
    **_You shall not bear false witness against your_** **_neighbor_** (Ex. 20:16). The authors of this week's readings will argue that this commandment condemns all lying. In order to understand how this might be the case, you must understand not only the difference between lying and being mistaken, but also the difference between lying and deception.

    When someone lies, that person speaks or communicates her thoughts to someone else, but she communicates in a way
    _she knows_ is false. Lying, then, is not the same as being mistaken or spreading inaccurate information unintentionally. When a person says something that isn't entirely accurate because he hasn't 'checked out his facts,' he might be neglectful, but it doesn't mean he's lying. Lies are always
    _deliberate, intentional acts_ that involve communicating something false.

    Deceptions, likewise, are intentional. However, deceptions differ from lies in that
    _intending to deceive_ can include things that are not lies, like wanting to conceal one's intentions, thoughts, or feelings; having secrets; or doing something like leaving the lights on when you are away on vacation. These kinds of acts have a different moral character than lying, because lies always involve the desire to express directly to some other person a known falsehood. The important thing to remember is that
    _not all deceptions are lies_.

    By the end of this week, you will be able to:

    · Distinguish between lying and deception.

    · Apply the perfect/imperfect duty distinction to situations where you might consider "bearing false witness" to, or falsely representing, your own thoughts.

    · Describe what is meant by moral absolutes and explain how 'you must never lie' could be called a perfect duty.

    **Grudem-Ch12LyingandTellingtheTruth.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/grudem-ch12lyingandtellingthetruth-pdf-10355873)

    **Tollefsen-LyingandChristianEthicsBonhoeffer.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/tollefsen-lyingandchristianethicsbonhoeffer-pdf-10355871)

    **Augustine-OnLyingwintro.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/augustine-onlyingwintro-pdf-10355869)

    – 1
    – 2
    – 3
    – 4

  • [Solved] GENE250 W4

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    – ## WEEK4GENE250.docx **## WEEK4GENE250.docx** When the law makes it illegal to copy and share with friends certain copyright-protected content (eg. music, movies, etc.), is it your moral duty to obey the law? Explain why or why not using concepts from Weeks 1-4 such as justice, perfect/imperfect d…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    – ## WEEK4GENE250.docx

    **## WEEK4GENE250.docx**

    When the law makes it illegal to copy and share with friends certain copyright-protected content (eg. music, movies, etc.), is it your moral duty to obey the law? Explain why or why not using concepts from Weeks 1-4 such as justice, perfect/imperfect duties, respect (
    _observantia_), and obedience to authority. (50-100 words)

    **## WEEK4GENE250.docx**

    When the law makes it illegal to copy and share with friends certain copyright-protected content (eg. music, movies, etc.), is it your moral duty to obey the law? Explain why or why not using concepts from Weeks 1-4 such as justice, perfect/imperfect duties, respect (
    _observantia_), and obedience to authority. (50-100 words)

  • [Solved] 1

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering 1.

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.

  • [Solved] 1

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering 1.

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.

  • [Solved] GENE250

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    SEE ATTATCHED, NEED BACK TODAY – ## WEEK2GENE250EXAM.docx – ## TheProblemsofUtilitarianism.pdf **## WEEK2GENE250EXAM.docx** What, in your own words, is utilitarianism? (30-100 words) **## TheProblemsofUtilitarianism.pdf** The Problems of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is both a system of ethics and a…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    SEE ATTATCHED, NEED BACK TODAY

    – ## WEEK2GENE250EXAM.docx

    – ## TheProblemsofUtilitarianism.pdf

    **## WEEK2GENE250EXAM.docx**

    What, in your own words, is utilitarianism? (30-100 words)

    **## TheProblemsofUtilitarianism.pdf**

    The Problems of Utilitarianism

    Utilitarianism is both a system of ethics and a method of moral reasoning which many people find
    attractive. Its appeal lies, in part, in its simplicity. Utilitarianism distills moral decision making into a
    simple formula, where the “morally correct” decision is essentially guided by the question 'Which option
    will bring about the best outcome?' This short primer will explain utilitarian reasoning and point out some
    of its problems, including the way it finds itself in tension with the Moral Law.
    Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is generally considered the “father” of utilitarianism, since it was
    his writings that first gave voice to what became known as the “principle of utility.” All moral decision
    making, he thought, could be guided by a single principle. The supreme principle of ethics, he argued,
    required a moral calculation focused on what would tend to bring about the most happiness and avoid the
    most amount of suffering. Since utilitarian decision making implies there is only one option that would
    bring about the most happiness, it suggests there is a single option I should choose, which is the “right”
    action. All others are “wrong.” Therefore, the rightness and wrongness of every act, Bentham would say,
    depends upon whether or not it promises to bring about the best outcome.

    A follower of Bentham, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), added to the principle the greatest
    happiness for the greatest number of people. The “right” thing to do, Mill claimed, will always create the
    greatest overall state of happiness, which likewise involves a minimal amount of suffering for the most
    people. In this way, the utilitarian principle seems to have benevolence, or a concern for all mankind, built
    into its basic formula. For the utilitarian, this simple principle unlocks the secret of morality.

    The main problem with utilitarianism is not so much its concern for the happiness of all people
    (ie. the common good) or the high regard it places on the consequences of actions. It's clear both have an
    important role to play in moral reasoning. The main problem occurs when the utilitarian calculus comes
    in conflict with the Moral Law. Here's an example. The Ten Commandments say that murder, the
    deliberate killing of an innocent person, is evil and should never be done. Imagine a situation in which a
    government might think that by killing one, innocent person, a whole nation could be saved. Following
    the principle of utility, the right thing to do would be to sacrifice one person for the good of the whole,
    provided this were to bring about the most happiness or best outcome for the most amount of people.

    While this example might seem a bit far-fetched, it is the exact line of reasoning Caiaphas used to
    justify the death of Jesus Christ: “it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the
    whole nation destroyed” (John 11:50). Utilitarian reasoning, in this case, would not necessarily consider
    the murder of Jesus, an innocent man, wrong or evil. Instead, to not kill Christ might in this case seem the
    wrong thing to do, since to let him live, according to Caiaphas, would result in the destruction of Israel
    and the misery of tens of thousands of people. It seems that Christ, by the way his own death came about,
    perhaps teaches us something about the moral danger present in all utilitarian calculations. Caiaphas’s
    utilitarian justification, rather ironically, provided the moral encouragement needed for man to kill God.

    There are obvious problems with this method of reasoning. First, the principle of utility relies
    entirely on a future prediction of “the most happiness” or “the best outcome” as foreseen by the person
    making the decision. Caiaphas, in this example, arguably had no way of reliably knowing whether or not
    Jesus would cause the Romans to destroy Israel, but he did know, because of the natural law, that he was
    calling for the death of an innocent man. Future suppositions are inherently uncertain, whereas knowing
    which human acts are evil is, for most people, as St. Paul says, “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15).
    The second source of moral error is that the utilitarian principle allows evil to be done so that some
    greater good might come about. The ends, then, justify the means. According to the principle of utility,
    murder, then, is not always evil, because the principle says the only measures of right and wrong or good
    versus evil are the consequences. In contrast, a person using natural law reasoning would say that even if
    the death of Christ could save Israel from destruction, it would still be wrong. Murder, because it is
    contrary to the supreme wisdom that is written into the Moral Law of God, is always prohibited.

    The main difference between natural law and utilitarian reasoning is that according to the natural
    law, there are some human acts that are, in and of themselves, always evil, regardless of the good
    consequences they might seemingly bring about. Because of this tension, many Christian philosophers
    maintain that utilitarian reasoning is, in itself, not compatible with the Moral Law of God, the law
    revealed in Holy Scripture and made self-evident through the proper exercise of human reason.

    **## TheProblemsofUtilitarianism.pdf**

    The Problems of Utilitarianism

    Utilitarianism is both a system of ethics and a method of moral reasoning which many people find
    attractive. Its appeal lies, in part, in its simplicity. Utilitarianism distills moral decision making into a
    simple formula, where the “morally correct” decision is essentially guided by the question 'Which option
    will bring about the best outcome?' This short primer will explain utilitarian reasoning and point out some
    of its problems, including the way it finds itself in tension with the Moral Law.
    Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is generally considered the “father” of utilitarianism, since it was
    his writings that first gave voice to what became known as the “principle of utility.” All moral decision
    making, he thought, could be guided by a single principle. The supreme principle of ethics, he argued,
    required a moral calculation focused on what would tend to bring about the most happiness and avoid the
    most amount of suffering. Since utilitarian decision making implies there is only one option that would
    bring about the most happiness, it suggests there is a single option I should choose, which is the “right”
    action. All others are “wrong.” Therefore, the rightness and wrongness of every act, Bentham would say,
    depends upon whether or not it promises to bring about the best outcome.

    A follower of Bentham, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), added to the principle the greatest
    happiness for the greatest number of people. The “right” thing to do, Mill claimed, will always create the
    greatest overall state of happiness, which likewise involves a minimal amount of suffering for the most
    people. In this way, the utilitarian principle seems to have benevolence, or a concern for all mankind, built
    into its basic formula. For the utilitarian, this simple principle unlocks the secret of morality.

    The main problem with utilitarianism is not so much its concern for the happiness of all people
    (ie. the common good) or the high regard it places on the consequences of actions. It's clear both have an
    important role to play in moral reasoning. The main problem occurs when the utilitarian calculus comes
    in conflict with the Moral Law. Here's an example. The Ten Commandments say that murder, the
    deliberate killing of an innocent person, is evil and should never be done. Imagine a situation in which a
    government might think that by killing one, innocent person, a whole nation could be saved. Following
    the principle of utility, the right thing to do would be to sacrifice one person for the good of the whole,
    provided this were to bring about the most happiness or best outcome for the most amount of people.

    While this example might seem a bit far-fetched, it is the exact line of reasoning Caiaphas used to
    justify the death of Jesus Christ: “it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the
    whole nation destroyed” (John 11:50). Utilitarian reasoning, in this case, would not necessarily consider
    the murder of Jesus, an innocent man, wrong or evil. Instead, to not kill Christ might in this case seem the
    wrong thing to do, since to let him live, according to Caiaphas, would result in the destruction of Israel
    and the misery of tens of thousands of people. It seems that Christ, by the way his own death came about,
    perhaps teaches us something about the moral danger present in all utilitarian calculations. Caiaphas’s
    utilitarian justification, rather ironically, provided the moral encouragement needed for man to kill God.

    There are obvious problems with this method of reasoning. First, the principle of utility relies
    entirely on a future prediction of “the most happiness” or “the best outcome” as foreseen by the person
    making the decision. Caiaphas, in this example, arguably had no way of reliably knowing whether or not
    Jesus would cause the Romans to destroy Israel, but he did know, because of the natural law, that he was
    calling for the death of an innocent man. Future suppositions are inherently uncertain, whereas knowing
    which human acts are evil is, for most people, as St. Paul says, “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15).
    The second source of moral error is that the utilitarian principle allows evil to be done so that some
    greater good might come about. The ends, then, justify the means. According to the principle of utility,
    murder, then, is not always evil, because the principle says the only measures of right and wrong or good
    versus evil are the consequences. In contrast, a person using natural law reasoning would say that even if
    the death of Christ could save Israel from destruction, it would still be wrong. Murder, because it is
    contrary to the supreme wisdom that is written into the Moral Law of God, is always prohibited.

    The main difference between natural law and utilitarian reasoning is that according to the natural
    law, there are some human acts that are, in and of themselves, always evil, regardless of the good
    consequences they might seemingly bring about. Because of this tension, many Christian philosophers
    maintain that utilitarian reasoning is, in itself, not compatible with the Moral Law of God, the law
    revealed in Holy Scripture and made self-evident through the proper exercise of human reason.

    **## WEEK2GENE250EXAM.docx**

    What, in your own words, is utilitarianism? (30-100 words)

    **## TheProblemsofUtilitarianism.pdf**

    The Problems of Utilitarianism

    Utilitarianism is both a system of ethics and a method of moral reasoning which many people find
    attractive. Its appeal lies, in part, in its simplicity. Utilitarianism distills moral decision making into a
    simple formula, where the “morally correct” decision is essentially guided by the question 'Which option
    will bring about the best outcome?' This short primer will explain utilitarian reasoning and point out some
    of its problems, including the way it finds itself in tension with the Moral Law.
    Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is generally considered the “father” of utilitarianism, since it was
    his writings that first gave voice to what became known as the “principle of utility.” All moral decision
    making, he thought, could be guided by a single principle. The supreme principle of ethics, he argued,
    required a moral calculation focused on what would tend to bring about the most happiness and avoid the
    most amount of suffering. Since utilitarian decision making implies there is only one option that would
    bring about the most happiness, it suggests there is a single option I should choose, which is the “right”
    action. All others are “wrong.” Therefore, the rightness and wrongness of every act, Bentham would say,
    depends upon whether or not it promises to bring about the best outcome.

    A follower of Bentham, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), added to the principle the greatest
    happiness for the greatest number of people. The “right” thing to do, Mill claimed, will always create the
    greatest overall state of happiness, which likewise involves a minimal amount of suffering for the most
    people. In this way, the utilitarian principle seems to have benevolence, or a concern for all mankind, built
    into its basic formula. For the utilitarian, this simple principle unlocks the secret of morality.

    The main problem with utilitarianism is not so much its concern for the happiness of all people
    (ie. the common good) or the high regard it places on the consequences of actions. It's clear both have an
    important role to play in moral reasoning. The main problem occurs when the utilitarian calculus comes
    in conflict with the Moral Law. Here's an example. The Ten Commandments say that murder, the
    deliberate killing of an innocent person, is evil and should never be done. Imagine a situation in which a
    government might think that by killing one, innocent person, a whole nation could be saved. Following
    the principle of utility, the right thing to do would be to sacrifice one person for the good of the whole,
    provided this were to bring about the most happiness or best outcome for the most amount of people.

    While this example might seem a bit far-fetched, it is the exact line of reasoning Caiaphas used to
    justify the death of Jesus Christ: “it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the
    whole nation destroyed” (John 11:50). Utilitarian reasoning, in this case, would not necessarily consider
    the murder of Jesus, an innocent man, wrong or evil. Instead, to not kill Christ might in this case seem the
    wrong thing to do, since to let him live, according to Caiaphas, would result in the destruction of Israel
    and the misery of tens of thousands of people. It seems that Christ, by the way his own death came about,
    perhaps teaches us something about the moral danger present in all utilitarian calculations. Caiaphas’s
    utilitarian justification, rather ironically, provided the moral encouragement needed for man to kill God.

    There are obvious problems with this method of reasoning. First, the principle of utility relies
    entirely on a future prediction of “the most happiness” or “the best outcome” as foreseen by the person
    making the decision. Caiaphas, in this example, arguably had no way of reliably knowing whether or not
    Jesus would cause the Romans to destroy Israel, but he did know, because of the natural law, that he was
    calling for the death of an innocent man. Future suppositions are inherently uncertain, whereas knowing
    which human acts are evil is, for most people, as St. Paul says, “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15).
    The second source of moral error is that the utilitarian principle allows evil to be done so that some
    greater good might come about. The ends, then, justify the means. According to the principle of utility,
    murder, then, is not always evil, because the principle says the only measures of right and wrong or good
    versus evil are the consequences. In contrast, a person using natural law reasoning would say that even if
    the death of Christ could save Israel from destruction, it would still be wrong. Murder, because it is
    contrary to the supreme wisdom that is written into the Moral Law of God, is always prohibited.

    The main difference between natural law and utilitarian reasoning is that according to the natural
    law, there are some human acts that are, in and of themselves, always evil, regardless of the good
    consequences they might seemingly bring about. Because of this tension, many Christian philosophers
    maintain that utilitarian reasoning is, in itself, not compatible with the Moral Law of God, the law
    revealed in Holy Scripture and made self-evident through the proper exercise of human reason.

    **## WEEK2GENE250EXAM.docx**

    What, in your own words, is utilitarianism? (30-100 words)

    **## TheProblemsofUtilitarianism.pdf**

    The Problems of Utilitarianism

    Utilitarianism is both a system of ethics and a method of moral reasoning which many people find
    attractive. Its appeal lies, in part, in its simplicity. Utilitarianism distills moral decision making into a
    simple formula, where the “morally correct” decision is essentially guided by the question 'Which option
    will bring about the best outcome?' This short primer will explain utilitarian reasoning and point out some
    of its problems, including the way it finds itself in tension with the Moral Law.
    Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is generally considered the “father” of utilitarianism, since it was
    his writings that first gave voice to what became known as the “principle of utility.” All moral decision
    making, he thought, could be guided by a single principle. The supreme principle of ethics, he argued,
    required a moral calculation focused on what would tend to bring about the most happiness and avoid the
    most amount of suffering. Since utilitarian decision making implies there is only one option that would
    bring about the most happiness, it suggests there is a single option I should choose, which is the “right”
    action. All others are “wrong.” Therefore, the rightness and wrongness of every act, Bentham would say,
    depends upon whether or not it promises to bring about the best outcome.

    A follower of Bentham, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), added to the principle the greatest
    happiness for the greatest number of people. The “right” thing to do, Mill claimed, will always create the
    greatest overall state of happiness, which likewise involves a minimal amount of suffering for the most
    people. In this way, the utilitarian principle seems to have benevolence, or a concern for all mankind, built
    into its basic formula. For the utilitarian, this simple principle unlocks the secret of morality.

    The main problem with utilitarianism is not so much its concern for the happiness of all people
    (ie. the common good) or the high regard it places on the consequences of actions. It's clear both have an
    important role to play in moral reasoning. The main problem occurs when the utilitarian calculus comes
    in conflict with the Moral Law. Here's an example. The Ten Commandments say that murder, the
    deliberate killing of an innocent person, is evil and should never be done. Imagine a situation in which a
    government might think that by killing one, innocent person, a whole nation could be saved. Following
    the principle of utility, the right thing to do would be to sacrifice one person for the good of the whole,
    provided this were to bring about the most happiness or best outcome for the most amount of people.

    While this example might seem a bit far-fetched, it is the exact line of reasoning Caiaphas used to
    justify the death of Jesus Christ: “it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the
    whole nation destroyed” (John 11:50). Utilitarian reasoning, in this case, would not necessarily consider
    the murder of Jesus, an innocent man, wrong or evil. Instead, to not kill Christ might in this case seem the
    wrong thing to do, since to let him live, according to Caiaphas, would result in the destruction of Israel
    and the misery of tens of thousands of people. It seems that Christ, by the way his own death came about,
    perhaps teaches us something about the moral danger present in all utilitarian calculations. Caiaphas’s
    utilitarian justification, rather ironically, provided the moral encouragement needed for man to kill God.

    There are obvious problems with this method of reasoning. First, the principle of utility relies
    entirely on a future prediction of “the most happiness” or “the best outcome” as foreseen by the person
    making the decision. Caiaphas, in this example, arguably had no way of reliably knowing whether or not
    Jesus would cause the Romans to destroy Israel, but he did know, because of the natural law, that he was
    calling for the death of an innocent man. Future suppositions are inherently uncertain, whereas knowing
    which human acts are evil is, for most people, as St. Paul says, “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15).
    The second source of moral error is that the utilitarian principle allows evil to be done so that some
    greater good might come about. The ends, then, justify the means. According to the principle of utility,
    murder, then, is not always evil, because the principle says the only measures of right and wrong or good
    versus evil are the consequences. In contrast, a person using natural law reasoning would say that even if
    the death of Christ could save Israel from destruction, it would still be wrong. Murder, because it is
    contrary to the supreme wisdom that is written into the Moral Law of God, is always prohibited.

    The main difference between natural law and utilitarian reasoning is that according to the natural
    law, there are some human acts that are, in and of themselves, always evil, regardless of the good
    consequences they might seemingly bring about. Because of this tension, many Christian philosophers
    maintain that utilitarian reasoning is, in itself, not compatible with the Moral Law of God, the law
    revealed in Holy Scripture and made self-evident through the proper exercise of human reason.

    – 1
    – 2

  • [Solved] GENE250 W3

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    – ## Dr.MartinLutherKingJr-ExcerptsfromBirminghamJail.pdf – ## WEEK3GENE250DIALOGUE.docx – Pieper-TheLimitsofJustice.pdf – PerfectandImperfectDuties.pdf – NewYorkTimesArticleJun232019.pdf **## Dr.MartinLutherKingJr-ExcerptsfromBirminghamJail.pdf** 1 Excerpts from “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by …

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    – ## Dr.MartinLutherKingJr-ExcerptsfromBirminghamJail.pdf

    – ## WEEK3GENE250DIALOGUE.docx

    – Pieper-TheLimitsofJustice.pdf
    – PerfectandImperfectDuties.pdf
    – NewYorkTimesArticleJun232019.pdf

    **## Dr.MartinLutherKingJr-ExcerptsfromBirminghamJail.pdf**

    1

    Excerpts from “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    16 April 1963
    My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

    While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present
    activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to
    answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such
    correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that
    you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your
    statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

    I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which
    argues against "outsiders coming in"… I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

    But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century
    B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns,
    and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of
    the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like
    Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

    …

    You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You
    are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct
    action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to
    negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My
    citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I
    must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a
    type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary
    to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the
    unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to
    create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the
    majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a
    situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your
    call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in
    monologue rather than dialogue.

    …

    We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and
    Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and
    buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt
    the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and
    fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse,
    kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro
    brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find
    your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she
    can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her
    eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority
    beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an

    2

    unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is
    asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and
    find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel
    will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored";
    when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last
    name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are
    harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never
    quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are
    forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.
    There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the
    abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a
    great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so
    diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public
    schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask:
    "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two
    types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a
    moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I
    would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

    Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just
    law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of
    harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is
    not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades
    human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and
    damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of
    inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it"
    relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence
    segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful.
    Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic
    separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954
    decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances,
    for they are morally wrong.

    …

    I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying
    the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do
    so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law
    that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the
    conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

    …

    We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian
    freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.
    Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish
    brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are
    suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

    **## WEEK3GENE250DIALOGUE.docx**

    For this week's dialogue, please respond to the prompt stated below. A grading
    **rubric** for this assignment can be found below.

    **Dialogue Prompt:** A British Court in 2019 ruled that a mentally disabled woman must have an abortion, even though the order was against both the woman’s wishes and her parents’ wishes. Would the parents be morally justified in defying the authority of the court? Is the principle “respect authority” a
    **_perfect duty_**, or is it
    **_imperfect_**? In what way is the duty to obey a court order and the parents' responsibility both to their daughter and to God related to
    **_justice_**? (For the definitions of imperfect and perfect duties, see the Perfect and Imperfect Duties Reading.)

    Write a dialogue post that provides an answer the questions above. Apply the concepts presented in this week’s readings to formulate your initial response and your reply to at least one classmate. Initial posts must have 250-350 words.

    A successful post and response will contain the following elements:

    · Meets the word count guidelines and is on time.

    · Is a thoughtful answer to the questions presented in the assignment instructions.

    · Demonstrates an understanding of
    **_perfect and imperfect duties_** and integrates these concepts into the initial post.

    · Shows an understanding of
    **_justice_** (ie. to give to another what is due) as it is defined in the readings. Ensure you integrate this concept into the initial post.

    · Demonstrates excellent readability and is error-free.

    Do not hesitate to reach out to your instructor if you require additional coaching or guidance. The essay will be evaluated in accordance with the following rubric.

    GRADING RUBRIC:

    Short Paper Grading RubricCriteriaRatingsPts

    Thesis or Organizing Principle

    **5 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper has a clear, focused thesis, purpose, or unifying message that matches the claims made throughout the paper.

    **4 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper has a thesis, purpose, or unifying message that could be more clear.

    **3 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper suggests some semblance of an overarching message to unify the claims made throughout the paper, but it is not clearly stated.

    **2 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper fails to convey a unifying message to connect the claims made throughout the paper.

    / 5 pts

    Organization, Development, Integration, and Support

    **25 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper is very well-organized and transitions smoothly from paragraph to paragraph and from idea to idea. Quotes, if used, are integrated well into the flow of the paper.

    **22 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper is fairly well-organized and demonstrates some difficulty transitioning from paragraph to paragraph and from idea to idea. Quotes, if used, may not be well integrated into the flow of the paper.

    **19 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper lacks organization and does not transition well from paragraph to paragraph and from idea to idea. Quotes, if used, are not well integrated into the flow of the paper.

    **14 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper's structure and transitions are very poor. Quotes, if used, are not integrated into the flow of the paper.

    / 25 pts

    Quality of Content and Use of Assigned Readings

    **25 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper responds well to the assignment instructions while demonstrating a keen understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    **22 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper responds well to the assignment instructions, but it could demonstrate a better understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    **19 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper misses some important features included in the assignment instructions. The student struggles to demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    **14 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper does not follow the assignment instructions. The student does not demonstrate an understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    / 25 pts

    Mastery of Course Material

    **20 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper demonstrates an excellent grasp of the concepts presented in the course as they relate to the Decalogue. Terms are used correctly and with conceptual precision. Key points and insights are explained in a clear and articulate manner.

    **17 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper demonstrates a fairly good grasp of the concepts presented in the course as they relate to the Decalogue. Terms are for the most part used correctly. Some insights or key points are made clear.

    **15 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper has difficulty demonstrating a good grasp of the concepts presented in the course. Terms are often not used correctly or are used in a way that is different from the assigned readings.

    **11 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper fails to demonstrate a grasp of the concepts presented in the course as they relate to the Decalogue. The essay uses terms in a way that is entirely different from the assigned readings.

    / 20 pts

    Citations and Academic Style Formatting

    **10 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper correctly uses one of the three academic style and formatting conventions (Turabian, MLA, or APA) for all citations. The works cited, bibliography, or reference page matches the style chosen and is without error.

    **9 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper uses one of the three academic style and formatting conventions (Turabian, MLA, or APA) for citations but may contain minor errors. The works cited, bibliography, or reference page matches the style chosen but may have minor errors.

    **7 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper resembles one of the three academic style and formatting conventions (Turabian, MLA, or APA), but citations contain errors or may be missing. The works cited, bibliography, or reference page does not match the style chosen, has significant errors, or is missing.

    **5 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper does not demonstrate a discernible system of documentation (Turabian, MLA, or APA). Quotes are used, but citations are missing.

    / 10 pts

    Grammar, Punctuation, Style, and Mechaincs

    **15 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper demonstrates a polished writing style, excellent word choice, and is free from all grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors.

    **12 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper demonstrates an effective writing style but contains some grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors and/or instances of poor word choice.

    **9 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper’s style lacks overall effectiveness. There are a number of major grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors and/or many instances of poor word choice.

    **5 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper’s style is not at all effective, and the essay contains major grammatical, punctuation, spelling, or word choice errors.

    / 15 pts

    Total Points: 0

    **Pieper-TheLimitsofJustice.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/pieper-thelimitsofjustice-pdf)

    **PerfectandImperfectDuties.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/perfectandimperfectduties-pdf)

    **NewYorkTimesArticleJun232019.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/newyorktimesarticlejun232019-pdf)

    **NewYorkTimesArticleJun232019.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/newyorktimesarticlejun232019-pdf)

    **## Dr.MartinLutherKingJr-ExcerptsfromBirminghamJail.pdf**

    1

    Excerpts from “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    16 April 1963
    My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

    While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present
    activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to
    answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such
    correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that
    you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your
    statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

    I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which
    argues against "outsiders coming in"… I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

    But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century
    B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns,
    and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of
    the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like
    Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

    …

    You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You
    are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct
    action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to
    negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My
    citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I
    must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a
    type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary
    to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the
    unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to
    create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the
    majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a
    situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your
    call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in
    monologue rather than dialogue.

    …

    We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and
    Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and
    buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt
    the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and
    fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse,
    kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro
    brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find
    your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she
    can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her
    eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority
    beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an

    2

    unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is
    asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and
    find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel
    will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored";
    when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last
    name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are
    harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never
    quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are
    forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.
    There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the
    abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a
    great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so
    diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public
    schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask:
    "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two
    types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a
    moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I
    would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

    Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just
    law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of
    harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is
    not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades
    human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and
    damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of
    inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it"
    relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence
    segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful.
    Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic
    separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954
    decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances,
    for they are morally wrong.

    …

    I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying
    the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do
    so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law
    that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the
    conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

    …

    We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian
    freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.
    Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish
    brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are
    suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

    **## WEEK3GENE250DIALOGUE.docx**

    For this week's dialogue, please respond to the prompt stated below. A grading
    **rubric** for this assignment can be found below.

    **Dialogue Prompt:** A British Court in 2019 ruled that a mentally disabled woman must have an abortion, even though the order was against both the woman’s wishes and her parents’ wishes. Would the parents be morally justified in defying the authority of the court? Is the principle “respect authority” a
    **_perfect duty_**, or is it
    **_imperfect_**? In what way is the duty to obey a court order and the parents' responsibility both to their daughter and to God related to
    **_justice_**? (For the definitions of imperfect and perfect duties, see the Perfect and Imperfect Duties Reading.)

    Write a dialogue post that provides an answer the questions above. Apply the concepts presented in this week’s readings to formulate your initial response and your reply to at least one classmate. Initial posts must have 250-350 words.

    A successful post and response will contain the following elements:

    · Meets the word count guidelines and is on time.

    · Is a thoughtful answer to the questions presented in the assignment instructions.

    · Demonstrates an understanding of
    **_perfect and imperfect duties_** and integrates these concepts into the initial post.

    · Shows an understanding of
    **_justice_** (ie. to give to another what is due) as it is defined in the readings. Ensure you integrate this concept into the initial post.

    · Demonstrates excellent readability and is error-free.

    Do not hesitate to reach out to your instructor if you require additional coaching or guidance. The essay will be evaluated in accordance with the following rubric.

    GRADING RUBRIC:

    Short Paper Grading RubricCriteriaRatingsPts

    Thesis or Organizing Principle

    **5 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper has a clear, focused thesis, purpose, or unifying message that matches the claims made throughout the paper.

    **4 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper has a thesis, purpose, or unifying message that could be more clear.

    **3 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper suggests some semblance of an overarching message to unify the claims made throughout the paper, but it is not clearly stated.

    **2 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper fails to convey a unifying message to connect the claims made throughout the paper.

    / 5 pts

    Organization, Development, Integration, and Support

    **25 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper is very well-organized and transitions smoothly from paragraph to paragraph and from idea to idea. Quotes, if used, are integrated well into the flow of the paper.

    **22 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper is fairly well-organized and demonstrates some difficulty transitioning from paragraph to paragraph and from idea to idea. Quotes, if used, may not be well integrated into the flow of the paper.

    **19 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper lacks organization and does not transition well from paragraph to paragraph and from idea to idea. Quotes, if used, are not well integrated into the flow of the paper.

    **14 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper's structure and transitions are very poor. Quotes, if used, are not integrated into the flow of the paper.

    / 25 pts

    Quality of Content and Use of Assigned Readings

    **25 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper responds well to the assignment instructions while demonstrating a keen understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    **22 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper responds well to the assignment instructions, but it could demonstrate a better understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    **19 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper misses some important features included in the assignment instructions. The student struggles to demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    **14 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper does not follow the assignment instructions. The student does not demonstrate an understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    / 25 pts

    Mastery of Course Material

    **20 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper demonstrates an excellent grasp of the concepts presented in the course as they relate to the Decalogue. Terms are used correctly and with conceptual precision. Key points and insights are explained in a clear and articulate manner.

    **17 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper demonstrates a fairly good grasp of the concepts presented in the course as they relate to the Decalogue. Terms are for the most part used correctly. Some insights or key points are made clear.

    **15 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper has difficulty demonstrating a good grasp of the concepts presented in the course. Terms are often not used correctly or are used in a way that is different from the assigned readings.

    **11 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper fails to demonstrate a grasp of the concepts presented in the course as they relate to the Decalogue. The essay uses terms in a way that is entirely different from the assigned readings.

    / 20 pts

    Citations and Academic Style Formatting

    **10 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper correctly uses one of the three academic style and formatting conventions (Turabian, MLA, or APA) for all citations. The works cited, bibliography, or reference page matches the style chosen and is without error.

    **9 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper uses one of the three academic style and formatting conventions (Turabian, MLA, or APA) for citations but may contain minor errors. The works cited, bibliography, or reference page matches the style chosen but may have minor errors.

    **7 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper resembles one of the three academic style and formatting conventions (Turabian, MLA, or APA), but citations contain errors or may be missing. The works cited, bibliography, or reference page does not match the style chosen, has significant errors, or is missing.

    **5 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper does not demonstrate a discernible system of documentation (Turabian, MLA, or APA). Quotes are used, but citations are missing.

    / 10 pts

    Grammar, Punctuation, Style, and Mechaincs

    **15 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper demonstrates a polished writing style, excellent word choice, and is free from all grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors.

    **12 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper demonstrates an effective writing style but contains some grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors and/or instances of poor word choice.

    **9 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper’s style lacks overall effectiveness. There are a number of major grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors and/or many instances of poor word choice.

    **5 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper’s style is not at all effective, and the essay contains major grammatical, punctuation, spelling, or word choice errors.

    / 15 pts

    Total Points: 0

    **Pieper-TheLimitsofJustice.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/pieper-thelimitsofjustice-pdf)

    **PerfectandImperfectDuties.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/perfectandimperfectduties-pdf)

    **NewYorkTimesArticleJun232019.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/newyorktimesarticlejun232019-pdf)

    **## Dr.MartinLutherKingJr-ExcerptsfromBirminghamJail.pdf**

    1

    Excerpts from “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    16 April 1963
    My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

    While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present
    activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to
    answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such
    correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that
    you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your
    statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

    I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which
    argues against "outsiders coming in"… I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

    But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century
    B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns,
    and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of
    the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like
    Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

    …

    You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You
    are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct
    action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to
    negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My
    citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I
    must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a
    type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary
    to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the
    unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to
    create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the
    majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a
    situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your
    call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in
    monologue rather than dialogue.

    …

    We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and
    Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and
    buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt
    the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and
    fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse,
    kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro
    brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find
    your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she
    can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her
    eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority
    beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an

    2

    unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is
    asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and
    find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel
    will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored";
    when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last
    name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are
    harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never
    quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are
    forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.
    There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the
    abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a
    great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so
    diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public
    schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask:
    "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two
    types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a
    moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I
    would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

    Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just
    law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of
    harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is
    not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades
    human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and
    damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of
    inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it"
    relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence
    segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful.
    Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic
    separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954
    decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances,
    for they are morally wrong.

    …

    I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying
    the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do
    so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law
    that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the
    conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

    …

    We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian
    freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany.
    Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish
    brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are
    suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

    **## WEEK3GENE250DIALOGUE.docx**

    For this week's dialogue, please respond to the prompt stated below. A grading
    **rubric** for this assignment can be found below.

    **Dialogue Prompt:** A British Court in 2019 ruled that a mentally disabled woman must have an abortion, even though the order was against both the woman’s wishes and her parents’ wishes. Would the parents be morally justified in defying the authority of the court? Is the principle “respect authority” a
    **_perfect duty_**, or is it
    **_imperfect_**? In what way is the duty to obey a court order and the parents' responsibility both to their daughter and to God related to
    **_justice_**? (For the definitions of imperfect and perfect duties, see the Perfect and Imperfect Duties Reading.)

    Write a dialogue post that provides an answer the questions above. Apply the concepts presented in this week’s readings to formulate your initial response and your reply to at least one classmate. Initial posts must have 250-350 words.

    A successful post and response will contain the following elements:

    · Meets the word count guidelines and is on time.

    · Is a thoughtful answer to the questions presented in the assignment instructions.

    · Demonstrates an understanding of
    **_perfect and imperfect duties_** and integrates these concepts into the initial post.

    · Shows an understanding of
    **_justice_** (ie. to give to another what is due) as it is defined in the readings. Ensure you integrate this concept into the initial post.

    · Demonstrates excellent readability and is error-free.

    Do not hesitate to reach out to your instructor if you require additional coaching or guidance. The essay will be evaluated in accordance with the following rubric.

    GRADING RUBRIC:

    Short Paper Grading RubricCriteriaRatingsPts

    Thesis or Organizing Principle

    **5 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper has a clear, focused thesis, purpose, or unifying message that matches the claims made throughout the paper.

    **4 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper has a thesis, purpose, or unifying message that could be more clear.

    **3 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper suggests some semblance of an overarching message to unify the claims made throughout the paper, but it is not clearly stated.

    **2 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper fails to convey a unifying message to connect the claims made throughout the paper.

    / 5 pts

    Organization, Development, Integration, and Support

    **25 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper is very well-organized and transitions smoothly from paragraph to paragraph and from idea to idea. Quotes, if used, are integrated well into the flow of the paper.

    **22 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper is fairly well-organized and demonstrates some difficulty transitioning from paragraph to paragraph and from idea to idea. Quotes, if used, may not be well integrated into the flow of the paper.

    **19 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper lacks organization and does not transition well from paragraph to paragraph and from idea to idea. Quotes, if used, are not well integrated into the flow of the paper.

    **14 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper's structure and transitions are very poor. Quotes, if used, are not integrated into the flow of the paper.

    / 25 pts

    Quality of Content and Use of Assigned Readings

    **25 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper responds well to the assignment instructions while demonstrating a keen understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    **22 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper responds well to the assignment instructions, but it could demonstrate a better understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    **19 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper misses some important features included in the assignment instructions. The student struggles to demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    **14 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper does not follow the assignment instructions. The student does not demonstrate an understanding of the authors' positions presented in the assigned readings.

    / 25 pts

    Mastery of Course Material

    **20 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper demonstrates an excellent grasp of the concepts presented in the course as they relate to the Decalogue. Terms are used correctly and with conceptual precision. Key points and insights are explained in a clear and articulate manner.

    **17 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper demonstrates a fairly good grasp of the concepts presented in the course as they relate to the Decalogue. Terms are for the most part used correctly. Some insights or key points are made clear.

    **15 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper has difficulty demonstrating a good grasp of the concepts presented in the course. Terms are often not used correctly or are used in a way that is different from the assigned readings.

    **11 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper fails to demonstrate a grasp of the concepts presented in the course as they relate to the Decalogue. The essay uses terms in a way that is entirely different from the assigned readings.

    / 20 pts

    Citations and Academic Style Formatting

    **10 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper correctly uses one of the three academic style and formatting conventions (Turabian, MLA, or APA) for all citations. The works cited, bibliography, or reference page matches the style chosen and is without error.

    **9 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper uses one of the three academic style and formatting conventions (Turabian, MLA, or APA) for citations but may contain minor errors. The works cited, bibliography, or reference page matches the style chosen but may have minor errors.

    **7 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper resembles one of the three academic style and formatting conventions (Turabian, MLA, or APA), but citations contain errors or may be missing. The works cited, bibliography, or reference page does not match the style chosen, has significant errors, or is missing.

    **5 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper does not demonstrate a discernible system of documentation (Turabian, MLA, or APA). Quotes are used, but citations are missing.

    / 10 pts

    Grammar, Punctuation, Style, and Mechaincs

    **15 pts**

    **Exemplary**

    The paper demonstrates a polished writing style, excellent word choice, and is free from all grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors.

    **12 pts**

    **Good**

    The paper demonstrates an effective writing style but contains some grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors and/or instances of poor word choice.

    **9 pts**

    **Fair**

    The paper’s style lacks overall effectiveness. There are a number of major grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors and/or many instances of poor word choice.

    **5 pts**

    **Poor**

    The paper’s style is not at all effective, and the essay contains major grammatical, punctuation, spelling, or word choice errors.

    / 15 pts

    Total Points: 0

    **Pieper-TheLimitsofJustice.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/pieper-thelimitsofjustice-pdf)

    **PerfectandImperfectDuties.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/perfectandimperfectduties-pdf)

    **NewYorkTimesArticleJun232019.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/newyorktimesarticlejun232019-pdf)

    – 1
    – 2
    – 3
    – 4
    – 5

  • [Solved] GENE250 W5

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-06-022-f https://university.acton.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Natural%20Law%20and%20Human%20Flourishing%20Handout.pdf See Attachments as well as links above \ WEEK5GENE250.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week5gene250-docx "WEEK5GEN…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-06-022-f
    https://university.acton.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Natural%20Law%20and%20Human%20Flourishing%20Handout.pdf
    See Attachments as well as links above
    \
    WEEK5GENE250.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week5gene250-docx "WEEK5GENE250.docx")
    \
    Yuan-HolySexualityCh7-9.pdf](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/yuan-holysexualitych7-9-pdf-10340137 "Yuan-HolySexualityCh7-9.pdf")
    \
    EF05K11.pdf](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/ef05k11-pdf-10340139 "EF05K11.pdf")
    \
    ArgumentativeEssayTips1.pdf](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/argumentativeessaytips1-pdf-10340141 "ArgumentativeEssayTips1.pdf")
    \
    Grudem-Ch33HomosexualityandTransgenderism.pdf](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/grudem-ch33homosexualityandtransgenderism-pdf-10340143 "Grudem-Ch33HomosexualityandTransgenderism.pdf")

  • [Solved] gene250w6

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    – ## WEEK6GENE250.docx – Scalia-TheHolocaust.pdf – AquinasSTII-IIq.64.pdf – MotherTeresa-AmicusBrieftoSupremeCourt.pdf **## WEEK6GENE250.docx** Is it wrong to do something that only does harm to yourself (eg. suicide, certain sexual sins such as lust or adulterous/homosexual desires, certain instanc…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    – ## WEEK6GENE250.docx

    – Scalia-TheHolocaust.pdf
    – AquinasSTII-IIq.64.pdf
    – MotherTeresa-AmicusBrieftoSupremeCourt.pdf

    **## WEEK6GENE250.docx**

    Is it wrong to do something that only does harm to yourself (eg. suicide, certain sexual sins such as lust or adulterous/homosexual desires, certain instances of stealing, etc.)? Explain why or why not using concepts from the course. (50-100 words)

    SEE ATTATCHMENTS.

    **Scalia-TheHolocaust.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/scalia-theholocaust-pdf-10361345)

    **AquinasSTII-IIq.64.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/aquinasstii-iiq-64-pdf-10361347)

    **MotherTeresa-AmicusBrieftoSupremeCourt.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/motherteresa-amicusbrieftosupremecourt-pdf-10361349)

    **MotherTeresa-AmicusBrieftoSupremeCourt.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/motherteresa-amicusbrieftosupremecourt-pdf-10361349)

    **## WEEK6GENE250.docx**

    Is it wrong to do something that only does harm to yourself (eg. suicide, certain sexual sins such as lust or adulterous/homosexual desires, certain instances of stealing, etc.)? Explain why or why not using concepts from the course. (50-100 words)

    SEE ATTATCHMENTS.

    **Scalia-TheHolocaust.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/scalia-theholocaust-pdf-10361345)

    **AquinasSTII-IIq.64.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/aquinasstii-iiq-64-pdf-10361347)

    **MotherTeresa-AmicusBrieftoSupremeCourt.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/motherteresa-amicusbrieftosupremecourt-pdf-10361349)

    **## WEEK6GENE250.docx**

    Is it wrong to do something that only does harm to yourself (eg. suicide, certain sexual sins such as lust or adulterous/homosexual desires, certain instances of stealing, etc.)? Explain why or why not using concepts from the course. (50-100 words)

    SEE ATTATCHMENTS.

    **Scalia-TheHolocaust.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/scalia-theholocaust-pdf-10361345)

    **AquinasSTII-IIq.64.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/aquinasstii-iiq-64-pdf-10361347)

    **MotherTeresa-AmicusBrieftoSupremeCourt.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/motherteresa-amicusbrieftosupremecourt-pdf-10361349)

    – 1
    – 2
    – 3
    – 4