Analyze at least one chapter of the book Pandemic Ethics by Ben Ramble

Throughout this course we have explored how it is necessary to prove that free actions are necessary to justify the existence of normative ethics. We have explored three major theoretical frameworks; virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism. Virtue ethics (Aristotle) explores the moral character of the agent by pursuing virtue through excellence. Deontology (Immanuel Kant) is concerned with the rational formulation of a categorical imperative that ought to inform the moral agent how to act (or not) according to the rational dictate. Utilitarianism (J.S. Mill) distinguishes between the higher and lower pleasures, and evaluation of consequences as the frame of reference to make moral decisions.

For the final essay you will analyze at least one chapter of the book Pandemic Ethics by Ben Ramble. Each chapter is organized by subtopics representing nuanced problems that have emerged about the pandemic.

Your essay should be at least 1000 words and make sure that you adhere to one writing style. You are required to select one of those issues and analyze a problem through the optics of the theories we have discussed. You are to assume a moral position concerning the issue. To write your essay answer the following questions after selecting and reading the chapter from the Pandemic Ethics by Ben Ramble:

What is the issue that you chose to discuss? Why did you choose the issue?
Do you agree or disagree with the author? (This is your moral position/perspective)
What theory is helpful supporting your moral position? (Here you should refer to the readings of Aristotle, Kant or Mill in the corresponding modules)
What arguments can you conceive, or are presented against your perspective? (Here you should also refer to the readings of Aristotle, Kant or Mill in the corresponding modules)
How can you overcome the objection against your perspective?
What is your conclusion about the problem?

One of the most challenging aspects of thinking critically is presenting the objections against your perspective fairly. Honestly consider the strongest objections against your views. If you can overcome those objections, then you are making a stronger case for your original position. If some objections are stronger than your perspective, then we must accept that our initial position must be reconsidered and it is thus necessary to affirm new perspectives.