Activity. Morality

  • Post category:Nursing
  • Reading time:9 mins read
  • Post author:

Activity. Morality

Description

Nursing homework help

 

Activity. Morality

Read carefully the brief description of each study. Then answer the question that follows this description. Make sure you always justify your points. Your answers will be graded based on how solid and clear your points are (in most cases, there are no right or wrong answers).

1. LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES RELY ON DIFFERENT SETS OF MORAL FOUNDATIONS (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009, Study 1)

People on the political left (liberal) and political right (conservative) have distinct policy preferences and may also have different moral intuitions and principles.Participants across the ideological spectrum rated whether different concepts such as purity or fairness were relevant for deciding whether something was right or wrong.Items that emphasized concerns of harm or fairness were deemed more relevant for moral judgment by political liberals than conservatives, whereas items that emphasized concerns for the ingroup, authority, or purity were deemed more relevant for moral judgment by political conservatives than political liberals.

Question: What do you think that these findings mean? What do they reveal about the role of culture in deciding whether something is right or wrong?Make sure you justify your points. [Write a minimum of 4-5 sentences]

YOU CAN INSERT ANSWER HERE

Reference: Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundationsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046.

2. A DISSOCIATION BETWEEN MORAL JUDGMENTS AND JUSTIFICATIONS (Hauser, Cushman, Young, Kang-Xing & Mikhail, 2007, Scenarios 1+2)

The principle of the double effect suggests that acts that harm others are judged as more morally permissible if the act is a foreseen side effect rather than the means to the greater good.Hauser and colleagues (2007) compared participant reactions to two scenarios to test this principle.In the foreseen side effect scenario, a person on an out-of-control train changes the train’s trajectory but the train kills one person instead of five. In the greater good scenario, a person pushes a fat man in front of a train, killing him, to save five people.While most participants (89%) judged the action in the foreseen side effect scenario as permissible, only a small proportion of participants (11%) judged the action in the greater good scenario as permissible.

Question: What do you think that these findings mean? What do they reveal about how we decide whether something is morally reprehensible or not?Make sure you justify your points. [Write a minimum of 4-5 sentences]

YOU CAN INSERT ANSWER HERE

Reference: Hauser, M., Cushman, F., Young, L., Kang-Xing Jin, R., & Mikhail, J. (2007). A dissociation between moral judgments and justificationsMind & Language, 22, 1-21.

3. MORAL TYPECASTING: DIVERGENT PERCEPTIONS OF MORAL AGENTS AND MORAL PATIENTS (Gray & Wegner, 2009, Study 1a)

Gray and Wegner (2009) examined the attribution of intentionality and responsibility as a function of perceived moral agency–the ability to direct and control one’s moral decisions.Participants read about an event involving a person high on moral agency (an adult man) and a person low on moral agency (a baby). In one condition, the man knocked over a tray of glasses, resulting in harm to the baby. In the other condition, the baby knocked over the tray of glasses, resulting in harm to the man. Participants then rated the degree to which the person who committed the act was responsible, how intentional the act was, and how much pain was felt by the victim. The adult man was evaluated as more responsible for committing the act than the baby. Likewise, the adult man was rated as acting more intentionally than the baby.Finally, when on the receiving end of the act, the adult man was viewed as feeling less pain compared to a baby.

Question: If we were to run a similar study in various cultures, do you think that we would find similar findings or that the differences between the two conditions would be stronger in some cultures than in others? Make sure you justify your points. [Write a minimum of 4-5 sentences]

YOU CAN INSERT ANSWER HERE

Reference: Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patientsJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505-520.

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.

 

Not written clearly or concisely.

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

 

No credible sources are cited.

Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Total Points: 100