For your case study, I would like you to write a 3-5 page paper concerning the case and your decision. This paper is worth 15% of your grade. Choose ONE out
of the four cases presented below and do the following:
Present the relevant facts. Relevant facts are facts that should be considered when making a decision about what action to take in the case. (Some of these
facts will be stated directly in the case. Some must be inferred.)
Clearly list the alternatives. (What available action could be taken?)
Make your decision. (Which of the available actions will you argue should be taken?)
Defend your decision over the other alternatives. In this regard, employ BOTH a Kantian and a Utilitarian approach to the case (that is, what would Kant’s view
of the categorical imperative and the Categorical Imperative Procedure determine; what would the Principle of Utility and the view of hedonism determine?).
For example, you may defend your decision from a Kantian perspective and offer a Utilitarian criticism or vice versa. If you think neither theory can
adequately explain the basis of your decision, explain why this is the case. Provide clear arguments and reasons for your position.
Include one criticism of your position. You may have given several reasons for your decision. It is only necessary to offer a possible criticism of at least one.
(Ideally, this should be what you perceive to be the strongest criticism of your position.).
Here are some general paper guidelines to consider for your case study:
Good, clear opening paragraph
Summarize what the case is and the moral dilemma
Include a thesis statement that includes which decision should have been pursued and a justification for it
Accurate, concise descriiption of the pertinent features of the case
Other guidelines to consider:
Paper is written well: clear structure, no typos or spelling mistakes, proper grammar
Sources (if any) are properly cited
Length of paper does not exceed the suggested amount
Paper adheres to format requirements (double-spaced, margins, Times New Roman font, etc.)
WWW. CASHFORBIRTHCONTROL.COM
The State child welfare systems across the United States are overflowing with abused and neglected children. A large proportion of the children taken into
the system are born to drug-addicted mothers. Such, so-called ‘substance exposed’ infants often suffer cognitive deficits, psychological and behavioral
disorders, and chronic health problems. Such problems are substantial barriers to the well-being of these children and often significantly limit their
opportunities. For instance, because of these problems it is notoriously difficult to find adoptive homes for substance-exposed infants. Families realize that
adopting such a child will likely bring ongoing disruption to their homes, increased health care expenses and an overall uphill battle. What is worse, because
non-infants are more difficult to place than infants, such children become harder and harder to place as they grow older.
In reality, most of these children grow up in the child welfare systems, victims of ‘foster care drift,” i.e. being transferred from foster home to foster home.
This reality costs society millions of dollars, but worse, it brings harm to children. The traditional ways of addressing this problem have focused on treating
drug addiction as well as encouraging families to consider adopting state wards. A more radical alternative has been proposed by an organization known as
Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity, “C.R.A.C.K.” With chapters and representatives across the United States, the basic premise is captured by
C.R.A.C.K.’s web page address, www.cashforbirthcontrol.com (Links to an external site.)
Crack offers $200 for any drug addicted woman who is willing to undergo long-term or permanent birth control. The organization’s primary goal is to prevent
drug addicts from giving birth to children that may have the deficits and disadvantages mentioned above, and, in so doing, reduce the size and cost of public
child welfare systems. While some argue that C.R.A.C.K. is unethical because it exploits the vulnerability and desperation of marginally competent or
incompetent women, among C.R.A.C.K.’s supporters is radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger. “Some organizations just need me to mention them;
others just need my money. I felt this was an organization that not only needed by money but my name too”, said Schlessinger