Different and incompatible approaches to ethics.

Background In this Course you will become familiar with three different and incompatible approaches to ethics. Deontological and utilitarian ethics are both decision-making protocols. The method of moral enquiry strongly advocated in this course is virtue ethics, which focuses on personal character rather than decision-making. All three approaches maintain that there are universal or absolute moral principles. They stand in contrast to the theory of moral relativism, the view which maintains that there are no universal or absolute moral principles, such that each person, community, or society is ‘on their own’ when it comes to determining right from wrong. In this essay, you will consider how such theories play out in real-world circumstances. Task You are to defend one or other of the following propositions, using your knowledge of moral theories and their implications to make your case: Proposition 1: If Australians are caught and found guilty of smuggling illegal drugs into another country which has the death penalty as the standard punishment for such a crime, then it is morally right that they should be sentenced according to that country’s laws rather than those of Australia. OR Proposition 2: If Australians are caught and found guilty of smuggling illegal drugs into another country which has the death penalty as the standard punishment for such a crime, then it is not morally right that they be sentenced according to that country’s laws. References and Referencing The following sources will assist you to develop your argument. You must use at least three of them. In addition, you should feel free to locate up to two of your own references, and to use any of the CORE 1020 learning material provided in Blackboard. 1. Dolinko, David. “State Punishment and the Death Penalty.” In Companion to Applied Ethics, edited by R.G. Frey and Christopher Heath Wellman. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003: 35-61. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unda/reader.action?docID=214226 (and navigate to Chapter 6) 2. Howard, Jeffrey. “Death Penalty: Is Capital Punishment Morally Justified?” The Conversation 1 August 2015. https://theconversation.com/death-penalty-is-capital-punishment-morally-justified-42970 3. Lazari-Pawlowska, Ija. “On Cultural Relativism.” Journal of Philosophy 67: 17 (1970): 577-84. https://www-jstor-org.ipacez.nd.edu.au/stable/2023930 4. Midgley, Mary. ”On Trying Out One’s New Sword on a Chance Wayfarer.” In The Essential Mary Midgley, edited by David Midgley. Milton Park: Routledge, 2005: 218-24. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unda/reader.action?docID=199514&ppg=229 5. Park, Seungbae. “Defence of Cultural Relativism.” Cultura 8: 1 (2011): 159-70. http://search.ebscohost.com.ipacez.nd.edu.au/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=65464409&site=ehost-live&scope=site 6. Simandjuntak, Deasy. “Spectacle of the Scaffold? The Politics of Death Penalty in Indonesia.” Perspective 46 (2015). https://www.iseas.edu.sg/images/pdf/ISEAS_Perspective_2015_46.pdf 7. Tilley, John T. “Cultural Relativism.” Human Rights Quarterly 22 (2000): 501-547. https://www-jstor-org.ipacez.nd.edu.au/stable/4489287 8. Wyman, James H. “Vengeance is Whose? The Death Penalty and Cultural Relativism in International Law.” Journal of Transnational Law and Policy 6 Supp. (1997): 543-70. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jtrnlwp6&i=553 9. Hill, Thomas E. “Kant on Wrongdoing, Desert, and Punishment.” Law and Philosophy 18, no. 4 (1999): 407-41. https://www-jstor-org.ipacez.nd.edu.au/stable/3505232?socuuid=f3670f3e-817f-4fe3-af73-404a2321c642&socplat=email You must reference all of your sources using either Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition or the referencing style of your own School, including page numbers and a full Bibliography or Reference List. Structure You should structure your essay according to the guidelines provided in the Writing Skills material provided on Blackboard.