Category: Ethics

This order requires AI & Authenticity report!  
This is a REWRITE of the attached file, it also requires to change the quotations for more updated ones.  if able make it more broad.   
TOPICS for reference: ethics in cobalt/litium mining (africa)  and also Corporate Social Responsability/  and Diversity, equality and inclusion. 
You have completed nine (9) modules in your study of business ethics and social responsibility (MGMT 325). You have been exposed to definitions of ethics, governance, corporate social responsibility, values, and culture. You have also learned about the interactions, relationships, and influences of employees, employers, stakeholders, and the environment. You have reached the end of this course and it is time for your third and final Reflection Analysis assignment.
Along that train of thought, please craft Reflection Analysis number three, or Final as it is titled via the guidelines. 
Before you begin, review the Reflection Analysis Paper Guidelines. Also, consult the grading rubric for detailed evaluation criteria.
For this assignment, please offer a clear, concise, and first-person analysis. In your analysis, be honest, be respectful of yourself, and be respectful of the reader.

I would prefer if the documentary was in English. the instructions are under files. I would also prefer if the documentary was known.

Final Podcast Prompt: MUST BE 7-10 MINUTES LONG
Ancestor Acknowledgement: Introduce an Asian American community activist through an “Ancestor Acknowledgement.” Remember, an ancestor is a person who is no longer with us. You must do your own research to identify an Asian American activist & share a brief biography and explain why they’re important to remember. For example, talk about when & where were they born, when & where did they pass away, a brief sketch about who they were, and how they fought for justice in the US.
Include at least 1 credible source.  
Asian American community resistance against racism: Provide at least one example of Asian American community resistance to racism in the US – make sure the example is institutional racism (oppression)- that stands out to you & why. Your example can be inclusive of multiple communities of color – solidarity is a great way to talk about resistance, and in fact, I encourage you to talk about cross-racial solidarity, but it must include the role Asian American communities took. Center the voices of Asian American communities. 
Talk specifically about the racist event/policy/practice (e.g. share specific dates, place, what happened, what are the important elements surrounding that institutional racist example you’re talking about, etc.). You must also talk about how Asian American communities have fought back/are fighting back against that institutional racist example. This means you will need to research on your own to find examples.
Include at least 2 credible sources.
Call to action: End your podcast by reflecting on why it is important to work in solidarity with all communities of color to eliminate racism. Talk about what your listeners should do (the call to action) in response to the information you provided in your podcast. What is your “call to action?”
You must be specific in your call to action. Do not have a call to action that is interpersonal or general like “love your neighbor,” or “don’t be racist.” Your call to action must be connected to what a current Asian American community organization is doing to change legislation on a federal level, or state level, or local level. It must be reflective of an institutional response, not interpersonal. For example, maybe the call to action is connected to changing specific practices in business, medicine, education, etc. Get specific in your call to action and make sure it is connected to the content of your podcast.
Include at least 1 credible source
RUBRIC:
INFORMATION AND STRUCTURE, 40 PERCENT (10 points) 
Does the podcast tell a compelling story or teach us something new and important? Is it structured in a way that makes sense and keeps listeners engaged? Can we easily follow the story you’re telling or the information you’re explaining? Have you spent time editing — cutting out unnecessary information or repetition and making sure the main ideas come through clearly? Did you include all three elements from the podcast prompt (ancestor acknowledgement, Asian American community resistance against racism, call to action)?
PERSONALITY AND CREATIVITY, 40 PERCENT (10 points) 
I want to listen to this podcast and hear your voice. Do I hear your unique voice? Does the podcast have personality, or does it make me want to fast-forward? (Tip: please don’t sound like you’re reading from a script). Does the podcast make me laugh or cry or leave me deep in thought — Do I feel something? That’s what I’m looking for.
PRODUCTION, 20 PERCENT (5 points) 
I’m not judging you on how fancy your equipment is and don’t expect you to be an expert on recording and editing sound, but I do expect that you’ll try your best. Some podcasts may use sound, or audio, in creative ways. Others may be more of an interview format. If you use sound apart from interviews and narration, does it add to the story you’re telling? Is the sound clear, and are the volume levels even? Do the transitions sound smooth, without gaps between audio clips? Did you layer the audio and narration? These are some of the things I’ll be looking for.

(Only post after you’ve read the articles on abortion)
In the debate about abortion arguing about whether or not the unborn fetus is a person is a common. Those opposed to abortion arguing the fetus is a person, those in favor of abortion arguing that it is not. Both Marquis and Thompson, however, avoid this approach. Determining what makes a person (in a meaningful way) can be difficult. Discuss a trait that is sometimes used to establish person-hood, and discuss why this trait could be problematic in the sense that it may either be too narrow or too broad. 

I will need some assistance working with my Master Thesis. I will be research, discussion/suggestions and references relating to my writing. I sparring partner so to speak. One to give me relevant input and to help keep the project on track. I will write it myself, but will much appreciate to have a “Thesis-alter-ego” along the way.
The project will (so far) be a defance of the excistence of normative morals, drawing on the historic perspective from Aristotle to contemporary, a rebuttle of scepticism, an argument from moral intuition, 2 case stories (Kierkegaards take on Abraham and Isaak + Hanah Arrendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem) and an argument from Axelrod’s Game Theory concept.

Peter Singer argues that if we have enough to buy luxury items for ourselves, then we should be giving more to those in extreme poverty. 
Do you think that those who are affluent are not doing enough?
Do you think Singer is right, that we are being inconsistent with our own beliefs if we are not giving more to the poor?
Here is the link for the video

Identify the topic that all of these readings are engaging. What is the theme/s revealed in the assigned readings for this week? Is there agreement among the writers? What are they? Are there contradictions and/or disagreements? Are there any gaps in the conversation? Are there any areas that are left unclear? What are your thoughts about the information you learned in these readings?Engage the readings. What do you have to say about this topic?

You will write at least 1000 words about your research and your interview.  You need to research empathy and have at least one source.  Choose a topic (lifestyles are common but make sure the topic is something you sincerely struggle with understanding) that you strongly disagree with another person over (This must be someone you know.  You will not receive credit if you do not actively speak with the person).  Think hard about the things you think you are absolutely right about and how other’s are wrong (what do you get sanctimonious over).  Think about what it takes to get to understand you and your position on things.  Come up with a list of questions (more to get organized not to drill the person you interview because you need to be authentic).  Then have a conversation with this person who you deem so “wrong”.  BE GENTLE!  Use your research on empathy to get to know their position and their perception of things.  Many of you are going into careers in the medical field.  It is imperative that you have a basic sense of understanding and caring for a person with which you strongly disagree.  For those who are not going into medical fields, it is just a good moral foundation to have empathy and understanding for others.  

Imagine you are part of a community action group that has been asked to consider several social issues (e.g., vaccine mandates, legalized marijuana, reproductive rights). Your role is to educate other members of the action group about the various ethical theories they should be aware of as they consider the issues. 
Eventually, each member of the action group will select one social issue and one of the ethical theories to develop a solution to the chosen issue, but in this activity, you are educating your peers about the theories.
According to Ethics for Life: A Text with Readings, there are two primary categories of ethical theories: noncognitive and cognitive. Cognitive theories can be further separated into two types: cognitive relativist theories and cognitive universalist theories. Consider the ethical theories below for this assignment. 
Noncognitive
Cognitive relativist
Cognitive universalist 
Using Ethics for Life as your source, create an 8- to 10-slide presentation, such as Microsoft® PowerPoint® , that helps familiarize the members of the group with prominent ethical theories. Be sure to address the following in your presentation: 
Describe the components of each ethical theory. 
Compare and contrast the ethical theories. 
Discuss how religious beliefs or lack thereof influence each of the ethical theories.
Provide at least 2 examples of how you have applied or seen one of these theories applied by others at work or at home, or in another social context.
Include speaker notes in your presentation. 

You are to ground your essays in the material covered in Chapters 7, 8, and 9 only.
Your essay should be approximately 1000-1200 words.  Underline your thesis.
Many recent attacks on religious and racial minorities, as well as gays and lesbians, have prompted lawmakers to introduce more hate crime legislation, based on the outcry from their constituencies. But are hate crimes a valid subject for the law? A hate crime resembles a regular crime, but the intended victim is a member of a minority in society and the assailant targets him or her for that reason. Sentences for hate crimes typically are harsher than for their generic counterparts. The attribute that makes these crimes distinct is the element of hatred; and hatred, by itself, is merely an idea. Thus one could say that hate crime legislation prosecutes people for the crime of ideas, something that runs counter to our legal tradition of respect for the dignity of the individual. Prosecution of hate crimes also may use the criminal as a means (social satisfaction at punishing feelings of hate on top of an actual criminal act) rather than treat him or her as an end (someone who broke a law). On the other hand, hate crimes are horrid. They remind us of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Nazis against the Jews and other minorities, the slaughter of the Hutus in Rwanda, and the conflict between Serbs and Kosovars of Yugoslavia in the 1990s. And, there is some evidence that people who hate deeply will teach such hatred to their children and peers. Because we feel that institutionalized hatred runs counter to our idea of the free society, we attempt to criminalize such behavior in our midst. The two sides of the argument represent different values about our community, our ethical concept of punishment, and the role of government in our personal beliefs.
Essay Question: Do we need laws (or tougher laws) against hate crimes? Why? In answering this consider the related question is it ethical to prosecute people for their private feelings during a public crime?