Please read the requirements very Carefully!!! You must and can only using the material that I provided

Pick one of the following topics, and write an argumentative essay of approximately 1,000 words (excluding the bibliography) in response to the question posed for your chosen topic. Further instructions follow; please ensure you review them before beginning to write.Essay 2 – Applying Ethical Theories Pick ​one​ of the following topics, and write an argumentative essay of ​approximately​ ​1,000 words​ (excluding the bibliography) in response to the question posed for your chosen topic. Further instructions follow; please ensure you review them before beginning to write. Topic A – Disguising Advertising as Search Results Google Search is increasingly making advertisements resemble regular results. Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, claims that the changes are to improve the user experience, and to make advertisements, which support the Google Search service, as useful to users as possible. But advertising experts are suspicious that these moves are mainly motivated by Alphabet’s business interests, and have raised concerns that users may be confused by proposed changes to the Google Search user interface. You can read a recent article about this controversy here: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/24/google-will-iterate-the-design-that-made-it-harder-to-tell-ads-f rom-search-results.html Would it be unethical if Google Search made advertisements look exactly the same as its search results? Why or why not? Topic B – The Ethics of Content Moderation A large amount of content uploaded to Facebook each day contains misinformation, sexual content, and disturbing imagery. Because its automated filters are insufficient to catch every case, Facebook Inc. relies on large numbers of human staff to review content that is flagged for violations on their platforms. Without these moderators, users of the Facebook platform (and other services owned by Facebook Inc., such as Instagram) would be exposed to a great deal more problematic content. But, because of the nature of this content, many of these moderators have reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder from their work. Recently, Facebook agreed to a $42 million (US) settlement, awarding each moderator who is diagnosed with similar conditions a minimum of $1,000 (US) in compensation and expanded therapeutic treatment options. You can read an article about this settlement and its background here: https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21255870/facebook-content-moderator-settlement-scola-p tsd-mental-health Is Facebook’s content moderation strategy unethical? Why or why not? Further Instructions To do well on this assignment, you must: ● Pick an answer to the question.​ Your essay should clearly indicate the position you will be arguing for in a thesis statement in the introduction. ● Justify your answer with ​ethical​ arguments. ​Your essay must present a case for why the answer you picked is correct, rather than simply asserting that it is. Your answer must take a stand on whether something is unethical or not; essays that only argue for why something is or isn’t legal or prudential will not receive full marks. ● Apply ​at least ​one ethical theory.​ Your arguments must use at least one ethical theory to defend your answer to the question. You must briefly explain the theory you are using, how it applies to the case at hand, and why it supports your answer to the question. ● Consider ​at least​ one objection or alternative perspective.​ In the course of presenting arguments for your answer to the question, you are expected to consider alternative answers or potential criticisms of your answer. Present and evaluate the arguments that someone defending that alternative perspective might make. Explain why those arguments don’t work, or why your position is better. Try to respond to the best possible arguments for the alternative you consider. ● Spend the majority of your essay developing and evaluating arguments.​ Do not spend too many words summarizing the facts of the case. Briefly introduce the topic, tell the reader what you are going to argue for, then present your arguments and respond to objections. ● Write in clear, formal English, and present your arguments in an organized way. While the majority of your grade will be determined by your arguments and responses to objections, some of your grade is based on the quality of your writing. Spelling, grammar, and style errors will lower your grade, as will unclear writing or a structure that is difficult to follow. ● Follow the formatting requirements.​ To facilitate marking and aid in mitigating unconscious bias, please ensure your assignment follows the specifications in the Assignment Formatting Checklist on Brightspace. Do not include your name anywhere on the assignment—type your Banner number in the header instead. Submit your assignment electronically on Brightspace as a PDF, Word, OpenDocument Text, or Rich Text file. Each failure to follow formatting requirements will incur a ​–0.5% penalty​ to your assignment grade. ● Do not plagiarize or engage in any other form of academic dishonesty.​ Unless you have made special arrangements, your work will be analysed by Urkund to check for instances of plagiarism. Review the Examples of Plagiarism handout on Brightspace. Double-check your citations and bibliography to ensure that you do not accidentally plagiarise any content. Additionally, collaboration on this assignment is not allowed; this assignment assesses your individual work. It is your responsibility as a student to review and ensure that you understand the ​university’s policies on plagiarism and academic integrity​. Don’t jeopardize your grade or your degree! Your essay will be graded using the ​Argumentative Essays Rubric​, which is posted on Brightspace. Please familiarize yourself with its criteria before you start to write. Writing Support The instructor and TAs are available to consult by email or audio/video call. We are happy to offer feedback on ideas and outlines. If time permits, we may be able to offer feedback on drafts. The University Writing Centre has moved its services online. Visit their website for information on how they can help you develop your academic writing skills: https://www.dal.ca/campus_life/academic-support/writing-and-study-skills.html Other support services are listed in Section B of the syllabus. Assignment Formatting Checklist ☑ Check the following before submitting your assignment. Failure to conform to these requirements will incur a cumulative –0.5% penalty for each formatting error. Typesetting ❏ Common, professional, legible font, 11- or 12-point size (e.g. Times New Roman or Arial) ❏ Double-spaced lines ❏ First-line indents Layout ❏ Letter size (8.5” * 11”) ❏ 1-inch margins ❏ No title page Technical ❏ Filetype: doc, docx, odt, rtf, or pdf ❏ Banner number in the page header and student name not included anywhere in the paper ❏ Word count on the last page and within 10% of the assigned length (1000 ± 100 words) Citations ❏ Citations provided in-line for all references ❏ Works cited section includes complete citations for all in-line references ❏ Chosen citation style (e.g. APA, Chicago) used correctly Why these requirements? These requirements aren’t here just to trip you up! They serve a few important purposes: ● Facilitating fair grading​. Making all assignments conform to a standard format and removing student names reduces the possibility of unconscious bias. ● Academic integrity​. The citation requirements are essential to academic integrity and to teach good practices of crediting others’ work. PHIL 2490 & CSCI 3101 Assignment Formatting Checklist ● Technical writing skills​. Whatever you end up doing professionally, you will encounter instructions similar to this one that require you to conform to a particular style, length, and format. PHIL 2490 & CSCI 3101 Assignment Formatting Checklist Bioethics ISSN 0269-9702 Volume 13 Number 3/4 1999 FOUNDATIONS, FRAMEWORKS, LENSES: THE ROLE OF THEORIES IN BIOETHICS SUSAN SHERWIN ABSTRACT I explore the implications of the foundation metaphor for understanding the role of moral theories in ethics and bioethics and argue that its disadvantages outweigh its advantages. I then consider two other metaphors that might be used instead, those of frameworks and lenses. I propose that the metaphor of lenses is most promising in providing methodological guidance for drawing on moral theories when deliberating about bioethical problems. It is common to speak of bioethics as requiring well developed foundations to ensure the legitimacy of its claims. The implication is that if we can `ground’ our bioethical views upon a solid theoretical footing, we can establish the validity of our practical judgements. Whenever we make this sort of reference to a theoretical foundation, we are appealing to a familiar and evocative structural metaphor: just as the foundations of buildings are meant to provide a strong, solid base for whatever rests upon them, so, too, theoretical ethical foundations should provide structural support to the bioethical claims that rely upon them. I shall argue that it is important to recognize the role of metaphor in this picture. Understanding that the foundational view of theories is metaphorical allows us to compare how two other metaphors, specifically those of frameworks and of lenses, can provide different, and I think better, understandings of the place of ethical theory within bioethics. Before turning to the specific metaphor of foundations for ethics, let us briefly consider the necessary role that metaphors play in bioethics. Probably the most familiar and least controversial task of metaphors is their aesthetic role, for it is clear that they can add colour and interesting connections to ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. THE ROLE OF THEORIES IN BIOETHICS 199 discussions. It is also the case that metaphors perform an important epistemological function; this role is especially important in any task that involves abstract reasoning. They aid in the understanding of complex ideas by transfering the relations that hold in the domain of the metaphor to those that exist within the domain of the field we are contemplating. For example, we can speak of a sports team as being `hot,’ `cold,’ or `heating up’ to describe their recent record as successful, poor, or improving. This understanding is possible because the metaphor works by transferring the relations among temperature ranges to the realm of sport. Similarly, when we speak of medicine as engaged in a `war’ against disease, we suggest a view in which illness is similar to an invasion of some alien substance (or internal decay); as well, our goal is taken to be eradication or at least neutralization of the harmful agent, we speak of strategies that involve the use of available `weapons’ in the form of medical interventions, and we often reduce the patient to her body which is treated as a battlefield. Metaphors also play an important ethical role for they determine our understanding of the practices in question and, in doing so, they influence our evaluation of each. For instance, when we think of the subjects of medical care as `patients’ Ð i.e., as passive recipients of medical interventions Ð we evaluate medical practices differently than we do when we think of patients as active consumers engaged in decision-making about their own health. Moreover, the metaphors selected often affect our ability even to perceive the possibility of other approaches to a problem. Hence, the metaphor of the body as machine supports development of high-tech medical interventions but it makes spiritual responses to illness seem irrelevant. Metaphors are pervasive in ethics itself, as they are in other areas of abstract thought. They provide us with access to moral understandings that may be unavailable through other means. Not only do they shape our understanding of central concepts, but they also frame the issues we recognize as morally significant or problematic and they inform our sense of available solutions. All metaphors function as models or analogies. As such, they emphasize similarities between the two realms in question while obscuring differences. That is, in the process of helping us to understand one set of relations in terms of another, metaphors highlight certain features of the domain to which they are applied and, inevitably, they hide or distort others. Thus, while facilitating one way of understanding a concept, situation, practice, or theory, the specific metaphors invoked may limit ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999 200 SUSAN SHERWIN our ability to conceive of alternative ways of interpreting the subject matter and they may divert our gaze from other possible strategies. Consider, now, the metaphor of `foundations’ for bioethics. Foundationalism is a highly attractive way of understanding the nature of abstract thought in ethics. It encourages us to believe that all true claims can (at least in principle) be `grounded in’ solid, undeniable truths and it directs us to evaluate controversial claims by considering whether or not they are supported by plausible theoretical assumptions. But we should keep in mind that foundationalism is a metaphor whose task it is to transfer the relations of concrete physical structures to abstract theoretical claims. The governing architectural metaphor suggests that there is a well-ordered structural relation among different types of ethical claims. Specifically, it directs us to search for `deep’ or `core’ principles that `lie underneath’ all other ethical claims, while advising us to assume that non-foundational ethical claims must be shown to be `resting on’ or `supported by’ the deeper foundational claims. The structural metaphor of foundationalism illuminates relationships among different `levels’ of moral claims and directs us to `dig deeper’ when seeking justification for `ungrounded’ claims. By implying the existence of an ultimately firm, concrete basis for all true ethical assertions, and by demanding that we direct our attention to the theoretical `base’ for each practical conclusion, foundationalism provides both a sense of security in the reliability of bioethical claims and an implicit methodology for dealing with controversy. At the same time, the metaphor of foundationalism discourages us from asking questions about moral matters that do not fit within the structure imagined. For example, if the bioethical system is seen to be `built on’ propositions as the foundational units, then non-propositional sorts of moral understanding will likely be overlooked. Similarly, if the system is organized around a set of basic duties, then questions of other moral categories such as character or attitudes are usually excluded. And if the foundation is something like the principle of utility, nonconsequential considerations will not be addressed. Categories that do not consist of the particular building materials available are seldom recognized as falling within the sphere of ethics at all. In such ways, the foundational metaphor restricts our awareness of what is ethically significant. It may, then, not be the best metaphor to rely on in considering our activity in the sphere of bioethics. There are other reasons to resist the attractions of a foundational approach to bioethics. An important one is its ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999 THE ROLE OF THEORIES IN BIOETHICS 201 inability to fit with current cognitive science insights about the ways in which humans actually reason about practical ethical matters. Cognitive science tells us that prototype theory provides a better account of the ways in which human beings deliberate about ethical matters in difficult situations than do foundational models. The empirical evidence suggests that ethical reflection depends on having a set of core ethical beliefs that describe clear cases of morally objectionable or praiseworthy behaviour which constitute the prototypes of ethical deliberation. When confronted with cases that do not fit neatly into any of the available prototypes, we must struggle to expand our moral understandings by reflecting on their similarities to and differences from the prototypes that constitute our settled moral intuitions. As Mark Johnson (1993) argues, we do this by appealing to a variety of imaginative strategies, including narrative explorations, image schemas, and, notably, metaphors. Foundationalism makes the common mistake of presuming that we reason about difficult moral cases by finding deep and timeless moral laws from which we can deduce the appropriate applications in complex new domains. When we are confronted by problematic moral problems, however, we seldom actually proceed by appeal to laws that deductively imply a solution. The empircal evidence suggests that people typically explore the relation of a problematic case to existing prototypes in order to determine where relevant similarities and differences lie; they do not deductively reason from foundational principles. The metaphor of foundationalism tends to distract us from the strategies that we must rely on when confronted with problematic moral situations and it recommends instead a strategy few people seem able to follow. Just because we are inclined to reason in a certain way does not mean it is the morally correct way to reason, of course; nor does the fact that foundational strategies are difficult to apply prove that they are mistaken. It is, however, reason to give us pause in our commitment to foundationalism. At the least, it shifts the burden of proof to those who would argue that we should train ourselves to reason according to the deductive demands of foundationalism despite the conflicting reality of moral psychology. When we add the pragmatic difficulty associated with applying foundationalism to the important observation that there is no consensus as to what theoretical claims are certain enough to do the work of solid foundations, we have good reason to consider alternative approaches. Pragmatically and theoretically, prototype theory provides a better model for bioethics methodology than foundationalism ß Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1999 202 SUSAN SHERWIN does. Where foundationalism directs our moral energies towards the perpetually elusive goal of identifying a unified, certain foundational basis for bioethical reasoning, prototype theory encourages us to appeal to our moral imaginations to try different ways of understanding a problem in an effort to get the best fit. Foundationalism ties us to a picture of a timeless moral law that provides a single true description of a moral problem and a single, precise resolution of it; in doing so, it constrains us from appreciating the plurality of ways of framing and resolving moral issues that are always available. It discourages us from exploring alternative conceptions and solutions of moral matters. Prototype theory grants us the conceptual space needed to pursue other imaginative ways of framing and addressing the moral problems that trouble us. Thus, I suggest, bioethicists would do better to move away from the rigidity implicit in the foundational metaphor for ethics, and instead appeal to metaphors that encourage ideas of plurality and diversity in available ethical approaches. Consider, for example, the images associated with thinking of moral theories as providing frameworks for alternative approaches to practical ethical deliberations. This metaphor opens up spaces that can be filled in multiple ways and it encourages us to appreciate the value of being open to different theoretical approaches. Such openness accords well with the practical experience of ambivalence that many bioethicists feel towards different theoretical perspectives. Most bioethicists are aware of the powerful critiques that have been developed against each type of theoretical approach that has been recommended for bioethics (Kantian, utilitarian, social contract …