Compare or Contrast two Ethical theories
Write a short (3-5 page) paper comparing and contrasting the theories of two of the following: Aristotle, Machiavelli, Kant, Locke, Mill (Utilitarianism) on one of the questions below (or another question of your choosing)
The point of the paper is to do a good job of explaining how each theory works, and to demonstrate an understanding of how they address certain issues, and can lead to different conclusions.
It is also a good idea, if you are comparing positions, to say what you think, in light of the conflict. Which side, or which elements of each, are most important? Be sure to write authoritatively-not as a first person editorial.
Be sure to reference any quotations by the author, and, if available the year or page number (This is complicated by the fact that we have been using online texts, mostly, but so long as you use a brief and consistent method, that's all that matters)
Use quotes from the authors to support your interpretation of his ideas-be sure to reference any quotes or paraphrases.
There should be no need to use secondary sources, but if you do, be sure to credit any paraphrases or quotes-as a rule only scholarly sources could be used for quotations-not wikipedia or similar resources)
How would two contrasting thinkers respond to the problem of Gyges-why should a person be morally good? (Hint-Aristotle and Kant?)
How would two contrasting thinkers respond to question of the role of self-interest in morality? (Hint: Kant and anyone?)
How would two contrasting thinkers respond to the question of human rights? (Hint: Mill or Locke and Kant)
How might two thinkers respond differently to claims about a specific moral issue, such as capital punishment or war?-note: this is not a question of LAW-but a question of what is right and wrong.
How might two thinkers disagree about the character traits that a person should have (Virtues), and what defines these traits?