- Minimum of 5 scholarly sources (This includes the sources from the annotated bibliography. Additional sources may be included as appropriate.) *****I have added my annotated bibliography paper for resources on files
Return to the topic you chose in the week 6 ( Gun Control ) assignment. Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.
- Summarize the dilemma.
- Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.
- Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.
Revise and rewrite based on any feedback you received in your previous draft (week three). Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc. State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.
What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing? Use moral values and logical reasoning to justify your answer
Next, apply the following:
- Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma
- Utilitarianism to the dilemma
- Natural Law ethics to the dilemma
Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?
Why do the other two not work or not work as well?
Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?
Use the 5 articles from your annotated bibliography to support your answers. (Additional academic scholarly research from the past 5 years can be included as well.)
Include a reference page at the end of your paper in APA format that includes your bibliography with the annotations removed and any other sources used in your final paper.
- Length: 4 pages (not including title page or references page)
- 1-inch margins
- Double spaced
- 12-point Times New Roman font
- Title page
- References page (minimum of 5 scholarly sources)
Minimum of 5 scholarly sources (This includes the sources from the annotated bibliography. Additional sources may be included as appropriate.) *****I have added my annotated bibliography paper for res
1 G un C on tr o l W eek 5 Gun Contr ol Flory Ruiz ETHC 445N-60344. Professor Dr . Dan Harris Chamberlain University College of Nursing. April 7, 2023. 2 G un C on tr o l Gun Contr ol The debate over gun control is complex, with personal and communal ethical factors at play . Those who support stricter gun control laws ar gue that it is a moral imperative to reduce gun violence and protect the lives of innocent people. On the other hand, opponents of gun control ar gue that protecting individual rights and liberties is a moral imperative. Both sides appeal to values such as safety , freedom, and personal responsibility , making reaching a consensus on the issue dif ficult. The debate over gun control is complex, with personal and communal ethical factors at play . Those who support stricter gun control laws ar gue that it is a moral imperative to reduce gun violence and protect the lives of innocent people (Blanco, 2016). They believe that the right to bear arms must be balanced with the greater good of society . On the other hand, opponents of gun control ar gue that protecting individual rights and liberties is a moral imperative. They believe the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms as a fundamental part of American freedom and identity . Additionally , some may ar gue that gun ownership is necessary for self-defense and the protection of loved ones. Both sides appeal to values such as safety , freedom, and individual responsibility , making reaching a consensus on the issue dif ficult. Ethical Positions Based on the categorical imperative, Kantian ethics would take the stance that it is morally imperative to reduce gun violence and protect the lives of innocent people. According to Kantian ethics, moral decisions should be based on universal principles that apply to all individuals equally , such as the principle that all humans have inherent worth and dignity (Sensen, 201 1). Therefore, the use of guns in violent crimes, which undermines this principle, is 3 G un C on tr o l immoral. Furthermore, promoting public safety and protecting human life are moral imperatives that take precedence over individual rights and freedoms. As such, the right to bear arms must be balanced against the greater good of society , and strict gun control measures are morally justified. Annotated Bibliography Esposito, L., & Finley , L. L. (2014). Beyond gun contr ol: Examining neoliberalism, pr o-gun politics and gun violence in the United States. Theory in Action , 7 (2). Esposito and Finley’s article “Beyond Gun Control: Examining Neoliberalism, Pro-Gun Politics and Gun V iolence in the United States” ar gues that the focus on gun control ignores the role of neoliberalism in shaping pro-gun politics and American gun culture. The authors explain how neoliberalism has encouraged values of self-reliance, individualism, and ruggedness, which are central to pro-gun claims. They also show how hyper -masculinity is compatible with these values and how a neoliberal market society reinforces them. The authors conclude by ar guing that ef forts to minimize gun violence must focus on challenging the neoliberal ideological forces and social structures that erode social bonds, encourage hyper -individualism, and normalize the survival of the fittest ethic. The article uses keywords such as neoliberalism, gun politics, American gun culture, gun violence, gun control, and masculinity . The authors are Luigi Esposito, Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminology at Barry University , and Laura Finley , Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminology at the same institution. The controversy or problem raised by the article is that the focus on gun control does not address the underlying values and social structures that support pro-gun politics and American gun culture. The authors ar gue that these values and structures are rooted in neoliberalism, which 4 G un C on tr o l encourages individualism, self-reliance, and the survival of the fittest ethic, and that ef forts to minimize gun violence must challenge these forces. I agree with the central point of the article that discussions about gun violence have tended to focus almost exclusively on issues related to gun control and have lar gely ignored the relevance of neoliberalism in terms of how this market ideology has supported many of the values, perspectives, and behaviors that are central to America’s pro-gun culture and politics. It is important to challenge the neoliberal ideological forces and social structures that erode social bonds, encourage hyper -individualism, and normalize the survival of the fittest ethic. Ef forts to minimize gun violence must move beyond the issue of gun control and focus on addressing the underlying societal and cultural factors that contribute to it. One quotation that could be used in a research project is: “Our central point in this article is that these discussions have lar gely ignored the relevance of neoliberalism in terms of how this market ideology has, particularly since the 1980s, supported many of the values, perspectives, and behaviors that are central to America’s pro-gun culture and politics”. The article is important because it highlights the need to look beyond gun control and address the underlying values and social structures that support pro-gun politics and American gun culture. This can help to broaden the focus of ef forts to minimize gun violence and lead to more ef fective strategies. Gopnik, A. (2012). The Simple T ruth about Gun Contr ol. The New Y orker , December , 19 . In this article, Gopnik ar gues that ef fective gun control laws are necessary to prevent gun violence in America, specifically in schools and public places where mass shootings often occur . He likens the situation to a hypothetical city with a deadly infection, where the cure is well understood and readily available. Still, a faith-healing cult prevents the treatment from being 5 G un C on tr o l administered to children. Gopnik asserts that ef fective gun control measures would prevent most gun violence and that it is a solvable problem. He cites examples of countries like Scotland, Australia, and Canada that have passed necessary laws to make gun-owning dif ficult. As a result, the US has not experienced mass shootings to the same degree. He notes that the specific legislation that makes gun-owning hard in dif ferent places does not matter much, but what is important is to implement laws that make gun-owning hard. Gopnik also presents evidence that all crime, including violent crimes like assault and rape, is opportunistic and that making it even a little bit harder to commit crimes can significantly reduce their occurrence. He concludes that ef fective gun control measures would save lives and prevent politicians from giving speeches after massacres, as seen in other countries that have successfully implemented such measures. This article highlights the ongoing debate and controversy surrounding gun control laws in the US. While some may ar gue for individual rights to gun ownership, others, like Gopnik, believe that stricter laws can prevent gun violence and save lives. I agree with the author that gun control is necessary to prevent gun violence in society . The comparison drawn by the author between a city plagued by a deadly infection and the rampant gun violence in the United States is compelling. The author ar gues that a cure or solution is available in both situations, but certain groups refuse to adopt it, citing personal beliefs or interests. One of the key quotes that could be used from this article is, “Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on bacterial infections.” This quote highlights Gopnik’s main ar gument that ef fective gun control laws are necessary to prevent gun violence. This article is important because it presents a clear and concise ar gument for ef fective gun control measures in the US. It has helped me understand the importance of implementing such measures and their 6 G un C on tr o l potential benefits. However , it is worth noting that there are also valid ar guments against gun control laws, and this article presents only one perspective. Kr ouse, W . J. (2017). Gun Contr ol: Federal Law and Legislative Action in the 1 14th Congr ess. Congressional Research Service . The article describes the debates held in the 1 14th Congress about several gun control proposals following two high-fatality mass shootings in December 2015 and June 2016. The debates centered around issues such as the Attorney General’s authority to deny firearms to “dangerous terrorists,” expanding federal background checks, providing grants to states to rise computer access to records on people prohibited from possessing firearms and codifying or revising definitions related to mental incompetency in federal gun control regulations. While Congress did not enact any of these measures, they included a provision in the 21st Century Cures Act that formalized specific V A procedures that handle benefits claims, mental incompetency determinations, and gun transfer and ownership eligibility . Background information on the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, two key federal statutory frameworks for gun control, is also included in the article. The article is informative and provides an overview of gun control legislation and debates in the 1 14th Congress. The key terms used in the article include “No Fly , No Buy ,” “NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA),” “21st Century Cures Act,” “National Firearms Act of 1934 (NF A),” and “Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).” One of the problems raised in the article is the dif ficulty in passing gun control legislation despite the occurrence of mass shootings. I agree with the need for better regulation and background checks on firearms. The mass shootings that have occurred in recent years demonstrate the importance of addressing gun violence. One quotation that can be used from the article is, “should federal background check 7 G un C on tr o l requirements be expanded to include intrastate firearms transfers among private, unlicensed persons?” The article has helped me to understand the current state of gun control legislation and the challenges in passing gun control laws. Müller , V . C. (2015). Gun contr ol: A Eur opean perspective. Essays in philosophy , 16 (2), 247-261. V incent C. Müller , a European philosopher , examines the debate about gun control in the US from a European perspective. Müller notes that the European consensus is that guns should be tightly controlled and that civilian ownership of guns should be rare. The author suggests that this dif ference in attitude occurs due to dif ferent cultural habits that generate dif ferent attitudes, and he supports this with an analogy to knives. Müller concludes that it is plausible that individual gun owners do not want tight regulatory legislation, but tight gun legislation is morally obligatory for the greater good. The article is important in highlighting the stark dif ferences in attitude between Europe and the US towards guns and is relevant to the current debates on gun control. Some Key points in the article include “European consensus is that guns should be tightly controlled” and “T ight gun legislation is morally obligatory for the greater good.” The article presents a biased perspective, as the author is a European philosopher who does not have direct experience with American culture or society . The article also does not consider the cultural, social, and political dif ferences between Europe and the US, which could account for dif ferences in attitudes toward guns. I agree with the author that tight gun legislation is morally obligatory for the greater good. However , I also think the US has a unique cultural and political history with guns that cannot be easily dismissed. One quotation from the article includes, “From a European perspective, the US debate about gun control is puzzling because we have no such debate: It seems obvious to us that 8 G un C on tr o l dangerous weapons need tight control and that ‘guns’ fall under that category . “I suggest that this dif ference occurs due to dif ferent habits that generate dif ferent attitudes and support this explanation with an analogy to the habits about knives.” The article is important in highlighting the dif ferences in attitudes towards guns between Europe and the US. It is a valuable resource for understanding the European perspective on gun control and provides insights into the ongoing debates on gun control. However , the article also has limitations, as it presents a biased perspective and does not consider the US’s unique cultural and political history with guns. Y ousaf, H. (2018). Sticking to one’s guns: mass shootings and the political economy of gun contr ol in the US. A vailable at SSRN 3360831 . The article “Sticking to One’ s Guns: mass shootings and the political economy of gun control in the US” by Y ousaf (2018) analyzes the impact of mass shootings on electoral outcomes, voter preferences, and gun policy in the United States. The author constructs a list of mass shootings from 2001-2012 and finds that Republicans lose significant votes in all federal elections after mass shootings. While mass shootings do not change the average preferred gun policy among the electorate, they increase the importance of gun policy among voters and lead to an even greater disagreement on gun policy between Democrats and Republicans. The article also highlights the role of the NRA, which increases its contributions to Republican candidates after mass shootings. One controversy raised by the article is the causal relationship between mass shootings and changes in voter preferences and electoral outcomes. The author uses a dif ference-in-dif ference strategy and variations of identification strategy , placebo and falsification exercises to support the causal impact of mass shootings. However , critics may ar gue that other confounding variables could af fect the results. I agree with the findings of the 9 G un C on tr o l study by Y ousaf (2018) that mass shootings lead to a decline in Republican votes in federal elections and an increase in the importance of gun policy among voters. Unsurprisingly , such tragic events lead to changes in political outcomes and voter preferences. One quotation that could be used in a research project is: “While mass shootings do not change the average preferred policy among the electorate, they impact the electoral outcomes through an increase in the importance of gun policy among voters”. This article is important because it sheds light on the impact of mass shootings on gun policy and the polarization of American voters. It has helped me understand the complex relationship between mass shootings and political outcomes and provides a useful framework for future research on gun control in the United States. Conclusion The ongoing debate about gun control laws in the US is a contentious issue with no easy solution. The ar guments for and against stricter gun control laws are based on dif ferent ethical positions, and both sides have valid points. While gun control proponents emphasize public safety and the protection of human life, opponents ar gue for individual rights and freedoms. Ultimately , any solution to this problem must balance the competing values and interests at play , and it is crucial to continue the conversation in order to find a way forward. 10 G un C on tr o l Refer ences Blanco, D. V . (2016). The gun control debate: Why experience and culture matters. International Journal of Public Administration , 39 (8), 620-634. Esposito, L., & Finley , L. L. (2014). Beyond gun control: Examining neoliberalism, pro-gun politics and gun violence in the United States. Theory in Action , 7 (2). Gopnik, A. (2012). The Simple T ruth about Gun Control. The New Y orker , December , 19 . Krouse, W . J. (2017). Gun Control: Federal Law and Legislative Action in the 1 14th Congress. Congr essional Resear ch Service . Müller , V . C. (2015). Gun control: A European perspective. Essays in philosophy , 16 (2), 247-261. Sensen, O. (201 1). Kant on human dignity . In Kant on Human Dignity . de Gruyter . Y ousaf, H. (2018). Sticking to one’s guns: mass shootings and the political economy of gun control in the US. A vailable at SSRN 3360831 .