Order SS003

As previously mentioned, I would like it if you could proofread this essay. It is written in MLA format and I have attached the document and included the rubric and requests of the topic. In the lecture “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do,” Harvard professor Michael Sandel discusses two types of moral reasoning: categorical and consequentialist. Categorical moral reasoning is a type of deontological moral reasoning based on rights and duties regardless of the consequences. Consequentialist moral reasoning bases morality on the consequences of an act rather than the act itself. Sandel describes what is often called the “trolley dilemma.” With the advent of self-driving vehicles we have an updated version of the trolley dilemma. The Moral Machine is a project by MIT that is using crowdsourcing to help make autonomous vehicles “moral.” Visit the Moral Machine website provided in the Study Materials for this module and view the short video. Click “Start Judging” at the bottom of the page and go through a few scenarios. Consider the trolley dilemma that is described in Sandel’s lecture. In an essay of 500 words, discuss the following: - Do you find yourself siding with a consequentialist or categorical (deontological) approach to moral reasoning in this case? Why? - After reviewing the Moral Machine, describe the observations you can make about yourself in how you are judging moral actions. What ethical questions are being raised for you? - Which scenario do you think is most ethical of the two scenarios described below? Which type of moral reasoning (categorical or consequentialist) would support your view? Explain. Consider the legal issues like vehicular manslaughter and liability. Who is accountable? How might laws need to be reexamined to accommodate self-driving vehicles? Scenario 1 The self-driving car with sudden brake failure will continue ahead and crash into a barrier. This will result in the following deaths of the passengers in the car: - 1 man - 1 woman - 1 boy Scenario 2 The self-driving car with sudden brake failure will swerve and drive through a pedestrian crossing in the other lane. This will result in the following deaths of pedestrians: - 1 man - 1 woman - 1 dog (Note that the affected pedestrians are abiding by the law by crossing on the green signal.) [MO1.1, MO1.2, MO1.3] Grading criteria Expectations/completeness You fulfill the length requirement for the assignment, thoroughly address all assignment criteria, and fully develop and explore concepts. You fulfill the length requirement for the assignment and sufficiently address assignment criteria and explore concepts. You do not fulfill the length requirement for the assignment and/or incompletely address assignment criteria and explore concepts. You do not fulfill the length requirement for the assignment and/or inadequately address assignment criteria and explore concepts. null Consequentialist vs. categorical You thoughtfully and clearly explain which approach to moral reasoning (consequentialist or categorical) you side with in the given scenario and provide a compelling rationale. You explain which approach to moral reasoning (consequentialist or categorical) you side with in the given scenario and provide a rationale. You simplistically explain which approach to moral reasoning (consequentialist or categorical) you side with in the given scenario and provide a vague rationale. You carelessly explain which approach to moral reasoning (consequentialist or categorical) you side with in the given scenario and provide an illogical rationale. null Self-analysis of judgments You insightfully analyze the way in which you judge moral actions and adeptly describe the ethical questions that arose upon reviewing the Moral Machine. You analyze the way in which you judge moral actions and describe the ethical questions that arose upon reviewing the Moral Machine. You cursorily analyze the way in which you judge moral actions and minimally describe the ethical questions that arose upon reviewing the Moral Machine. You insufficiently analyze the way in which you judge moral actions and unreflectively describe the ethical questions that arose upon reviewing the Moral Machine. null Selected scenario You select a scenario and compellingly explain the type of moral reasoning that supports your view of why it is the more ethical of the two options; you thoughtfully discuss the legal issues that arise from the use of self-driving vehicles. You select a scenario and satisfactorily explain the type of moral reasoning that supports your view of why it is the more ethical of the two options; you discuss the legal issues that arise from the use of self-driving vehicles. You select a scenario and loosely explain the type of moral reasoning that supports your view of why it is the more ethical of the two options; you vaguely discuss the legal issues that arise from the use of self-driving vehicles. You select a scenario and unconvincingly explain the type of moral reasoning that supports your view of why it is the more ethical of the two options; you barely (if at all) discuss the legal issues that arise from the use of self-driving vehicles. null Mechanics You write in complete, well-constructed sentences with faultless grammar, word choice, punctuation, and spelling; writing is sharp, coherent, and demonstrates sophisticated clarity. You write in complete sentences with mostly correct grammar, word choice, punctuation, and spelling; minor errors may exist but do not compromise meaning. You write in unclear sentences with significant errors in grammar, word choice, punctuation, and spelling that may compromise meaning. You write in incomplete, incomprehensible sentences filled with serious errors in grammar, word choice, punctuation, or spelling. null