CASE ANALYSIS - All six of the religious ethical systems

All six of the religious ethical systems we have studied seek justice in some form.

( Hindu Ethics, Buddhist Ethics, Confucian Ethics, Jewish Ethics, Muslim and Christian Ethics )

Applyingtworeligious ethical systems, answer the question:

Argue the case question: How should companies and countries bring fairness to LGBT issues? Remember to use particular points from materials here, to argue your case and apply a religious ethic. Write the argument using theFORMdesignated on the Case Analysis sheet (attached)

You may use a particular country or company in the argument or argue the case in general.

Read:

· Barnes and Noble Transgender Lawsuit

<http://fortune.com/2015/05/07/barnes-noble-transgender-lawsuit/>;

· Working While Trans (Attched);

· Japan: Bullied LGBT Students Unprotected

<https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/05/05/japan-bullied-lgbt-students-unprotected>

View:Religion & Ethics Newsweekly PBS video on being Transgender <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2015/08/14/october-17-2014-transgenders-theology/24400/>

Write the argument paper following the argument form.

State what is your argument

P1: Explain your first premise supporting your argument (first reason)

P2: Explain your second premise supporting your argument (second reason for your argument)

Opposing View considered: Consider a view that opposes your ownRefute: Explain how and why your argument is valid and the best.

Rubric for LGBT issues arugument

Criteria:

--The argument demonstrates a close and considerate reading and viewing of the materials

-- The argument respectfully reflects upon the context and challenges with which people lived, and the way in which religious ethics were viewed and applied at the time

-- The argument follows proper form, the premises are fully developed, the applied religious ethics are explained in full using terminology and concepts from Origins and Heidt < book:MariHeidt: Moral Traditions (referred to as the Heidt book)> , and the opposing view is valid and logically refuted

-- Two clearly articulated responses to specifics in other arguments

CASE ANALYSIS

1. Decide what is the moral issue in the case. There may be more than one.
What is the most important?
2. Pertinent Facts: What are the facts in the case that are necessary to make
an ethical assessment? Disregard superfluous information.
3. Stakeholders: Who are the persons who have something at stake in the
decision? Who was or could be harmed?
4. Decision-makers: Who are the persons who had or have the power to make
decisions in this case?
5. Ethical Argument: Make a decision as to what is the right thing to do or what
should have been done in this case. You need 2 supporting prem ises to
make your argument.
6. Apply ethical theory to your assessment: Apply different theories and decide
which theory supports your decision best, then use it in your argument.
7. Consider an opposing view: Consider an argument against your position and
refute it. If you cannot logically refute the argument, you need to reassess
your argument.
8. Affirm the outcome of your ethical assessment: Conclude
Your argument form should look like this:
• Make your claim/position (this is your argument)
• Offer 2 premises which support your claim/conclusion
• Support your position with an ethical theory
• Consider an opposing view and refute it
• Conclude
Tips for group discussion:
A. Avoid “loaded language” when discussing the persons or ‘sides’ of your case.
B. Tools for discussion: arguments by analogy; by example; from authority
C. Watch for fallacies: over generalizing; overlooking alternatives; ad hominem;
ad populum (watch for Group Think in your group work also); begging the
question; or red herring.
Consult: Anthony Weston’s, A Rulebook for Arguments.