Read/review the following resources for this activity:
- Textbook: Chapters 9, 10
- Minimum of 5 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
First, return to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.
- Answer this question: What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side in that debate?
- Next, articulate and then evaluate the ethical positions using Kantian ethics (that is, the categorical imperative) relative to the long standing debate (that is your topic chosen in the week three assignment).
- Finally, create a complete annotated bibliography for 5 academic scholarly sources. You will annotate each source. The sources should be relevant to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.
Include the following:
- Publication details
- Annotation (a detailed reading of the source)
Each annotation section should include the following:
- Summarize key points and identify key terms (using quotation marks, and citing a page in parentheses).
- Describe the controversies or “problems” raised by the articles.
- State whether you agree or disagree and give reasons.
- Locate one or two quotations to be used in the final research project.
- Evaluate the ways in which this article is important and has helped you focus your understanding.
Use the following as a model:
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58-63.
In this article, Mezirow (2003) makes a distinction between “instrumental” and “communicative” learning. “Instrumental learning” refers to those processes which measure and gauge learning, such as tests, grades, comments, quizzes, attendance records and the like. “Communicative learning,” on the other hand, refers to understanding created over time between individuals in what Mezirow calls “critical-dialectical-discourse,” (p. 59) which is a fancy way of saying, important conversation between 2 or more speakers. Another key idea Mezirow discusses is “transformative learning,” (p. 61) which changes the mind, the heart, the values and beliefs of people so that they may act better in the world. Mezirow argues that “hungry, desperate, homeless, sick, destitute, and intimidated people obviously cannot participate fully and freely in discourse” (p. 59). On the one hand, he is right: there are some people who cannot fully engage because their crisis is so long and deep, they are prevented. But, I don’t think Mezirow should make the blanket assumption that everyone in unfortunate circumstances is incapable of entering the discourse meaningfully. One thing is certain: if we gave as much attention to the non-instrumental forms of intelligence–like goodness, compassion, forgiveness, wonder, self-motivation, creativity, humor, love, and other non-measured forms of intelligence in our school curriculums, we’d see better people, actors in the world, and interested investigators than we currently have graduating high school.