A. The first thing I would like to do is return to the original “scene of the crime”, if you will. Remember the first question I asked during the first RP? It’s the one that began with the examples of:
B.
i. A stranger saving a drowning child.
ii. A solider risking their life for a civilian.
iii. A doctor making sure that a cure for an illness was affordable and available to all people.

I specifically asked you what made these actions morally praiseworthy—the motives of the agents responsible or the consequences of their actions. Remember that? Ok, so, go back to your original answer to that question on motives or consequences. Read it to yourself. Now, give me a summary of what you originally wrote and why. This doesn’t need to be longer than 3 sentences.
Got your summary? Good. Now, answer the following two questions:
1. Do you still agree with your original answer? Why or why not?
2. Between utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, prima facie deontology, and virtue ethics, which theory has had the biggest impact on your response? Why is that? Use the readings or the videos you’ve watched throughout the semester to clarify your answer. I want quotations. Put them in the MLA format.
B. Not too shabby! But here’s what I’d like you to do now. In the above, I had you talk about one of the theories you’ve learned about this semester (utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, prima facie deontology, and virtue ethics). I specifically wanted you to discuss the theory that had the biggest impact on your own moral thinking this semester. Here’s the thing. No moral theory is totally flawless. In fact, as you’ve been learning throughout the semester, you’ve also been learning about the shortcomings of each theory. And so, my question now is: of the theory you wrote about above, what do you think is that theory’s biggest flaw or limitation? Base your answer off of the course readings this semester. I’m expecting quotations. Put them in the MLA format.
C. Last one, kiddos! Why don’t we have fun with this one. Here’s a moral thought experiment for you:
After several months of a deadly cat-and-mouse chase, you and your Special Forces Unit have managed to capture Saren Arterius, the renegade responsible for a terrorist attack in Chicago, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent, civilian lives. The FBI and the CIA have determined that another terrorist attack is immanent, though the official day, time, and location is still beyond them. Saren is the only one who knows the full details. Getting this information from him may save countless civilian lives. Predictably, Saren has refused to cooperate. However, your second in command, Lieutenant Garrus Vakarian, has a plan. Recently, his unit captured Saren’s only child, a 9 year old boy named Raulito. Vakarian’s plan is to have you torture little Raulito in front of Saren, coercing him into divulging all the information he has. Though he is Saren’s son, Raulito knows nothing of Saren’s life as a terrorist; he is a normal child. From the perspective of the theory you most align with (i.e. the one you discussed throughout this RP), is it morally permissible to torture Raulito, in order to ultimately prevent a terrorist attack? Why or why not? As a follow up: Beyond what the theory recommends, what do you believe is the right thing to do? Is there a “gap” between your position and the theory position? If so, why do you think that is?