Response Paper #2

“The Woman Who Died in a Box”

This week’s reading is a self-proclaimed “case” in bioethics. For your response, I’d like you to think about what a “case” is or entails. You will also be reading “commentary” on the case by both Kim Hopper and Nicholas N. Kittrie. Your job will be to add in a third commentary—your own. You might want to begin by asking yourself what the style of these commentaries is—what are these authors trying to do and how are they doing it? You should then compose your own analysis of the case—what is your opinion on the issue of Rebecca Smith’s death? Remember, make sure to be persuasive and clear. You should also support your own ideas so that your audience believes what you have to say.

DUE: Thursday, September 13 (1 page typed)

Response Paper #1

Aristotle, from Ethics (Book XI)

Option One: Can We Still Learn from Aristotle?

For this response I’d like to suggest that you really meditate on what you think Aristotle is saying about ethics and intellect. What do we learn from Aristotle about ethics? About human character? Aristotle was also a scientist himself—working in biology and zoology. Can you make any connections between Aristotle’s meditations on “science or scientific knowledge” and how we might define bioethics for the purposes of our class (see page 207)?

In other words, if you choose this response, you want to try to think through what Aristotle is saying about ethics and science and why this is relevant to today.

Option Two: Translating Aristotle

Select one section from Aristotle’s Ethics, Book 6 and rewrite it so that it is relevant to your life today. This is an exercise in creativity—you need to play with Aristotle’s ideas and make them fit what you want from your own world/life.

DUE: Thursday, September 6 (1 page typed)