How will your understanding of these ethical frameworks affect your progress in a medical degree path? Take a moment to think about the challenges that are specific to your field (Cite a Source). Identify those problems and how your deeper understanding of ethics will guide you on your path. The sources need to be peer-reviewed journals

I have attached a document please read all of it most of the information you need is there and also the last page has concepts that should be used to write this essay. No outside resource is needed unless you need to define a concept’s meaning but, do not use any outside information in the essay. No citation is needed remember that the task here is to be able to rationally persuade an intelligent non-philosopher of your position. try to define the terms you use and make clear, that this is not a research paper.
When you are done with the essay in a couple of paragraphs separately answer
“Is who you are just a matter of what your brain is?” it’s an opinion-based question using the document that
I attached. Thank you!

Peter Singer: Animal Ethics
Research Paper/Final Exam:
Choose a living philosopher and a current global topic;
write about how they communicate their professional ethics and values through
their published works. How does the current global topic relate and/or not
relate to their works? Length six pages, submitted through canvas by 5 pm
on the published UVU’s course finals day. The research paper will go through
UVU’s plagiarism checker.
1. Research the philosopher/topic (5 pts.) / i.e.
Introduce the philosopher in the beginning of your paper.
2. Discuss in your paper on how the philosopher
communicated their professional ethics and values through your chosen
topic and the philosopher’s published work(s).
3. To answer the questions from the syllabus you
might have to delve into the philosopher’s other published works and theories.
If works are co-written focus only on your philosopher’s contribution (10 pts.)
4. Is the topic you have chosen of global concern? (5
pts.)
5. Does this global topic relate or not relate to their
own academic work? (5 pts.)
See the first page of the syllabus
for professional communication values & philosophical theories (5 pts.)
Professional Communication values are:
1. Integrity
2. Objectivity
3. Professional Competence
4. Confidentiality
5. Professional Behavior
Theories we will encounter are:
1. Consequentialism
2. Deontology
3. Justice as Fairness
4. Utilitarianism
5. Virtue Ethics
6. Care Ethics
See the paper specifics below & check grammar (5 pts.):
Eight sources must be cited and
appropriately referenced. Academic Sources for citations: scholarly
publications, books, professional conferences, government documents, theses
& dissertations, professional/trade sources, peer-reviewed sources, etc. /
(10 pts.)
Non-Academic Sources – DO NOT USE:
Wiki’s, newspapers, journals, letters, etc. – Check the source, before you use
it.
Paper specifics
Title page, Times New
Roman, 12 point font, 1-inch margins, minimum of eight educational resources
included as a 7th page; those eight resources must be appropriately
cited in the paper, according to APA 7th Ed.; total length of paper,
eight pages.

In the chapter on the Dead King Jacques Rancière details how Braudel places the death of Philip II at the end of the book, placing it out of context and order. As Rancière writes, “The death of the king signifies that kings are dead as centers and forces of history.” How does this placement attempt to resolve the tension between history as narrative and the scientific and political commitments of history as a discipline?
Must include citations

Spinoza paragraph: “For whether a man is urged by love or driven by a fear of threatened evil, since in both cases his action always proceeds from his own intention and decision, either there can be no such thing as sovereignty and right over subjects or else it must include all the means that contribute to men’s willingness to obey. whenever a subject acts in accordance with the commands of the sovereign power, whether he is motivated by love, or fear, or (and this is more frequently the case) a mixture of hope and fear, or by reverence—which is an emotion compounded of fear and awe—or whatever be his motive, he acts from his ruler’s right, not from his own.” Theological Political Treatise pg. 186
Answer the following questions about the paragraph: How is the paragraphy constructed, what do the different sentences do? How do they offer evidence? How do they develop conclusions from evidence? How does it function within the argument of the text in question? How does it construct a theoretical category, in other words, a statement that does not refer to an object a thing in the world, but constructs its object. What does this category make it possible to think? How does it act on other concepts (in other words, how might Spinoza or Rousseau be referring to Hobbes).
Must include citations from: Theological

Here are a few things to consider: How does the story relate to its raw material, the languages and ideologies that make up daily life. Which seem most pertinent?
The relevant passage from Macherey for this question is here: “It is important to recognize that literary texts make a novel use of language and ideology (perhaps the two are not so very different) by wresting them in a new direction and conscripting them into a project peculiar to them alone. by wresting them in a new direction and conscripting them into a project peculiar to them alone.” (pg. 52)
How does the story transform these existing languages by subject them to determinate form and themes such as parental conflict, colonial contact, and technological change?
How do the two different stories function as a way of giving form and taking distance from the existing ideology? In other words, how do the two different accounts of the change made possible by a change of the recording of memory serve to complicate each other. Which is to say how is the meaning of the story found not in one version, one theme, or the other, but in the relationship between the two themes.
The relevant passage from Macherey is here: “what begs to be explained in the work is not that false simplicity which derives from the apparent unity of its meaning, but the presence of a relation, or an opposition, between elements of the exposition or levels of the composition, those disparities which point to a conflict of meaning. This conflict is not the sign of an imperfection; it reveals the inscription of an otherness in the work, through which it maintains a relationship with that which it is not, that which happens at its margins” (pg. 79)
Must include citations from:

Ideally, this is a 12-20 page paper analyzing how Howard Schulz and Starbucks applied principles discussed in class in
order to build the coffee giant. Focus on his use (or lack of use) of the 4 Foundations and 7 Cs. If you see ways in which the company failed to apply principles we have discussed in class, you may do that too.

STUDY QUESTIONS
Please answer all of the following questions.
1. What are the so-called speculative and
practical innate ideas, and what is Locke’s main argument against them?
2. Explain Locke’s distinction between ideas of
sensation and ideas of reflection.
3. Explain Locke’s view of simple ideas, complex
ideas, and the three mental processes involved in forming complex ideas.
4. Explain Locke’s distinction between primary,
secondary and tertiary qualities.
5. Explain Locke’s view of the state of nature,
the fundamental law of nature, and the justification of revolution.
6. Explain Berkeley’s idealism and God’s role as
the source of perceptions.
7. Explain Berkeley’s arguments for idealism
from primary/secondary qualities and simplicity.
8. Explain Berkeley’s two solutions to the
problem of God and evil.
9. Explain Hume’s view of the origin of ideas
and the test for meaning.
10. Explain Hume’s three principles of the
association of ideas.
11. What is the traditional notion of the self,
and what is Hume’s criticism of it?
12. What is the traditional notion of necessary connection,
and what is Hume’s alternative explanation?
13. What is Hume’s main argument against
miracles and his four additional arguments against miracles.
14. Explain Hume’s view about emotion and moral
judgment, and his view that “ought cannot be derived from is”.
15. Explain Hume’s view of radical skepticism
and natural belief.
[Reading 1: Locke against Innate Ideas]
16. What is Locke’s criticism of the argument
for innate ideas from universal consent?
17. What is Locke’s criticism of the view that
reason discovers innate ideas?
[Reading 2: Berkeley against Material Objects]
18. Explain Berkeley’s criticism of primary
qualities of three-dimensional extension in material objects.
19. Explain Berkeley’s criticism of the view
that God created matter as an instrument to cause perception of external
objects within humans.
[Reading 3: Hume against a Continuous Self]
20. Explain Hume’s
reasoning for his view that personal identity is only a bundle of fleeting
similar information at philosphy 110 empiricism www.utm.edu

It’s just a discusion board post. i will provided the link of the two readings assign bellow.
1) https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment
2)
https://learn-us-east-1-prod-fleet02-xythos.content.blackboardcdn.com/61aab133e7df2/6904645?X-Blackboard-Expiration=1651201200000&X-Blackboard-Signature=UPHMeFZie43qCeqmM8onw%2FfdSmhKSIH6FrH6F9K%2FyDA%3D&X-Blackboard-Client-Id=100211&response-cache-control=private%2C%20max-age%3D21600&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27harassment-care%2520%25281%2529.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjECcaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIBuZN3q3Op3UQ2sSmRHZT7r1VhVr4fJGoIqb89szKLTiAiEA9bq202tgFHZKRmmxlktrOL9t8smBM4kLr7Xdx%2FUIzigq3AQI4P%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARACGgw2MzU1Njc5MjQxODMiDOMC5yXKg3xwnGYqYSqwBBguHP30HPieVWJuwK8dnMC2D8L52ESXDIjoGGrSjE9h2kWTQnNLtX%2Biur8M1uHSQRr6u6Bmwn5Zs%2FhgA0xjjAJzM7hy8jvv0e2TjsAPgZ619B%2FqQbtM5HjeJDj577askaGQ4Si1TqU7StxE5tUYKCZZnCfgXROvcgw2Ev5maCTSS0YRdgaTxYtQ0c199LkPSsFQ1X5gtUcQ%2Bn26PF%2FVXuQ9hWp0ouyckmm2ZBnpyxwklz8XNvp7utstpycdXaQ09P8h3Jd1XVhftODbXiGBjUpXFNf2jUNOa%2BnQC5aSFdxOd0EhMS22qW9N21m9l1KPsp3XectuiT0DG9Z90WTayG3Eh4xsRk5YwYUhV6%2BvIyL10ZxhPGzoTL9CxYHr1SwQFikh108TRr3R622pFptg31rsrNZbyhIric%2Bg%2FXqio%2Bzq9lFFj1k8tXHLXtJkgOpuoXKiyr1ec9iyKUT1%2BNRs4d9GhxGDozjmGSJ25fSF%2BiBaje%2F8sumdhU%2B3llmqVAfW2ZtouRM8RChdWupXUi7UTGG6KpcpIsq4kyGGLtp2U8bza913Mt8e6d7IISWnflXZvQJ4c%2F98JHbwk891Mi1cq6WKjUvAXNHF1ijb9p1fIHTaL5Ib2K5D1MRakX9UG0%2FrWxnv5kAEbe7qhOHYeNLgrcrZagJ%2BRgXUCku5ApvXex4tMJB0MbAy17bCgDluLvFHGgZ0aukJUMRvlqMs%2F2aVRsQ16sujS1qM4TqPuQIcMUhpML2prJMGOqkBp0s9PD4YliGgxxxZmhSyeRZvE4NNGCzn3swRQaNJTZYxho3DSFcIHpdfvckOuTrTWqWWAApY7W3fV0gdVj%2FlTrXvRuCGhXjhVeyiutEXnq00zbB3ZnjxGUPyuWi1MPjZ4iKT08UMyhu5rceZPrxx0dCPRrOOcJmvoslkMkHPqadZNW%2BoC9wUjKhEK6ihHLiz6cvk2yRvm%2BCuDbkMtH%2F%2BYM6rnaND7e2cLw%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20220428T210000Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=21600&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAZH6WM4PLTM6VHY4O%2F20220428%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=3d386249d14d723635514692ae471c4e08451f0a37bb819c6027ae73fb2d1093

Your essay should be organized into four main sections.
Presentation of the Case
This first section should lay out the relevant facts of your case in purely descriptive (i.e. value-neutral) terms. What individuals or companies are involved? What action or policy or practice is in question? When and where did these actions occur? Assume your audience has no prior knowledge of the case or its context. If there is any background information necessary to understand or appreciate your case, or any technical terms that you intend to use in discussing it (e.g. dumping, strategic default, etc.), be sure to explain these as well. Also, be very careful to present the case in your own words. Although you may draw on the textbook for the facts, you will need to repackage the facts in your own, clearly distinct way.
Identification of the Ethical Issues
Next, identify and explain at least two distinct ethical questions that your case raises. Keep in mind that ethical questions can be asked about states of affairs, actions or behaviors, or distributions of goods, and that different ethical concepts are used to evaluate each of these things. For each ethical question you identify, make it clear what kind of thing (state of affairs, action, or distribution of goods) the question concerns and what specific ethical concept applies to it. If it is an action, also make sure to identify the agent, or if it’s a distribution, identify the recipients. Choose one of the two issues to be your focal question and tell your reader which one that is.
Explanation of Two Different Theoretical Approaches to Your Focal Question
Identify two different theories (e.g. Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Libertarianism, Rawlsianism, etc.) that could be used to answer your focal question and explain how each of these theories would reason about the question. For each theory, explain the basic principles it would start from, the method or process by which it would apply these principles to your case, and the conclusion you think it would reach.
Critical Assessment of the Two Approaches
Say which of the two approaches discussed in the previous section you think is more justified and why. In defending one approach over the other, you may draw on any of the general objections we discussed in class against each type of theory, or you may raise objections to one of the theories based on how it handles your particular case. One reason you should not give for preferring one theory over the other, however, is that it yields the answer in this case that you happen to like.