Ethics and critical reasoning

Accordis we’ve seen, many approaches to ethics and critical reasoning/thinking in general–value impartiality. But this week feminist ethics challenges this idea (page 184), and it doesn’t take much thinking to see their point. Consider the famous “Trolley Problem” in philosophy. It’s one thing to imagine (like a good utilitarian for example) that the “greatest good” would require steering the trolley to kill only person rather than five people. But what if that one person to be killed isn’t a random stranger, but your spouse, child, family member, close friend, etc.? Or consider a hypothetical case of rationing a medical treatment/procedure like a lifesaving drug, organ transplant, etc. Are we really willing to regard our own spouse, child, family member, etc. as no more deserving of treatment than a random stranger? Do these examples suggest that although we’re tempted to say we value impartiality, in fact, we really agree with the feminist ethicists that in practice we do value those we care about more, and that there is nothing ethically wrong with that?ng to Aristotle, what is the role of change or motion in the transition from potentiality to actuality? a. Change is unnecessary; objects can move directly from potentiality to actuality. b. Change is the process where the actual becomes potential. c. Change is the process through which objects move from potentiality to actuality. d. Change is an illusion; potentiality and actuality are fixed states. Clear my choice