dissertation長度最后應該為4-5頁，使用標準頁邊距、雙倍行距和12號字體進行排版，這些要求會在以下內容中列出，你不需要做更多的研究。維基百科可以幫助你開始這篇dissertation，但是人們普遍認為，它提供的資料不夠(因為一些內容沒有被授權，所以我不允許你使用這種資源)。“斯坦福哲學百科全書”是比較權威的，但它可以給你更多的信息，你需可以從這里獲取你所需要的資料。

　　The final paper should be 4-5 pages long, double spaced with standard margins and 12 point font and will be based on one of six cases given below. You do not need to do additional research. Wikipedia can help you get started but the general consensus is that it is not scholarly enough to be included in academic work (some professors disagree, so I won’t mark you down for using this resource). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is more authoritative though it can give you much more information that you need for this paper.

　　在美國很多大學和學院都是在2002年以后逐步的接入互聯網，隨著越來越多的學生經常從網絡上下載電影、音樂文件，但是這些電影和音樂文件都是未經授權的盜版產品。在某些情況下，甚至有多達75%的網絡帶寬被文件傳輸所占用。

　　At many college and universities in the United States, internet connections began to slow perceptibly in 2002 as more and more students were downloading music and movies, often files that were pirated or that they were otherwise unauthorized to download. In some cases, as much as seventy-five percent of a university’s bandwidth is being taken up with file swapping.

　　The final paper will be an analysis of one of a series of six cases (given below). Here’s how I want you to structure your paper:

　　1. First, summarize in a few sentences the ethical issues involved in the case you’re writing about (i.e. why is there an ethical debate or issue here at all)? Please pick only one case! Make sure your answer is general, rather than simply repeating the facts of the case (remember the difference between a descriptive and a normative claim).

　　How are we to resolve the ethical issue(s) you identified above, that is, what is your view of the matter and what reasons do you have for it? Here I want to see an argument of some kind, with an easily identifiable conclusion and supporting premises (reasons for your claim). I do not expect you to give me a valid argument (we would need more practice with logic to do that), but I think you’ve seen enough good argumentative style in the readings for you to give it a try.

　　Of the ethical theories we have surveyed, which, if any, best accounts for your reasoning in (2)? This need not be a separate paragraph, but I need to see that you’re applying one or more of the theories surveyed in the text.

　　The next section should contain a counter-argument to the conclusion you’re tried to establish in (2). As best you can, try to give one or more philosophical reasons for thinking that your favored view is false. That is, how would someone argue against the claims you’ve made in (2)? For example, someone might attack the truth of one of the premises you’ve used in part (2). This is actually a rather difficult thing for students to do, so here’s a strategy for getting started. After writing up (2) as best you can, take a day off. Then re-read what you wrote and think of how an ethicist (like you, for example) would respond to the argument. What are its weaknesses? Might one of the premises be false? Or might the theory that it uses to draw its conclusion be suspect in some way? The reason I want you to do this is that in good philosophy one needs to anticipate some objections, which your opponent will probably already have in mind. By responding to potential objections in the course of your paper you greatly strengthen your position (see below).

　　5. Next, write a paragraph that shows that the attempted refutation in (3) fails. You may attempt to strengthen the argument(s) you gave in (2), or you may attack the attempted counter-argument just as well. You’ll see that combining 2-4 is excellent practice in learning how to write good arguments.

　　Conclusion. In the last part of the paper, state your conclusion(s), for example, that ethical theory X shows that the best way to resolve the ethical issue you previously identified in (1) is Y.

　　Grammar, sentence mechanics and spelling will be worth 10% of your total grade, so please run a spell check on your document before submitting it to me.

　　I will be looking for clarity and precision in your writing, and that you have followed the structure I’ve outline above (this should ensure good organization for your paper). I also want to see that you have actually presented arguments, in the sense that I can tell in a general way how the conclusion is supposed to follow from the premises and other evidence you have presented. I will also grade you on how well you understand the issues you have chosen to address, and that you are correctly using ethical theories in your work (for example, if you claim something follows from utilitarianism, I need to be confident you actually understand that theory).

　　A 19-year-old woman is being treated for a serious kidney disease. She is currently on a dialysis machine, but treatment is steadily decreasing in efficacy. Before her condition declines any further, the physician suggests family members undergo tests to determine tissue compatibility to transplant a kidney. Only the brother shows a degree of compatibility high enough to be considered a candidate. The physician meets the brother alone to discuss the risks and benefits of the operation. Although agreeing to be tested, the brother decides not to donate a kidney after weighing the various alternatives because of the risks, and because, as he puts it, he doesn't "feel he and his sister have ever been close enough that they would ever take that kind of a risk for each other." The physician repeats a full explanation of the risks involved, and urges him to rethink his decision because of the serious nature of his sister's illness with increasingly little time to spare. The brother remains adamant in his refusal.

　　In 1944 it became known to the Free French Partisan fighting forces that the Germans had executed 80 partisans and planned soon to execute more. The Partisans thus decided they would shoot 80 Germans prisoners who had recently surrendered to them. At this point the Red Cross intervened, won a postponement of the executions, and sought an agreement from the Germans to treat captured partisans as prisoners of war, who may not be shot. The Partisans waited 6 days and the Germans did not reply. The Partisans then shot 80 German prisoners. After these shootings the Nazis executed no more Partisans.

　　Papua New Guinea, an island nation in the Pacific, became an independent state twenty two years ago. It has only been a few decades since the tribes populating remote mountain regions of the island discovered they are not the only people on Earth. Village life in these areas still mostly follows ancient tribal traditions. Central to the tribal way of life, the compensation demanded when members of one clan kill the leader of another clan includes money, livestock, and a female clan member. Recently, for the first time in Papua New Guinea, a young woman, named Miriam Wilngal, refused to go along with the practice, fleeing instead to the home of relatives in Port Moresby, the capital of Papua New Guinea, more than three hundred miles from her village. Papua New Guinea has a legal system alongside of which the customary ancient tribal law coexists in an uncertain relationship. Ms. Wilngal went to court, represented by another woman, Ms. Susan Balen, who has broken with tradition to become a lawyer. Ms. Balen argued that the traditional tribal law can be challenged if it violates Papua New Guinea’s democratic constitution. A judge in a court forty miles from Ms. Wilngal’s village ruled in her favor. The elders of the aggrieved tribe are furious. They plan to take Ms. Wilngal’s clan to court, in effect using the modern legal system to demand their traditional tribal rights.

　　In the fall, 2002, the federal government of the United States instituted a new rule to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), allowing “unborn children” to qualify for health benefits. Supporters of this change maintained that it was an important step forward in improving prenatal care. This includes the fetuses of women who are illegal immigrants, although the women themselves and their immigrant children not born in the United States are not covered by such insurance. Proponents of the new ruling point out that, once these fetuses are born, they will be U. S. citizens if they are born in the United States.

　　Supporters of this rule say this is not a issue about abortion at all, but about prenatal care. Indeed, they maintain that abortion-rights activists who oppose this rule are in fact diminishing the quality of prenatal care that immigrant women would receive.

　　Two distinct issues became intertwined: the size and frequency of the downloads was sufficient to clog college and university networks, often interfering directly with the academic concerns that are primary to the mission of the educational institutions. In addition, students were often downloading files that they were not permitted to download—and were making use of the university’s internet connection to do so.

　　Administrators have reacted in various ways to this worsening situation. Some have added more bandwidth, often just to see it gobbled up as well. Others have been alerted by companies who felt their rights had been violated. For example, Warner Brothers contacted one college to inform them that one of their students had illegally downloaded a copy of a new Clint Eastwood movie. The Naval Academy, which has a strict honor code that prohibits stealing as well as cheating, confiscated nearly one hundred computers with unauthorized downloaded material on them. Cornell disciplined over fifty students for unauthorized downloading. Other institutions have treated the issue purely as a technical one and explored technical solutions such as limiting the amount of bandwidth a particular student could use at any one time, segregating dorms on the network from academic offices, giving lower priority to the types of files typically found on file-sharing sites, etc.

　　Mr. Jamison suffered a severe head injury in an accident and died without regaining consciousness soon after being brought to the emergency room. Upon his death, his wife requested postmortem sperm procurement, telling doctors that the couple had been trying desperately to conceive a child. Mr. Jamison had no advance directive stating, or implying, his wish to father a child, or specifying his agreement to this procedure in case of his death.

　　The hospital ethics committee noted that, under State law, the spouse of the deceased is the surrogate decision maker, and concluded, for this reason, that the decision rested with Mrs. Jamison. Mr. Jamison's parents argued that their son would never have wished to father a child who would be raised with only one parent. Mrs. Jamison's physician expressed the opinion that the Jamison's efforts to conceive a child demonstrated Mr. Jamison's desire that his wife have his child. The hospital's social worker suggested that it would be unfair to bring a child into the world with only one parent. The hospital chaplain pointed out, however, that many children live in stable, loving single parent homes. 

　　The hospital has the equipment to do the procedure and offers services for sperm collection and storage for various reasons, http://ukthesis.org/Thesis_Tips/ including posthumous fatherhood. However, it has no policy for this situation, where the father is not a competent participant in the consent process.

　　The medical staff is divided. Some feel that allowing the procedure respects Mr. Jamison's wishes to father a child with his wife. Others believe it is wrong to be an agent of conception without the explicit consent of both parents.