Articulate a moral dilemma wherein one has to show a specific virtue or virtues (it can be any virtue or virtues including honesty, courage, charity/generosity, compassion, etc.)
What is the moral dilemma about?
What virtue or virtues should be shown? (You are here selecting the best course of action)
Why is that virtue or those virtues to be shown?
How should the virtue or virtues be expressed, and why in that manner?
Apply Aristotle’s golden mean to the dilemma.
Tell us how the dilemma involves conflict moral duties (loyalty to community versus to self, professional versus familial duties, national or personal obligations).
The dilemma must be a situation in which a choice has to be made.
Sample Solution
advanced by the British Marxist Historians from 1940s. The Making, published six years earlier and Captain Swing spearheaded the new history from below and social history. Yet the differences within the approaches of Thompson and Hobsbawm, are so stark that bringing them together only serves to demonstrate the diverse nature of Marxist historiography. Thompson represents a shift away from traditional Marxist interpretations and represents a historiographical tradition. He argues that class difference was not the result of economic distinctions that separated individuals, rather part of human experience. Rather than focusing on structure as being the key driver of historical change, Thompson believes people themselves can be as well. His approach still possesses Marxian-like tendencies in terms of its analysis but the focus is on the historical process. âClass happens,â Thompson posited, âwhen some men, as a result of common experience (inherited or shared) feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs.â The Making is a âhistory of ideas than of experiences,â focusing on class-consciousness rather than real life experiences of gender for example. It does not rescue all parts of the process. He fails to satisfactorily understand gender as a constituent feature of class formation. Gender blindness is glaringly apparent in Thompsonâs work, albeit touched on briefly but it is in a disjointed nature. Overall the structure of the narrative seeks to place emphasis on the role of men. Catherine Hall posits:>
GET ANSWER
advanced by the British Marxist Historians from 1940s. The Making, published six years earlier and Captain Swing spearheaded the new history from below and social history. Yet the differences within the approaches of Thompson and Hobsbawm, are so stark that bringing them together only serves to demonstrate the diverse nature of Marxist historiography. Thompson represents a shift away from traditional Marxist interpretations and represents a historiographical tradition. He argues that class difference was not the result of economic distinctions that separated individuals, rather part of human experience. Rather than focusing on structure as being the key driver of historical change, Thompson believes people themselves can be as well. His approach still possesses Marxian-like tendencies in terms of its analysis but the focus is on the historical process. âClass happens,â Thompson posited, âwhen some men, as a result of common experience (inherited or shared) feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs.â The Making is a âhistory of ideas than of experiences,â focusing on class-consciousness rather than real life experiences of gender for example. It does not rescue all parts of the process. He fails to satisfactorily understand gender as a constituent feature of class formation. Gender blindness is glaringly apparent in Thompsonâs work, albeit touched on briefly but it is in a disjointed nature. Overall the structure of the narrative seeks to place emphasis on the role of men. Catherine Hall posits:>
