Below is the paper given to us in class. Basically we had to read an article called “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets” by Peter Singer. We have to read that and compare it to an article we found on the schools website. Below is the link to that article. Those are the two pieces of literature needed to write the paper. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CA254651769&v=2.1&u=gale15691&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&authCount=1Assignment:Paper Three: Expanding the Conversation[img alt=’page1image1496′ width=’63’ height=’1′ src=’https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=c8d7844b84&view=fimg&th=148e7afc05c72488&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&attbid=ANGjdJ-w1nBntOTmqWXP90jOz3Dyp6HF4wJrCeC9TzGw2qYzJqUAtRYHbEzBAmWlmy0EAtLTLQzskuL6unX8WVeZVnBsxywrDELu2_NQck_Rh63JXaa8rYHTQ4R93Wc&sz=-w1600-h1000&ats=1412653461304&rm=148e7afc05c72488&zw&atsh=1′ class=’CToWUd’>Details:This paper represents the first step in research. You will be responsible for discovering some article or book chapter or other scholarly source that will help you expand or adjust your initial argument. The key will be to find some source that will give you the opportunity to shift your position in some way, to argue something slightly different than your position in the original paper. Nevertheless, you must still maintain your original sources in the argument: Fukuyama and/or Singer must remain as part of your argument in addition to the new source.For example, if you argued about the ethics of biotechnology in Paper #1, perhaps you can find another source that also talks about biotechnologies in such a way that offers some new perspective you did not account for in the original paper. Likewise, if you argued about the ethics of privacy in Paper #2, find some source that offers a new perspective on the idea of privacy that in turn allows you to reconsider your position and argument.You do not need to change your fundamental position, but the shape of your paper should shift to account for new arguments. However, if you read something that makes you completely reconsider your original position so that you want to change it, you can do so—as long as you keep all of the original and the new sources “in the conversation.” If in the original paper you used Fukuyama to support your position, maybe in the revision you will need to show Fukuyama as a contrary position against which you argue, with the support of the new source.Your new source must be a scholarly, academic article discovered through the library search. Newspaper and Magazine articles are not academic.Requirements:Length: 1,200 wordsFormat: MLAA Works Cited page is required for this paper.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.