Paper 1: Ethical Question [WLO: 4] [CLOs: 1, 5].

Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper as they contain very precise and specific instructions on both the content and format requirements. You should download the provided outline and use that to structure your paper, as well as consult the assignment guidance and modeled example for additional help.

OVERVIEW

This course has three written assignments that build upon one another and are designed to take you step-by-step through a process of writing a paper that identifies an ethical question, examines the context, issues, and arguments surrounding the question, and attempts to defend an answer to that question using strong moral reasoning. 

This first written assignment is a six-part exercise comprised of the following sections:

1. Ethical Question
2. Introduction 
3. Position Statement
4. Reason(s) to Support Position
5. Opposing Position Statement
6. Reasons(s) to Support Opposing Position.

The assignment should be 500 words, written in essay form, with six clearly labeled sections as indicated below, and include a title page and reference page.

PART 1: ETHICAL QUESTION

Before writing the paper, you will need to spend some time thinking about the specific ethical issue you want to focus on throughout this course.  

Begin this task by viewing the list of approved ethical topics and questions provided in the Week One Announcement titled: “WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT ETHICAL TOPICS AND QUESTIONS LIST.”  Take some time looking over the list and browsing through some of the material in the corresponding chapters of the textbook in which each topic is addressed and decide which to focus on. 

Once you have done this, choose one of the ethical questions associated with that topic.  If you wish to do so, you may formulate your own ethical question, but make sure to carefully study the provided questions and model your own question after them in terms of specificity and ethical focus.  

Place the ethical question under the PART ONE: ETHICAL QUESTION heading at the top of the paper.

PART 2:  INTRODUCTION

In this section of your paper, you should introduce the topic and question at issue by doing the following (not necessarily in this exact order)

• Explain its relevance and importance,
• Define any key terms and concepts,
• Provide any relevant context and background information, and
• Briefly reference an idea, quote, or analysis of the issue that you have found in one of the required resources on the topic. 

The introduction will be the longest section of this assignment and should be at least 300 words in one or two paragraphs.

Place the introduction material under the PART TWO: INTRODUCTION heading.

PART 3: POSITION STATEMENT

Your work on the introduction section has likely unearthed various positions one might take on the ethical question you have chosen.  In this section, you will formulate a position statement. 

A position statement is a one sentence statement that articulates your position on the issue and directly answers the question you have raised. 

• For example, if the question was, “What is a physician’s obligation with respect to telling the truth to his or her patients?” a position statement might be, “A physician may never directly lie to a patient, but it may be moral for a physician to withhold information if the physician reasonably believes doing so directly benefits the patient.”
• A different position statement might be: “A physician may use any means necessary, including lying to a patient, if the physician believes that will produce the best overall results.” 
• However, the following statement would not be a sufficient position statement: “A physician must always respect the rights of his or her patients.”  The reason this is not a sufficient position statement is that it does not directly answer the question concerning truth telling. 

Think of the position statement as the strongest claim you would make if you were a prosecuting attorney making your opening statement to a jury, where you want to state precisely and directly the position you want them to believe. 

Place the position statement under the PART THREE: POSITION STATEMENT heading.

PART 4: REASONS IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION

Now that you have articulated a position on the issue, write a short paragraph, just a few sentences, that presents and explains one or two of the strongest reasons in support of your position statement.

You want your supporting reason to explain why someone should support the position you are taking on the ethical question.  A supporting reason is a consideration that helps to show why your position is stronger than another position. 

One way to approach this is to imagine yourself in friendly conversation with someone that doesn’t necessarily agree with your position (perhaps they disagree, or perhaps they are undecided).  When you state your position, they might ask why you think that.  The kind of response you would give is a supporting reason. 

Supporting reasons can include many things including, but not limited to:  an appeal to moral principles such as duty, justice, fairness and equality; the positive or negative effects of certain actions on policies; or a summary of facts, statistics or evidence and an explanation of how they support your view.

Place the supporting reason(s) under the PART FOUR: REASONS IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION heading.

PART 5: OPPOSING POSITION STATEMENT

Now that you have provided reasons to support your position statement, in this section you will take a step back from all of that and articulate a statement that expresses an opposing or contrary statement.

Think of the opposing position statement as the strongest claim you would make if you were the defense attorney making your opening statement to the jury immediately after they’ve heard the prosecutor’s statement.

Place the opposing position statement under the PART FIVE: OPPOSING POSITION STATEMENT heading.

PART 6: REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSING POSITION

In this section, write a short paragraph, just a few sentences, that presents and explains one or two of the strongest reasons in support of the opposing position statement. 

A strong opposing reason is a reason anyone would need to consider, even if they don’t agree with the opposing position. 

In other words, DO NOT SIMPLY CONTRADICT CLAIMS THAT YOU MAKE IN PART FOUR, especially factual claims!  You should strive to identify and articulate considerations in support of the opposing position that you think are accurate and true, or at least plausible, even if you still believe your own position has the most support overall. 

IF THE REASON(S) IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSING POSITION ARE ONES YOU CONSIDER OBVIOUSLY FALSE OR INDEFENSIBLE, YOU SHOULD LOOK FOR BETTER REASONS. 

Put yourself in the position of a defense attorney who has to make the best possible case to the jury in defense of his or her client.  

Place the opposing reasons under the PART SIX: REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSING POSITION heading.

Paper 2: Applying an Ethical Theory [WLOs: 4] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4].

Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper as they contain very precise and specific instructions on both the content and format requirements. You should download the provided outline and use that to structure your paper, as well as consult the assignment guidance and modeled example for additional help.

OVERVIEW

This course has three written assignments that build upon one another and are designed to take you step-by-step through a process of writing a paper that identifies an ethical question, examines the context, issues, and arguments surrounding the question, and attempts to defend an answer to that question using strong moral reasoning. 
This second written assignment is a six-part exercise comprised of the following sections:

1. Ethical Question
2. Introduction
3. Explanation of the Ethical Theory
4. Application of the Ethical Theory

Sections (1) and (2) revise and expand on what you did in the first assignment.  Sections (3) and (4) are new.

The main purpose of this paper is to define the nature and scope of the ethical theory in a way that shows how the core principle(s) of that theory lead to a specific moral conclusion on your ethical question.  Another way to think of this is to explain how someone who is fully committed to the moral reasoning of the ethical theory would answer your ethical question (even if it’s not necessarily how you would answer the question).

The assignment should be 900-1000 words, written in essay form with clearly labeled sections as indicated below, and include a title page and reference page.

PART 1: ETHICAL QUESTION

State the ethical question beneath this heading. 

This question should be on the same topic as the question presented in the week one assignment, and if necessary, revised based on your instructor’s comments and the additional insight and information you have gained from research on the topic.  If you would like to switch topics, you should first consult with your instructor. 

Place your ethical question beneath the PART ONE: ETHICAL QUESTION heading.

PART 2: INTRODUCTION

Provide an introduction to the topic and question.

This should be revised and expanded from the week one introduction in light of your instructor’s comments and the additional insight and information you have gained from research on the topic.

• For instance, you may find that your original ideas about the issue have changed and clarified, that the focus of the ethical question has shifted or become more specific, and/or that there are important background and contextual details that need to be explained. 

The revised introduction should reflect your additional thinking on the scope and significance of the ethical issue, and address any feedback provided by your instructor. 

The introduction should be at least 300 words in one or two paragraphs.

Place the introduction material under the PART TWO: INTRODUCTION heading.

PART 3: EXPLANATION OF AN ETHICAL THEORY

Ethical theories provide accounts of how to reason well about moral questions and of what justifies answers to those questions.  In this section of the paper, you will discuss either the ethical theory of utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics. 

YOU SHOULD NOT DISCUSS YOUR TOPIC IN THIS SECTION, BUT FOCUS ONLY ON THE ETHICAL THEORY. 

The discussion should include the following elements: 

• A brief account of the historical background of the theory and the philosopher(s) associated with it;
• An explanation of the core moral principle of the theory, or if there is more than one, the principle that you will focus on in applying that theory to your question;
• A brief, general explanation of how the theory and its core moral principle applies to moral questions, using an example different from the issue that is the main focus of your paper.  (For example, if your focus is on how deontology applies to using animals in medical research, you could explain Kant’s moral theory by discussing how it would apply to an issue like lying for the sake of the greater good.) 

THIS SECTION SHOULD FOCUS ONLY ON THE ETHICAL THEORY.  For instance, if you are discussing physician-assisted suicide from a utilitarian perspective, this section should only discuss utilitarianism in general terms; you should not discuss physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, or other related topics until the next section. 

The discussion should be around 300 words and must incorporate at least one quote from the required resources on the ethical theory you have chosen to discuss.

Place this section under the PART THREE: ETHICAL THEORY heading.

PART 4: APPLICATION OF AN ETHICAL THEORY

Now that you have explained in general terms the core principle of the ethical theory you’re focusing on in this paper, you will apply that theory and its core principle to your ethical question. 

Explain as clearly and precisely as you can how that principle leads to a particular conclusion. 

You can think of that conclusion as the answer someone would most likely give to your question if they were reasoning along the utilitarian, deontological, or virtue ethics lines you explained in part three.

Note: this conclusion does not need to be the same as the position you stated in the Week 1 assignment.  If fact, it could be the opposing position you discussed there.  See the remarks about main purpose of the paper above. 

This section should be around 300 words. 

Place this section under the PART FOUR: APPLICATION OF ETHICAL THEORY section.

Final Paper: Ethical Reasoning [WLOs: 3] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper as they contain very precise and specific instructions on both the content and format requirements.  You should download the provided outline and use that to structure your paper, and consult the assignment guidance and modeled example for additional help.

OVERVIEW

This course has three written assignments that build upon one another and are designed to take you step-by-step through a process of writing a paper that identifies an ethical question, examines the context, issues, and arguments surrounding the question, and attempts to defend an answer to that question using strong moral reasoning. 

• In the Week One Assignment, you chose an ethical question, provided an introduction, a position statement and supporting reason, and an opposing position statement and supporting reason. 
• In the Week Three Assignment, you explained utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics, including its core moral principle or ideal, and applied that theory to the topic by demonstrating how its principles would support a particular position on your ethical question. 
• In this final written assignment, you will combine what you have done in these two exercises by examining an ethical issue and defending your own position on an ethical question regarding that issue. 

This final written assignment should be written in essay form with the following clearly labeled sections:

1. Introduction
2. Argument
3. Explanation and defense
4. Objection and response
5. Conclusion

The paper should be between 1300 and 1500 words, utilize three (3) scholarly resources, and include a title page and reference page.

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION

In this section of the paper, you will begin with your ethical question, introduce the topic and paper, and close with a thesis statement. 

• The ethical question may be the same as your Week Three written assignment (Applying an Ethical Theory) or a revised version of it. 
• The introduction should be revised in a way that reflects your additional thinking on the issue and question. 

End this section with a thesis statement that states your position on the issue (the answer to the ethical question you believe is strongest) and provides a brief summary of the main ideas you’ll be presenting in the paper.  Please see the assignment guidance for examples of thesis statements. 

Place the introduction under the PART ONE: INTRODUCTION heading.

PART TWO: ETHICAL ARGUMENT

In this section of the paper, you will present the strongest argument you can in support of the position you have stated in your introduction.

This will be similar to the “supporting reasons” you offered in the first assignment; however, this argument should reflect your research into the key ethical issues that need to be identified and addressed, the arguments on different sides of this problem, and the theories of moral reasoning we have studied in the class (you will discuss the specific details and implications of the moral theories in the next two sections). 

You can think of this as a summary of the main argument you would give if you were an attorney trying to convince a jury of your position.  

Place this information under the PART TWO: ETHICAL ARGUMENT heading.

PART THREE: EXPLANATION AND DEFENSE

In this section, you will explain and defend your argument by drawing on the moral theory that aligns most closely with the argument you presented in Part Two.  This may be the same theory you discussed in your second assignment, but it may also be a different theory. 

• You must first explain the theory in general terms similar to how you explained a theory in your second assignment, including a brief account of the historical background of the theory and the philosopher(s) associated with it and general overview of the core moral ideal or principle of the theory, including the way it guides and constrains moral reasoning.
• You should then clearly show how your argument represents an application of that form of moral reasoning. 
• In other words, if the argument you present in Part 2 is utilitarian, deontological, or virtue-based (teleological), you will want to explain utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics in general terms, then explain how your argument from part 2 reflects or draws upon the core principles and values of that theory.  Please refer to the Week 3 assignment instructions for directions on how to explain and apply the moral theory.

Place this section under the PART THREE: EXPLANATION AND DEFENSE heading.

PART FOUR: OBJECTION AND RESPONSE

In this section of the paper, you will present the strongest objection you can to your argument, and briefly defend that objection by appealing to a different ethical theory than the one you focused on in part three. 

• Briefly explain the core moral ideal or principle of the theory and how that could be the basis of an objection to your argument.  For instance, if you explained and defended your own argument by applying the principles of virtue ethics, you could raise an objection from the perspective of utilitarianism by briefly explaining the core utilitarian principle and how applying that principle could lead someone to a different conclusion than the one you are defending. 
• Next, you should respond to the objection by explaining why it is not strong enough to undermine the main argument in defense of your position. 

See the assignment guidance for suggestions on how to effectively respond to the objection. 

Place this section under the PART FOUR: OBJECTION AND RESPONSE heading.

PART FIVE: CONCLUSION

In this section of the paper, provide a summary of what you’ve done in the paper by briefly describing what you accomplished in each of the above sections.  
Place this section under the PART FIVE: CONCLUSION heading.

RESOURCE REQUIREMENT

• You must use at least three scholarly resources, only one of which may be the textbook. In other words, you must use at least two scholarly resources in addition to the textbook.
• Acceptable ways of using a source include providing a quotation, summary, or paraphrase; merely providing a citation, especially when it’s unclear how or where the text supports your claim, is not sufficient. 
• If you need help with finding additional resources or are unsure about whether a particular resource will count toward the requirement, please contact your instructor.
• For sources to count toward the resources requirement, they must be cited within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Sources that are listed on the references page but not cited within the paper do not count toward fulfilling the resources requirement.