Case Study: Creating an Ethics Case Study
[WLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4] [CLOs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read the required resources for the week, complete the Week 2 content in the PHI208: Ethics & Moral ReasoningLinks to an external site. interactive, watch the UtilitarianismLinks to an external site. video, and review the Reading PhilosophyLinks to an external site. video from the Week 1 discussion.
Overview
In this written assignment, you will create an ethics case study based on provided topics, resources, and ethical questions. Your tasks here are to present the case study and the information necessary to consider it. You will choose one of the ethical questions provided with the case study and discuss the central moral controversy the question addresses. You will also briefly apply utilitarianism to the case study. This written assignment should be an essay and include the following sections and headings.
Part 1: Introduction, Case Study
In this section, you will create the case study. To complete this section,
- Choose a case study from the selection provided by your instructor in the Week 2 announcement titled “Week 2 Case Studies.” (see my choice lower down “Effective Altruism”)
- Present a brief introduction to the case study.
- Discuss background information provided in one of the resources.
This section should be around 300 words.
Part 2: Ethical Question
In this section, discuss one of the ethical questions provided with the case study. To complete this section,
- State the ethical question you have chosen to discuss and place it at the beginning of the section in bold font.
- Discuss the ethical question by considering two or more of the following:
- What is the central moral controversy at the heart of the ethical question?
- What ethical or societal values are at stake in the question?
- Who is impacted by the issue or moral controversy?
- What might it say about us as individuals or society depending on how we answer the ethical question?
This section should be around 150 words.
Part 3: Position Statement
In this section, you will formulate a position statement that answers the ethical question, and then support the position statement. To complete this section,
- Formulate a position statement that directly answers the ethical question. For example, if the ethical question is “Is it moral for public schools to use corporal punishment to discipline students?” Your position statement would be either “It is moral for schools to use corporal punishment.” or “It is not moral for schools to use corporal punishment.”
- Discuss reasons that support your position statement. The reasons should be moral or value-based as opposed to statistical or other information-based reasons. For example, the use of corporal punishment in public schools is rare, but this is fact and not a moral reason; so it would not provide much support for the position statement.
This section should be around 150 words.
Part 4: Opposition Statement
In this section, you will provide a statement that directly opposes the position statement and discuss reasons that support it. To complete this section,
- Formulate a statement that opposes your position statement. For example, if your position statement was “It is not moral for schools to use corporal punishment,” then your opposing position statement would be “It is moral for public schools to use corporal punishment.”
- Discuss reasons that support your opposition statement. As in the preceding section, these reasons should also be moral or value-based as opposed to statistical or other information-based reasons.
This section should be around 150 words.
Part 5: Application of Utilitarianism
In this section,
- Explain the principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number.”
- Consider how this principle would support your position or opposing position statement.
This section should be around 100 words.
The Case Study: Creating an Ethics Case Study paper
- Must be four to five double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA StyleLinks to an external site. as outlined in the Writing Center’s APA Formatting for Microsoft WordLinks to an external site. resource.
- Must include a separate title page with the following in title case:
- title of paper in bold font
- Space should appear between the title and the rest of the information on the title page.
- student’s name
- name of institution (The University of Arizona Global Campus)
- course name and number
- instructor’s name
- due date
- title of paper in bold font
- Must utilize academic voice.
- See the Academic VoiceLinks to an external site. resource for additional guidance.
- Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph.
- Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper.
- For assistance on writing Introductions & ConclusionsLinks to an external site. and Writing a Thesis StatementLinks to an external site., refer to the Writing Center resources.
- Must use at least two scholarly sources.
- The Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible SourcesLinks to an external site. table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source.
- To assist you in completing the research required for this assignment, view this Quick and Easy Library ResearchLinks to an external site. tutorial, which introduces the University of Arizona Global Campus Library and the research process, and provides some library search tips.
- Must document any information used from sources in APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center’s APA: Citing Within Your PaperLinks to an external site. guide.
- Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center.
- See the APA: Formatting Your References ListLinks to an external site. resource in the Writing Center for specifications.
Carefully review the Grading RubricLinks to an external site. for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.
EFFECTIVE ALTRUISM
Philosopher Peter Singer argues in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that if we can donate some of our money to save other people’s lives without comparable harm to ourselves, then we morally ought to do it (Singer, 1972). William MacAskill is a young philosopher who attempts to put this reasoning into practice. He helped start a movement called “effective altruism,” in which people give most of the money that they make to help to save people from diseases and death in less developed parts of the world (Lewis-Kraus, 2022).
MacAskill himself lives in relative poverty ($26k British pounds per year) and gives the rest to help others. He estimates that a life can be saved for about $4000 (Lewis-Kraus, p. 48).
ETHICAL QUESTION: Do we have a moral obligation to donate some of our money to save other people’s lives?
References:
Lewis-Kraus, G. (2022). Do better. New Yorker.
Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3), pp. 229-243. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265052Links to an external site. Links to an external site.
Description:
Total Possible Score: 10.00
Part I: Introduction, Case Study
Distinguished – Comprehensively, clearly, and accurately completes all components of Part I: Introduction, Case Study.
Proficient – Completes all components of Part I: Introduction, Case Study. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Completes some components of Part I: Introduction, Case Study. Relevant details are missing, unclear, and/or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to complete the components of Part I: Introduction, Case Study; however, significant details are missing, unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The components of Part I: Introduction, Case Study are either nonexistent or lack the requirements described in the assignment instructions.
Part II: Ethical Question
Distinguished – Comprehensively, clearly, and accurately completes all components of Part II: Ethical Question.
Proficient – Completes all components of Part II: Ethical Question. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Completes some components of Part II: Ethical Question. Relevant details are missing, unclear, and/or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to complete the components of Part II: Ethical Question; however, significant details are missing, unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The components of Part II: Ethical Question are either nonexistent or lack the requirements described in the assignment instructions.
Part III: Position Statement
Distinguished – Comprehensively, clearly, and accurately completes all components of Part III: Position Statement.
Proficient – Completes all components of Part III: Position Statement. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Completes some components of Part III: Position Statement. Relevant details are missing, unclear, and/or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to complete the components of Part III: Position Statement; however, significant details are missing, unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The components of Part III: Position Statement are either nonexistent or lack the requirements described in the assignment instructions.
Part IV: Opposition Statement
Distinguished – Comprehensively, clearly, and accurately completes all components of Part IV: Opposition Statement.
Proficient – Completes all components of Part IV: Opposition Statement. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Completes some components of Part IV: Opposition Statement. Relevant details are missing, unclear, and/or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to complete the components of Part IV: Opposition Statement; however, significant details are missing, unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The components of Part IV: Opposition Statement are either nonexistent or lack the requirements described in the assignment instructions.
Part V: Application of Utilitarianism
Distinguished – Comprehensively, clearly, and accurately completes all components of Part V: Application of Utilitarianism.
Proficient – Completes all components of Part V: Application of Utilitarianism. Minor details are missing, slightly unclear, or inaccurate.
Basic – Completes some components of Part V: Application of Utilitarianism. Relevant details are missing, unclear, and/or inaccurate.
Below Expectations – Attempts to complete the components of Part V: Application of Utilitarianism; however, significant details are missing, unclear, and inaccurate.
Non-Performance – The components of Part V: Application of Utilitarianism are either nonexistent or lack the requirements described in the assignment instructions.
Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Distinguished – Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand.
Proficient – Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand.
Basic – Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader.
Below Expectations – Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: APA Formatting
Distinguished – Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page.
Proficient – Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.
Basic – Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.
Below Expectations – Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Page Requirement
Distinguished – The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Proficient – The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Basic – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Below Expectations – The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.
Written Communication: Resource Requirement
Distinguished – Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Proficient – Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment.
Basic – Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly.
Below Expectations – Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly.
Non-Performance – The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions.