IDENTIFICATION:
Identify the central ethical issue present in the case. What is the main ethical problem the decision-maker must resolve? Also identify as many other ethical issues, questions, or problems as you can find in the scenario. Distinguish the central issue from the others you identified. Focus on the central issue for the remainder of the paper.
ANALYSIS:
This section has three parts:
1. Identify as many options for solving the central ethical issue as possible.
2. Identify as many as the stakeholders (people affected by the issue) as possible.
3. Discuss in detail how each option is likely to affect the stakeholders.
Please use the chart method shown on pg. 95 of Ethics Applied to set up your analysis section. Note, though, that I still expect detailed responses in the boxes.
Think of four options and five stakeholders as a minimum.
APPLICATION:
Apply an ethical principle of a major ethical theory to reach a resolution of the central ethical issue. Approach the problem from the standpoint of the theory and say which resolution would be morally best from that perspective. You may use any one of the following principles:
1. The Utility Principle from Act Utilitarianism.
2. The Principle of Natural Law Theory
3. The Equal Liberties Principle from Natural Rights Theory
4. The Categorical Imperative of Universality from Kant’s Deontology.
5. The Categorical Imperative of Respect for Persons from Kant’s Deontology.
6. The Difference Principle from Contractarianism.
A brief statement and explanation of the principle should be included before applying it. When you apply the principle, you should weigh each option you identified in your analysis section according to the principle’s requirements. Be as detailed as you can in your discussion of each option. The “Steps in Applying” will be very helpful for this section. See the CT Paper Outline document in MyCourses and the videos for applying the theories for further suggestions.
DECISION-MAKING:
Choose the option that you think is the wisest, most ethical options and justify your decision. This should not be an unsupported opinion. Using your analysis and application, as well as consideration of any other relevant rules, laws, or evidence from the case, select and defend (explain why) the option you think is most morally right.
Your decision does not have to align with the theory you apply, and, if you do agree with the theory in your application, you will need to give additional justification here.
EVALUATION:
Effective reasoning involves being able to consider other perspectives. This section should help develop that skill. So, identify at least two objections to your conclusion or arguments against the option that you selected as being morally right or ethically best. What might someone who disagrees with you say as a rebuttal? How would you defend against those arguments?
REFLECTION:
Reflect on your own thought process. I want you to think about what it was like to use these steps to solve a problem. What did you learn about the way you think by having gone through a systematic approach to the case study? What could you do to improve? Which steps of the model were strengths? Which were your weaknesses? How might you use this process to make decisions in your own life?
Note: Reflection should not be a “conclusion” like in a paper for an English class where you just restate all of your previous opinions. Rather, you should be thinking about your own thinking!
COMPOSITION:
One goal of these papers is to improve your writing, so part of the score depends on composition. Organize your thoughts carefully, explain them clearly, and proofread for errors in grammar and composition. Each paper must be formatted according to either MLA or APA standards. Any outside sources must be properly cited.
LENGTH:
Each critical thinking paper must be at least 1,000 words long.
RUBRIC FOR CRITICAL THINKING PAPERS
Area 3 pts. 2 pts. 1 pt. 0 pts.
Identification Identifies and distinguishes the central and secondary ethical issues with numerous details and supporting reasons. Identifies and distinguishes central and secondary ethical issues with some supporting details and reasons. Identifies and distinguishes the central and secondary ethical issues poorly with almost no detail or lacking recognition of secondary issues. Does not identify central issue.
Analysis Excellent recognition of options and stakeholders; includes detailed reasoning about likely outcomes. Good consideration of options and stakeholders with little detailed reasoning about likely outcomes. Superficial consideration of options and stakeholders; major obvious options or stakeholders missing; little detailed reasoning about likely outcomes. Analysis missing.
Application Central principles of theory are logically and systematically explained and applied to the central ethical issue to reach a resolution of the main problem. Central principles of theory are explained and applied, but may be inconsistent or missing discussion of options and specifics of case. Principles weakly explained and/or Application of central principles shallow, cursory, too general, or unconnected to the options of the case. Does not explain or apply central principles to reach a resolution of the main issue.
Decision Thoroughly identifies and addresses key aspects of the issue and uses facts and relevant evidence from analysis to support and defend conclusion. Identifies some key aspects of the issue and uses facts and relevant evidence from analysis to support and defend conclusion. Decision based on arbitrary or undefended opinions, little consideration of key aspects of issue or use of facts or evidence to support conclusion. Does not select and defend a conclusion or solution.
Evaluation Considered and developed serious objections or counterarguments to solution and formulates thoughtful responses. Considered and developed decent objections to solution and offers superficial responses. Put forward obvious or overly simplistic objections with superficial responses. Does not consider counterarguments or objections to solution.
Reflection N/A Thoughtful discussion of own thinking demonstrating serious self-reflection. Shallower discussion of own thinking demonstrating some self-reflection. Section missing or is mere re-statement of thoughts about the case.
Comp Paper formatted properly with few misspellings and other grammatical errors. Paper poorly formatted or serious and consistent misspellings or other grammatical errors. Paper shows no regard for formatting or other academic writing expectations.
Length Meets or exceeds 1,000 word requirement Under 1,000 words
COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK:
