The topic is  Reward and Punishment.

PHL 212 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

You must complete an analytical philosophy paper as your final project.

Overview

One of the main tasks of this course is the preparation of an ethical decision‐making paper based on the theories learned within the class. Based on the knowledge that you have acquired in this course and through your own faculties of reason and insight, you will (1) examine in detail an ethical dilemma of your choosing from the textbook, (2) determine how each of the theories that you have studied in the course would respond to the dilemma, creating an argument for and an argument against your topic, and (3) give your own perspective.

The project is divided into two milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules One and Three. The final product will be submitted in Module Seven.

This assessment will address the following course outcomes:

 Evaluate philosophical theories for their implications to the process of ethical decision making

 Apply ethical principles to analyses of practical and classical dilemmas using appropriate philosophical concepts

 Construct supporting and refuting arguments for the application of ethical decision making

 Employ personal moral framework for effectively critiquing and defending ethical decisions

Prompt This paper must be written in a scholarly manner using APA formatting and resources from the library and scholarly websites that end in .gov, .edu, .org, .mil. Nothing will be accepted from open sources such as Wikipedia.

Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:

I. Introduction: Compose an introduction that provides background information on the topic and premise of the ethical dilemma, its main arguments, and

a summary of the evidence used to support the arguments. a. Provide background on the dilemma. What subject is it addressing? What are all of the dimensions and sides to the dilemma? Why have you

chosen this dilemma? b. Briefly explain the evidence that supports the arguments. What evidence do they use to back up their arguments and support their claims? Is

the evidence free from bias and assumptions? Does it successfully back up a coherent argument?

II. Evaluate a dilemma a. Analyze a dilemma by considering all dimensions and sides

i. Apply ethical theories to your analysis ii. Use philosophical concepts appropriate to your analysis

iii. Present a clear explanation of all appropriate dimensions to the selected dilemma

III. Formulate an argument

a. Assertion: Take a position b. Reason with facts as part of the argument. What facts will you employ to back your assertions? What facts seem plausible to you, despite your

argument? How will you incorporate those into your argument? c. Critique the evidence as part of your argument. What evidence supports your argument? What evidence do you have to accept that may not

support your argument?

IV. Formulate a refuting argument (refutation)

a. Assertion: Take a position b. Reason with facts as part of the refuting argument. What will you employ to back your assertions? What facts seem plausible to you, despite

your refuting argument? How will you incorporate those into your argument? c. Critique the evidence as part of your refuting argument. What evidence supports your refuting argument? What evidence do you have to accept

that may not support your refuting argument?

V. Reflect on how you use your critical thinking skills to make decisions.

a. Discuss the critical thinking skills you used during the evaluation. How did you approach formulating your own opinions? How did you incorporate the evidence to make your arguments stronger? What areas did you find more and less difficult to approach?

b. Discuss how you apply the skills of an ethicist to issues in your everyday life. How do you apply different types of reasoning to your decisions? How do you solve challenges using your own moral framework? How do you confront arguments and find solutions?

Milestone One: Topic Declaration

Milestones

In Module One, you will submit your topic declaration. Using topics from the textbook, write a one‐page paper (in APA format) on your topic with background information on your topic. Upon review, the instructor will decide whether this topic is approved. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone One Rubric.

Milestone Two: References In Module Three, you will submit your references. Provide a list of three or more references for approval. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Two Rubric.

Final Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper In Module Seven, you will submit your final project. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the final product. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded with the Final Project Rubric.

Guidelines for Submission: The final project submission must be six to eight pages in length (not including cover page and reference page) and written in full APA format. Use double spacing, 12‐point Times New Roman font, one‐inch margins, and discipline‐appropriate citations. Incorporate a minimum of four scholarly resources following APA guidelines for citations and listing references.

Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value

Issue Background and History

Meets “Proficient” criteria and includes examples that illustrate all aspects of the issue and critical elements described above

Describes selected topic’s background and history

Describes selected topic’s history but with gaps in background

Does not describe selected topic’s background

5

Introduction: Evidence

Meets “Proficient” criteria and details chosen illustrate the connection between the evidence and the argument

Explains in an overview the evidence that supports the claim’s argument

Explains in an overview the evidence that supports the claim’s argument but explanation is cursory or inaccurate

Does not explain the evidence that supports the claim’s argument

5

Dilemma: Analyze‐Apply

Meets “Proficient” criteria and includes specific elements of the relevant theory

Applies the relevant theory considering all sides

Applies the relevant theory followed, but application is cursory

Does not describe nor address the theory which will be followed

5

Dilemma:

Analyze‐Use

Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses, in complete detail, all philosophical concepts appropriate to the analysis

Uses philosophical concepts,

providing details of each

Uses one or two of the philosophical concepts appropriate to the analysis

Does not use the philosophical concepts appropriate to the analysis

5

Dilemma: Analyze‐Present

Meets “Proficient” criteria and thoroughly presents all of the appropriate dimensions

Presents many of the appropriate dimensions with some explanation

Presents a skeletal explanation of the appropriate dimensions

Does not present a clear explanation of any appropriate dimensions to the selected dilemma

5

Argument: Assertion

Meets “Proficient” criteria and use of evidence demonstrates insight into both sides of the argument

Takes a position and backs assertions with appropriate evidence

Takes a position but use of evidence to support assertions is cursory or inaccurate

Does not take a position 7.5

Argument: Reason With the

Facts

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

details and examples

demonstrate insight into how

the facts can be used on both sides

Reasons with the facts for

support of the counter-

argument

Reasons with the facts for support of the counter-

argument, but reasoning is cursory or inaccurate

Does not reason with the

facts for support of the

counter-argument

7.5

Argument: Critique the

Evidence

Meets “Proficient” criteria and details and examples demonstrate insight into how the evidence can be used on both sides

Critiques the evidence for its

support of the counter-

argument

Critiques the evidence for its support of the counter- argument, but critique is cursory or inaccurate

Does not critique the evidence for its support of the counter-argument

7.5

Refutation: Assertion

Meets “Proficient” criteria and use of evidence demonstrates insight into both sides of the argument

Takes a position opposite to that of original argument and backs assertions with appropriate evidence

Takes a position opposite to that of original argument but use of evidence to support assertions is cursory or inaccurate

Does not take a position opposite to that of original argument

7.5

Refutation:

Reason With the Facts

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

details and examples demonstrate insight into how the facts can be used on both sides

Reasons with the facts for

support of the counter‐ argument

Reasons with the facts for

support of the counter‐ argument, but reasoning is cursory or inaccurate

Does not reason with the facts

for support of the counter‐ argument

7.5

Refutation:

Critique the Evidence

Meets “Proficient” criteria and

details and examples demonstrate insight into how the evidence can be used on both sides

Critiques the evidence for its

support of the counter‐ argument

Critiques the evidence for its

support of the counter‐ argument, but critique is cursory or inaccurate

Does not critique the

evidence for its support of the counter‐argument

7.5

Reflection: Evaluation

Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides detailed reflection on each question

Discusses critical thinking skills used during the evaluation

Provides skeletal discussion on own use of critical thinking

Does not discuss own use of critical thinking

10

Reflection: Everyday Life

Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides detailed reflection on each question

Discusses application of the skills of an ethicist in everyday life

Discusses application of the skills of an ethicist in everyday life, but discussion is cursory

Does not discuss application of the skills of an ethicist in everyday life

10

Research Provides at least four sources

of scholarly research with proper APA formatting

Provides at least three sources

of scholarly research with proper APA formatting

Provides at least two sources of

scholarly research with proper APA formatting

Provides only one or no

sources of scholarly research with APA formatting issues

5

Articulation of Response

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy‐to‐ read APA format

Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization

Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas

Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar,

spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas

5

Earned Total 100%