“Critical Thinking” in your textbook has a detailed explanation of the critical thinking model and how to apply it. This entire assignment is the application of the critical thinking steps in chapter 4. There are a total of 7 questions that you will need to complete. Item # 8 has to do with writing/composition. The total length of this assignment is a minimum of 2000 words. This is not an essay/term paper.
Each of your answers should respond to the properly numbered question. You may use your book and online resources including the SSP library. Working with another student (presently or previously enrolled) is considered a violation of the SSP academic honesty policy. After each of the 7 questions (items taken from the critical thinking model in chapter 4) you will find a rubric which will guide to you earn the best possible score for each answer. 1 Identification (1 0 points possible) Identify the central ethical issue present in the case. What is the main ethical problem the decision-maker must resolve?
Furthermore, you must 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. Use details and examples to communicate and explain your response. Be sure to focus on and apply the critical thinking model to the central issue throughout the rest of this paper. Rubric: The following is a rubric. A rubric tells you how you will be graded for this assignment. For example, in this section you can earn 8-10 points for identifying ethical ideas or issues with numerous purporting details and examples which are organized logically and coherently. 0-8 points 7-5 points 4-3 points 2-1 point(s) O points Identifies and distinguishes the central and secondary ethical ideas or issues with numerous supporting details and examples which are organized and communicated logically and coherently Identifies and distinguishes the central and secondary ethical ideas or issues with some supporting details and examples communicated in an organized manner Identifies and didst anguishes the central ethical issue and some secondary issues with few details or examples; communicated in a somewhat organized manner Identifies and distinguishes the central ethical issue poorly.
Communicated with almost no details, with little organization and lacking recognition of secondary issues. Does not identify the central ethical issue and/or includes no other ethical Issues. 1. Research (10 points possible) Gather information relevant to the central ethical issue. Use a minimum of three outside sources to gain a better understanding of the issue and potential solutions/options. Explain relevance of information found. (Use either ML or PAPA style for your citations. You can also check with a college librarian for help with research and citations. Insightfully relates concepts and ideas from multiple sources; uses new information to better define issue and identify options; recognizes missing information; correctly identifies potential effects of new information Accurately relates concepts and ideas from multiple sources; uses new information to better define issue and identify options; correctly identifies potential effects of new information Inaccurately or incompletely relates concepts and ideas from multiple sources; shallow determination of effect of ewe information; or limited sources Poorly integrates information from more than one source to support final solution; Incorrectly predicts the effect of new information Does not identify new information 2. Analysis (1 5 points) Compare and contrast available solution/ options relevant to the central ethical issue. Using logical (inductive or deductive) moral reasoning, clearly explain the ethical implications the potential solutions/options may have on the stakeholders. 5-12 points 11-8 points 7-4 points 3-1 point(s) Uses specific inductive or deductive moral reasoning to make inferences grading premises; addresses implications and consequences for the stakeholders; identifies facts and morally relevant information correctly Uses logical reasoning to make inferences regarding options; addresses implications and consequences for the stakeholders; Identifies facts and morally relevant information correctly Uses superficial reasoning to make inferences regarding options; major stakeholder (s) missing; Shows some confusion regarding facts, opinions, and morally relevant, evidence, data, or information Makes unexplained, unsupported, or unreasonable inferences grading options; irrelevant stakeholders identified; makes multiple errors in distinguishing fact from fiction or in selecting morally relevant evidence. Does not analyze multiple solutions/options. Major stakeholders not identified. 3. Application (30 points) Apply two ethical theories to reach a resolution of the central ethical issue. What would the central principles of each theory imply is the morally right or best course of action or option? A. Apply one (1) consequential theory (Act or Rule Utilitarianism) pets. B. Apply one (1) non-consequential theory Demonology (KANT), Communitarian’s, Natural Rights, Natural Law or Virtue Ethics) 15 pets.
For each (A and B) you are to resolve the central ethical issue using the central principles of the theory. A brief summary of the theory should be included and you are encouraged to use the “Steps in Applying’ the theories presented in Chapters 5 and 6. Points Central principles of the theories are logically and systematically explained and applied to the central ethical issue to reach a resolution of the main problem. Central principles of the theories are explained and applied, but ay not be logically consistent or applied to specifics of case. Applications of the central principles of the theories and the summary may be shallow, cursory, or too general.
Applications of the central principles of the theories and the theory summaries are either missing or are not connected to the central issue and options in the case. Does not apply central principles to reach a resolution of main issue. Summary of theory missing. 4. Decision-Making (1 0 points) Choose the wisest, most ethical option and justify your decision. This is NOT an opinion. Using your research and analysis of the options and stakeholders ND your applications of the ethical theories, laws, and rules, select and defend the morally right (or most ethical) resolution to the central ethical issue. Using facts and relevant evidence from your research and analysis, thoroughly explain why this is the best solution.
Thoroughly identifies and addresses key aspects of the issue and insightfully uses facts and relevant evidence from analysis to support and defend potentially valid solution Identifies and addresses key aspects of the issue and uses facts and relevant evidence from analysis to develop potentially valid inclusion or solution Identifies and addresses some aspects of the issue; develops possible conclusion or solution using some inappropriate opinions and irrelevant information from analysis Identifies and addresses only one aspect of the issue but develops untellable hypothesis; or develops invalid conclusions or solutions based on opinion or irrelevant information. Does not select and defend a solution 5. Evaluation (10 points) Identify and provide a minimum of three counter arguments against the option that you selected as being morally right (or ethically best). What are he possible arguments against the resolution/option you chose? How would you defend against those arguments?
Insightfully interprets data or information; identifies obvious as well as hidden assumptions, establishes credibility of sources on points other than authority alone, avoids fallacies in reasoning; distinguishes appropriate arguments from extraneous elements; provides sufficient logical support Accurately interprets data or information; identifies obvious assumptions, establishes credibility of sources on points other than authority alone, avoids fallacies in reasoning; distinguishes appropriate arguments from extraneous elements; provides sufficient logical support Makes some errors in data or information interpretation; makes argue meets using weak evidence; provides superficial support for conclusions or solutions Interprets data or information incorrectly; Supports conclusions or solutions without evidence or logic; uses data, information, or evidence skewed by invalid assumptions; uses poor sources of information; uses fallacious arguments Does not evaluate data, information, or evidence related to best option. 6. Reflection (5 points) Reflect on your own thought process. What did you learn from this process? What could you do differently next time to improve the problem-solving process? 5 points 4 points 3-2 points 1 point Identifies strengths and weaknesses in own thinking: recognizes personal assumptions, values and perspectives, compares to others’, and evaluates them in the context of alternate points of view Identifies strengths and weaknesses in own thinking: recon sizes personal assumptions, values and perspectives, compares to others’, with some comparison of alternate points of view.