Part IX of your text has articles dealing with the trolley problem and then three other issues. YOU ARE NOT TO ADDRESS THE TROLLEY PROBLEM.

You may address ONE of the following:

(1) the ethical questions around hunger, poverty, and affluence addressing chapters 41-42 (pages 412-433).

(2) Is abortion wrong or permissible, addressing primarily chapters 43-44 (pages 434-443)

(3) the ethics of war (and especially questions around total war), addressing chapters 45-47 (pages 444 and following).

You are allowed to use your text book and class notes. Please do not do outside research and do not try to give me a googled plagiarized or partially plagiarized answer. I will catch that and you will fail the exam. your answer is to be based on class material…textbook chapters and class lectures and discussions.

The best answer will pick a side in relation to the chapters from the book dealing with the topic. It will also discuss what is the primary basis of your ethical understanding/approach. (Are you a utilitarian or a Kantian, or does the better argument spring from virtue ethics or divine command or egoism?)

DO NOT simply paraphrase one of the arguments from the book. I want your argument in relation to those arguments in the book.

Explanation of the grading for the Final Exam

Since finals need to be graded rather quickly, I cannot give detailed comments on each paper. Following is a general explanation of how the final is graded based on what was asked. If you would like more detailed explanation of your grade, please contact me via email.

10 points: Clearly stated position in a well formed thesis statement.

If it is clear what you are arguing for and basically how you intend to approach the argument because you have an obvious thesis statement, you will receive between 7 and 10 points dependent upon how the clarity and effectiveness and placement of your thesis statement.

If you state clearly what position you intend to take but without a thesis statement or with a thesis statement that does not set up your actual argument, you will receive between 4 and 6 points.

If your position is unclear or blatantly self-contradictory, you will receive between 1 and 3 points.

No position, 0 points for the section.

10 points: Grammar and spelling.

I am not harsh on this portion (especially given the timed nature of this exam). Essentially only the most flagrant errors will be marked down. I maintain this category in the scoring of the exam in the instance that someone’s grammar and spelling are so poor as to detract from the ability of a reader to understand the paper. (In other words, if I can understand what you are saying, then you will get at least 8 of the 10 points in this section.)

10 points: Structure of the argument.

Again, I will not be incredibly strict. (If I can follow the argument you will get between 8 and 10 points.) However, you were given everything in advance and encouraged to create an outline to help structure your in-class writing. “Essays” that are merely rambling statements or simply lists of unrelated ideas will potentially see significant reductions of points on this portion.

70 points: Content.

The prompt states: The best answer will pick a side in relation to the chapters from the book dealing with the topic. It will also discuss what is the primary basis of your ethical understanding/approach. (Are you a utilitarian or a Kantian, or does the better argument spring from virtue ethics or divine command or egoism?) DO NOT simply paraphrase one of the arguments from the book. I want your argument in relation to those arguments in the book.

So, the key issues are:

Presentation of the course material (40 possible points): Do you address the content from the textbook? If you make no mention of the arguments from the textbook, there will be a serious reduction in points. Also, if you only address one side of the argument from the textbook, there will be some reduction in points.

Make the argument yours (20 possible): If you simply quote and paraphrase the textbook without any of your own accompanying explanation or discussion, then there will be significant reduction. If you agree, say why. What part is compelling? Where might there be problems? Why is the opposing point not convincing?

Do you state and explain your ethical approach (10 possible): Do you state your perspective and explain how that perspective relates to the position you take? Does your explanation show that you understand the perspective?

moral philosophy a reader(book name)