Discussion Assignment for Ethics and Critical thinking
Instructions for Discussion Assignments
The first discussion assignment on Relativism follows:
Many people rely upon sacred texts to determine what is morally right. This is one of the oldest approaches to morality. Regarding tattoos, Leviticus 19:28 says: You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord. Yet, Revelations 19:16 says that Jesus has “[O}n his robe and on his thigh a name written: “King of Kings” (a tattoo).
Even if you don’t believe this particular text to be sacred, nor that the interpretation is correct, develop a well-considered response to the following: Considering relativism (individual, cultural, or religious): 1) what would they say about tattoos?, 2) what is the philosophical challenge to relativism highlighted by the above example, and 3) how might relativists respond (counter-counter-argument) to the challenge(s)?
Note: Arguments should be philosophical (not theological – that is a different course and not the question). This is a professional / academic assignment: slang, abbreviations, poor reasoning, and/or poor writing is not appropriate. Please spend some time off line considering your response before returning to post. However, be sure to complete the assignment before it closes please.
The Assignments: The specific prompt should be addressed and students will not be allowed to review other posts until their own individual post has been submitted. To be minimally acceptable for a passing grade, the total acceptable word count for each discussion assignment is 250 original words: This includes the initial post and the total or responses. Discussion posts should be in the students own words rather than quotes or other citation.
Initial Post: The initial post should be not less than 150 words and should directly address the discussion assignment (writing prompt). Students should strive to show: clarity of understanding of philosophical concepts and an ability to apply the concepts to the writing assignment.
Response Post(s): The response post(s) should address the initial post of at least one other student. The response post(s) should also be in the student’s own words. The response post should aim to make a substantive contribution to the continuation of consideration of the discussion assignment. Questions are appropriate. Comments like: “I am not sure I agree with your position, because…” Note: This is a counter-argument which done respectfully is perfectly appropriate.
Response posts should not be an evaluation of the other student’s argument solely. Responses like: “You did a good job with this post” or “I like what you said” do not meet the objective of discussion responses.
Nature of Posts: Posts should conform to the guidelines for writing philosophy which were studied in Unit 1 of this course. Here are some things to avoid:
1) Exaggerations (hyperbole) 2) Over-simplification
3) Personal Attacks 4) Informal Fallacies and poor argument
Scoring: Each discussion assignment will be assigned an earned score up to 100%. Again, per the syllabus, the average of the four discussion assignments earned scores will comprise 10% of the final course grade. Please remember to complete the assignments.
Rubric: Earned scores for each of the discussion assignments are based on the following rubric:
A. Mandatory deductions: 1. Minimum word count not met (30% deduction) and 2) Plagiarism committed (100% reduction).
B. Other scoring elements:
Philosophical Consideration
(65%)
Poorly Demonstrated Understanding (15 – 35)
Overall, Good Demonstration of Understanding (36 -55)
Mastery of concepts, application, and consideration (56 – 75)
Argument Development
(25%)
Creates no argument or poorly formed argument (0-10)
Creates an argument that contains good evidence and few reasoning errors (11 -18)
Creates an argument that is well-reasoned and well-supported (19 – 25)
Writing Elements
(10%)
Numerous sentence level errors (0 – 1)
Generally well written, but with some recurring mistakes (2 – 6)
Very well written to flawless (7 – 10)