Full Analysis Paper #2 (Moral Dilemma)

BA 3102 Full Analysis Paper #2 (Moral Dilemma)

Your Assignment:

Describe a situation in your work or personal life, either experienced or witnessed, in which a decision or action of moral gravity was made or taken. You may choose to write this to me or to any audience you specify (advice to a friend, for example). You may write this in the third person or the first person – whichever feels more right to you. This is your story, so you need to tell it in a way that makes sense to you and so that your discussion is clear to your reader. Once you have described the situation, please discuss your answers to the following questions:

· What stakeholders were affected by the decision or action?

· What would have been considered the “right” outcome? What would have been considered “wrong”? Why?

· To what ethical principle or principles was the person (or persons) who made the decision or took the action possibly adhering? Do these match yours today? Why/why not?

· What biases might have prevented the person (or persons) from making the best decision or taking the proper action?

· If there’s an organization (company, institution, employer) in the situation, what might that organization have done to prevent and/or remedy the situation and ensure an ethical result?

(I didn’t give this assignment a descriptive title because I know you will be able to give it a better one once you’ve written it)

Remember that this analysis paper will be graded according to the Analysis Paper 2 Rubric, found in your syllabus on Canvas for your reference. Remember to make liberal use of resources and include a reference section for the things you refer to. As always, formatting is your choice and length itself is irrelevant; just be sure to check the prompt above and the rubric to be sure you’ve got the job done.

Happy writing! I look forward to reading what you’ve chosen to write about and how these moral dilemmas turned out …

BA 3102: Business, Society and Ethics

Rubric for Full Analysis Paper #2 (15%)

Criteria	Unsatisfactory = 0-1 / Satisfactory = 2 / Excellent = 3
	Level 0 = 0pts.	Level 1 = 1pt.	Level 2 = 2pts.	Level 3 = 3pts.	Total
Identification of Issues	Identification of ethical /social concerns is sparse or missing.	Identifies some of the ethical/social concerns in a given problem/case. Some important points are missing.	Identifies most of the ethical/social concerns in a given problem/case. Most significant points are identified.	Completely and thoughtfully identifies all ethical/social concerns in a given problem/case.
Supports Arguments	Inconsistent in articulation of position and/or offers little or no supporting evidence.	Most points are supported with adequate information. Some important points are missing and/or support for positions lacks substantial explanation.	Able to support a position with adequate information and few logical fallacies.	Able to support a position with a substantial amount of information, little or no bias, and valid arguments.
Integration of Course Concepts	Very few course concepts integrated.	Integrates some course concepts, however, with some inaccuracies.	Integrates course concepts fairly well, with few inaccuracies.	Integrates course concepts consistently and accurately.
Structure	Paper is disorganized; little flow; vague; difficult to understand.	Presentation flows smoothly with occasional confusion or rough patches between ideas.	Presentation is smooth, polished and organized; flows well.
Language	Errors are so numerous that they obscure meaning.	Occasional errors in writing, but they don’t represent a major distraction.	Writing is free or almost free of errors.
	Total Score (Possible 15)