case student

babebluee
Assignment.docx

Length: Minimum 1500 words

Bibliography: 4 references minimum

QUESTION

Using one of the following case studies

(i) Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster

(ii) The actions of Chuck Blazer within FIFA corruption

(iii) The Ebay 2020 CyberStalking scandal

In resolving the ethical dilemma(s) in your chosen case study, apply:

a. Utilitarianism / Best Outcome model

or

b. The Rights Model (applicable why/why not)

c. Your own opinion

Use the file Phantom Expenses under “Business Ethics” notes to help guide your answer.

Use Slide numbers 21, 22, 26 and 27 under “Business Ethics” to help you.

G

Guidelines:

Introduction: 6 or 7 lines.

-Tell me what this assignment is about…. “This assignment will examine X case study”.

-Why? “The assignment will examine x case study from the utilitarian or rights model perspective as it killed x no of people etc../ outcomes negatively affected people etc../ corruption is wrong…etc”

-Tell me what “ethics” is, what are the different types of ethics.…. Use references.

Main body of assignment (2-4 paragraphs)

- Tell me the facts- what happened.

- Who are the stakeholders? (Who are the people involved)

- What is the outcome for the stakeholders (for example, if no pollution/no corruption/no stalking)

- What is the outcome for the stakeholders (for example, when there was pollution/ when there was corruption/ when there was stalking)

- What is the best outcome for the greatest number of people (Utilitarian model) or

- What is the outcome that maximizes the dignity of the stakeholders and minimizes the violation of their rights (Rights model)

Conclusion: What do you think is the best solution? Why are ethics so important?

Please note these are just guidelines, you do not have to follow them if you do not want to.

Grading Rubric

Any questions please contact me.

Thanks,

2

Essay/Exam Answer Evaluation Form

Student Name: _________________ ______________________________

Student No: __________________ Question/Topic: ______________

5 4 3 2 1

(high) (low)

1. Task      Does not respond to

Addressed title title sufficiently

2. Critical Thinking      Uses generalisations

Original thinking, makes & reproduces

links with other topics summarises texts

3. Analysis      Shallow, descriptive

Deep &insightful, takes things at face

recognises complexity value

4. Argument &      Rambling, incoherent

Structure vague, not developed

Clearly stated, coherent effectively, no clear

logically developed, well structure

organised

5. Support      Questionable or

Appropriate & accurate irrelevant evidence

evidence for argument for argument

6. Ethics

Concepts      Little evidence of

Clear understanding understanding

& Relevant usage

7. Reading      No evidence of

Evidence of reading reading or

knowledge of course knowledge of course

material material

8. Sources &      Unacknowledged

Referencing sources, poor

Adequate acknowledgement bibliographical list

of sources, ideas, competent

bibliography

9. Presentation &      Untidy difficult to

Style read, awkward

Legible, well set out phrasing, repetitive

Fluent, clear, precise

Grade