Ethics case study

Criterion 1 - Ethical dilemma (SE5.1)

7

6

5

4

3 - 1

· Demonstrates an insightful understanding of how conflicting principles or values contribute to a challenging ethical dilemma. Identifies and explains nuances such as making ethical choices can involve a trade-off between ethical standards.

· Explains clearly and correctly why the chosen scenario is an ethical dilemma; and

· The explanation is complete; and

· Demonstrates an understanding of the ethical principles or values in conflict.

· Explains to some extent why the chosen scenario is an ‘ethical’ problem; and/or

· Identifies the key ethical principles or values involved.

· Identifies an ethical dilemma; and

· Describes the dilemma.

.

· (3) Identifies an ethical dilemma.

· (2) Identifies a dilemma or problem.

· Does not demonstrates an insightful understanding of how conflicting principles or values contribute to a challenging ethical dilemma. For example, does not consider trade-offs between ethical approaches or between ethics and other standards (e.g. law, etiquette, etc.).

· Generally, does not demonstrate a completeand/ or clear understanding of the key ethical principles or values involved in the scenario.

· Minor errors may be evident.

· Does not sufficiently explain why the situation is of ‘ethical’ concern; and/or

· Does not sufficiently identify the key ethical principles or values in conflict.

· (3) Does not explain why the situation is an ‘ethical’ dilemma; or the explanation is insufficient (e.g. an opinion or feeling).

· (2) The situation presented is not an ethical dilemma (e.g. it may be a business investment problem only).

· (1) Does not identify a dilemma or problem.

Criterion 2-4 inclusive – Application of Ethical Frameworks 1-3 inclusive (SE5.1)

Demonstrate you can identify and apply an ethical framework (F1) to analyze an ethical dilemma and determine how to respond to that ethical dilemma.

7

6

5

4

3 - 1

· Demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the ethical framework and challenges associated with applying it to the ethical dilemma.

· Demonstrates a complete and correct understanding of the key concepts and principles applicable to an ethical framework covered in the unit.

· Demonstrates a complete and correct understanding of the process or procedure for applying the framework to the ethical dilemma.

· Identifies and explains the key concepts and principles applicable to an ethical framework covered in the unit; and

· Explains how the framework’s process and procedures can be applied to an ethical dilemma.

· Identifies and describes the ethical framework to be applied to the ethical dilemma.

· May included an explanation of the framework’s process or procedures

· (3) Describes the framework.

· (2) Identifies (names) a framework from the unit.

· All frameworks are from a single week (the lowest grading framework will receive, at best, a 3)

· The explanation does not capture the nuances and challenges associated with applying the framework.

· Minor errors and omissions are evident.

· Major errors or omissions are evident; and or

· The explanation of the process or procedures is superficial.

· (3) The framework is superficially described, and/or the description is incorrect. For example, Utilitarianism is identified but an explanation of the Kantian framework is provided or all frameworks are from the same week.

· (2) There is no description

· (1) Neither identifies or describes an ethical framework from the unit.

· Present a systematic, thorough, coherent, and correct application of the ethical framework to the ethical dilemma with no errors.

· Presents a correct application of the ethical framework that conforms to the framework’s process and procedures.

· Presents a generally correct application of the ethical framework that is systematic in its approach.

· Presents a generally coherent application of the ethical framework.

· (3) to (2) The framework has been applied to the dilemma.

· Minor errors may be evident in the analysis.

· Several minor errors and/or omissions are evident in the analysis; and/or

· The framework’s process or procedures is not fully or correctly applied.

· Major errors and/or omissions are evident in the analysis.

· (3) to (2) The application of the framework is incoherent; and/or has major errors, omissions, and inconsistencies in its application;

· (1) There is no application of the framework to the dilemma.

· Includes an insightful conclusion and recommendation that captures the nuances of the framework and/or analysis and/or dilemma.

· Includes a clear, coherent and justified conclusion and recommendation for responding to the dilemma.

· Incudes a reasonable conclusion and recommendation.

· Includes a coherent conclusion or recommendation.

· (3) to (2) Includes a conclusion or recommendation.

· The conclusion and recommendation lack insight or overlooks the nuance associated with applying the framework to the dilemma.

· Conclusion and/or Recommendations are reasonable but superficial.

· Minor errors and/or omissions are evident.

· The conclusion or recommendation is superficial and lacks clarity.

· Major errors and/or omissions are evident.

· (3) to (2) Conclusion and/or recommendation are/is incoherent and/or lack clarity.

· (1) Does not include a conclusion or recommendation.

· The conclusion and recommendations are compelling and free of errors and omissions.

· The conclusion and recommendation are clearly supported by, consistent with, and connected to the preceding analysis.

· The conclusion and/or recommendation are generally supported and consistent with the preceding analysis.

· The conclusion and/or recommendation are weakly supported by the preceding analysis.

· May include a conclusion and/or recommendation.

· Minor errors and omissions are evident.

· There are minor errors and omissions in the conclusion and recommendation.

· The conclusion and recommendation are not clearly or consistently supported by and/or connected to the preceding analysis (e.g. introduces new rationale).

· There are major errors, omissions and inconsistencies between the analysis, conclusion and recommendation.

· The conclusion and recommendation are not sufficiently supported by and/or connected to the preceding analysis.

· (3) The conclusion and/or recommendation presented are superficial

· (2) The conclusion and/or recommendation are not supported by the analysis.

· (1) Does not include a conclusion or recommendation.

Criterion 5 - Communication (PC 3.1)

· Communicate ideas clearly, logically and consistently in a professional business style with correct grammar, punctuation, spelling and use of headings and other signposts to direct the reader’s attention.

7

6

5

4

3 - 1

· The response is very well written and contains very few to no errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting and expression.

· The response is well written; and

· The response is characterised by good standards of spelling, punctuation, grammar, formatting and expression.

· The response is clear; and

· The response is characterised by basic standards of spelling, punctuation, grammar, formatting and expression.

· The response is coherent.

· (3) The response is mostly coherent.

· (2) The response is mostly incoherent.

· (1) The response is written in English text.

· Response contains a small number of errors of grammar, and/or punctuation, and/or formatting and/or written expression.

· The response contains frequent minor errors of grammar, punctuation, formatting and written expression.

· The response is at times unclear; and/or

· The response contains frequent and major errors and/or omissions in grammar, punctuation, formatting and written expression.

· (3) to (1) characterised by frequent and major errors and omissions in grammar, punctuation, formatting and written expression; and

· (3) to (2) The response lacks clarity and coherence; or

· (1) The response is incoherent and unclear.

· Communication flow enhances the argument or case presented.

· Communication flow is functional, clear, and coherent allowing the reader to draw meaning from the text in a single reading.

· Communication flow is sufficient to draw meaning from the text in a single reading.

· The Communication flow is sufficient for communicating ideas.

· (3) The communication flow is mostly evident in the response.

· (2) to (1) The communication flow is mostly lacking in the response.

· The communication flow is functional but does not enhance the communication of the argument presented.

· There communication flow has minor flaws that weaken the clarity, coherence and meaning of the message in the text.

· The response requires rereading to draw meaning from the text.

· (3) The communication flow is poor making it very difficult to understand and draw meaning from the text.

· (20 The response requires multiple readings to gain a sense of the argument and ideas presented.

· (1) After multiple readings of the response a sense of the argument and ideas generally can’t be discerned from the text.

· The logic of the ethical reasoning presented is clear, and persuasive.

· Logic of the ethical reasoning presented is clear and generally persuasive

· The logic of the ethical reasoning presented is consistent.

· Logic of the ethical reasoning presented is coherent and generally consistent.

· Logical reasoning is identifiable; and

· In some instances, it is coherent.

· Has weaknesses in its persuasiveness.

· Logic has minor inconsistencies;and/ or

· Lacks persuasiveness.

· Logic is inconsistent; and/or

· Has minor contradictions.

· (3) Logic has fatal inconsistencies.

· (2) Logic is contradictory and lacks coherence.

· (1) Logic is absent.

· Links between sentences and/or paragraphs clear, complete and support the communication flow and ethical reasoning.

· Links between sentences and/or paragraphs are clear, complete and support the communication flow and ethical reasoning.

· Links between sentences and/or paragraphs are generally correct.

· Links between sentences and/or paragraphs are present and mostly appropriate.

· Links between sentences or paragraphs are generally identifiable.

· Few minor errors and/or omissions are evident.

· Frequent minor errors and/or omissions are evident.

· Links between sentences and/or paragraphs are incomplete

· Links between sentences and/or paragraphs (or lack of links) hinder the communication flow and reasoning.

· Major errors and/or omissions in links are evident.

· (3) to (2) Links between sentences and/or paragraphs are poor but mostly present.

· (1)) Links between sentences and/or paragraphs are mostly absent.

· Formatting is appropriate for business communication purposes.

· Formatting is appropriate for business communication purposes.

· Formatting is sufficient for business communication purposes.

· Formatting is sufficient for business communication purposes.

· (3) and (2) Formatting is applied.

· Few minor errors evident

· Frequent minor errors, and/or omissions and/or inconsistencies evident.

· Major errors, and omissions and/or inconsistencies evident.

· Formatting, expression and presentation is insufficient for professional business communication purposes; and/or

· Tables, diagrams and figures not captioned or referenced in text or used poorly (e.g. to work-around word limits).

· (1) Formatting is absent.

· Referencing fully conforms to QUT standards for academic referencing.

· Referencing is appropriate.

· Referencing is sufficient and accurate.

· Referencing is sufficient.

· (3) to (2) Referencing is included.

· Referencing has minor errors in its conformance to QUT standards for referencing.

· Referencing has some minor errors and/or omissions.

· Referencing has major errors and/or omissions.

· Referencing may be superficial.

· (3) to (2) Referencing is insufficient or inaccurate.

· (1) Referencing is not included.

· Have complied with word limits.

· Have complied with word limits.

· Have complied with word limits.

· Have complied with word limits.

· Have not complied with word limits.