Case Analysis

Live Case Analysis 2 Guideline (30marks) Task: Write the Analysis with1750(Minimum)- 2000 words (Maximum), NO 10% Leeway. Please question the questions Q1-5 below. There is the guideline what I want to write in your questions. Please copy the questions before you answer the questions. There are words limit in different questions. There are rubrics below each question or each part. Please the follow the rubrics and avoid the common issues.

THE CASE is in other file. (Aids and Needles Case) NOTE: NOTE: You are not required to define any of the ethical theories in your report. You are required, however, to fully reference the case facts you use in your report. NOTE: STUDENTS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO PROVIDE REFERENCING IN THIS ASSIGNMENT. Case Facts: (Please make sure you can answer “TRUE” to all of the following statements) Question 1: Describe the facts that underpinned the ethical dilemma in the case. 480 words approximately – be sure to include only that information that is directly relevant to the ethical dilemma. The inclusion of information that is not relevant to the ethical dilemma, no matter how interesting, will not attract marks. No introduction, contents page or executive summary is required. That what I want you to be included. 1. The case facts describe the organisation/industry that the ethical dilemma relates to. 2. The case facts inform the reader of the period of time that the case happened. 3. The case facts are presented in chronological order that are easy for the reader to follow. 4. The case facts include all of the information needed to convince the reader that there is an ethical dilemma (i.e. there is a forced choice between two exact alternative actions, both of which will result in punishment for the decision-maker specifically). 5. The Case Facts section includes NO information that occurs after the ethical dilemma point in time. Case Issues: Question 2: Who was the decision- maker in the case, and what conflicting demands did they have to accommodate? 120 words approximately – be sure to identify the decision-maker that has the initial ethical dilemma in the case, and to detail the competing pressures you believe they faced at the time of their decision. That what I want you to be included.

Question Answer Who is the decision maker?

What competing demands do they face at the point of the Ethical Dilemma?

Rubric for QUESTION 1& 2 (3 marks for total): The Case Facts & Case Issues:

3 marks- The Case Facts section will present an accurate representation of the case with no irrelevant information included. The decision- maker will be identified accurately. Which common issues you cannot get the full marks? Please avoid it. Case Facts: □ The Case Facts section was incomplete and did not support the Ethical Dilemma sufficiently well □ The Case Facts section was poorly written and confusing to read □ The Case Facts section was insufficiently referenced (and therefore unconvincing to read) Case Issues: □ The Case Issues section did not identify the decision-maker in the case (*if there is no specific name available, then the position that they held needs to be identified – e.g. CEO, CFO, employee etc.) □ The Case Issues section did not describe the competing demands faced by the decision-maker Ethical Dilemma: Question 3: What was the initial ethical dilemma faced by the decision- maker in this case? 80 words approximately – be sure to accurately define and justify the ethical dilemma. Make sure it is expressed as two exactly opposite alternatives, and explain how each alternative is undesirable for the decision-maker specifically (i.e. how do you expect they will face punishment for their decisions?) That what I want you to be included. What is the punishment for the Two exactly opposite statements! decision-maker specifically?

****(Don’t miss that) The Ethical Dilemma identified in my analysis is the first forced choice between two undesirable alternatives. Rubric for QUESTION 3 (3 marks for total): Ethical Dilemma & Punishments 3 marks- An accurate ethical dilemma will be expressed in the correct format, and relevant punishments linked directly to the decision- maker. Which common issues you cannot get the full marks? Please avoid it. □ The Ethical Dilemma was illogical □ The Ethical Dilemma was NOT expressed as two exactly opposite statements □ The punishments associated with the Ethical Dilemma were not linked to the decision-maker specifically Four Concepts Usages Question 4: Using the Utilitarian, Kantian, Rights, and Distributive Justice approaches to ethical decision- making, provide an analysis of the ethical dilemma. (16 marks for total)

1120 words approximately – to answer this question well, you need to introduce each of the four theories in turn (i.e. each theory should have its own section). Ideally, you will apply the steps of each theory to the case as you identify and define them. As a guide, you should allocate approximately 395 words to Utilitarianism, 325 words to Kantianism, 200 words to Rights, and 200 words to Justice.

A. Utilitarianism: (Please make sure you can answer “TRUE” to all of the following statements) You should allocate approximately 395 words to Utilitarianism That what I want you to be included. 1. The ethical dilemma headings used in the Utilitarian analysis are expressed in exactly the same manner as they were previously in the assignment. 2. The consequences listed are expressed as specifically as possible – vague expression and non-sequences are avoided at all times. 3. The list of consequences are comprehensive, and would convince any reader that represent enough information to determine “the greatest good for the greatest number”. 4. The explanation of “the greatest good for the greatest number” is clearly written so that the reader fully understands your logic. 5. I have linked the “the greatest good for the greatest number” explanation back to the Ethical Dilemma specifically. 6. The conclusion to this section states which Ethical Dilemma alternative must be chosen according to Utilitarianism. There is no discussion about the penalties attached to this choice. Rubric for QUESTION 4A (5 marks): Application of Utilitarianism 5 marks- The student will demonstrate a detailed understanding of the ethical theory under review through a logical and defensible resolution of the ethical Dilemma. Which common issues you cannot get the full marks? Please avoid it. □ The list of consequences was illogical and/or poorly expressed □ The list of consequences was incomplete/far too brief to be useful to the reader (*more problematic if the assignment is under the word count) □ The list included non-sequences □ The justification of the Greatest Good was poorly explained □ The link back to the Ethical Dilemma was not present

B. Kantianism: 325 words to Kantianism That what I want you to be included. What is the nature of the ethical dilemma? That is, what does it concern specifically? E.g. the engineers in the Ford Case had the Ethical Dilemma: “to inform the public about their safety concerns”, or “Not to….” – this decision relates specifically to public autonomy (and not safety – as there were no Pintos for sale at the point of the ED).

To whom, therefore, does the decision-maker owe their primary duty in this case?

What are the maxims underpinning the Ethical Dilemma/Primary Duty?

A) B)

****(Don’t miss that) The conclusion to this section states which Ethical Dilemma alternative must be chosen according to Kantianism. There is no discussion about the penalties attached to this choice. Rubric for QUESTION 4B (5 marks): Application of Kantianism 5 marks- The student will demonstrate a detailed understanding of the ethical theory under review through a logical and defensible resolution of the ethical Dilemma. Which common issues you cannot get the full marks? Please avoid it. □The party to whom the decision-maker owes their primary duty was not identified accurately □ The maxims included consequential considerations □ The Universalization test was not applied accurately □ The Respect for Persons test was not applied accurately □ The Respect for Autonomy test was not applied accurately □ The link back to the Ethical Dilemma was not present

C. Rights: (Please make sure you can answer “TRUE” to all of the following statements) 200 words to Rights That what I want you to be included. 1. All of the relevant “Rights at Play” and their attached obligations are included in my list. 2. I have included more than just the two Rights I believe clash in my analysis. 3. I have justified that there is a violation of a Right from evidence in my Case Facts section. 4. I have clearly explained how the clash of Rights is resolved using the Hierarchy of Rights concept. 5. I have linked the resolution of the clash of Rights back to the Ethical Dilemma specifically. 6. The conclusion to this section states which Ethical Dilemma alternative must be chosen according to Rights. There is no discussion about the penalties attached to this choice. Rubric for QUESTION 4C (5 marks): Application of Rights 5 marks- The student will demonstrate a detailed understanding of the ethical theory under review through a logical and defensible resolution of the ethical Dilemma. Which common issues you cannot get the full marks? Please avoid it. □ The list of relevant “Rights at Play” was incomplete (*i.e. relevant stakeholders were not included in the analysis) □ The list of relevant “Rights at Play” did not include the attached obligations □ The “Clash of Rights” was not correctly identified □ The resolution of the Clash of Rights was poorly explained □ The link back to the Ethical Dilemma was not present

D. Distributive Justice: 200 words to Justice That what I want you to be included. List all of the potential worst-off parties at the point of the Ethical Dilemma. Describe their worst position at the point of the Ethical Dilemma but not past it. You should borrow from your list of parties in your Utilitarian section here – consistency in your representation of relevant parties will make your work look comprehensive.

Who is the very worst-off party on your list? I recommend that you justify your claim using Rights theory.

****(Don’t miss that) 1. The analysis of the outcomes for the very worst-off party focuses ONLY on their worst-of position – all other considerations are not mentioned at all. ****(Don’t miss that) 2. The conclusion to this section states which Ethical Dilemma alternative must be chosen according to Distributive Justice. There is no discussion about the penalties attached to this choice. Rubric for QUESTION 4D (5 marks): Application of Justice 5 marks- The student will demonstrate a detailed understanding of the ethical theory under review through a logical and defensible resolution of the ethical Dilemma. Which common issues you cannot get the full marks? Please avoid it. □ The list of potential “worst-off parties” was incomplete (*includes relying on consequences) □ The selected “worst-off party” was not logically justified □ The outcomes for the “worst-off party” included reference to consequences □ The link back to the Ethical Dilemma was not present Final Recommendation: (Please make sure you can answer “TRUE” to all of the following statements) Question 5: Present and justify the final recommendation you would have made to the decision- maker in this case had they asked you for advice on how to resolve their initial ethical dilemma. 200 words approximately – identify and justify the final recommendation would you have made given the opportunity to consult with the decision-maker before they made their decision. You must explain how the decision-maker could avoid the punishment(s) that you identified in Question 3. That what I want you to be included. 1. The Final Recommendation specifically states which Ethical Dilemma alternative you would recommend OVERALL to the decision-maker (had you had the opportunity to do so at the time of the decision). 2. The Final Recommendation provides at least one strategy that could assist the decision-maker in avoiding the punishment(s) you identified earlier in your work. 3. The Final Recommendation does not provide ANY additional information other than that required in (1) and (2) above.

Rubric for QUESTION 5 (3 marks): Final Recommendation 3 marks- The final recommendation will resolve the ethical dilemma logically and defensibly and provide strategies for dealing with dissenting groups to the decision- maker. Which common issues you cannot get the full marks? Please avoid it. □ The Ethical Dilemma was not resolved specifically □ The punishment associated with the Ethical Dilemma alternative is not dealt with specifically Format: It is recommended that you use headings to guide your answer, as it will keep both you and the marker ‘on- track’. References: Your reference list is not included in your word-count. however, you should provide references for the case facts you include in your analysis (i.e. newspapers, Internet sites, periodicals etc). Rubric for format (1 mark) Expression, spelling & Grammar, Page number, Double line spacing. Within the words limit. 1 mark- The analysis will confirm to the presentation and Harvard referencing standards sets in the School’s referencing and essay presentation guidelines. Which common issues you cannot get the full marks? Please avoid it. □The text is not double, or 1.5 line spaced □ Incorrect or inaccurate referencing standards applied in the text AND/OR the final reference list □ Exceeded the word limit