business ethics writing
zachzhang
FinalPaperRubric.docxEssay Rubric:
For your final paper I want you to analyze the way that Amazon has treated its works and their unionization efforts. I want you to provide all the latest details on how Amazon is handling and reacting to unionization, and whether they are ethical in their treatment. You will need to show up to date information, and I especially want you to address the issue of whether it is ethical for Amazon to use robots as a replacement for unionized employees. See the below article on this latter point:
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/277078/20220623/amazon-autonomous-warehouse-robot-workers-arrive-human-staff-won-unionization.htm
The final paper is an exercise to test (1) your general knowledge of the three different ethical theories, (2) your critical thinking in evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, and (3) your ability to demonstrate all of the above in critically applying one of the theories to analyzing a well-researched case study.
The final paper must be at least 6 pages, but not to exceed 8 pages. Part of the exercise is to test your ability to grasp complex concepts and issues in a precise way and to articulate them in a concise way. The following is a suggestion for its structure:
1. For the first part of the main body make a reasoned argument for why you have chosen one of the ethical theories as opposed to the others. Be sure to show a good grasp of the ethical paradigm’s normative content: i.e. those foundational presuppositions about what it means to be human and how these presuppositions determine the means and the ultimate aims of ethical action. You will need to provide substantive reasons rather than mere assertions of feelings as to why you believe your chosen ethical theory best represents what it means to be human. Cite the primary sources and texts that were assigned. Any extra sources cited from outside the assigned readings are always welcomed.
2. For the second half of the main body, you will demonstrate the strength of the theory by critically applying it to a case study of your choosing. The business case you choose must be a new case not previously discussed in class (whether in group discussions or group presentations). It must be well-researched, citing multiple sources in order to present all the relevant facts and data needed to understand the core issues involved. Your analysis must be your own application of the ethical framework you chose, leading to an explanation of the problem with a reasoned moral judgment, rather than a mere assertion of rightness or wrongness without explanation (or an appeal to mere relativism). Think of this concrete analysis of a case as offering proof as to why you think the ethical framework is superior in its explanatory power. Show how the framework insightfully analyzes the case from its unique angle as well as offers creative proposals for a way forward.
General Grading Rubric:
|
Letter Grades |
Conceptual |
Thesis |
Development and Support |
Structuring |
Language |
|
A |
has cogent analysis, shows command of interpretive and conceptual tasks required by assignment and course materials: ideas original, often insightful, going beyond ideas discussed in lecture and class |
essay controlled by clear, precise, well-defined thesis: is sophisticated in both statement and insight |
well-chosen examples; persuasive reasoning used to develop and support thesis consistently: uses quotations and citations effectively; causal connections between ideas are evident |
appropriate, clear and smooth transitions; arrangement of paragraphs seems particularly apt |
uses sophisticated sentences effectively; usually chooses words aptly; observes conventions of written English and manuscript format; makes few minor or technical errors |
|
B |
shows a good understanding of the texts, ideas and methods of the assignment; goes beyond the obvious; may have one minor factual or conceptual inconsistency |
clear, specific, argumentative thesis central to the essay; may have left minor terms undefined |
pursues thesis consistently: develops a main argument with clear major points and appropriate textual evidence and supporting detail; makes an effort to organize paragraphs topically |
distinct units of thought in paragraphs controlled by specific and detailed topic sentences; clear transitions between developed, cohering, and logically arranged paragraphs that are internally cohesive |
some mechanical difficulties or stylistic problems; may make occasional problematic word choices or awkward syntax errors; a few spelling or punctuation errors or cliché; usually presents quotations effectively |
|
C |
shows an understanding of the basic ideas and information involved in the assignment; may have some factual, interpretive, or conceptual errors |
general thesis or controlling idea; may not define several central terms |
only partially develops the argument; shallow analysis; some ideas and generalizations undeveloped or unsupported; makes limited use of textual evidence; fails to integrate quotations appropriately |
some awkward transitions; some brief, weakly unified or undeveloped paragraphs; arrangement may not appear entirely natural; contains extraneous information |
more frequent wordiness; several unclear or awkward sentences; imprecise use of words or over-reliance on passive voice; one or two major grammatical errors (subject-verb agreement, comma splice, etc.); effort to present quotations accurately |
|
D |
shows inadequate command of course materials or has significant factual and conceptual errors; does not respond directly to the demands of the assignment; confuses some significant ideas |
thesis vague or not central to argument; central terms not defined |
frequently only narrates; digresses from one topic to another without developing ideas or terms; makes insufficient or awkward use of textual evidence |
simplistic, tends to narrate or merely summarize; wanders from one topic to another; illogical arrangement of ideas |
some major grammatical or proofreading errors (subject-verb agreement; sentence fragments); language marred by clichés, colloquialisms, repeated inexact word choices; inappropriate quotations or citations format |
|
F |
writer has not understood lectures, readings, discussion, or assignment |
no discernible thesis |
little or no development; may list facts or misinformation; uses no quotations or fails to cite sources or plagiarizes |
no transitions; incoherent paragraphs; suggests poor planning or no serious revision |
numerous grammatical errors and stylistic problems seriously distract from the argument |
