Business Finance - Management HOMEWORK

PHL337: Confronting Ethical Dilemmas: Part II - Grading Rubric Course: PHL337 Ethics

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Competent Developing Needs Improvement

Criterion Score

3/4/25, 6:52 PM Submission Link: CED Part II - PHL337 Ethics - National University

https://nationalu.brightspace.com/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_submit_files.d2l?db=603945&grpid=0&isprv=&bp=0&ou=104781 1/8

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Competent Developing Needs Improvement

Criterion Score

Philosophical

Understanding

of Ethical

Argumentation

/ 11 point

Provides a

deeply reflective

analysis,

articulating how

ethical

argumentation,

as a

philosophical

process, clarifies

and transforms

moral

perspectives.

Demonstrates

mastery in

explaining how

this method

shapes ethical

reasoning and

decisions, with

precise and well-

developed

connections to

the dilemma.

Explores broader

philosophical

implications,

such as

0.75 points

Offers a detailed

explanation of

ethical

argumentation as

a philosophical

process, focusing

on how it

informs decisions

and values.

Connections to

the dilemma are

thoughtful but

may not fully

address the

broader

implications or

depth of

philosophical

reasoning.

0.5 points

Describes ethical

argumentation as

a general

process,

identifying its

relevance to

shaping ethical

decisions.

Provides a basic

explanation of its

application to

the dilemma,

without fully

addressing its

philosophical

dimensions.

0.25 points

Mentions ethical

argumentation

but struggles to

define or apply it

as a

philosophical

process.

Connections to

ethical reasoning

are vague or

overly simplified,

leaving its

philosophical

importance

unexplored.

0 points

Fails to

demonstrate

understanding of

ethical

argumentation as

a philosophical

process. Lacks

meaningful

connections to

the dilemma or

to ethical

reasoning.

3/4/25, 6:52 PM Submission Link: CED Part II - PHL337 Ethics - National University

https://nationalu.brightspace.com/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_submit_files.d2l?db=603945&grpid=0&isprv=&bp=0&ou=104781 2/8

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Competent Developing Needs Improvement

Criterion Score

autonomy and

responsibility.

3/4/25, 6:52 PM Submission Link: CED Part II - PHL337 Ethics - National University

https://nationalu.brightspace.com/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_submit_files.d2l?db=603945&grpid=0&isprv=&bp=0&ou=104781 3/8

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Competent Developing Needs Improvement

Criterion Score

Application of

Ethical

Theories

/ 33 points

Applies at least

two ethical

theories with

depth and

precision, clearly

articulating their

principles and

relevance to the

dilemma.

Critically

examines how

the theories

interact, diverge,

or complement

each other in

evaluating the

decision. The

analysis is

cohesive,

insightful, and

philosophically

rigorous.

2.25 points

Demonstrates

clear and

thoughtful

application of

two ethical

theories,

explaining their

relevance to the

dilemma with

sound reasoning.

While the

theories are

effectively

applied, the

analysis may not

fully explore

their

philosophical

implications or

interactions.

Alternatively,

applies only one

ethical theory

with exceptional

depth, clarity,

and insight,

thoroughly

1.5 points

Incorporates two

ethical theories

but with limited

depth or

accuracy.

Alternatively,

applies only one

ethical theory

with clear

reasoning and

relevance to the

dilemma but

without

sufficient critical

engagement or

philosophical

depth. The

analysis is

serviceable but

lacks refinement

or rigor.

0.75 points

References one

or two ethical

theories but

struggles to

explain or apply

them

meaningfully.

Connections to

the dilemma are

vague,

superficial, or

inconsistent,

with little

evidence of

critical

engagement.

0 points

Fails to

incorporate

ethical theories

in a meaningful

way. The analysis

is absent,

disconnected

from theoretical

frameworks, or

wholly irrelevant

to the dilemma.

3/4/25, 6:52 PM Submission Link: CED Part II - PHL337 Ethics - National University

https://nationalu.brightspace.com/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_submit_files.d2l?db=603945&grpid=0&isprv=&bp=0&ou=104781 4/8

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Competent Developing Needs Improvement

Criterion Score

Articulation

and Support of

Own Ethical

Position with

Comparative

Analysis

/ 3

evaluating its

implications for

the dilemma.

3 points

Author

articulates their

own ethical

position in a

clear, compelling

manner,

providing strong

argumentative

support and

effectively

relating it to and

comparing it with

other ethical

positions studied

in the course.

2.25 points

Author

articulates their

own ethical

position in a

clear manner,

providing good

argumentative

support and

relating it to and

comparing it with

other ethical

positions studied

in the course.

1.5 points

Author

articulates their

own ethical

position, but the

argumentative

support is weak,

and the relation

to and

comparison with

other ethical

positions studied

are limited.

0.75 points

Author's

articulation of

their own ethical

position is

unclear or

incomplete, and

the

argumentative

support is

insufficient. The

relation to and

comparison with

other ethical

positions studied

are lacking.

0 points

Author fails to

articulate their

own ethical

position, provide

argumentative

support, or relate

it to and

compare it with

other ethical

positions

studied.

3/4/25, 6:52 PM Submission Link: CED Part II - PHL337 Ethics - National University

https://nationalu.brightspace.com/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_submit_files.d2l?db=603945&grpid=0&isprv=&bp=0&ou=104781 5/8

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Competent Developing Needs Improvement

Criterion Score

Integration of

Ethical and

Personal

Analysis

/ 22 points

Seamlessly

integrates ethical

theories with

personal

reflection,

creating a

cohesive and

philosophically

rigorous analysis.

The discussion

connects

abstract

principles with

the practical

challenges of the

dilemma,

demonstrating

clarity, depth,

and insight.

1.5 points

Combines ethical

theories and

personal

reflection

effectively,

though the

connections may

lack

sophistication or

detail. The

analysis is logical

and clear but

could further

develop the

relationship

between

theoretical

frameworks and

personal insight.

1 point

Provides a basic

synthesis of

ethical theories

and personal

reflection, but

connections are

fragmented or

overly simplistic.

The analysis

lacks

philosophical

depth or rigor.

0.5 points

Struggles to

combine ethical

theories with

personal

reflection

effectively. The

discussion is

disjointed or

lacks meaningful

connections,

resulting in a

superficial

analysis.

0 points

Fails to integrate

ethical theories

with personal

reflection. The

analysis is

incoherent or

entirely absent.

3/4/25, 6:52 PM Submission Link: CED Part II - PHL337 Ethics - National University

https://nationalu.brightspace.com/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_submit_files.d2l?db=603945&grpid=0&isprv=&bp=0&ou=104781 6/8

Criteria Exemplary Proficient Competent Developing Needs Improvement

Criterion Score

Reflection on

Ethical Growth

and Course

Influence

/ 11 point

Offers a

profound

reflection on

ethical growth,

articulating how

philosophical

insights from the

course have

reshaped or

reinforced the

student’s ethical

stance. Evaluates

the dilemma

through a newly

informed lens,

showing clear

evolution in

reasoning and

moral priorities.

The reflection is

introspective,

demonstrating

intellectual depth

and philosophical

engagement.

0.75 points

Provides a

thoughtful

reflection on

ethical growth,

articulating

changes or

consistency in

ethical

perspective.

References

course content

and philosophical

insights but

stops short of

exploring their

deeper

implications or

connections to

the dilemma.

0.5 points

Reflects on

ethical growth in

general terms,

noting changes

or consistency in

perspective.

References to

course content

are minimal or

superficial, and

the analysis

focuses more on

personal

experience than

philosophical

engagement.

0.25 points

Attempts to

reflect on ethical

growth but

offers vague or

unsupported

observations.

Limited or no

connections are

made to course

content, and the

discussion lacks

depth or focus.

0 points

Fails to reflect on

ethical growth

meaningfully.

Shows no

connection to

course content

or philosophical

concepts, and

the discussion

lacks coherence

or relevance.

3/4/25, 6:52 PM Submission Link: CED Part II - PHL337 Ethics - National University

https://nationalu.brightspace.com/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_submit_files.d2l?db=603945&grpid=0&isprv=&bp=0&ou=104781 7/8

Total / 10

Overall Score

Exemplary 9 points minimum

Proficient 8 points minimum

Competent 7 points minimum

Developing 6 points minimum

Needs Improvement 0 points minimum

3/4/25, 6:52 PM Submission Link: CED Part II - PHL337 Ethics - National University

https://nationalu.brightspace.com/d2l/lms/dropbox/user/folder_submit_files.d2l?db=603945&grpid=0&isprv=&bp=0&ou=104781 8/8