Short Essay 2
Due Date: 13-Sep-2019
Return Date: 16-Oct-2019
Length: 1500 words
back to top
Write a short essay on one of the following topics:
1. Marge had always insisted that, if she were ever to become demented, she wouldn’t want her life prolonged by active medical intervention. Sadly, later in life, Marge did succumb to Alzheimer’s. However, on all accounts, Marge is very happy despite her limited comprehension of her surroundings. Marge now requires a pacemaker to correct a heart arrhythmia. Without the pacemaker, Marge is at risk of a sudden heart-attack. With the procedure, Marge has a good life-expectancy. Should Marge be treated, despite the preferences she had expressed about these precise circumstances?
2. In 1969, Prosenjit Poddar murdered Tatiana Tarasoff. Some weeks before the murder, Poddar revealed his intentions to his therapist, Dr Lawrence Moore. Moore alerted the police, but neither Moore nor the police warned Tarasoff that her life might be in danger. Did Moore have a moral obligation to warn Tarasoff, or did he have a greater obligation to respect Poddar’s confidentiality? How should we navigate these sorts of ethical dilemmas?
back to top
This assessment task will assess the following learning outcome/s:
• be able to demonstrate an understanding of the dominant ethical theories that form the basis of human service practice, and the processes of ethical reasoning and ethical judgment
• be able to demonstrate an understanding of relationship between law and policy affecting vulnerable adults and children and the ethical principles of autonomy and beneficence
• be able to demonstrate an understanding of the ethics of intervention, issues of acceptable paternalism and coercion, and the rights of individuals, groups and communities to be left alone
• be able to demonstrate an understanding of the ethics of care, the duty to care, and the concept of good samaritanism.
Marking criteria and standards
back to top
There are two critical parameters for assessment:
• Clarity of expression (40%), and
• Quality of argument (60%)
Particular attention will be given to the logical structure of your reasoning and your ability to extract complex ideas from source texts and to explain them in clear, jargon-free terms. Your ideas and arguments need not be original nor groundbreaking.
Note: no extra credit will be given for additional research beyond the key prescribed readings.
HD High Distinction (85-100%)
Each of these elements (described above) has been performed outstandingly well. You have thoroughly mastered the relevant discussion in the study materials, and can present it very clearly yourself, demonstrating that you are evaluating it with some sophisticated critical independence.
DI Distinction (75-84%)
Overall the task has been performed very well, but one or more of elements has not been performed outstandingly well. You display a good, solid grasp of the relevant discussion, and the ability to evaluate it with some real critical independence. But, for example, though you have mastered the statement and critical examination of the argument, your writing could be improved. Or, though your essay is beautifully written, your critical evaluation could be extended, or refined, or polished further. And so on.
CR Credit (65-74%)
Overall the task has been performed creditably, but one or more elements could be considerably improved. You show a fairly good grasp of the relevant discussion, and a fairly good attempt to assess it with critical independence. But, for example, though the meat of your discussion is good, your writing could be considerably improved. Or, your critical evaluation of the relevant argument could be substantially extended, or refined. And so on.
PS Pass (50-64%)
Overall the task has been performed satisfactorily, but not better than satisfactorily. You show an adequate grasp of the relevant discussion, but one or more elements could be substantially improved. For example, your writing, though intelligible, needs to be considerably improved. Or your presentation or critical evaluation of the relevant argument could be substantially improved through a clearer or less confused grasp of the material, or through a clearer application of the techniques of the analysis of argument, or by being extended to include omitted points. And so on.
FL Fail (0-49%)
Overall the task has been performed unsatisfactorily. One or more elements has been performed so unsatisfactorily that, however well the other elements have been performed, the essay is inadequate. For example, your writing is too far below the required standard. Or though you display some understanding of the material, your essay shows serious confusions.
Or you have omitted major points. And so on.
back to top
Presentation: There are no rules regarding presentation. However, you are encouraged to use headings, sub-headings, dot-points, and numbered premises to guide the reader appropriately through your reasoning.
Style: Please check your writing for grammar, punctuation, spelling and typos. Keep all direct quotes to a minimum, but do make sure to identify any words taken directly from a source by using quote marks. Give full references for all sources used, and keep within the prescribed word-limit. Philosophy writing is often somewhat colloquial in style, so don't worry about talking in the first person.
Referencing: You must use APA style for all referencing. For details, see: https://apps.csu.edu.au/reftool/
back to top
Essays must be submitted in .doc format. (Pdfs will not be accepted.)