Evaluation of Morals and Ethics Argumentative Essay

December 10, 2022

Evaluation of Morals and Ethics Argumentative Essay

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Evaluation of Morals and Ethics Argumentative Essay

[Order Now]

Evaluation, Morals, Ethics, Argumentative, Essay

Some suggestions to get started:

REVIEW

First, review the readings. Use what you have learned from these readings as a basis for your own argument. When I say “as a basis,” I mean as support for your own claim. Your claim may be similar to other ethical positions, but it is still yours. Use your own ideas and examples to support your claim. Make your argument unique to you and avoid merely restating or summarizing what others have said. Use resources as support for your argument–as back up.

CONTEXT

You are being asked to argue for an obligation that is ethical or right–for the common good. In our society, determining what is morally or ethically right is often confusing and opinionated or personal. Our society is struggling in this way. Thus, the need for strong reasoning in the service for what is right. In a culture that is confused about what or how to value the natural world, we need strong claims for values. We need to be convinced of the best principles. If we ask others to honor, respect, protect, or conserve the natural world, we must be able to provide really strong reasons for doing so.

BASIS

For Leopold, the reasons to love and respect and protect the natural world are rooted in ecological truths that humans often overlook or ignore because we are caught in self-interest or confused about our priorities. We are ideological beings in need of an ethical awakening, according to Leopold.

CLAIM

So, your claim should address what you think our ethical obligation to the environment truly is, and your rationale should assert the principle or main reason for that obligation.

WHAT NOT TO DO

Avoid the pitfall of arguing for what we already do or know, such as recycling and banning plastic. We do not need to argue for practices or actions here. This argument is for ethics–a way of thinking. This is a philosophical, not practical argument.

WHAT TO DO

Your argument is for your philosophy–your better way of thinking–about our true obligations to our world.

SUPPORTING YOUR PHILOSOPHY

You can ground your argument in what you understand about ecology. The basis for a philosophy must be in reality. Ecology helps us understand our reality, the real conditions and workings of life on Earth. Ecology provides the tools that you can give your readers to convince them to change their values.

Prompt: In your informed view, what is our ethical obligation to our environment?

Directions: Based on what you have learned in this module, present your own specific ethical argument, borrowing ideas from others as needed. Defend your position against the reasonable objections of your audience. Support your argument with ethical reasoning, selected facts gathered from our readings and viewing, as well as persuasive concepts from Leopold’s “The Land Ethic.” Some brainstorming questions to help you think through your position:

What ethical obligations do you believe arise from being an individual member of the biotic community?

Is there an ecological or scientific basis for your position? How can we make the connection between scientific truth and ethics?

Should humans strive to empathize with the non-human world? Why or why not?

Can and will you “practice what you preach?

Audience: Address an audience of your friends and peers. Aim to appeal to their level of awareness and critical thinking. Length: 1250-1500 words approximately. Format: Use MLA format for the layout of the essay, as well as citation and documentation. MLA format.

Sources: Use the materials we have read or viewed in this module. Draw examples and evidence from these sources. If you need current data about environmental issues, you should do additional research. An essay should always reflect the course materials.

Checklist:

Argument related, detailed title

Hook

Argumentative Thesis (claim and rationale)

At least 4 body paragraphs with topic and conclusion sentences

Evidence, examples, and reasoning drawn from course materials

Strong final paragraph that draws the big conclusion from the body

Careful editing

MLA formatted Work Cited

Professional Plagiarism Free Paper in APA/MLA/Harvard/Turabian Format, Instant Delivery, High Quality Submissions, 100% Unique, Turnitin Report Attached

Evaluation of Morals and Ethics Argumentative Essay

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.