Assessment item 3
back to top
Review exercise
Value: 25%
Due Date: 11-Oct-2019
Return Date: Not returned
Length: 1600 words
Submission method options: EASTS (online)
Task
back to top
Answer each of the following 4 questions. Each answer should take about 400 words. Explain and defend your answers as fully as you can.
“In 1997, a Scottish surgeon by the name of Robert Smith was approached by a man with an unusual request: he wanted his apparently healthy lower left leg amputated. Although details about the case are sketchy, the would-be amputee appears to have desired the amputation on the grounds that his left foot wasn’t part of him — it felt alien. After consultation with psychiatrists, Smith performed the amputation.” (Bayne and Levy 2005) Did Smith act wrongly? Consider whether there are limits to our obligation to respect others’ autonomy.
Is it ever morally permissible to be a ‘bad Samaritan’?
‘Whether our actions cause harm to others is sometimes beyond our control. In these cases, whether one is blameworthy is similarly a matter of luck: whether one is blameworthy for one’s behaviour depends on factors beyond our control.’ Discuss, illustrating your discussion with a case study. Consider (a) whether it is fair to hold people responsible in cases like these, and (b) how professionals ought to make decisions in these cases.
Describe a scenario where someone might be tempted to ‘blow the whistle’ in a professional context. Outline an argument both for and against whistleblowing in your chosen scenario.
Rationale
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.
Presentation
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/
Requirements
back to top
Essays must be submitted in .doc format. (Pdfs will not be accepted.)
Assessment Information
back to top
Academic integrity
Academic integrity means acting with honesty, fairness and responsibility, and involves observing and maintaining ethical standards in all aspects of academic work. This subject assumes that you understand what constitutes plagiarism, cheating and collusion. If you are a new student we expect you to complete the modules called Academic Integrity at CSU.
CSU treats plagiarism seriously. We may use Turnitin to check your submitted work for plagiarism. You can use Turnitin to check for plagiarism in your assessments before submission.
Referencing
Referencing is an important component of academic work. All assessment tasks should be appropriately referenced. The specific details of the referencing requirements are included in each assessment task description. Get referencing style guides and help to use for your assessments.