Submit your thread by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Thursday of Module/Week 7. Reply: After reading your classmates’ threads, choose one to which you will respond, then write a reply that interacts with your classmate’s thread and presents a well-reasoned alternative to your classmate’s approach to the issue. You do not have to defend a position that is diametrically opposed to your classmate’s position, but you do need to critically evaluate your classmate’s position in a way that points out strengths and possible weaknesses.
The goal of this is to help your classmate to improve his or her ability to logically and consistently apply his or her metaethical theory to an issue in applied ethics. Hence you should make your criticisms constructive. Be charitable – don’t assume that your classmate is making stupid mistakes, but instead where multiple interpretations are possible, assume that you classmate meant whichever interpretation would make more sense. However, don’t hesitate to point out disputable assumptions, faulty arguments, and alternative possibilities if you are convinced that they exist. In short, criticize politely. If possible, you must reply to a classmate to whom no one else has yet replied. Treat your classmate’s opinion with sensitivity and respect. This is a university-level writing assignment. Therefore it must be carefully proofread, free of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Do not use slang, emoticons, or abbreviations (as if you are texting or sending an email to a friend). Your reply must be 500–600 words. You will be penalized for falling short or exceeding the word count. Any quotes or information used from sources other than yourself (including your classmate’s thread) must be cited using footnotes in current Turabian and will not count towards the total word count. Submit your reply by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of Module/Week 7.
- Summer '18
- Ethics, Revelational Christian Ethic, Divine Nature Theory