Your argument(s) for your approach must be carefully-considered, logical arguments, not just “I feel like that would be best” or “that’s what I was raised to believe.” Do not stray into a lengthy discussion of applied ethics. Be sure that this assignment focuses strictly on metaethics. Save applied ethics for your next Discussion Board. Be sure to carefully define your terms. You are encouraged to support your position with rational arguments, fitting examples, and expert sources. Any quotes or information used from sources other than yourself must be cited using footnotes in current Turabian format and will not count towards the total word count. You will be penalized for falling short or exceeding the word count. This is a university-level writing assignment and 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). Submit your thread by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Monday of Module/Week 5. 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 the metaethicthat your classmate is advocating. 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.
Your reply must be 500–600 words. You will be penalized for falling short or exceeding the word count.
- Summer '18
- Ethics, Revelational Christian Ethic, Divine Nature Theory