Identify who the you agrees with and why.The student should respond to the objections raised by the author that they disagree with.

The ethical issues paper is an exercise in persuasive ethical reasoning. Choose one of the following topics:

Death Penalty
The ethics of economics

Each student will select from the topics above. Students will be required to read two articles, posted by the professor on Canvas. These articles will be presenting opposing views. Students are asked to outside research, but they must interact with the two papers assigned. Wikipedia is not a recognized resource.

It is not an opinion piece. It is a research paper where you survey the landscape of the debate on your topic of choice, and then present your reasons why others should arrive at the same conclusion you do. You are responsible to come to a conclusion. The goal is to offer objective reasoning on the logical and moral merits of your own view and why opposing views fail.

Your paper will be graded on the basis of several criteria. First, will be the coherence and clarity of your argument. Apply the knowledge you gain on the units of critical thinking of logical fallacies to your work. Is it self-contradictory? Does your work assume what it needs to prove? Are you using double standards or biases in favor of your conclusion? Are you careful to avoid presenting the view you reject as a strawman? Second, how clearly you following the organization structure provided below.

Pointers for writing

Don’t go “all in” on debatable points or point that you will no devote time to support (rape= death example)
Avoiding lengthy quotes that pad your word count. If you cite more than 3 lines of text, make them single space and indent the whole quote.
Avoid overly repeating what you’ve already said (padding the word count)
Do identify what ethical philosophy each of the authors is taking (the author’s point of view)
Do identify what position each author takes on the ethical issue
Do identify who the you agrees with and why. The student should respond to the objections raised by the author that they disagree with.