Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: zz-x2580
PHIL2617: Practical Ethics
Submission Details: Essays must be submitted online via the Canvas site for this Unit
of Study.
Essays will be marked anonymously for fairness. So please make sure that your name
does not appear anywhere on the essay (apart from the compliance statement).
Any citation style is acceptable, provided it is used consistently throughout the essay.
Late submission: In accordance with University policy, the following penalties apply when
written work is submitted after 11:59pm on the due date without an extension:
• Deduction of 5% of the maximum mark for each calendar day after the due date.
• After ten calendar days late, a mark of zero will be awarded.
Late essays will not be accepted (except where applications for special consideration are
lodged) beyond the return date of October 5. In cases where documented misadventure or
serious illness prevents students from submitting work before the designated return date an
alternative assessment task will be set.
Please note: these policies will be strictly enforced as a matter of equity with other students,
and late papers may be marked without feedback.
Special consideration: If you experience short-term circumstances beyond your control,
such as illness, injury or misadventure or if you have essential commitments which impact
your preparation or performance in an assessment, you may be eligible for special
consideration or special arrangements.
Academic integrity: The Current Student website provides information on academic
honesty, academic dishonesty, and the resources available to all students.
The University expects students and staff to act ethically and honestly and will treat all
allegations of academic dishonesty or plagiarism seriously.
The University uses similarity detection software to detect potential instances of plagiarism
or other forms of academic dishonesty. If such matches indicate evidence of plagiarism or
other forms of dishonesty, markers are required to report your work for further investigation.
Assessment Length: 2,000 words. Submissions with a word count greater than 2,200
will be penalized.
Further Research: It is not necessary to read beyond the required readings in the course
reader and the further readings in the library eReading system
(http://opac.library.usyd.edu.au/search/r?SEARCH=phil2617), but you may choose to do
further research if you wish. Note that further research will only be valuable insofar as it
furthers your analysis and answers the given question.
Aims and Assessment Criteria: The essay questions below aim to give you an opportunity
both to display your understanding of the class content, and also to display original thought.
Two key assessment criteria will be:
(A) Critical reasoning about the relevant philosophical issues:
* does the essay contain an argument for a thesis that answers the essay
question?
* is the essay’s argument persuasive?
* does the essay stick to what is relevant, or wander off-track?
* are arguments described or offered in a way that makes clear what their
premises are, and how the arguments’ inferences are meant to work?
(B) Quality of writing:
* is the essay clearly written?
* is the essay well structured?
* is the essay concise?
* does the essay stay within the word limit?
* does the essay use correct grammar?
* is the essay free of typos?
Pick one of the following essay questions. Your answer must engage directly with relevant
philosophical literature and arguments discussed in class and in the readings.
1. Why is killing wrong? What does this tell us about the morality of either (a) abortion or (b)
euthanasia?
2. On the assumption that the foetus is a person, is abortion relevantly like uncoupling
yourself from the violinist? What implications could this have for the morality of abortion?
3. Does the case of Smith and Jones prove that there is no intrinsic moral difference between
active and passive euthanasia?
4. Should euthanasia be legal?
5. Is the double-standard in our treatment of human and non-human animals ethically
defensible?
6. Does the environment have intrinsic moral value? Why, or why not?
7. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong discusses the morality of “joyrides.” If everyone going for
joyrides increases the severity of climate change that reduces the quality of life
of future generations, then does each of us have a moral obligation not to go for a
joyride?
