There are two parts to this essay part1 and part2. The deadline for part1 is 15/10/2020 and the deadline for part2 is 29/10/2020, The total word count including references is 3500. The index for the part1 and part2 is mentioned in the final essay2 folder that I'm attaching along with other details. I'm also attaching my main essay proposal which is the number 1.0 in the deliverables part. Please read the instructions and the details properly and then decide if you can do this or not.
/ Final Essay details 1. Overview Due Date/Submission Part 1: 5pm Fri 16/10 (Wk 10); Part 2: 5pm Fri 30/10 (Wk 12). Both parts of your Final Essay must be submitted on iLearn (via Turnitin). Your Final Essay should clearly state your NAME, your STUDENT NUMBER and the statement THIS IS MY OWN WORK. Referencing should follow the APA 7 style. Estimated student workload 45 hours. Extensions and Penalties There will be a deduction of 10% of the total available marks made from the total awarded mark for each 24-hour period or part thereof that the submission is late (for example, 25 hours late in submission: 20% penalty). This penalty does not apply for cases in which an application for Special Consideration is made and approved. Note that here are limits on how long special consideration can be applied for, so please submit any applications as soon as possible. BESS can assist with inquires about the special consideration process. Overview The purpose of the essay is to undertake a comprehensive ethical analysis of the topic selected for the essay proposal. Essentially, you are asked to consider the ethical issue from multiple perspectives and reach an overall conclusion. You will use three different ethical theories: 1. Utilitarian; 2. Kantian; and 3. Your choice from the theories we have studied (virtue ethics, critical theory, environmental ethics and Habermasian ethics). You are also asked to extend your analysis by summarising and applying one academic paper, which focuses on one of the three theories you have selected. The following diagram illustrates the relationship between the Essay Proposal and the Final Essay: / Final Essay details 2. Deliverables Please submit your essay using the following headings (refer to the Marking Criteria for the key elements of each section): Essay Part 1 1.0 Essay Proposal [unchanged from Assessment Task 3] 2.0 Utilitarian analysis 2.1 Stakeholder analysis 2.2 Other considerations 2.3 Utilitarian analysis conclusions 3.0 Kantian analysis 3.1 Categorial imperative analysis 3.2 Other considerations 3.3 Kantian analysis conclusions 4.0 Additional theory description 4.1 Description of theory 4.2 Criteria for ethical analysis 5.0 Reference list Essay Part 2 6.0 Additional theory application 6.1 Application of ethical analysis criteria [from 4.2] 6.2 Other considerations 6.3 Additional theory conclusions 7.0 Theory extension 7.1 Description of theory extension 7.2 Application of theory extension 7.3 Implications of theory extension for conclusions 8.0 Conclusion 8.1 Summary of application of theories [from previous sections] 8.2 Overall conclusion 8.3 Limitations and suggested further analysis 9.0 Reference list Details Essay Part 1 (25%) 1/ The utilitarian and Kantian analysis of the topic you selected in the Essay Proposal task (or a new topic with the permission of the Seminar Leader). The main task is NOT to write lots of facts about the case. It is also NOT to write about what utilitarian or Kantian ethics is. Rather the task is to conduct the ETHICAL ANALYSIS – i.e. to APPLY the theories to your individual case. For example, “Utilitarians believe that the moral action is the one that produces the most aggregate utility” is a writing about utilitarianism. In contrast “Taxing the rich to give to the poor would be ethical from a utilitarian point of view, because / though a few rich people would lose utility, this would be more than outweighed by the many rich people who would gain utility and hence aggregate utility would increase” is an application of utilitarian theory to the moral question as to whether the rich should be taxed. As you will see in the marking criteria, higher grades are awarded to those students that apply the more sophisticated elements of the moral theories. 2/ A description of the additional theory you have selected to apply to your case: i.e. virtue ethics, Critical Theory, environmental ethics or discourse ethics. Note that you should not apply the theory to your case as that is the requirement of Part 2 of your essay. Essay Part 2 (30%) 3/ The application of the additional theory to your case. As you have provided a summary of this theory in Part 1 of the essay, you should assume that the reader is familiar with the theory and focus on the APPLICATION to your case. 4/ The theory extension is the use of one academic paper to deepen your analysis. The paper you select should be about an aspect of utilitarian theory, Kantian theory or the theory you have selected as your additional theory. In this section you should NOT assume that the reader is familiar with the academic paper you have selected and you should therefore briefly describe the way that the paper extends the theory and then apply that extension to your case. You should conclude this section by clearly stating whether this extension supports or refutes the original conclusion you reached. For example, a paper might extend utilitarian theory by providing some specific tests to identify which stakeholders should be included and excluded from the utilitarian analysis. You would then follow this method and describe which stakeholders changed as a result and what the impact on overall utility was. Note that you do not have to use the entire academic paper – it may be only a section of the paper that you wish to describe and apply. 5/ The conclusion is the section where first and foremost you provide an answer to the question you have set yourself in your essay. In providing your conclusion you should refer to the sub-answers you obtained from the three theories you have used and the theory extension. Better answers will explain why they gave some theories greater weight then others, especially if there are conflicting answers between theories, and also the overall level of confidence they have in their conclusion. Better answers will also provide practical steps that should be taken (e.g. by industry, government or other stakeholders) to promote the practice which has been determined to be moral. Essay Parts 1 and 2 The word limit for Part 1 and Part 2 including the Essay Proposal and references is 4,000 words. Note that this is a maximum word limit – there is no penalty for writing less than the word limit if you can meet the marking criteria described below. References should be cited using the APA 7 style. / Final Essay details 3. Marking criteria - Part 1 Grade Utilitarian analysis (8 marks) Kantian analysis (8 marks) Additional theory description (5 marks) Style (4 marks) Fail · One or more pass elements not achieved. · One or more pass elements not achieved. · One or more pass elements not achieved. · One or more pass elements not achieved. Pass · Key stakeholders identified · Approximate size of stakeholder group determined · Impact on each stakeholder group (i.e. increase or decrease) shown · Overall impact on utility provided · At least one formulation of the categorical imperative briefly explained and applied to the case. · Core elements of the theory explained · Essay proposal attached. · Few grammatical and typographical errors. · Referencing follows APA 7 requirements · Word limit is not exceeded by more than 10% Credit As per a Pass grade, and: · A convincing justification for each change in utility provided. As per a Pass grade, and: · Two or more formulations of the categorical imperative briefly explained and applied to the case. As per a Pass grade, and: · Key differences to Kantian and utilitarian ethics explained As per pass grade and: · Writing is free from unsupported / uncritical statements (e.g. generalisations about particular stakeholder groups) Distinction As per a Credit grade, and: · Deeper aspects of the theory considered and analysed clearly/critically, e.g. qualitative versus quantitative aspects of utility (i.e. Bentham vs Mill); the selection of geographic and temporal boundaries justified. As per a Credit grade, and: · Deeper aspects of the theory considered and analysed clearly/critically, e.g. intentionality and/or autonomy. As per a Credit grade, and: · Deeper aspects of the theory considered and critically analysed. As per a Credit grade, and: · Paragraphs have clear topic sentences that summarise the contents of each paragraph. · Ideas and arguments are expressed precisely and succinctly. High Distinction As per a Distinction grade, and: · Limitations of the theory identified; · Conclusion as to the confidence in the utilitarian analysis provided and justified clearly and critically. In other words, to what extent does this case lend itself to a utilitarian analysis and therefore to what extent can we be confident that the utilitarian conclusion is valid? As per a Distinction grade, and: · Limitations of the theory identified; · Conclusion as to the confidence in the Kantian analysis provided and justified clearly and critically. In other words, to what extent does this case lend itself to a Kantian analysis and therefore to what extent can we be confident that the Kantian conclusion is valid? As per a Distinction grade, and: · Limitations of the theory identified; · Arguments AND ethical discussion demonstrate an high degree of understanding of the material and include at least one reference to high quality external sources such as a research report or academic paper. As per Distinction grade, and: · Writing uses engaging techniques such varied sentence lengths and vocabulary as well as appropriate metaphors and/or similes. · Arguments and analysis are linked and build sequentially / Final Essay details 4. Marking criteria - Part 2 Grade Additional theory (8 marks) Theory extension (9 marks) Conclusion (9 marks) Style (4 marks) Fail · One or more pass elements not achieved. · One or more pass elements not achieved. · One or more pass elements not achieved. · One or more pass elements not achieved. Pass · Core elements of the theory applied to the case (using description provided in Part 1). · Appropriate additional academic source identified and cited; · Brief summary provided of the additional academic source · Simple explanation provided as to how the additional academic source might extend one of the theory sections (i.e. utilitarian, Kantian or additional) · Overall conclusion provided which referred to the sub-conclusions of each of the sections (i.e. utilitarian, Kantian, additional theory and theory extension). · Reference list attached. · Few grammatical and typographical errors. · Referencing follows APA 7 requirements · Word limit is not exceeded by more than 10% Credit