{"id":1394,"date":"2026-07-16T10:46:55","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T15:46:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp.stolaf.edu\/assessment-committee\/?page_id=1394"},"modified":"2026-07-16T10:46:56","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T15:46:56","slug":"ethical-reasoning-in-context-prompt-examples","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/wp.stolaf.edu\/assessment-committee\/ethical-reasoning-in-context-prompt-examples\/","title":{"rendered":"Ethical Reasoning in Context Prompt Examples"},"content":{"rendered":"
\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t
\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t

ILO #1) Evaluate a range of ethical perspectives.<\/h2>\n\n\t\t\t<\/header>\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n
\n\n\t\n\n\t\n<\/figure>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n
\n \t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\tExample 1\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n <\/button>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

While ethical concerns abound in archaeological research, one of the thorniest that archaeologists grapple with is the treatment of human remains. Governments and professional organizations have weighed in (e.g. NAGPRA), making this complicated issue even more so. In a 1500-2000 word reflection paper, apply any 4 of the ethical perspectives offered by the studies in J. Skorupski (2010) The Routledge Companion to Ethics<\/em> (London and New York: Routledge) to the archaeological treatment of human remains. In your analysis, be sure to assess how each ethical perspective would affect how archaeologists study, curate, display, and publish human remains. In the conclusion, draw some \u201cso what\u201d recommendations for future field research based your assessment of the 4 different ethical perspectives.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/article>\n\n\t\t\t\n

\n \t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\tExample 2\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n <\/button>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Ethics paper: Camus & Daoud<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Length: +\/- 1000 words<\/p>\n

Daoud\u2019s novel, The Meursault Investigation<\/em> (2014), is a retelling and critique of Camus\u2019 novel, The <\/em>Stranger<\/em> (1942). Daoud\u2019s book is written from the vantage of a time and a world seventy years after that of Camus. Camus\u2019 work comes from the vantage of the French \u00e9migr\u00e9 (pied-noir<\/em>) community in Algeria, while Daoud\u2019s writing comes from the perspective of an Arab living in independent contemporary Algeria. The one emerges from the aftermath of World War II, while the other has been influenced by postcolonial values. Each has a world view, a sense of the crisis of day, a morality with its own values. Daoud believes that his world clashes with that of Camus, that Camus does not understand the meaning of what happened in the sun at the beach on that fateful day, that Camus has written a defective, even dangerous account of the death of the Arab.<\/p>\n

For this paper, your task is to demonstrate and analyze the clash or convergence of worldviews and values in the two novels. Consider questions such as these:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • What do the two authors take as absolutes?<\/li>\n
  • What are their fundamental values?<\/li>\n
  • What ought a human to do?<\/li>\n
  • How do Camus and Daoud differ in values?<\/li>\n
  • What is Daoud\u2019s criticism of Camus\u2019 account?<\/li>\n
  • What would Camus think of Daoud\u2019s criticism?<\/li>\n
  • How would Camus defend himself against Daoud\u2019s criticism?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    (You do not need to examine or answer all these questions, but should consider them starting points.)<\/em><\/p>\n

    In a thesis-driven essay of about 1000 words, write an analysis of the clash of values between the two texts. Your analysis should draw on moral and ethical theories that we have discussed in [course]. How do these theories help readers understand what the chief values that shape actions
    \nand which actions are of high value in the novels?<\/p>\n

    Ethical Reasoning in Context Requirement (ERC)<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    Description:<\/strong><\/h3>\n

    Students develop an understanding of a range of ethical perspectives and the contrasts among them within a scholarly field (e.g., history, biology, computer science, philosophy) or a domain of inquiry (e.g., politics, human development, the environment, love and friendship). Students will apply those perspectives to relevant questions and controversies and critically examine their assumptions and limitations.<\/p>\n

    Intended Learning Outcomes \u2014 Students will:<\/strong><\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. Evaluate a range of ethical perspectives.<\/strong><\/li>\n
    2. Apply these ethical perspectives to specific questions.<\/li>\n
    3. Identify or critically evaluate their own ethical views.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/article>\n\n\t\t\t\n
      \n \t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\tExample 3\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n <\/button>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t

      Dialogue Assignment<\/strong><\/h2>\n

      This assignment marks the first step towards completing your final paper. To complete this assignment, you will write a dialogue (trialogue?) between three different figures\u2013each one representing a different position on your chosen topic.<\/p>\n

      Choose one of our four substantive topics (immigration, policing, health care, inequality) for this assignment. The topic of your dialogue should be the same as the one for your final paper. One of the figures in the dialogue should represent your own views on the topic while the other two should adopt normative perspectives which you do not share or which lead to different conclusions on the issue. These can be broad normative perspectives (e.g., Utilitarian, Rawlsian, Kantian) or different value concerns (e.g., loyalty, fairness, care).<\/p>\n

      At the beginning of your paper, introduce the reader to the figures in your dialogue and the positions that they represent. Be clear as to which normative perspective each character is meant to capture. You then have substantial freedom to take the dialogue in whichever direction makes sense to you (within the broad contours of your chosen topic). Feel free to be creative in setting the scene\u2013or, alternatively, you are welcome to keep things simple. The paper itself may be written in the following format:<\/p>\n

      Person A: In my view, immigration should not be restricted because we have to consider the suffering that immigrants have faced in order to arrive in the US.<\/p>\n

      Person B: Of course we want to prevent suffering, but are we certain that allowing open immigration will create less and not more suffering?<\/p>\n

      Person C: It might depend on what kind of suffering you\u2019re talking about. There is a good argument to be made that allowing for the free movement of people will produce economic benefits for everyone.<\/p>\n

      Person B: It may create net benefits, but certainly some people will be harmed. And those harmed tend to be those who are least educated and least well-off. We shouldn\u2019t adopt a policy that benefits the rich if it harms the poor.<\/p>\n

      Person A: Compared to those trying to immigrate, the \u2018poor\u2019 in the U.S. are the rich!<\/p>\n

      Your paper should include general references to arguments and texts that we have encountered in the course. You may even have your characters refer to readings you have done outside of the course\u2013while making sure to include citations. Empirical claims may be relevant, but the disagreements<\/em> should be normative. The characters may disagree about the (normative) importance of the evidence, but they shouldn\u2019t disagree about the facts of the matter.<\/p>\n

      The goal of this dialogue is to explore different sides of a policy issue, not to persuade or convince the characters to change their mind to your position. Of course, your characters may still try to persuade the others (e.g., if you care about harm, you should consider X), but there doesn\u2019t need to be a \u2018winner\u2019 at the end of the dialogue. Do your best to fully depict the strongest versions of the different normative positions. This should help you as you complete your final paper assignment, as you will have explored your chosen topic from different normative perspectives. In total, the paper should be four pages or 750 words, whichever one you hit first.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/article>\n\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t

      \n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\n\t\t\t\t

      ILO #2) Apply these ethical perspectives to specific questions.<\/h2>\n\n\t\t\t<\/header>\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
      \n\n\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\n
      \n\n\t\n\n\t\n<\/figure>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
      \n\t\t\t
      \n
      \n \t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\tExample 1\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n <\/button>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t

      Comparative Essay<\/strong><\/h2>\n

      In order to demonstrate your knowledge of the paradigms relating to ethics that we have discussed in class, you will write a comparative essay. Both the first and final draft of the essay will be 2 to 3 pages<\/strong>. While you may choose your own topic for the term paper, your options for the comparative essay are somewhat limited. You may either:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Compare Kant\u2019s categorical imperative to Hegel\u2019s Sittlichkeit<\/em>;<\/li>\n
      2. or<\/strong> compare Hegel\u2019s Sittlichkeit<\/em> to Kierkegaard\u2019s teleological suspension of the ethical;<\/li>\n
      3. or<\/strong> compare Gautier\u2019s l\u2019art pour l\u2019art<\/em> to Kierkegaard\u2019s Tendenslitteratur<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        In order to illustrate your comparison, apply both paradigms to a specific ethical question, and contrast the results.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/article>\n\n\t\t\t\n

        \n \t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\tExample 2\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n <\/button>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
        \n\t\t\t\t\t\t

        Part 4, Essay.<\/strong> Aim for a thesis statement, 3 to 4 paragraphs of explanation, and a brief conclusion. Choose option A or B. 25 possible points.<\/p>\n

        A) Over the next twenty years you will face many ethical dilemmas: To choose between employment and a relationship; to care for an ill family member while trying to maintain your professional life; to act upon a conviction which those around reject it as naive. Which two ethicists are you are most likely to employ when you face a dilemma and which of their key ideas will guide your thinking and actions? If it helps you to imagine a dilemma, please include a description.<\/p>\n

        B) Judge the actions of one of the following characters from the Canterbury Tales<\/em> in light of two ethicists. Which of the ethicists\u2019 key ideas lead you to see this character as acting morally, immorally, or choosing mixed decisions? Characters to choose from:<\/p>\n

          \n
        • Theseus in the Knight\u2019s Tale,<\/li>\n
        • Griselda in the Clerk\u2019s Tale,<\/li>\n
        • Averagus (the husband) in the Franklin\u2019s Tale<\/li>\n
        • the Three Drunken Revelers in the Pardoner\u2019s Tale.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/article>\n\n\t\t\t\n
          \n \t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\tExample 3\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n <\/button>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t

          Reflective Essay Assignment<\/strong><\/h2>\n

          Purpose<\/strong>:<\/h3>\n

          To give you a chance to reflect on your experience this semester and to apply some of the ethical perspectives we encountered to specific questions that matter to you.<\/p>\n

          Task<\/strong>:<\/h3>\n

          Write a reflective essay of 1000-1200 words. First review your answer to our first Short Take about your purpose and hopes in taking this class. Then reflect on your other Short Takes, the readings, and experiences to explain what you have learned about politics as a vocation. Be sure to cite specific ethical perspectives that we discussed (Remember: Weber\u2019s Ethics of Moral Conviction and Ethics of Responsibility, Thompson\u2019s Ethics of Process and Ethics of Policy, and the biggies: Utilitarianism, Deontology\/Duty, and Virtue Theory) and apply them (or explain how you applied them) to specific questions that emerged during the course. Formal citations and bibliography in Chicago Author-Date citation style.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/article>\n\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t

          \n\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\n\t\t\t\t

          ILO #3) Identify or critically evaluate their own ethical views.<\/h2>\n\n\t\t\t<\/header>\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
          \n\n\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\n
          \n\n\t\n\n\t\n<\/figure>\n\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
          \n\t\t\t
          \n
          \n \t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\tExample 1\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n <\/button>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t

          Final Reflection Essay<\/strong>
          \nAssignment Sheet<\/strong>
          \n10% of final grade<\/em><\/h2>\n

          Overview:<\/strong><\/h3>\n

          In this short (500-750 word) reflection you will revisit your personal reflection from your exam and consider how your ethical perspective(s) have shifted over the course of the semester.<\/p>\n

          Further Details:<\/strong><\/h3>\n

          A key learning objective for Ethical Reasoning in Context (ERC) courses asks students to \u201cidentify or critically evaluate their own ethical views.\u201d We have spent the semester reading longer novels and discussing globalization and its related issues, so it is worth revisiting your initial explanation of your ethical stance.<\/p>\n

          In this lower-stakes assignment, you will create a response to your initial reflection in the exam. Have the readings this semester changed your view of the ethics of globalization you discussed in your reflection? If so, what have you learned that has made you reevaluate your attitudes? (Alternatively, has your ethical perspective changed due to events outside of the classroom?) If your beliefs have not shifted, explain how engaging with the assigned texts\u2014as well as your work for other classes and your understanding of global current events\u2014have further deepened your specific stance.<\/p>\n

          This reflection essay can be quite straightforward: you are not required to craft a personal narrative with a clear story arc (if you wish to do so, that would be fine). Regardless of the structure of your reflection, please include specific examples from the ethics texts or the assigned novels to support your argument.<\/p>\n

          Skills Developed:<\/strong><\/h3>\n
            \n
          1. Critical thinking and self-awareness<\/li>\n
          2. Narrowing the scope of the topic and articulating a clear argument<\/li>\n
          3. Supporting claims with specific evidence or examples<\/li>\n
          4. Employing conventions of academic writing, including paragraph structures and fluid prose<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/article>\n\n\t\t\t\n
            \n \t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\tExample 2\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n <\/button>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
            \n\t\t\t\t\t\t

            Leadership Ethics Video Presentation<\/strong><\/h2>\n

            Length: 5-10 minutes<\/strong><\/h3>\n

            Purpose:<\/strong><\/h3>\n
              \n
            1. Practice presentational skills through video<\/li>\n
            2. Apply philosophical ideas to literary texts<\/li>\n
            3. Identify or critically evaluate students\u2019 own ethical views<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Create a video discussing one issue in leadership ethics through analysis of Machiavelli, Shakespeare\u2019s Henriad<\/em>, and your own ethical views.<\/p>\n

              You may work with one partner or alone. If you work with a partner, your work and your onscreen participation should be equal, and you will receive the same grade.<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Leadership Ethics Pre-Writing Exercise:<\/strong> In three paragraphs of 100+ words each, answer the following questions to prepare to create your video presentation. Each student will do this individually even if working with a partner. This is low-stakes writing; you shouldn\u2019t take more than two hours to complete it.\n
                  \n
                • What, for Machiavelli, is the highest good, in your opinion? How should one strive to reach it? What are the roles of reason and will in distinguishing the good and seeking it? Compare and contrast these features to one or more of the other philosophers we\u2019ve read (Epicurus, Lucretius, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Aristotle).<\/li>\n
                • Consider Hotspur, Henry IV, or Henry V as a leader. How would you compare their approaches to politics with the Machiavellian political ethics you just outlined?<\/li>\n
                • How would you define your own leadership ethics? Compare and contrast with the ethics outlined by Machiavelli in The Prince<\/em> and with the Shakespeare character you have chosen.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                • Your presentation should be focused.<\/strong> With your partner (if you have one) choose one aspect of Machiavelli\u2019s The Prince<\/em> that strikes you as relevant to Shakespeare\u2019s 1 Henry IV<\/em> and\/or Henry V<\/em>, and brainstorm on what that relevance is and how you can effectively teach it to the class using a video.<\/li>\n
                • Your presentation should raise questions and counterarguments.<\/strong> Your video should also discuss your own views on this ethical topic and subject your own views to critique. You can either compare and contrast the two partners\u2019 views, or each provide a self-critique. It\u2019s okay to admit ambivalence or uncertainty about your ethical views; an honest self-examination is the goal.<\/li>\n
                • Create a plan for your video<\/strong> including what the sequence of clips will be, what other materials (images, sets, locations, props, other participants, sound and music, etc.) you need, and how you will edit the parts of your video together.<\/li>\n
                • Shoot the video and edit it.<\/strong>\n
                    \n
                  • The final product should include video, quotations from Shakespeare and Machiavelli (read aloud and\/or onscreen), and clips of you talking. Optionally, it can also include animation, jokes, costumes, swordfighting, other participants, poetry or other texts \u2013 use your imagination.<\/li>\n
                  • You can use whatever editing software you like, but make the video look and sound polished. It shouldn\u2019t be just a video of you and your partner discussing the question.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/article>\n\n\t\t\t\n
                    \n \t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\tExample 3\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n <\/button>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
                    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t

                    SECOND ESSAY<\/strong>
                    \nASSIGNMENT<\/strong><\/h2>\n

                    Write a 1250-1750-word essay on the following question:<\/p>\n

                    Do genuine moral dilemmas<\/em> <\/strong>exist (where the term \u201cmoral dilemma\u201d signifies a situation in which an agent must do something morally wrong no matter what available course of action is taken)?<\/p>\n

                    In your essay you should state your own answer to the question and provide a defense of your position that reflects substantial acquaintance with moralphilosophical discussions of the issue studied in the course. You should give reasons in support of your position, anticipate possible objections to your position, and respond to those objections.<\/p>\n

                    If, in developing your own position, you draw on the work of philosophers studied in the course, naturally you should cite the work of those philosophers. In any event, the point of the exercise is to develop your own view and not to report on the philosophical work of others. For this reason and because the philosophical materials on dilemmas give a fairly comprehensive account of the issues, I am asking that you NOT do further research in support of the position you are developing.<\/p>\n

                    Of course, in a paper of this length one cannot provide a comprehensive philosophical defense of a position on a matter this complex. Accordingly, you should emphasize a particular line of argument, and, where appropriate, explicitly acknowledge issues that remain unsettled or positions you are assuming without argument to get on with the argument you are making.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/article>\n\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":2679,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1394","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.stolaf.edu\/assessment-committee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1394","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.stolaf.edu\/assessment-committee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.stolaf.edu\/assessment-committee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.stolaf.edu\/assessment-committee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2679"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.stolaf.edu\/assessment-committee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1394"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/wp.stolaf.edu\/assessment-committee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1394\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1412,"href":"https:\/\/wp.stolaf.edu\/assessment-committee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1394\/revisions\/1412"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.stolaf.edu\/assessment-committee\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}