Was Mike Daisey justified in lying about his experiences in China? In your answer, please draw on course readings, lectures and discussions to a) summarize the case so that someone not familiar could understand the key aspects of the ethical dilemma, b) identify arguments in support of the actions taken by Daisey; c) identify arguments in opposition to the actions taken by Daisey; and d) specify your own position.
You should respond in essay form and be 1,000 words in length (~4-pages, double-spaced with Times New Roman font).
Essay Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIs between 750 and 1100 words
0 pts
No Marks
Is outside the word limit
2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar
5 pts
Full Marks
No serious issues with grammar or spelling.
0 pts
Serious issues with grammar and/or spelling
Work demonstrates lack of care with grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling, in ways that could have been fixed with a cursory proofread or attention to spell check.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary
Includes a summary of the Mike Daisey case and its ethical dilemma using terms from class, such that someone unfamiliar with the situation or ethical terminology could make sense of it.
10 pts
Excellent
Summary of the case is clear, well-stated, thorough, and includes concepts from class that illuminate the ethical dilemma at the heart of the case.
8 pts
Good
Summary of the Mike Daisey case is good, but may be missing a key element, or the description of the ethical dilemma is not fully explained. Terms from class may be lacking.
5 pts
Not fully developed
Maybe missing one or the other of the summary and the exposition of the ethical dilemma. Both may be present but in incomplete terms. May feel rushed.
0 pts
Summary is missing
No summary of the case is apparent.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentifies arguments in support of Daisey
Includes arguments that might support Daisey’s actions in terms from class.
10 pts
Thorough and thoughtful
Includes several arguments that could support Daisey’s action, specifically citing ethical thinkers and their theories and clearly relating them to the Daisey case.
8 pts
Acceptable
Includes a thoughtful argument in support of Daisey. May be just one argument. Refers to class terms and thinkers.
5 pts
Partial credit
An argument in support of Daisey’s actions is present, but may not refer to specific thinkers or use class terms appropriately. May demonstrate some lack of understanding of class concepts.
0 pts
Incomplete
No arguments in support of Daisey’s actions are present.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentifies arguments against Daisey’s action
Identifies arguments against what Daisey did, using class terms and ideas.
10 pts
Excellent
Includes several possible arguments against what Daisey did, specifically referring to ethical theories and thinkers from class, and using terms clearly and appropriately. Shows commitment to quality work.
8 pts
Good
Includes at least one strong and well developed possible argument against Daisey’s actions. Refers to class terms and thinkers.
5 pts
Partial credit
An argument against Daisey’s actions, based on class readings and concepts, is present, but may not refer to specific thinkers or use class terms appropriately. May demonstrate some lack of understanding of class concepts.
0 pts
Incomplete
No possible argument against what Daisey did is present.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIncludes a personal position
Takes a personal position on Daisey’s actions and presents reasons that draw on class concepts.
10 pts
Excellent
Takes a position on the case, using class concepts, and explaining why the position taken is better than the alternatives. Makes correct use of class concepts and terms. Is convincing and well reasoned.
8 pts
Good
A personal position is taken, and uses class concepts and thinkers correctly. May not explain why this position is better than the alternatives. May overlook important possible objections or miss relevant concepts.
5 pts
Partial credit
A personal position is taken, but may not draw on class concepts or thinkers. May not tie the personal position to readings or lectures. May not make a good case or present a clear argument.
0 pts
Incomplete
No personal position is taken.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormatting
Is broken into paragraphs. Has a heading and includes the writer’s name. Includes a word count.
3 pts
Full Marks
Has a heading, and includes the writers name, AND includes a word count AND is broken into paragraphs.
2 pts
Missing an element
Is missing one or two of those elements.
1 pts
Fair
Only has one of those elements
0 pts
Poorly formatted
Lacks all of those elements.
3 pts
Total Points: 50