(TWO PAGES ONLY)
I. The scenario (dilemma):
You are taking a test in an Ethics class. You are generally a good student, and you have carefully studied, analyzed and practiced the material to be tested. As you look over the test, you know you can correctly answer most questions, with the following exceptions: two question you actually do not understand, so you cannot even contemplate an answer to a question that is unclear to you; two other questions you do understand and you do recall studying the respective material, but it happens that you cannot, at the moment, recall the answers to those two questions. However, as you turn your head, you accidentally see a fellow student’s test with the answers to the four questions mentioned above.
Thus, you now have three options to decide from:
(i) ignore having seen those answers, and leave blank the answers to those four questions;
(ii) ignore having seen those answers, and guess the answers on the those four questions;
(iii) to copy those four answers from your fellow student’s test.
II. Your task: Is it morally (ethically) right or morally (ethically) wrong to copy those answers?
In order to make such determination (to answer the above dilemma) you must cover all sections detailed below, 1 through 3:
1. THE ARGUMENT (DEFENSE OF YOUR PROPOSED SOLUTION):
1.a. Take a moral stance on the above dilemma, and state it clearly. That is, choose ‘it is morally right to copy;, or ‘it is morally wrong to copy’ (in other words, ‘morally right to ignore’).
.b. Defend your moral stance above by building a convincing (cogent) argument. In order to so do, you MUST apply ONE ethical principle (theory) of your choice to the above dilemma. You may ONLY choose from the following ethical principles (theories): Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics, or Utilitarian ethics. Your solution (your answer) to the above-proposed dilemma ) should follow logically from the correct application of your selected ethical theory (principle) to the specific dilemma proposed above.
2. THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT (REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENT/CRITICISM): Anticipate reasonable criticism to your solution (defense) proposed above.
NOTE: if you application above is correct, there is little relevant to refute. Thus, the safest way of refuting a correct application of a principle is to challenge/criticize the principle itself. That is, you can try to discover weaknesses/flaws in the very principle (theory) you have chosen to apply earlier. In other words, rather than show weaknesses of your own application, show weakness either of the principle itself, or to the applicability of the principle to this particular dilemma (some principles are more useful in offering clean solutions to some dilemmas, and less so in resolving others).
3. (20 pts) THE COUNTER-COUNTER ARGUMENT (REFUTATION OF THE COUNTER-ARGUMENT RIGHT ABOVE/RUBUTTAL): Criticize the above criticism under (2). That is, find weaknesses in the above criticism by showing why the argument proposed under (1) is still stronger than the criticism offered under (2).
NOTE: You should NEVER argue for a position (under 1) that lends itself to more convincing criticism (under 2) than your original argument/defense (under 1), or it would not be possible to credibly refute that strong criticism thereafter (under 3).