- Our midterm exam is a three-page, double-spaced, 1000+word essay (report the word count by the end of your essay).
- It is due by the end of Monday in Week #6 (11:59 p.m., May 5, 2025)
- Late submission is not acceptable.
- Email submission is not acceptable.
- Submit your paper to Canvas >>>Midterm Exam
- To be eligible for a 24-hour extension, a request for disability accommodation must be placed 48 hours before the deadline.
- Put your EOU student ID number on the paper. Your real name should not appear on the paper.
- In the upper-left corner of your paper (page #1), provide the following information:
COM 495 Communication Ethics / Spring 2025
Dr. Chen
Midterm Essay: Deontological Approach vs. Teleological Approach: My Dialectical Take on the Two Major Ethical Reasonings.
Submitted by (Your EOU ID number here)
- Manuscript style:
- Citation: MLA style (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01Links to an external site.)
- A4 paper and double-spaced
- Font size: 11 pt.
- Typeface: Times New Roman
- Margin: 1 inch for top/bottom and 1.3 inch for left/right.
- Justification: left-sided.
- Length: MS-Word word count to indicate the length. 1,000+ words are the minimum.
- Topic:
Deontological vs. Teleological: My Dialectical Take on Two Major Ethical Theories in Ethical Reasoning.
Prompt:
This academic essay assignment asks you to make a pros vs. cons elaboration on and a trade-off between major strands of ethical thinking in human affairs – the deontological (duty-based) theories and the teleological (consequence-based) theories. Both theories show some strengths and limitations. What do you think about each theory? After carefully weighing these two theories in terms of the pros against the cons, which side are you leaning towards between the two extremes? Why? Here, I assume you won’t pick a single extreme as your choice (actually, I forbid that because it is against dialectical thinking).
To help you understand this assignment, let’s say you are asked to choose between/among vying boyfriends/girlfriends: a rich alcoholic or a poor cutie. Both have some strengths (pros) and limitations (cons), right? What’s your choice? After careful deliberation, you might find a third way – a dialectical approach to moral reasoning which may incorporate both thinking. You may pick Mr./Ms. Presentable with some reasonable income, or Mr. Fat Check with some minor character defects, right? But before you make the final call, you must be very clear about your strengths and weaknesses. (Disclaimer: By “presentable,” I mean everybody is attractive in his or her unique way. Also, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. I am not saying there is a specific appearance that is more presentable than others. I might use another example to explain this situation later on. But for now, let me temporarily use that example to help you make sense of the assignment.)
Relate your choice to a real-life ethical dilemma to demonstrate its merit in finding a morally defensible solution. In addition, pick one of the 22 (8+7+7) cases from the textbook (Chapters 4, 5, and 6) to illustrate your leaning. If you lean toward deontological theories, what’s your choice in that case? If you lean toward teleological theories, what’s your choice in that case?
To make a compelling dialectical argument, use the following steps:
- First, accurately interpret the two theoretical frameworks;
- Second, clearly present its pros and cons;
- Third, come up with your leaning: Deontological? Teleological? or something in between? Or something else, such as feminist ethics, situation ethics, the Golden Mean, anarchist ethics, or Marxist ethics? (I prefer you not to pick situation ethics; I personally abhor situation ethics (hungry justify steal). I am also highly suspicious of anarchist ethics (All morals are hypocritical to some extent, and let’s cancel them all)
- Apply your dialectical approach to real-life ethical dilemmas to illustrate the merit of your leaning. i.e., your approach can offer a better solution when facing an ethical dilemma.
- You may read chapter three (pp. 61-64), lecture slides, and a videoto help you.
- To put things in perspective, I want to remind you of what I have learned in my life—that all genuine moral choices always end in tragedy or tragicomedy. We human beings are “fallen angels.” Only blockheads (like most US politicians and religious leaders) can proclaim their moral certainty and infallibility.
- It is okay to borrow others’ ideas, and it is an honor to give credit where credit is due. Geniuses borrow; thieves steal.
- You are welcome to talk to me, and I will help you clarify your thoughts before you start to write.
- Rubric for grading:
- Clearly define and explain the concepts of deontological and teleological thinking (0~10 points)
- List pros v. cons of deontological thinking when it is applied to moral reasoning (0~10 points)
- List pros v. cons of teleological thinking when it is applied to moral reasoning (0~10 points)
- Add up those pros (plus) and cons (minus), demonstrate what concern really tips the scale, and clearly state your favorable position: Do you lean toward deontological or teleological? Exactly in the middle? or something else (0~10 points)
- Choose one ethical dilemma from your real life to show how you could use the deontological v. teleological formula to reach a morally defensible decision (0~10 points)
- Cite one of the 22 cases (8+7+7) from our textbook (chapters 4-6) to show me how you reconcile these two ethical thinking to reach a better verdict. (0~10 points)
- Structure (0~10 points)
- Organize your thoughts with clear layers
- Let it roll out smoothly
- Let one point drive another point without a jerky transition and a broken chain of logic
- Coherent and consistent use of concepts and theories.
- At least seven paragraphs
- “I believe” is not allowed in the academic essay. Instead, please say “it seems to me that…” (I hate “I believe…” kind of sentence)
- Grammars, spellings, punctuation, citation style, and manuscript format. You are a communication student. You are expected to write impeccably. (0~10 points)