Submission 3

April 3, 2013

Opportunities to discuss course content

• Today 10-2

• Monday 10-2

CLEARLY STATED LEARNING OUTCOMES

Submission 3 Outcomes• Identify the issues associated with the controversy, the arguments made

by stakeholders, and the plans each side is making to ensure their position is the one enacted;

• Evaluate the argumentation of each position, including an analysis of logic and evidence;

• Evaluate each position from the perspective of moral reasoning, including an analysis of values, obligations, consequences, and normative principles;

EXPERT INTERVIEWS

Identifying experts

• Education and/or work experience in the area

• Not just people with opinions

How Many Experts

• Two total– 1 For Each Side

• You must include the contact information in your research file

• No anonymous interviews

What You Cannot Do

• Interview family members

• SEU affiliates

• Interview via telephone

Finding interviewees

• Ask your professors

• Check the internet

• Elected officials

• LBJ School/UT

• Interest groups in Town

THE QUESTIONS

Writing your questionnaire

• P 69-74 in Handbook• Ask About issues (3-5 questions)

• Ask About moral reasoning (consequences)

• Ask About your conclusion/solutionAsk each interviewee the same questions.

WRONG QUESTIONS!

• What do you know about the controversy?

• Where do you stand on the controversy? (This is too much in your face)

• Personal information, questions that put people in awkward situations.

Setting up the interviews

• Start now.

• Contact at least 3X as many people as you need.

• Be professional – these people are doing you a favor.

• Prepare to describe Capstone and your controversy quickly.

Setting Up the Interviews

• Have a phone where you can be reached or a message can be left.

• Ask for a time you can call back.

• Ask for referrals.

• Be persistent.

THE INTERVIEW

Be Safe

• Meet in a professional place

• Bring Back-up if necessary

• Stop the interview if you feel uncomfortable

Conducting the interview

• Be on time.

• Dress appropriately.

• Taping:– Pre-ask– Be prepared

• Take notes efficiently.

Conducting the Interview

• Listen.– You are a reporter, not a debater.

• Maintain control. – Keep the interview focused.

• Remain courteous and open-minded.

• Thank you note- you are representing future generations of St. Edward’s students.

WRITING IT UP

Writing Up the Results of Interviews

• Do it as soon as possible

• You can always come back to it

• You will address this in your final oral presentation and paper

Write-up: The questions

• Report on every question

• Direct quotation:– Use sparingly

Write-up: The analysis

• “Feel” of the interviews

• Interviewees:– Knowledgeable?– Open-minded?– Demeanor?

• Did they change your mind on the issue?

SUBMISSION THREE

ANALYSIS OF RESEARCHTENTATIVE CONCLUSION

Submission 3 is Now Due 4/15

THREE SECTIONS

• Critical Thinking

• Moral Reasoning

• Tentative solution

Part I: CRITICAL THINKING:Analysis of argumentation and Evidence

• Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of each side’s body of argumentation– Each argument and related evidence– Evaluate the arguments presented in paper 2, not your

own!

• Think of each major argument as a question needed to answer– Will Keystone XL pipeline reduce the price of oil?– Will the Dream act reduce illegal immigration?

Part II: Moral Reasoning• Obligations (of each side)

• Values (held by each side)

• Consequences (potentially coming from position)

• Foundational normative principles (supporting case)– Other normative principles (supporting case)

Part III: Tentative Solution

• Your answer to the thesis question

• You must take a stand, i.e., answer the question– Note reservations, if you have any

• Support your position

Mechanics

• 6-8 pages long (estimate only)• Critical thinking = 3 pages• Moral reasoning = 3 pages• solution = 1 pages

• Full Works Cited (at least 25 total sources)

• Writing = as perfect as you can make it

• MLA format = as perfect as possible

MORAL REASONING

• A methodology to help people deal with moral dilemmas

• The Key to doing well on paper 3

Moral Reasoning and Paper 3

• Your paper has a value-laden problem

• Paper 3 uses moral reasoning to assess the moral components of each position

• Read 61-67 and 121-134 of the Handbook

Moral Reasoning Requirements for the Capstone Project

• For Each Side in Paper 3 you must identify analyze for the proponents and opponents– The Obligations inherent in the position– The Values underlying the position– The potential consequences of the position– The position in terms of the normative principles

and theories that support it

Moral Reasoning and Capstone

• Don’t simply list the values, obligations and consequences

• Use the literature to justify these things for each side. Do not just assume that they believe it.

• This means citations

WHAT IS A MORAL DILEMMA?

• Occurs when you are facing a value-laden problem and…

• All the choices appear to have merit

WHAT IS MORAL REASONING?

• Ability to work through moral dilemmas using a rule-based framework

• Involves both decision-making and taking action

• Focuses on situations that involve value conflicts – Beliefs about what is good/desirable and undesirable

ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA FOR MORAL DECISION-MAKING

• Obligations

• Values

• Consequences

Be sure to consider each criteria before making any moral decisions.

OBLIGATIONS

• Relationships imply obligations

• Obligations relate to governmental roles (things government must do)

• Obligations imply restrictions on behavior

Types of Obligations

• Formal–Contracts, vows

• Informal–Citizenship,

friendship, family, professions

When Obligations Conflict

• Sometimes both sides will have legitimate obligations

• Give preference to the more important one• Try to find a middle ground and serve both• If only one can be served– What is the first obligation– What will cause the greatest harm if not filled

VALUES

WHAT ARE VALUES?• Beliefs about what is good/desirable and

bad/undesirable

• Guide us on how to behave

• Unique to each individual

• Change due to time, experience

Questions to Help identify Values

• What do those holding a side expect to achieve? (terminal)

• What interest do those holding a given position wish to protect or gain?

• What shapes how a side acts (instrumental)

SOME EXAMPLES OF VALUES

(terminology: Milton Rokeach)

TERMINALNational securityFamily securityEconomic prosperityA peaceful worldInner harmonySalvationEqualityWisdomJusticeAn exciting life

INSTRUMENTALImaginativeHonestKindFriendlyProductivePoliteFairObedientGenerous

When Values Conflict

• Select the higher ideal

• Select the action that will achieve the greatest good

• If there is no good, then choose the one with the lesser evil

CONSEQUENCES

What are Consequences

• They are the projected results that might occur from any given action.

• Difficult to predict because people behave irrationally

CONSEQUENCES

They are the projected results that might occur from any given action.

• Beneficial or detrimental• Immediate or long-range• Intentional or unintentional• Involve the person performing the action

and/or others

NORMATIVE PRINCIPLES

What are they

• Short statements about how humans “should” act.

• Choose those that apply to your stakeholders’ positions and why they are applicable

FOUNDATIONAL NORMATIVE PRINCIPLE:RESPECT FOR PERSONS

• Honor others’ rights• Do not treat them as a means to our ends• Theological – Humans are created in God’s image

• Philosophical – We wish the best for others, since they are the

same as us

Principle of Consistency

Moral reasons and actions are binding on all people at all times in all places, given the same relevant circumstances.

Moral Decisions are not contradictory- if it is right for one person, it is right for everyone.

Principle of Rationality

All legitimate moral acts must be supported by generally accepted reasons.

Principle of Least Harm

When one has to choose between evils, he/she should choose the one which will cause the least harm. When one has to choose between goods, one should choose the one which will cause the most good.

Principle of Right Desire

• we ought to desire what is really good for us and nothing else

• Go with the best policy

The Categorical Imperative

• The Categorical Imperative- you should act as if your act were going to become a universal law of nature

• Act in such a way that you're willing to have (literally) everybody do the same. If you're considering cheating on your taxes, you might reflect: What would happen if everybody cheated on their taxes?

Principle of Ends

• Do not Treat people solely as a means to your ends

• The ends, no matter how noble, are not justified by immoral actions

Utilitarianism

• The closest “moral” law in politics.

• Act Utilitarianism- an act is morally right if it produces the greatest good (utility) for the greatest number. This can be a government service, wealth, freedom, etc.

• Rule Utilitarianism- similar to above, but it applies to all cases over a long term.

Principle of Consequences

• The only thing that matters is the amount of good produced

• Similar to Cost-Benefit analysis.

Cost Effectiveness

• The Most effective choice is the one that gives the most “bang for the buck”

• Fixed-Budget Analysis

Fixed Effectiveness

• The most effective choice is the one that provides the necessary good at the lowest cost

MAKING A MORAL DECISION

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY

1. Study the details of the case

2. Identify the relevant criteria• Obligations• Values• Consequences

3. Identify the foundational values at play4. Determine courses of action

5. Choose the most morally responsible action

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY

1. Study the details of the case– sometimes there are not enough details to satisfy

the three criteria. – Use creative thinking to speculate about possible

answers, depending on different imagined details.

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY

Identify the relevant criteria• Here you should identify the obligations,

values and consequences. • Whom will they affect, in what way. • Consider which of the three is most

important in the given case. • Many times with public policy, you will find

the consequences to be the most important.

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY

• Determine possible course of action- consider all the choices of action that are available.

• It is only in rare circumstances that an individual has just one course of action. – E.g. adopt, reject the policy

USING THE CRITERIA IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY

• Choose the action that is most morally responsible after reviewing the information above

In Paper 3

• Conclude your moral reasoning section with a justification of which side has presented the more moral argument

• Use their arguments

• Avoid presenting a straw man