Business Ethics for a Digital Society\ Ethical Analysis Discussion – Essay Help Services

1. What is ethics?
2. What are the origins of the concept of ethics and how has it evolved over time?
3. What are the main perspectives on ethics and who are the key proponents?
4. How and why is ethics important in society?
Suggested structure
Your discussion should be presented logically and be supported by appropriate academic
literature. Only published academic literature (books, book chapters and journal articles) are
considered appropriate. Do not refer to websites unless they are online journals or electronic
books. Do not refer to lecture notes.
The following headings may be used as a guide to how you may organise your paper (remember
this is only a suggested guide and not to be taken as the recommended structure):
1. Introduction
This should set out the broad objectives of the paper and provide an outline of the
discussion.
2. Understanding the concept of ethics (this maybe further subdivided into)
a. The meaning of ethics.
b. The origins of the concept of ethics.
c. Key perspectives in ethics.
3. Ethics and society (this maybe further divided into)
a. The importance of ethics in society.
b. Ethics and individuals.
c. Ethics and organisations.
4. Conclusion
This should summarise the key messages and provide a concluding reflection on the key
points.
5. References
An alphabetically arranged list of all the references used following the Harvard referencing
style.
The paper should be 2000 words long and should not include abstract, table of contents or
executive summary. The references section does not count towards the word limit for the
assignment.
Business Ethics for a Digital Society
Assignment : Ethical Analysis Discussion Paper
Assignment description :
You are required to demonstrate an in-depth as well as practical understanding of the
concept of ethics. To develop a good quality discussion paper, you will need to read widely
and draw upon situations which help you illustrate the concept clearly.
Suggested approach to developing the discussion
Remember that the key points of discussion in this assignment are definition, philosophical
origins and importance in society. Therefore, the following questions should be used to guide
both your reading and the development of the discussion. You, however, SHOULD NOT use
these as section headings. The questions include:
Grading details:
A Marking Rubric for this assignment is included at the bottom of this specification document.
To meet satisfactory standards and beyond, it is expected that a completed and quality
assessment will demonstrate self-directed critical interpretation of course content, aligned
with depth in scholarship, where appropriate, through reference to supporting journal articles,
books and/or other relevant references that are engaged in independent research. Clarity in
expression of well-reasoned logical and reflective arguments are of great importance in
making the difference between a mere pass and a distinction-level paper.
Assessment criteria
• Clarity of written expression, logical flow and attention to detail. (Do your arguments
make sense?)
• The written submission should contain clear and effective introduction and conclusion
sections that open and close the discussion.
• Sections within the discussion paper should be clearly labelled. You should have
introduction, conclusion and references sections as well as others with more unique
names to suit what is being discussed.
• Evidence of research through wide reading for those seeking high grades. There should
be clear evidence of academic scholarship to suggest that more than just the course textbook
and Wikipedia or web-sites were used as references in support of arguments.
• Submissions should, in addition to the recommended course text, include at least FIVE
academic references (namely scholarly books and/or journal articles.)
• NO Wikipedia articles should be used as references. Some news websites may be cited as
references but only in addition to the main academic material when required to expand
descriptive context. References must be used to support what you say and not included
as mere filler. These should be formatted according to the Harvard referencing style.
• Overall presentation of written work (including a title, appropriate use of subheadings,
layout of text into sections, formatting of text into readable short paragraphs around
four to six lines in length and other creative aspects of document production.)
Marking Rubric
Appropriate title and introduction for the paper. The title of a paper is important and should
be chosen carefully. So is the brief introduction, which should be carefully developed to give
the reader a clear objective of the discussion and an outline.
Unsatisfactory (0) — Satisfactory (0.5) — Good (1.0) — Very Good (1.5) — Excellent (2.0)
Clarity of written expression, structure and logical flow and attention to detail regarding the
key points of the discussion, i.e., the meaning, origins and importance of ethics. (A detailed,
accurate and clear presentation with appropriately and carefully designed sections and subsections):
Unsatisfactory (0.5) — Satisfactory (1.0) — Good (2.0) — Very Good (3.0) — Excellent (4.0)
Quality and depth of commentary in relation to the literature. Shows reflection and
thoughtful in-depth considerations of the topic. It is not merely a tutorial-style description of
these ideas and arguments of meaning and importance of ethics:
Unsatisfactory (0.5) — Satisfactory (1.5) — Good (3.0) — Very Good (4.5) — Excellent (6.0)
Quality of conclusions. (A synthesis of the discussion before this section should be outlined in
summary. New material not covered before this section should not be featured here):
Unsatisfactory (0) — Satisfactory (0.5) — Good (1.0) — Very Good (1.5) — Excellent (2.0)
Quality of referencing and bibliography. All material referred to in support of the discussions
are appropriately located in-text and clearly presented in the bibliography at the end of the
paper. No excessive use of verbatim quotes and, when used, they are appropriately attributed:
Unsatisfactory (0) — Satisfactory (0.5) — Good (1.0) — Very Good (1.5) — Excellent (2.0)
Attention to detail in referencing: Appropriate number of high-quality references (scholarly
books and/or journal articles) are cited correctly according to the Harvard style; Wikipedia
articles and recommended course text-book are not cited; a few news web-sites referenced to
add background detail.
Unsatisfactory (0) — Satisfactory (0.5) — Good (1.0) — Very Good (1.5) — Excellent (2.0)
Overall presentation of written work (This includes discussion paper word count, appropriate
use of sub-headings, layout, formatting – i.e. line spacing – and other creative aspects of
document production such as paragraph length):
Unsatisfactory (0) — Satisfactory (0.5) — Good (1.0) — Very Good (1.5) — Excellent (2.0)