Overview
Hi,
I need your help with my next assignment: Case Evaluation #2 (Hume, Aristotle).
I am attaching three files:
1. My previous assignment that you did (Case Evaluation #1) – please review it carefully to understand the expected structure and avoid repeating the same mistakes mentioned by the professor at the end of this text.
2. The course readings (Hume & Aristotle) – you must rely only on these for the philosophy parts.
3. The Case Evaluation Rubric – this must be followed exactly, point by point.
⸻
Selecting the Topic
Before starting, please select a suitable article for the case.
• The topic must be different from my previous assignment
• It must involve a clear ethical decision
• It must include:
• one specific agent
• one clear, observable action
• one positive appeal and one negative appeal
The case should be easy to structure into a “Should…” question based on the rubric.
⸻
General Instructions
• Follow the rubric exactly (format, structure, headings, etc.)
• Use simple language consistent with the course material
• Do NOT use any outside sources, internet explanations, or terminology not used in the course
• Stay very close to the wording and concepts from the provided readings
⸻
Question (Q)
• Must begin with “Should”
• Yes/No format
• Include:
• one specific agent (by name)
• one clear, observable action
• one positive appeal (“in order to…”)
• one negative appeal (“even though…”)
• Do NOT include numbers in the question
• Keep it general and not overly specific
• Appeals must be clearly separated
⸻
Agent & Ethically Relevant Details (ERD)
• Agent:
• Include name + role (role only here, not in the question)
• ERD:
• Bullet points only (no narrative)
• Only include relevant facts and mechanisms
• Include statistics directly related to:
• the positive appeal
• the negative appeal
• Include the implicit alternative with comparison
⸻
Syllogism A – Hume
• P1:
• Must reflect Hume’s principle using only course material
• One clear sentence
• P1 Explanation:
• Define key terms and explain application (no evaluation)
• P2:
• Must follow structure:
• action
• “does” or “does not”
• condition from P1
• P2 Explanation:
• Justify using ERD facts only
• Conclusion:
• One sentence only
• Exact wording of the question
• No explanation
⸻
Syllogism B – Aristotle
• Same structure as Hume
• P1 must reflect Aristotle’s virtue-based reasoning from course material only
• Avoid complex or mixed statements
• Stay consistent with how virtue is explained in class
⸻
Evaluation Section
• Evaluate Hume and Aristotle separately
• Focus ONLY on weaknesses (not strengths)
• Do NOT compare them directly
• Use only course terminology
⸻
Personal Response
• Clearly answer yes or no
• Use your own principle (not Hume or Aristotle)
• Keep it simple and aligned with the rubric
⸻
Important Corrections and comments (Based on Previous Work) from the professor
Please make sure to avoid these issues:
• Do NOT use any terminology or phrasing outside of the course material
• P2 must strictly follow the required logical structure
• Do NOT include explanations in the conclusion
• ERD must be factual only (no narrative)
• Appeals must be clear, separate, and supported with data
• Follow the rubric exactly without adding or skipping anything
⸻
The goal is for this assignment to fully match the course expectations and avoid any issues from the previous submission.
Let me know if anything is unclear.